conor_mc wrote: » Set up a demo account on helioscope and you can play with the panel types/locations, and then run simulations to see how much each setup will generate per year.
GaryCocs wrote: » Looks like 12 bisol 300 modules would fit maybehttps://www.dropbox.com/s/l0ifnhnbu3uctta/Screenshot%202018-11-13%2013.06.41.png?dl=0https://www.dropbox.com/s/qomm1ghxah380ba/Screenshot%202018-11-13%2013.08.33.png?dl=0
GaryCocs wrote: » I got this message from one installer. "because the seai in their wisdom will not allow a panels edge within 50 cm of the edge of any of the roofs edges this makes the area work out to be instead of 7.2 it will be 6.2 and the 2.1 meters makes it 1.1 meters therefore we cannot fit a panel as the grant will not be issued"
air wrote: » If you went with an in roof system and mounted them towards the bottom you'd be unlikely to have any issue
unkel wrote: » Is an in roof system exempt from the 500mm rule?
air wrote: » I've no idea, I was only speaking from a practical perspective as regards getting his panels installed if he goes ahead without the grant. I've only skimmed the headline figures for the grant - 800/kW to 2kW, 1k for battery system, additional 800/kW for 2kW up to 4kW with battery. The 500mm rule is pretty sound in my experience. It's difficult / impossible to lift tiles near the ridge to fix roof hooks anyway without removing ridge tiles and having to reinstate them which is a lot of work. The ridge and eaves are also the areas most prone to leaks and thus most likely to require access for maintenance so it's sensible to leave them free of panels. The in roof systems are well suited to fitting right to the eaves however and are less likely to leak than slates or tiles if properly fitted. The gap also maintains some access for getting onto the roof and around the panels. This is useful for maintenance and I believe fire brigades mandate it in some regions also for this reason.
GaryCocs wrote: » Do slates need to be lifted on a slate roof too? I see some information in relation to solar limpets.
unkel wrote: » €100 for a 300W panel. Plus shipping from continental Europe and VAT? Not much cheaper than you can get the panels here then?
air wrote: » Just had a look at those solar limpets and to me they look all kinds of awful. They're totally reliant on the underlying roof members - do they fix to the slate battens or the rafters? It looks like it's the battens but it's not 100% clear from the installation video. No possible way to inspect the condition of the timber you're fixing into, confirm it's dimensions or confirm that the fixing is centred in the member before or after you fix. The structural certification they provide is based on a laboratory test on a perfectly installed fixing on a piece of timber that is far larger than a typical slate batten. Waterproofing of your roof becomes entirely dependent on some outdoor sealant. All my concerns may be totally unfounded but I wouldn't want a product without an established successful installation history on my roof.
air wrote: » Waterproofing of your roof becomes entirely dependent on some outdoor sealant.
GaryCocs wrote: » Ya will have to talk to a few installers. I'm in an ok position of having an open roof on the other side, i.e. I can see the rafters underneath on both lean to and garage.
air wrote: » Looking at the structural analysis document properly they have de-rated the pull out strength to allow for poorly centred fixings in the rafters, so they're definitely fixed to the rafters and my concern about missed fixings was valid. The next issue this raises is compression of the slate towards the rafter where the fixing is not on a batten.
wexfordman2 wrote: » So the concern is not over the product itself, but whether or not it is properly installed ?
air wrote: » I'd have concerns (strucural) about how likely it is to be properly installed, even with the most skilled and attentive installer. That aside I'd have further concerns (leaks/longevity) even if perfectly installed.
air wrote: » It's not a huge concern as the current is typically under 10A per string. The percentage of total energy production the losses represent decreases the more panels you have in series also.
air wrote: » Yes, that and the fact it doesn't look great. You'll also use a few more hooks and clamps than a continuous row.
GaryCocs wrote: » Sooo putting them in the garden, is there an additional cost? Can you get some box iron fabricated for it etc?
Silent Running wrote: » You wouldn't need planning as it's a temporary structure. Some ground mount systems just require big concrete feet to hold them down, no digging and pouring concrete. The angle can be set to the optimum, unlike a roof mount, and sun tracking is also a possibility.
