For what it is worth - getting hot under the collar about solar generation fraud is quite meaningless provided the panel wattage installed is properly verified.
Day to day output is variable, month on month is just about static, but year on year for a given location is almost a constant - give or take some cleaning, climate change etc.
You do need to take into account the geography - for instance my Auckland 4.2kW will not have the same annual output as an Arizona 4.2kW.
Each installation will have its' slight output variations from the one next door, shading / inverter type / panel type / orientation - but these are pretty much fixed once the system is started.
My panels have averaged 15.8kWh / day over the past 1656 days since install, with max / min annuals at 16.2 and 15.6. I fail to see why there is all the fuss, unless I have missed something...
BTW - checkout : paladin.nz for the latest in excess solar recovery to hot water / storage heating / pools and EV charging.
T
Great stats! Yeah you are missing something, I don't own Solar but can claim I do. Unfortunately no one really knows what the current claimers have as output. They are stating that they own the panels. Does SolarCoin fly out and verify the install?
Having a nameplate capacity means what? That you know the numbers and took a picture of the back of a panel? What does that prove against fraud and these claims last for 20 years without monitoring. Will it be a requirement to monitor and if so the expense must also now be worth paying.
Anyone can claim and if monitoring is not required then anyone can commit fraud. At $500 a coin do you think it will be a problem? I think so, I guess if it never gets to $500 a coin then don't worry. If the coin goes to $500 and monitoring is required, someone will make a device to defeat the monitor and it could also emulate a panel too since it is just tied in to a line off the array. If SolarCoin takes over as the new BitCoin fraud will be the biggest problem. You can see how much money is made from ASIC's so the Monitor hack would be a simple and less costly development.
Yes, except that - in the process of registering for a solar claim, you do have to provide a registered installer receipt / invoice which will state the nameplate capacity. (which is the total output of the system in ideal solar conditions. Usually the lesser of either the total panel capacities or the inverter(s)). But of course that can be forged like anything else. Also, here in NZ at least, you have to have your system registered with the local transmission / lines company and inspected and certified by them as well. This is a nominal expense and hassle, but you just cannot reasonably connect 4kW to the grid on any old inverter that may well kill a linesman if it does not behave on a grid failure. So that is another layer of verification and document chain to hack for the wannabe fraudster. That is a lot of work for a few SLR a year, because at 1 SLR per generated MWh, I get 5.8SLR a year. If SLR was at the value of BTC, that would be worth, what, $3000 a year. Maybe this would be worth a little larceny it for those of a weakened moral persuasion, but it hardly a fortune - and an unlikely one at that.
The best way to verify your install is with Google Earth. Most working panels have to be able to see the sky:) - and can be seen by GE. GE's picture of my roof shows exactly how many panels I have (24). That they are 190W rather than the more modern 250W plus panels, cannot of course be verified by GE. However my limitation is my inverter capacity. SLR have my inverter details and serial numbers, so my installed value is easily verifiable.
Anyway, your points are valid - fraud is everywhere, and if the prize is worthwhile, someone will find a way to distort, rort, corrupt or just plain steal it. And as you say yourself, if you put monitoring equipment on to a system - that too can be manipulated unless it is very clever. If there was a common interface on the multitude of inverters then it would be simple enough to come up with a blockchain type solution (using the SLR chain perhaps) that automatically put that day's output onto the blockchain. Each inverter could then be supporting the chain as well. However this is far from the case - it is a madness out there in inverter world, a standards anarchy not seen since the days of CP/M.
So the answer, at this stage is unknowable, but I am sure the answer is not that far away in the greater scheme of things. If SLR ever got to whatever value it would take to trigger fraud, I am sure a suitably effective system would evolve to prevent it.
T