Topic: How about a solar power source for pop one price mining - page 2. (Read 1267 times)

these are  the inverters I have - https://www.sma-america.com/products/solarinverters/sunny-boy-30-us-38-us-50-us-60-us-70-us-77-us.html

the 3.8-US and the 7.7-US

If you do then I suggest you replace the load with electric heaters. That way you are comparing the same verifiable power consumption to any changes you see. Of course since kwh is kwh regardless of what the load is you should see the same numbers.

And before someone niggles, miner PSU's use power-factor correction circuits so they are NOT a significant reactive load which is different than a purely resistive load like heaters. Yes slightly reactive but typically corrected to better than 99% of 1:1.

Sometimes courts aren't about common sense.  It's more about calculating risks and removing doubt.  You don't know the judge's background, you don't know the other side's tactics.  If you can remove one doubt from the equation you will be better off in court.

"The law, for all its failings, has a noble goal - to make the little bit of life that people can actually control more just" - Scott Turow

yea the privacy laws state you cannot record someone's audio without their permission - my property does have visual signs announcing that property has cameras - whether their coming on the property upon seeing those signs amounts to consent or not - unknown.

if it comes to it and there is a need to show that the miners do not affect production - not sure how anyone with common sense would think that they do though - then I will shut them down.


I will get the inverter make model when I go home today and update it here. There are 2 inverters on my system.

This is good advice.  

Also  consider telling the solar company  you would stop complaining and not take them to court if they add 5 more panels. With an appropriate invertor.

can  you list the make and model of the inverter  .. I may be able  to find out what it is rated for and see if it is good enough for

12kwatts in panels

I'm not sure about privacy laws in your state, but don't assume that you can bring in an audio (if you have)/video recording if the other party had an expectation of privacy.  If the cameras recorded audio and video you may only be allowed to show the video portion without audio.  If you only have video it will carry a little weight as it makes your side more believable.  Remember in civil court you just have to show your case with a preponderance of the evidence.  Again, not sure about the laws in your state, make sure to check on that.

And this next part won't make sense, but because the company stated that your miner was the cause of the lack of electricity production, you might want to remove it temporarily.  By removing it you can show them and/or your attorney or the courts that it made no difference to the production of power of the solar panels.  You want to remove all doubt in the judges mind, and the judge might be confused between production and consumption.  If the solar company brings it up in court or even next week you can say that it's been disconnected on such and such date and it's made no difference to the production.  I only say this because you stated that the reason for the solar installation was to keep you in Tier 1.  You then installed a miner which uses 1,000 kWh a month which keeps you out of Tier 1, but without the miner you state that you would still be out of tier 1.  It would just be cleaner to stick with your story of wanting to stay in Tier 1, the solar installation was designed for that purpose, you were promised 65 kWh per day to keep you in Tier 1, and the system isn't working as promised.  It's a lot easier than jumping through hoops and defending your connection of a 1,000 kWh a month device that you'll need to explain in court, which nobody will understand.

I own them outright.  The system was 35k - or about $180 a month for 20 years. Their claim was that it would produce on average of $173-186 worth of electricity (65kwh - 70kwh) per month. And with rates going up each year (average for my company is 2% increase per year) the payment would be less than the electric cost.

as you put: 1380 kwatts a month - at .86 per kwh that would cost me 118.68 per month from the electric company. at 180 per month it is close to .13 per kwh.

That being said, I did get a $10.5k tax credit so the system really cost just under 25k. so for the cost should I use 25k or 35k? I used the actual cost without taking account for the tax credit.

cross post check other solution which is run s-9 8 hours a day

how did you get this number in bold?

they charged you for 10.5 kwatt of power in the panels  .

you are making 1380 kwatts a month or 16,560 kwatts a year x 12.9 cents = 2136.24 a year in power.

or should I ask did you pay for a lease ? or outright ownership?

I will look at the contract more closely - Not sure if the average is stated directly in there - but I do have several emails - and I have the owner of the company in my house with 3 of his employees also stating it - all recorded on video (alarm system has built in cameras which record rolling 7 days) I saved the clips from when they were here.

Phil - I dont want an L3 and I dont have an issue with paying the electric cost - my only issue is they promised 65-70 per day and its averaging nearly 20 below that. Basically, it would be cheaper to buy the electricity outright than to have the solar. If I average out what I paid for the system into a monthly payment methodology:

The systems average output is 45.36 kw/h and that averages to 12.9 cents per kw/h in cost compared to the 8.6 cents per kw/h the electric company would charge. This is a 50% increased cost per kw/h.

he is better off with an l3+  it can use the free power software  and pull 700 watts to do close to 500 mh which is around 1.60 a day in earnings

a s9 pulls 1400 watts does 14th and earns
3.10 a day

so one does 500 kwatts a month       earns 1.60
the other does 1000 kwatts a month earns 3.10

if he powers the 1 l3+ off 12 hours he drops to 250kwatts  earns .80 x 30 = 24 bucks

or he could run the s9 8 hours a day  say 9 to 5  it would earn about 1.03 usd a day

and spend 333 kwatts a month  this is his best move  as he is 1380 -333 =  1047 kwatts better off

I’m sorry for your frustration, but before you get a lawyer take a good look at your contract with them.  Are they selling you promised pv production or selling you a system of modules and inverters?  If 65-70 kWh average per day is stated in the contract then you will most likely win in court.  If you have emails back and forth with them claiming your system will produce 65-70 kWh per day then you probably have a good case.  If it’s not in the contract or an email then it will be your word against theirs, and the contract will probably decide the case.  I’m not a lawyer but I do have a minor in business contract law and I have been involved in solar pv criminal and civil cases, and just recently a bitcoin mining case against a utility district.  I’m not giving legal advice as to whether or not you have a case, just giving my opinion to look at your contract with the company before exploring legal options. 

Also, as your system produces 1,380 kWh per month right now and just 1 S9 consumes about 1,000 kWh per month you might want to disconnect your asic miner if your goal is to stay within tier rate 1.

I am close to getting a lawyer. their claim is that I should be getting 65-70, but as Phil's math shows, that is not possible based on what they provided. The reason that the goal was 65-70 is that prior to my running of ASIC's my average consumption was close to 85 kwh per day. Their promise was to produce between 82%-83% of my average usage - this would then keep me in tier one pricing of .05 per kw/h for the amount I use over the production of the panels - which would have been 20 - 25 kwh per day or 600 to 750 kw/h per month (tier one is up to 1,000 kwh)

however, as I now run the ASIC's I am using considerably way more power - so they think my frustration is because of the bill - when I am instead frustrated about that it is not producing what they claimed - their way of calculating was way different than Phil's - so because it falls short, they first blame the ASIC's and when I then state that is consumption not production - they then try to blame the weather or blame trees etc - the closest tree to my house is nearly 150 feet away and my roof is never shaded. So while weather may affect it, we simply have clear days 90% of the time. On the bad weather days, the average production is between 20-30 kwh per day. I do realize that brings my overall average down. This is a 10.6 kwh system, or as Phil pointed out after taking into account for loss from wiring/inverters etc a 9.5kwh system - it has only ever gotten above 6kwh at any given time maybe 5 times and never over 8kwh at any time, not even for an hour.


I do understand and I do appreciate the help - I just wish the company I used understood it. I think they are overcharging and overstating and for 99% of their clients this may work as it does keep them in tier 1 pricing so their bill is cheaper and thus they may never actually look at the production.

and I get that - have said that as well - again the angst here is that the company that did the install did not understand it this way and so when they explained it to me as to what it would produce was wrong - the problem is I paid based on their estimate not Phil's (Phil's is more accurate) and they refuse to see it that way. they simply blame the solar panels as the reason why it is under producing --- when in reality it is not underproducing - they simply overstated. but since that is what the agreed to provide, they should have to provide what they promised - a system that generates on average of 65-70 kwh per day.

I've been reading through this thread, mostly because I wish I could be running with a Solar set up at the moment. Maybe in time.

Without knowing the specifics of the contract, wording can be a bitch sometimes. Phils suggestion of a Lawyer may be the best course of action. Arguably if the average that should be produced is 65-70 KW per day, shouldn't a system having been in operation since April have been showing an average equal to or greater than those number to date??

I say that because summer should be the higher generation period with the average being dragged down through the Winter.

I'm curious about this blame the Asic approach, do they give any explanation for why they think that?

There’s your first mistake, don’t count the hours the panels are generating electricity.  Phil knows what he is talking about and is trying to help you understand PV production.  I’ve had a 14 kW DC system since 2001.  We are trying to help you understand what you will produce on average per day over a year.  If you want to produce 65-70 kWh on average per day you will need about a 17-18 kW DC system in Florida depending on how efficient your inverters are.  The calculation is quite simple.  18 kW x .9 for wire losses x .95 for efficient inverters x average sun hours per day where you live (about 4.5). 

sigh.... I am not sure how many times I have to say this ---- I am not counting Sunrise to Sunset --- I am counting the hours that the solar panels are generating electricity - I believe I have said this at least 3 or 4 times. The app shows me when it first starts generating and when it stops - though the first hour or so and the last hour or so are diminished - it is still producing for nearly 12 hours and has been April when it was installed.

Edit - and yes I understand about losing some to wiring/inverter etc and losing some because the angle will not always be perfect the full day.

They still are not producing what the salesman claimed - this was the first time I had gotten solar so I fell for their line of BS - I am still trying to hold them to their quoted estimates. Their claim is that they have installed over 400 systems and everyone else but me is producing what they say. They are not able to tell me why I am not anywhere near their estimates - all they do is blame the ASIC's but that is a consumption issue not a production issue. I have had that discussion with them at least a dozen times. They keep telling me to shut the miners off for 3 months and see if the panels produce more - that is the most retarded suggestion I have ever heard.

and @philipma1957 I do appreciate your break down - yours makes sense - the solar companies does not and that is my whole point with them.  They promised me a system that would produce 65-70 kwh per day (on average) and have failed to do so but see the blame as mine and not theirs.

yeah there are a lot of sunlight charts.

I suggest you shut the miners off  1 hour before sunset  and turn them back on 1 hour after sunrise

that is 14 hours off  or 420 off each month.

3x s9 use  4 kwatts  x 420 = 1700 hours a month it will drop bill close to 170 usd

6x s9 use 8 kwatts x 420 =  3400 hours a month it will drop bill close to 340 usd

Sunrise to sunset is not how you count sunlight for the purpose of solar.  First 90 minutes after sunrise and last 90 minutes count for under 1 hour of full sunlight.

If you are USA based you are inbetween 4.5 and 6 hours. For your year round average. Do you understand this.or do you not understand this.

Okay so let’s start over and try to understand basic rules.

You are stating 36 panels at 295 watts. Yes that is 10620 but you lose 10 percent or more due to wiring and inverters so drop to 9500 watts

Now those numbers are full sunshine at a perfect angle to your panels. Which is why I tell you you get 5 to 6 hours of sun a day.  Even though the sun rose at 7 am and set at 7 pm.

So 6 x 9500 is 58500 watts at best.  You are doing 5 x 9500 which is 47500

That is 47.5 kwatts. So the worse number would be you get 47.5 kwatts and should get 58.50 kwatts.

You should have a contract that states what you will generate 1 s9 uses 35 kwatts a day so you should run only one s9.  

I have no idea what your contract reads or what you paid.  If it reads you get 60 kwatts a day and you get 47 a day get a lawyer to fight them.

If it reads the panels do 10620 watts at peak you are not going to win.  Since to do peak you need perfect placement  like south on an angle that is just right.

That contract only states you can send 10500 watts to the inverters.

It does not say what leaves the inverters.

It is possible you have terrible invertors say 85 percent not 90 to 95 percent

Does this help you understand that you do not use 12 hours   to calculate

due to clouds rain and sun angle you are in  the 4.5 to 5 hour range  so you can use the peak 10600 x say 5 to get 53000 and take off 10% for inverter loss

well the panels are getting sun for about 12 hours - the "sunny portal" app that I log into shows when they are producing - and yes it is less at the start of the day and at the end of the day but it still is generating during the 12 hours.

and sorry - the count is 36 panels and as I corrected myself above, they are 295 watt panels so 31 x 295 = 10,620 - my average for the about 110 days I have had it is 46 per day. the system has only crossed the 6k kwh in a day maybe 3 times.  I am in FL and yes, the excess can be sold back - but there is no excess. even with .056 (.086 with fuel surcharge) my bill is almost $800 per month after solar.

when they installed the system, it was originally 31 panels and they told me the panels were 290 watts and they said my average should be close to 52 kwh per day.  but I was no where near that... So, they added the additional panels and a second inverter as the first one could not handle a 10 kwh system, they also told me that my panels were 295 watts each - they showed me the label from the ends of the boxes which did say 295 watts.

I attached two images - the first actually shows the system as 10.5
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1VFdz08q1ZgvsHGAs2CvbRNAnyzTQTZZC

this second one shows that my system never gets even close to 60 - all the while they state i should be mid 60's easily.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=14pdOyzn7cg8hG0iX47gr7G8Wp4s8-K-t

They are getting annoyed by me calling them so much - they claim it is working correctly and yet are not sure why it does reach what they state. Their excuse is the ASICs - though that does not affect production, it affects consumption... but that is what they always fall back to.

They wont refund the cost and remove the system and are beginning to ignore my emails and shift my calls directly to VM.

you sun does not count as 12 hours

in the usa   most people are 4.5 to 6 hours.

so 31 x 290 = 8990  and with highest end inverters you have 95% so .95 x 8990 = 8540  maybe  as low as .9 x 8990 = 8091

so if you are in the best state do 6 x 8540 = 51,240 or 51 kwatts max

at worst do 4.5 x  36409  or 36 kwatts

you are at 46   which is closer to 51

now here is the problem  a s9i  does 1.3 kwatts 24/7 so that is 31 kwatts a day.

looks like you are doing 5.5 rate to get the 46 kwatts.

So what state are you in?  do you sell the excess back to the grid?

you have some excess for a few hours each day.