Our solar panel experience

Not only the form factor--but the weight is important--as well as storage. I can see putting the flexible under a bunk or hanging from a wall in the V berth area when not using. The flexible can be put on the Bimini--as well as the roof top, or even on top of an inflatable which is on the roof.

Sunbeam, explain why you think
"for certain situations you don't gain as much with MPPT as you do with others,"

Pat, definitely the Victron monitor is a real plus. If I go with a solar panel, i will put one in that circuit. For the single battery you only need the 600 and it is $129 at Jamestown.

Thank you all!
 
thataway":c94uysxa said:
Sunbeam, explain why you think
"for certain situations you don't gain as much with MPPT as you do with others,"

Well first of all, I need to say that I am so far from an expert that it is not even funny. I usually try not to get "technically detailed" on things that I don't totally grasp, so I probably should have simply kept my mouth shut, but... I didn't :wink: So here goes: I'm in the learning stages, and what I did was read up on it online (where of course there is almost too much information, and people don't always agree, but it's still useful), and then talk to some people who understand more than me (one person who has had solar on many RV's, and then the company AM Solar, which I stopped at on my way north last month - great place to see/try out many controllers and talk to people directly). So, please don't take this as gospel, because it's possible I don't have it quite right, mis-remembered, etc. I took away the gist but wasn't really trying to "know" everything.

So, it seems that an MPPT controller is generally always a good thing, but sometimes someone might still choose a PWM for certain reasons. Here is what I remember:

1) MPPT likes all your panels to be at around the same voltage. On my RV roof, the available areas are odd shapes, and so the best arrangement wattage-wise would mean one panel with a voltage that varies by over 1 volt. This apparently doesn't work so well with an MPPT controller -- you are recommended to have panel voltages within 1/2 or maybe 1 volt of each other. I contacted two controller mfgrs, asking about the example of a 160 watt panel (in addition to a few other 100 watters which are all at the same voltage; the 160 is about 1.5 volts higher)and an MPPT controller, vs. a 135 watt panel (wherein all panels would be the same voltage). In other words, giving up 25 watts for a solid match as recommended; or gaining 25 watts but with a slight mis-match. The standard recommendation for mismatching voltage that I got was "PWM controller."

Neither company could answer that for certain. They knew the 135 would work well due to matching voltages, but really couldn't say where the "break point" was with the inefficiency/problem vs. the more wattage. Or if the controller would be negatively affected.

OTOH, I have a friend who had to replace one of a set of matched panels (lightning damage), and the new panel had to be a different voltage (availability), and he didn't really notice a lot of real world difference (he has an MPPT controller). So it's a question point. Of course this only applies if one wants/needs to have two or more panels which are not all exactly the same voltage.

2) MPPT can handle panels with higher voltages, which can allow for thinner wire runs - but I will most likely be going with "12 volt" panels (really usually around 17-18 volts), so that advantage does not apply.

3) For a very small system (one panel or so), the higher efficiency of the MPPT doesn't end up being as much (because you just have fewer things happening overall, so there is less to be efficient with) and in that case a person might prefer to go with less expensive PWM (although of course the MPPT are getting cheaper most likely so that difference may be moot at some point).

I will probably go with a small MPPT on the boat regardless of the difference in cost. I don't have room or desire for more panels, and so I'd be willing to "overpay" for a slight bit of more efficiency; but this is an individual decision. And too, I will have all same voltage panels there so no questionable problem that way with MPPT. (My question was about the RV, which has an "odd shaped" roof and so requires a mixing and matching of panels to get the wattage up there.)

4) There may be some cases where it is cheaper/better to just "throw more panels at it" (e.g. you have plenty of space, MPPT is expensive if you have a huge array, panel prices have come down etc.), but those would not apply to our boats or to smaller RV's in any case. Probably more applicable to land-based systems.

Here is one example of a discussion, albeit it's from 2011 so not totally current:

http://forum.solar-electric.com/showthr ... ll-systems

Again, I'm going to get an MPPT controller, so I'm not arguing against them; it just seemed that there were some cases in which PWM might be a decent alternative choice (and Carpy had just mentioned that he had one).

Sunbeam
 
Sunbeam,
You have not convinced me. Both PWM and MPPT are digital with transistor/ diode driven technologies. There are a number of published circuits. Both-basically regulate the amount of current going to the battery, and use a blocking diode to prevent back flow. The excess voltage is wasted in the PWM; used with the MPPT. Prior to solid state voltage regulators, relays were used (maybe that is what you were referring to analogue--but that was several decades ago.

In both technologies, the Voltage of several solar panels should be within 10%, or there will be losses. There is always going to be some mismatch in solar cells--age, temperature, bird poop, shading etc. The MPPT does allow more flexibility in voltages, and with the higher voltage, you can use smaller wires in longer runs (i.e. use 24 to 48 volt systems--which are not gong to useful in our boats)
The greater cost of the MPPT is a factor, and it may be only justified where you have cold weather, and can more effectively use the higher voltage from the panels.
 
thataway":1drw5zin said:
Sunbeam,
You have not convinced me.

Hi Thataway,

I don't want to convince you (or anyone).

As I said, I'm just learning about it myself. If I could turn the clock back, I wouldn't comment at all and I will try to be mindful in future of only posting when I know for sure what I'm talking about vs. throwing out thoughts for discussion when I'm not 100% sure what I'm talking about. Sorry about that.

I'm very open to learning more, as I will be putting panels on both the RV and the boat, and I have not set up my own solar system since years ago on a sailboat (when tech was way behind where it is now, shade-free space was nearly non-existent, and budget was tiny -- hey, were "youngsters" out adventuring and broke...).

Last month, I was "all set" with a system for the RV until I stopped in to AM solar to purchase and learned that the MPPT controllers want your panel voltage ratings to be within ~1 volt of each other. The panels I had chosen (because they fit the odd space), had a 1.5 volt difference, and thus they recommended against using an MPPT controller (or recommended for the MPPT but with panels that were within one volt of each other which would have resulted in less wattage on my roof). I decided to put off purchasing and learn more. Blue Sky echoed AM Solar when I called their tech line (not recommending MPPT unless panel voltage was within 1 volt of each other). Perhaps it is not correct though (and my friend didn't have a problem in real life usage). So right now it's a bit of a mystery to me.

I still could see where one might choose a PWM controller for a small system (like on a 22). Sometimes folks just want a system that works for a relatively low price vs. spending more for a bit more efficiency. I plan to go MPPT (so no need to convince anyone else not to), but I can see reasons why someone else might go PWM. Maybe it could be said that certain setups don't really reap the benefits of MPPT as much as others, and so that - combined with budget - might lead one to PWM. Perhaps I'm way off base though.

Okay, no more typing about things I don't know about :oops:
Who wants to talk about making epoxy fillets? :lol:

Sunbeam
 
We used the panels discussed here:

http://www.c-brats.com/viewtopic.php?t=24169

And this is what our installation looks like:

http://www.c-brats.com/modules.php?set_ ... _album.php

First impressions are good and this is what I also posted in a freezer thread because that was our driver for adding solar.

We opted not to use shore power at Friday Harbor last week so we could test the solar/freezer combinations

Thursday midday started at 95% SOC (state of charge)-Sunday midday ending at 64% SOC with a decrease in state of charge averaging 10% per day

We ran the Freezer at setting 2.5 and swapped 6 ice bottles each day (3 per cooler) which based on our testing should have consumed nearly 30AH per day.

We also ran the heater for 2+ hours per day which should have consumed roughly 3AH plus charged four devices each day consuming roughly 4AH per day. We did use some lighting but that was minimal and all LED.

Our victron monitor displays the State of Charge and that is based on a total adjusted bank size of 200AH.

Our true bank size is 220AH but knowing the true capacity diminishes slowly over time, and wanting the ability to safely use the 50% mark as our use limit, I use the reduced capacity of 200AH to keep a safe margin.

We should have consumed about 37AH per day for a total of 111AH over the 72 hour non-charging period. That much consumption (ignoring P's law for now) should have brought us down below the 50% SOC mark but we stayed up in the mid 60s.

IF we lost 10% each 24 hours, and were using 37AH in that timeframe and based on the 200AH total bank reference, we should have ended at about 130AH remaining at the 64% SOC charge mark on the last day. But, our net use was about 70AH leaving at gap of 41AH between the total power consumed, and the power remaining.

So, the solar generated roughly 41AH in 72hours of mixed clouds and sun which is over 13AH per day and close to what I expected. This gives us a realistic 5 continuous days of boat use (freezer, heat, devices, lighting) relying on solar alone for power. We don't ever sit that long without moving by motor so our power needs have been met and ice will no longer be a limiting factor for Ari.

I know this is all a bit rough but we were pretty busy with the gathering so I roughed it this time. I will track more details on future trips.

Greg
 
After two years the surface of the panel is hazy-- what is the best way to clean the surface for optimum proficiency and restore the clear look?

Roger
C-Hawk
 
Greg, Really nice write up on your solar use. Very efficient and practical system for long term non-shore power cruising.

Thanks for all the details.

Harvey
SleepyC :moon

1_10_2012_from_Canon_961.highlight.jpg
 
We had a few more days out with the panels and although we didn't have enough clear skies for direct sun, I can confirm that our 50w panel setup charges at just over 1 amp under a completely cloudy summer sky. 12+ hour of that this time of year is 12AH I don't have to conserve or generate with an hour of motoring time.

Greg
 
Back
Top