Cost per Watt in SF Bay Area?; system cost difference with SolarEdge vs. SMA?

[will3700]

Newby here from the Silicon Desert formerly known as Silicon Valley. Uber serious drought conditions. Maybe I should also start looking for a desalination forum.
With a batch of quotes in hand, I have been scouring the pages here, as well as CSI, to try to ascertain $/watt standards/ranges for the SF/Silicon Valley area for a 3.5-3.7kw system. Sparring with vendors for a week or so, here’s what I have collected:

1) 13 SolarWorld 275w + SMA. 3.575kw@$3.80/w = $13,585
2) 13 Mitsubishi 265w + SMA. 3.445kw@$3.75/w = $12,922
3) 14 Mitsubishi 265w + SolarEdge 5000. 3.71kw@$3.83/w = $14,200
4) 13 Suniva 270w+SMA. 3.51W@$3.85/w = $13,515

I’m leaning towards either 1) or 3). PG&E just cranked up Tier 1 rates, so I want to cover 80+% of our energy use. And I suspect with solar, we will use more energy (i.e., turn on the A/C more often in the summer).

So two questions:

1) I have seen people post $/watt numbers much lower than these. One person in San Diego quoted “just south of $3.50”. Another posted somewhere (can’t find it now!) “Kyocera runs about $3.50 - $3.75/Watt in So. CA, LG about $3.40-$3.70/Watt”. I recall seeing much lower numbers – heading towards $3/watt - in other states. I think someone from Maryland quoted around $3.20…which is phenomenal.

So my question is: am I not grinding hard enough on these guys? A couple of vendors have been willing to move – and they are reflected in the numbers above. Others choose not to respond to my ‘suggestions’ for a better deal, and are sitting at or north of $4.00. Needless to say, they won’t get my business.

Or – are prices in the Bay Area just higher than everywhere else?

I also do not see stats on CSI that support lower prices per watt. In fact – doing a search on the following web page – for 2014, Residential only, and within 50 miles of my zip code – prices for comparably sized systems are between $5.64-$5.99/watt. That makes no sense:

http://www.californiasolarstatistics.ca.gov/reports/cost_vs_system_size/

I also downloaded the database from CSI – and again, from what I see – numbers below $4.00/watt are the exception – not the norm – even for installs over the last 6 months.
Am I looking in the wrong place on CSI? Is there some place or query on CSI that shows that 3.5kW systems in the bay area really should be around $3.50/w?

2) Per the Mitsubishi quotes above, one installer is pricing systems with SolarEdge (5000) higher than with SMA (3800). He says it’s not due to different capacities. He says that the cost of the optimizers makes SolarEdge more expensive. Other installers don’t care which inverter I choose: SE, Enphase or SMA – the system price is the same.

Is the first guy blowing smoke about SE costing more? Or are the other guys taking a margin hit, because they have already padded the system price enough? I don't need SE, because there's no shade problem - now. I do want panel monitoring. A single panel with low production might indicate dirt, or bird poo, or something requiring attention. Seems useful to me.

Thanks for reading the core dump on my “Solar Quest”!

[J.P.M.]

Newby here from the Silicon Desert formerly known as Silicon Valley. Uber serious drought conditions. Maybe I should also start looking for a desalination forum.
With a batch of quotes in hand, I have been scouring the pages here, as well as CSI, to try to ascertain $/watt standards/ranges for the SF/Silicon Valley area for a 3.5-3.7kw system. Sparring with vendors for a week or so, here’s what I have collected:

1) 13 SolarWorld 275w + SMA. 3.575kw@$3.80/w = $13,585
2) 13 Mitsubishi 265w + SMA. 3.445kw@$3.75/w = $12,922
3) 14 Mitsubishi 265w + SolarEdge 5000. 3.71kw@$3.83/w = $14,200
4) 13 Suniva 270w+SMA. 3.51W@$3.85/w = $13,515

I’m leaning towards either 1) or 3). PG&E just cranked up Tier 1 rates, so I want to cover 80+% of our energy use. And I suspect with solar, we will use more energy (i.e., turn on the A/C more often in the summer).

So two questions:

1) I have seen people post $/watt numbers much lower than these. One person in San Diego quoted “just south of $3.50”. Another posted somewhere (can’t find it now!) “Kyocera runs about $3.50 - $3.75/Watt in So. CA, LG about $3.40-$3.70/Watt”. I recall seeing much lower numbers – heading towards $3/watt - in other states. I think someone from Maryland quoted around $3.20…which is phenomenal.

So my question is: am I not grinding hard enough on these guys? A couple of vendors have been willing to move – and they are reflected in the numbers above. Others choose not to respond to my ‘suggestions’ for a better deal, and are sitting at or north of $4.00. Needless to say, they won’t get my business.

Or – are prices in the Bay Area just higher than everywhere else?

I also do not see stats on CSI that support lower prices per watt. In fact – doing a search on the following web page – for 2014, Residential only, and within 50 miles of my zip code – prices for comparably sized systems are between $5.64-$5.99/watt. That makes no sense:

http://www.californiasolarstatistics.ca.gov/reports/cost_vs_system_size/

I also downloaded the database from CSI – and again, from what I see – numbers below $4.00/watt are the exception – not the norm – even for installs over the last 6 months.
Am I looking in the wrong place on CSI? Is there some place or query on CSI that shows that 3.5kW systems in the bay area really should be around $3.50/w?

2) Per the Mitsubishi quotes above, one installer is pricing systems with SolarEdge (5000) higher than with SMA (3800). He says it’s not due to different capacities. He says that the cost of the optimizers makes SolarEdge more expensive. Other installers don’t care which inverter I choose: SE, Enphase or SMA – the system price is the same.

Is the first guy blowing smoke about SE costing more? Or are the other guys taking a margin hit, because they have already padded the system price enough? I don't need SE, because there's no shade problem - now. I do want panel monitoring. A single panel with low production might indicate dirt, or bird poo, or something requiring attention. Seems useful to me.

Thanks for reading the core dump on my “Solar Quest”!

On the CSI database:

- Since the residential program is pretty much over, current activity in the CSI database is for commercial, non profit and gov't. applications. The rebate schemes are different, and the systems are usually much larger than most residential stuff. I think the last commonly sized residential sys. was opened 05/18/2014 at about 6 kW size. Not much of anything applicable to residential since then - price or size.

- Now that system prices, sizes and equipment are effectively hidden from public view, prices may be going up some.

- Get rid of the extraneous clutter: Sort the database by date, add a col. for $/nameplate Watt and filter for residential jobs.

On Prices:

- Based on system size and your location, the pricing you have doesn't seem too far out of line if at all. Just go with a reputable electrical contractor who's been around longer than solar. Buy cheap. Buy twice.

- $3.50/Watt is still possible in San Diego for decent stuff. For some reason No. CA seems more/Watt. Also, smaller systems will cost more/Watt.

[Bikerscum]

From what I've seen, the SF Bay area is definitely more expensive than SoCal.

As said I think it's your system size that's skewing things. For example I got quoted $3.55/w for Solarworld 275 mono black with Solaredge optimizers/inverter, but it was for 22 of them. As the system size gets smaller, some of the costs are still fixed so get divided by fewer watts.

Good luck in the hunt.

[will3700]

On the CSI database:

- Since the residential program is pretty much over, current activity in the CSI database is for commercial, non profit and gov't. applications. The rebate schemes are different, and the systems are usually much larger than most residential stuff. I think the last commonly sized residential sys. was opened 05/18/2014 at about 6 kW size. Not much of anything applicable to residential since then - price or size.

- Now that system prices, sizes and equipment are effectively hidden from public view, prices may be going up some.

- Get rid of the extraneous clutter: Sort the database by date, add a col. for $/nameplate Watt and filter for residential jobs.

On Prices:

- Based on system size and your location, the pricing you have doesn't seem too far out of line if at all. Just go with a reputable electrical contractor who's been around longer than solar. Buy cheap. Buy twice.

- $3.50/Watt is still possible in San Diego for decent stuff. For some reason No. CA seems more/Watt. Also, smaller systems will cost more/Watt.

Thanks much, JPM - and Bikerscum. I read several of both of your comments before signing up here. Your input is invaluable to people like me, looking to put in our first solar systems. I almost did what you said with the CSI database, but I was using the CEC rating instead of the Nameplate. I'll fix, delete the noise, and slice and dice to see what I can learn. But my guess is: given the changes in data collection, that this forum is now probably more valuable than the CSI site for gauging installer quotes.

Thanks for confirming that my quotes are not out of line. The one question I'm left with: is SolarEdge more costly (parts, labor) than SMA, and therefore it is reasonable for an installer to charge more with SE? My guess: perhaps a couple 100 bucks more - but not enough to justify a large differential in pricing.

[Bikerscum]

Thanks for confirming that my quotes are not out of line. The one question I'm left with: is SolarEdge more costly (parts, labor) than SMA, and therefore it is reasonable for an installer to charge more with SE? My guess: perhaps a couple 100 bucks more - but not enough to justify a large differential in pricing.

At retail, the Solaredge setup will cost about $350 more than the SMA setup, labor should be about the same. You don't need a 5k inverter BTW, in fact the system may well work worse than with the 3800 model.

If you want panel level monitoring it's the way to go.

[will3700]

At retail, the Solaredge setup will cost about $350 more than the SMA setup, labor should be about the same. You don't need a 5k inverter BTW, in fact the system may well work worse than with the 3800 model.

If you want panel level monitoring it's the way to go.

Got it - and thanks again. I also was wondering about the oversized inverter impact on system performance. I'll bring that up with the rep and their engineering guy.

[J.P.M.]

Thanks much, JPM - and Bikerscum. I read several of both of your comments before signing up here. Your input is invaluable to people like me, looking to put in our first solar systems. I almost did what you said with the CSI database, but I was using the CEC rating instead of the Nameplate. I'll fix, delete the noise, and slice and dice to see what I can learn. But my guess is: given the changes in data collection, that this forum is now probably more valuable than the CSI site for gauging installer quotes.

Thanks for confirming that my quotes are not out of line. The one question I'm left with: is SolarEdge more costly (parts, labor) than SMA, and therefore it is reasonable for an installer to charge more with SE? My guess: perhaps a couple 100 bucks more - but not enough to justify a large differential in pricing.

For my part, you are entirely welcome. If you like the service - tell your friends. Caveat: Question everything everyone says - even, and perhaps particularly, me - none of us is as smart as all of us.

Good luck.

[thejq]

Everything in the Bay area is more expensive, it seems. Panel price might have also gone up a little bit. Just look at the stock price of Chinese panel manufactures. Last Friday, there was a report of factories running at full capacity http://news.investors.com/091214-717...l-throttle.htm With that said, there's nothing wrong with getting 10-15 quotes, if you have the time. One trick I played was to get the lowest quote in writing from some small installer, and had it price matched by someone reputable. It may not always work, but it did for me and probably saved me a couple of grand.

As for the inverter size, particularly for SolarEdge, I don't think over-sizing it a little bit will reduce your production. Technically, there're two factors affecting your production. 1. start voltage and 2. efficiency. For SolarEdge optimizer, (1) is not a problem at all, since the optimizer will peg the inverter input voltage exactly at the optimal point. For reference, I have a 4.8KW system with SE6000A. The inverter input voltage is always pegged at 350V at 8AM, 12PM as well as 2PM. I have seem my inverter start producing as low as a few watts in the early morning. As for (2) efficiency, the spec for SE5000A and SE6000A are the same too, SE3800A is 0.6% less, which is insignificant. By over-sizing the inverter a little bit, you run the system with less stress, while paying just $30 more. I think the whole notion of over-driving the inverter to get more production comes from the old string inverter technology (no offence to the old timers here). For example, SMA Sunnyboy 3000TL to 5000TL has a start voltage of 125V while 6000TL, 300V. So it's conceivable that 5000TL will start producing a little earlier then 6000TL, hence more production. But if you like SolarEdge, over-sizing is not a problem as far as I can tell.

[JCP]

Newby here from the Silicon Desert formerly known as Silicon Valley. Uber serious drought conditions. Maybe I should also start looking for a desalination forum.
With a batch of quotes in hand, I have been scouring the pages here, as well as CSI, to try to ascertain $/watt standards/ranges for the SF/Silicon Valley area for a 3.5-3.7kw system. Sparring with vendors for a week or so, here’s what I have collected:

1) 13 SolarWorld 275w + SMA. 3.575kw@$3.80/w = $13,585
2) 13 Mitsubishi 265w + SMA. 3.445kw@$3.75/w = $12,922
3) 14 Mitsubishi 265w + SolarEdge 5000. 3.71kw@$3.83/w = $14,200
4) 13 Suniva 270w+SMA. 3.51W@$3.85/w = $13,515

I’m leaning towards either 1) or 3). PG&E just cranked up Tier 1 rates, so I want to cover 80+% of our energy use. And I suspect with solar, we will use more energy (i.e., turn on the A/C more often in the summer).

So two questions:

1) I have seen people post $/watt numbers much lower than these. One person in San Diego quoted “just south of $3.50”. Another posted somewhere (can’t find it now!) “Kyocera runs about $3.50 - $3.75/Watt in So. CA, LG about $3.40-$3.70/Watt”. I recall seeing much lower numbers – heading towards $3/watt - in other states. I think someone from Maryland quoted around $3.20…which is phenomenal.

So my question is: am I not grinding hard enough on these guys? A couple of vendors have been willing to move – and they are reflected in the numbers above. Others choose not to respond to my ‘suggestions’ for a better deal, and are sitting at or north of $4.00. Needless to say, they won’t get my business.

Or – are prices in the Bay Area just higher than everywhere else?

I also do not see stats on CSI that support lower prices per watt. In fact – doing a search on the following web page – for 2014, Residential only, and within 50 miles of my zip code – prices for comparably sized systems are between $5.64-$5.99/watt. That makes no sense:

http://www.californiasolarstatistics.ca.gov/reports/cost_vs_system_size/

I also downloaded the database from CSI – and again, from what I see – numbers below $4.00/watt are the exception – not the norm – even for installs over the last 6 months.
Am I looking in the wrong place on CSI? Is there some place or query on CSI that shows that 3.5kW systems in the bay area really should be around $3.50/w?

2) Per the Mitsubishi quotes above, one installer is pricing systems with SolarEdge (5000) higher than with SMA (3800). He says it’s not due to different capacities. He says that the cost of the optimizers makes SolarEdge more expensive. Other installers don’t care which inverter I choose: SE, Enphase or SMA – the system price is the same.

Is the first guy blowing smoke about SE costing more? Or are the other guys taking a margin hit, because they have already padded the system price enough? I don't need SE, because there's no shade problem - now. I do want panel monitoring. A single panel with low production might indicate dirt, or bird poo, or something requiring attention. Seems useful to me.

Thanks for reading the core dump on my “Solar Quest”!

Well, I'm on the other side of the bay from you, and I paid $3.80 for Solarworld 255 + Enphase inverters for a 4KW system. You should be able to get down toward $3.50 with an inline inverter.

[prhamilton]

I am in the North Bay and early this year $3.60 was really the lowest price I could find for a 7kw system. I think there also could be some seasonality to pricing. Starting in April-Sept the installers are typically very busy. During the slower months they might be more willing to negotiate. You can also look at pre-paid leases, sometimes the pricing of these can save you some money.

I also think that as we get closer to 2016 and the end of the 30% federal tax credit things could get very busy.

[will3700]

Everything in the Bay area is more expensive, it seems. Panel price might have also gone up a little bit. Just look at the stock price of Chinese panel manufactures. Last Friday, there was a report of factories running at full capacity http://news.investors.com/091214-717...l-throttle.htm With that said, there's nothing wrong with getting 10-15 quotes, if you have the time. One trick I played was to get the lowest quote in writing from some small installer, and had it price matched by someone reputable. It may not always work, but it did for me and probably saved me a couple of grand.

As for the inverter size, particularly for SolarEdge, I don't think over-sizing it a little bit will reduce your production. Technically, there're two factors affecting your production. 1. start voltage and 2. efficiency. For SolarEdge optimizer, (1) is not a problem at all, since the optimizer will peg the inverter input voltage exactly at the optimal point. For reference, I have a 4.8KW system with SE6000A. The inverter input voltage is always pegged at 350V at 8AM, 12PM as well as 2PM. I have seem my inverter start producing as low as a few watts in the early morning. As for (2) efficiency, the spec for SE5000A and SE6000A are the same too, SE3800A is 0.6% less, which is insignificant. By over-sizing the inverter a little bit, you run the system with less stress, while paying just $30 more. I think the whole notion of over-driving the inverter to get more production comes from the old string inverter technology (no offence to the old timers here). For example, SMA Sunnyboy 3000TL to 5000TL has a start voltage of 125V while 6000TL, 300V. So it's conceivable that 5000TL will start producing a little earlier then 6000TL, hence more production. But if you like SolarEdge, over-sizing is not a problem as far as I can tell.

Thanks much thejq. Your comments make horse sense to me. Plus...even if there is a slight risk to efficiency, having the headroom to expand is also quite important, vs. having the risk of having to upsize the inverter in a few years, if (for example) I'm able to switch our nat gas heating to electric. Re: price - I think there's a little room for me to push more. But as someone said, the potential loss of the 30% tax bene, in combination with PG&E's rate shenanigans - are driving demand - resulting in firming prices. Reputable installers are backlogged by at least 4-5 weeks.

[Bikerscum]

As for (2) efficiency, the spec for SE5000A and SE6000A are the same too, SE3800A is 0.6% less, which is insignificant. By over-sizing the inverter a little bit, you run the system with less stress, while paying just $30 more. I think the whole notion of over-driving the inverter to get more production comes from the old string inverter technology (no offence to the old timers here). For example, SMA Sunnyboy 3000TL to 5000TL has a start voltage of 125V while 6000TL, 300V. So it's conceivable that 5000TL will start producing a little earlier then 6000TL, hence more production. But if you like SolarEdge, over-sizing is not a problem as far as I can tell.

According to Solaredge themselves, it's not the efficiency number of the inverter per se, it's the fact that inverters are more efficient the closer they operate to their maximum limit. I have no idea if it's true or not, but they seem to think so. They say an oversized system (undersized inverter) will make more power in low light conditions.

FWIW.... my system should be going up on Monday. 20 LG300 panels (6k) with a 5k inverter. In my case, 16 of the panels are facing south, 2 east and 2 west. My best guess is that the whole setup may, on a good day just touch the 5450 limit of the inverter. The rest of the time it will at least be operating more towards the top end than if I had gone with the 6k.

I hope I'm not completely wrong lol.


I did put up a link on another thread
that appears, at least to me that someone did an actual test & found it to be true. Others here can make a lot more sense out of it than I.

Fun stuff, I can't wait to see my results!

[bcroe]

According to Solaredge themselves, it's not the efficiency number of the inverter per se, it's the fact that inverters are more efficient the closer they operate to their maximum limit.

Individual cases will vary, best to get an official curve. My experience, efficiency first peaks,
then starts dropping near maximum power. The reason, resistive loses increase as the square
of current in real world transistors, coils, wires, and capacitors (ESR). Bruce Roe

[thejq]

FWIW.... my system should be going up on Monday. 20 LG300 panels (6k) with a 5k inverter. In my case, 16 of the panels are facing south, 2 east and 2 west. My best guess is that the whole setup may, on a good day just touch the 5450 limit of the inverter. The rest of the time it will at least be operating more towards the top end than if I had gone with the 6k.

I hope I'm not completely wrong lol.


I did put up a link on another thread
that appears, at least to me that someone did an actual test & found it to be true. Others here can make a lot more sense out of it than I.

Fun stuff, I can't wait to see my results!

How exciting! GL with the installation. Our system setups are very similar except that I over-sized it with SE6000A. Let's compare notes when you're there. Oh take a picture of the inside. The study you quoted in another thread was done using older inverters (circa 2006). The results show that as DC input voltage increases, so does the efficiency. Well for SolarEdge with optimizer, the input voltage doesn't change and always at the optimal place. The solar panels become a current source, not voltage. Anyway, I guess we will get more insight once yours is up.

[chunglau]

Well, I'm on the other side of the bay from you, and I paid $3.80 for Solarworld 255 + Enphase inverters for a 4KW system. You should be able to get down toward $3.50 with an inline inverter.

I am in the South Bay. Can you pm me the name of your installer? I have less than 10 posts, so cannot pm you directly. Thanks.