The financial aspect definitely has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
I would not make the goal to be "most bang for the buck" - I would make it "best financial result in 5/10/15 year time frame"
And an E/W system can be something that gives that 'best result'.
It is easy to see a scenario where a system that has 5.3kW facing W, and 5.3kW facing E with a 7.6kw inverter is going to be a better financial choice than the other two options of:
A> 7.6kW system facing S with a 7.6kW inverter (fewer kwh, so lower initial cost BUT higher per-month cost for continued POCO power)
or
B> 10kW system with a 10kW facing S. (equal or more kwh - so same POCO per-month charges, but can be significantly more expensive to go up to 10kW inverter instead of 7.6kW)
Or where limited roof space makes E/S/W orientations a better choice than having higher costing (but more efficient panels) on just the S roof.
I think "bang for the buck" implies cheapest cost per kwh produced. Which isn't the right goal IMO.
If I have a choice between a 8000kwh/year system at $.03/kwh and a 12000kwh/year system at $.04/kwh, I'll take the larger less "bang for the buck" one - as the cheaper one means I'll pay $.11/kwh to the POCO for a lot more kwh. The larger one will meet much more of my needs and be much better for me financially over a 5/10/20 year period.
I would not make the goal to be "most bang for the buck" - I would make it "best financial result in 5/10/15 year time frame"
And an E/W system can be something that gives that 'best result'.
It is easy to see a scenario where a system that has 5.3kW facing W, and 5.3kW facing E with a 7.6kw inverter is going to be a better financial choice than the other two options of:
A> 7.6kW system facing S with a 7.6kW inverter (fewer kwh, so lower initial cost BUT higher per-month cost for continued POCO power)
or
B> 10kW system with a 10kW facing S. (equal or more kwh - so same POCO per-month charges, but can be significantly more expensive to go up to 10kW inverter instead of 7.6kW)
Or where limited roof space makes E/S/W orientations a better choice than having higher costing (but more efficient panels) on just the S roof.
I think "bang for the buck" implies cheapest cost per kwh produced. Which isn't the right goal IMO.
If I have a choice between a 8000kwh/year system at $.03/kwh and a 12000kwh/year system at $.04/kwh, I'll take the larger less "bang for the buck" one - as the cheaper one means I'll pay $.11/kwh to the POCO for a lot more kwh. The larger one will meet much more of my needs and be much better for me financially over a 5/10/20 year period.
Comment