Output range on micro inverter

[J.P.M.]

This would be a mistake, both in that there would be multiple systems as well as multiple shadows from the other roof ridges, stand pipe, and trees as well as the chimney.

If there's that much shading, maybe it's just a poor place to put an array.

Neither micros or optimizer's or anything else can convert sunlight to electricity when it's not there to be harvested in the first place due to shading.

To a first approx., an application with, say 20 % shading over the course of a year will produce no than about 80 % of the output of an identical application and orientation but without any shading. Optimizers or micros will not change that.

Given the questionable or at least marginal economics that PV often shows when a serious and valid economic analysis is done, even in unshaded applications, and, in spite of what lots of energy gluttons might think, the high bar in terms of cost competitiveness that POCO power sets relative to the cost of residential PV, resource reduction from shading often means that shaded applications cannot be made cost effective relative to other ways of reducing an electric bill by most any method. And, regardless of means of the attempted mitigation, any such efforts will usually need to still fight the uphill battle of more equipment and associated higher cost and complexity and still come up short relative to the unshaded application in terms of annual output and cost competitiveness.

Not every location or application is a good one in terms of cost effectiveness, often due to limited availability of the energy source.

In spite of what some (or many it sometimes seems) with skin in the game would like the solar ignorant to believe, micros or optimizers cannot always, without fail, turn what's a poor application into a good application. Some improvement is often possible, but there is no magic bullet/cure all in using either optimizers or micros that will invent energy that's not there to begin with.

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

[ButchDeal]

If there's that much shading, maybe it's just a poor place to put an array.

Neither micros or optimizer's or anything else can convert sunlight to electricity when it's not there to be harvested in the first place due to shading.

To a first approx., an application with, say 20 % shading over the course of a year will produce no than about 80 % of the output of an identical application and orientation but without any shading. Optimizers or micros will not change that.

Given the questionable or at least marginal economics that PV often shows when a serious and valid economic analysis is done, even in unshaded applications, and, in spite of what lots of energy gluttons might think, the high bar in terms of cost competitiveness that POCO power sets relative to the cost of residential PV, resource reduction from shading often means that shaded applications cannot be made cost effective relative to other ways of reducing an electric bill by most any method. And, regardless of means of the attempted mitigation, any such efforts will usually need to still fight the uphill battle of more equipment and associated higher cost and complexity and still come up short relative to the unshaded application in terms of annual output and cost competitiveness.

Not every location or application is a good one in terms of cost effectiveness, often due to limited availability of the energy source.

In spite of what some (or many it sometimes seems) with skin in the game would like the solar ignorant to believe, micros or optimizers cannot always, without fail, turn what's a poor application into a good application. Some improvement is often possible, but there is no magic bullet/cure all in using either optimizers or micros that will invent energy that's not there to begin with.

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

It is broken up and gets light just not all at once. Also OP is in CA so needs Rapid shutdown. so three azimuths with broken light, with rapid shutdown, is a perfect example for optimizers not strings.

Further this is in CA so reducing peak usage has significant return given the TOU and tiered pricing schedules.

you might not be able to make a silk purse from a sow's ear but you can make bacon, and chops, and pulled pork, and hams from a sow, sell the ham buy a purse, eat the bacon.

[J.P.M.]

It is broken up and gets light just not all at once. Also OP is in CA so needs Rapid shutdown. so three azimuths with broken light, with rapid shutdown, is a perfect example for optimizers not strings.

Further this is in CA so reducing peak usage has significant return given the TOU and tiered pricing schedules.

you might not be able to make a silk purse from a sow's ear but you can make bacon, and chops, and pulled pork, and hams from a sow, sell the ham buy a purse, eat the bacon.

Three azimuths with broken shade sounds like a crappy application to me. Not every application can be made into a good one. PV already has a hard time being cost competitive with other ways to reduce an electric bill without starting with two strikes against it.

Most of my point was that for applications involving a lot of shading, and contingent on required ROI, it may not be possible to get to the required cost effectiveness - whatever that may be - with any equipment quite simply because there is just not enough sunlight due to shading.

Fact is, micros/optimizers can only correct so much, and there is a limit to the amount that unshaded performance can be restored by micros/optimizers and not 100 % of the unshaded performance. That seems to me to be a factoid that most all vendors let slip through the reality filter.

That is, the idea that micros or optimizers can restore a shaded array's output to be the same as that of the same array but in an unshaded condition is one that the solar ignorant are allowed to infer. I know - sounds unbelieveable - but many of the solar ignorant believe it, or at least are not disabused of the fallacy. FWIW, it's been my observation that vendors do little to nothing to disabuse their marks of such wrongheaded thinking. Not that I'd expect them to. So, it's back to Caveat Emptor.

[ButchDeal]

Three azimuths with broken shade sounds like a crappy application to me. Not every application can be made into a good one. PV already has a hard time being cost competitive with other ways to reduce an electric bill without starting with two strikes against it.

Most of my point was that for applications involving a lot of shading, and contingent on required ROI, it may not be possible to get to the required cost effectiveness - whatever that may be - with any equipment quite simply because there is just not enough sunlight due to shading.

Fact is, micros/optimizers can only correct so much, and there is a limit to the amount that unshaded performance can be restored by micros/optimizers and not 100 % of the unshaded performance. That seems to me to be a factoid that most all vendors let slip through the reality filter.

That is, the idea that micros or optimizers can restore a shaded array's output to be the same as that of the same array but in an unshaded condition is one that the solar ignorant are allowed to infer. I know - sounds unbelieveable - but many of the solar ignorant believe it, or at least are not disabused of the fallacy. FWIW, it's been my observation that vendors do little to nothing to disabuse their marks of such wrongheaded thinking. Not that I'd expect them to. So, it's back to Caveat Emptor.

I highly disagree. East west is only dropping ~15% with optimizers and in this case much less due to TOU tarrif and tiered rates, the west will be more valuable. The south is broken up with what amounts to intermittent shadowing that optimizers handle well, but strings poorly. This is not a lot of shade, it is just soread around a lot.
We have done many installs like this one and they perform very closly to the models and thus expectations set.

There may be some peole that claim optimizers restore to complete unshaded but there are also many installers that claim way over production on every install.

[J.P.M.]

There may be some peole that claim optimizers restore to complete unshaded but there are also many installers that claim way over production on every install.

I agree, except IMO it's more than just some. Anyway, implying that deceptive sales practices of any type occur by saying or implying such deceptions are common (the "many installers" part) may be a dose of reality, but it's also not much more than a justification for a race to the ethical bottom.

I'm simply pointing out that optimizers/micros will not give or restore unshaded performance to a shaded array, and that in my experience many vendors do little to nothing to discourage, and in some cases imply such things. Do all vendors do that all the time ? Probably not. Do some vendors do that 1X/a while, IMO and to my experience ? Probably. Are some marks left to infer such things by vendors' silence ? If there's gain in it for the vendor, I'd not bet against silence on the part of the vendor if it helps sell something.

Maybe a kinder way of looking at it might be that letting the restoration of unshaded performance pretense go unchallenged is a passive way (and thus somehow less objectionable or justifiable) of overestimating performance, although I'd not be that kind.

As usual, the answer to the problem lies in customer (self) education along with a lot of Caveat Emptor.

[ButchDeal]

I'm simply pointing out that optimizers/micros will not give or restore unshaded performance to a shaded array,

We are not going to solve salesman truethfulness,

the OP however has an example of a roof with decent sun, not great but deffinitly in the decent range and optimizers will allow nearly full performance of the sun that OP dies have.
OP is also doing a DIY so would imply no installer to miss lead him.

The other advice i would give the OP is to cinsider a loan for a single install to reduce costs latter with second permit and possible rate changes with new interconnect update ( generally disadvatagious)