Centro Solar panels and company?

[KRenn]

What kind of things should I be worried about long term? I'm thinking the roofing install is the biggest concern (leaks) because the panels and inverter are covered by the manufacturers.

Assume both the panel and inverter warranties are more or less useless. Not in all cases, but the warranty a solar company offers and the warranty a solar company honors are not one and the same unfortunately.

[HX_Guy]

Why would you assume the panel and inverter warranties are useless? I would think there's a much higher chance that they would be around longer than just about any installer short of the really big ones like Solar City.

[russ]

Why would you assume the panel and inverter warranties are useless? I would think there's a much higher chance that they would be around longer than just about any installer short of the really big ones like Solar City.

Solar City an installer? Leasing company OK but installer?

Many companies will only work on warranties with dealers - not the owner.

[HX_Guy]

I figured Solar City did the installs as well since I see a ton of their vans around.

And I figured that if your original installer goes belly up and you have a problem with the panels, they will send out another installer that they work with. Similar to having an appliance repaired under warranty that you bought at Best Buy if wherever.

[KRenn]

Why would you assume the panel and inverter warranties are useless? I would think there's a much higher chance that they would be around longer than just about any installer short of the really big ones like Solar City.

It has nothing to do with how long they are going to be around but whether their warranty claims actually mean anything. When you have to remove twenty five panels from various installation sites because they all develop severe cell burnouts after less than a year in service and the manufacturer basically laughs at you saying that they won't replace the panels because they are still producing within the parameters of the warranty, you quickly learn how meaningless such an instrument is.

Personally I can vouch for Sharp, Sanyo(Panasonic), Sunpower, Solarworld, Schott and Aleo as companies that I've never had trouble with in terms of them backing their warranties. Beyond that you have companies that used pro-rated warranties or goofy legalese that basically insulates them from having to live up to their end of the bargain. And what are you going to do? Sue them?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/business/energy-environment/solar-powers-dark-side.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

My rule of thumb is simple, buy the best quality products that you can afford. Look up data from independent testing organizations such as TUV and the Fraunhofer Institute that specifically test panels for durability and output for further assistance.

[KRenn]

Solar City an installer? Leasing company OK but installer?

Many companies will only work on warranties with dealers - not the owner.

Solar City is an all-in-one outfit. They do lease sales and installations. They will co-opt installers from local companies sometimes if they are running short, have them throw on SolarCity shirts but most of their installation crews are their own.

[KRenn]

I figured Solar City did the installs as well since I see a ton of their vans around.

And I figured that if your original installer goes belly up and you have a problem with the panels, they will send out another installer that they work with. Similar to having an appliance repaired under warranty that you bought at Best Buy if wherever.

Most panels, at least for small to medium installers are sold via wholesaler. The companies that work directly with installers are the exception and not the norm. If your installer goes out of business, it will be up to you to handle the negotiation and the back and forth with the manufacturer. If you claim you have a problem with a particular module, you need to ship it to the manufacturer, if they test it and concur, they will refund the shipping price and ship a new module back to you.


How you get it off your roof and how you get the new one back up there is up to you, but that is assuming that they agree, if not, they'll send you the panel back and bill you for the shipping to boot.



You can contact Naptown for further info on how this works, he actually owns his own solar installation outfit in Maryland.

http://www.solarpaneltalk.com/showthread.php?14192-Roofing-amp-Solar-in-Bay-Area/page3

[silversaver]

I'm sure the F rating installer is cheaper and you can use your AE card as security in case the installer screw you within the first 60 or 90 days. You probablly can get your installation for FREE after dispute with AE card. BUT, don't forget the installer will place a lien on your house before the installation start or after.

Seriously, if anything goes wrong for your solar system I don't think is the installer's fault... Solar is a long term investment.

Thanks for the posts, fun to read.

[HX_Guy]

Why would the installer place a lien and why would I dispute the charges if the system is installed and working properly?
And are you saying it's the Centro Solar panels that are more likely to be the problem? There seems to be a lot of back and forth on this forum about what's good and what's not...one day it's "every panel will pretty much perform the same way, there isn't a big difference" and the next is "go only with the best manufacturers".

[russ]

Why would the installer place a lien and why would I dispute the charges if the system is installed and working properly? Contractor's lien

And are you saying it's the Centro Solar panels that are more likely to be the problem? There seems to be a lot of back and forth on this forum about what's good and what's not...one day it's "every panel will pretty much perform the same way, there isn't a big difference" and the next is "go only with the best manufacturers".

In your imagination possibly - the line is pretty straight that many of the cheaper panels will do just fine.

[kmm]

I'm sure the F rating installer is cheaper and you can use your AE card as security in case the installer screw you within the first 60 or 90 days.

You should check your credit card disclosure agreement. Recently I received a disclosure that said if you are going to dispute a charge on a bill, don't pay the charge.

It might have been my AMEX card.

Therefore, you cannot wait 60, 90 days to dispute a charge since AMEX wants payment in full monthly.

[HX_Guy]

I had the chance to speak with and check out the install of another person who just had their system turned on last week using the same installer.
Guy was a little surprised that I stopped by but had good things to say about the installer. Everything went fine, he said there was a little bit of delay "but you know how contractors are" is how he put it, said it was about a week, week and a half delay. They started the process in mid March and finished up about 2 months later.

Stopped by a couple other places and the people weren't home but I did see the installs outside. But I've actually talked to 3 people so far and all had good things to say...that lone complaint from 2011 may have been a fluke or maybe things have changed with the installer since but in my experience in talking to him, he seemed alright. Would be good if people actually went online and gave positive reviews and not just negative...I know I will if everything goes smoothly.

[KRenn]

Why would the installer place a lien and why would I dispute the charges if the system is installed and working properly?
And are you saying it's the Centro Solar panels that are more likely to be the problem? There seems to be a lot of back and forth on this forum about what's good and what's not...one day it's "every panel will pretty much perform the same way, there isn't a big difference" and the next is "go only with the best manufacturers".

My advice always remains the same, buy the best quality panels that you can afford. In simple laboratory conditions, virtually every panel will do fine. It is what happens in the actual elements, what happens to performance a year from now, five years from now, a manufacturer's rate of malfunctioning panels, there is a difference and these things do matter.

Solar panels really aren't a commodity even if some act like they are. Like any other piece of electronics, go for the best quality you can get. Not sure why people act like solar is somehow immune to the basic notion of "you get what you pay for."

[J.P.M.]

My advice always remains the same, buy the best quality panels that you can afford. In simple laboratory conditions, virtually every panel will do fine. It is what happens in the actual elements, what happens to performance a year from now, five years from now, a manufacturer's rate of malfunctioning panels, there is a difference and these things do matter.

Solar panels really aren't a commodity even if some act like they are. Like any other piece of electronics, go for the best quality you can get. Not sure why people act like solar is somehow immune to the basic notion of "you get what you pay for."

I'd agree with some of the logic given above about panel selection, but with a lot of qualifiers.

For starters, I agree you get what you pay for - but I'd add two words: "or less". So it may be with solar panels, and for that matter other solar equipment.

1.) Some think it smart to buy the best quality that is fit for the duty required as they see the requirements.

2.) If the required task, for example, is to take a 10 mile round trip to the grocery store 1X/week and get $100 worth of groceries, does the fact that I can afford a Mercedes limo make that choice more cost effective or more fit for duty than a Toyota or a Ford ? Buy the limo as you please - The quality is probably great - it's a free country. Part of that freedom is to make choices that are not cost effective. I fully support that right. It just may not always be the best.

3.) If it was me, I'd not link (implied) quality with spending more money, nor would I spend more than I needed to get what I believe is required to perform a task requiring fewer resources, unless I wanted to. But that says nothing about cost effectiveness, and that's only my opinion - no one else's.

4.) Paying more has it's limits. A bit more for an established solar panel mfg. w/ a track record - maybe some. 25% more for Sunpower for example ? Maybe not. To me at least, I see a slightly better warranty and that's about it. Annual output for same size and location seems pretty in dependent of panel mfg. Life's a crap shoot. For the # of panels from decent mfgs. that seem to be not failing in droves, the premium extracted for that Sunpower warranty only is IMO, pretty steep. I'll put my money on a better installer with a track record.

5.) Solar panels are an appliance, like water heaters, refrigerators and TV's. They are not a lifestyle unless one chooses to make them so. In that sense I consider them a commodity. Like a lot of other things in life, "better", as touted by peddlers, is usually a matter of smoke, mirrors and hype. Caveat Emptor.

6.) This may be slightly off topic, but has anyone noticed that the big solar leasing companies like Solar City, and with possible sole exception of Sunpower (for obvious reasons), usually go with the cheapest or even POS panels they can get, or at least not the most expensive ? (Or, for that matter, the most "efficient" ?) They seem keenly aware of maintenance requirements as their red herring advertising keeps reminding us. I don't think they're stupid. I think they're in business to make money, right ? Maximize profit ? Lower operating/maint. costs ? Warranty claims ? Is it possible they might know something about the combination of suitability, appropriateness and quality that Sunpower owners missed ? Those leasing companies seem to treat panels like a commodity. I suspect cost effectiveness and the probability of failure has a lot to do with it. I bet they think they're getting what they pay for, and I bet they do their homework.

[KRenn]

I

6.) This may be slightly off topic, but has anyone noticed that the big solar leasing companies like Solar City, and with possible sole exception of Sunpower (for obvious reasons), usually go with the cheapest or even POS panels they can get, or at least not the most expensive ? (Or, for that matter, the most "efficient" ?) They seem keenly aware of maintenance requirements as their red herring advertising keeps reminding us. I don't think they're stupid. I think they're in business to make money, right ? Maximize profit ? Lower operating/maint. costs ? Warranty claims ? Is it possible they might know something about the combination of suitability, appropriateness and quality that Sunpower owners missed ? Those leasing companies seem to treat panels like a commodity. I suspect cost effectiveness and the probability of failure has a lot to do with it. I bet they think they're getting what they pay for, and I bet they do their homework.

They use "whatever" panel because they have a solar lease contract that is heavily in their favor. So if a few panels go out, they just don't worry about it. I remember sitting down for lunch with an area manager of a particular nationwide solar leasing outfit and the conversation moved to damaged panels from hail, golf balls and such. For some things we both agreed that an insurance rider was appropriate.

I asked what their response to damaged panels was and his response was "unless the system is getting close to going under the power production numbers over its life, we really don't give a crap."

Knowing how meager the power production numbers are, if you outproduce it in the first few years, the company really doesn't have to do much at all until they are in danger of having to actually compensate the homeowner.


So in short, they use POS panels because the contract protects them from having to worry about a few malfunctioning panels, because the often meager power production guarantee is the only one you get.