Att intends to extend a PGE pole in our area so they can put up a cell repeater. The new pole will shade my existing panels and they claim it "will have minimal shading". Neighbors are trying to fight the permit and I was wondering if there are any protections. I know there are for trees etc but can't find answers on this one and we need to file a final brief to protest the permit by the 24th. Appreciate any input, tips, etc.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Solar panel blocking by ATT pole extension
- Thread starter EVDRVN
- Start date
How much loss in production do you think you would have if it went up? I'm having a hard time visualizing how this would have a significant impact, but it would depend on the height of the pole, the circumference of the pole+cell antennas, the height of your panels, the distance to the pole and the southern angle of your panels and pole.
Maybe you could get them to compensate you for your less, but I doubt that it would halt the permit.
Maybe you could get them to compensate you for your less, but I doubt that it would halt the permit.
Do you know the type and mounting style of "wireless facility" (cell repeater)? Many places have banned the side-arm style with a bunch of antennas on the grounds it's just plain ugly. Is the proposal to put this type of thing literally a few feet away from your home and solar panels?
The pole is min 25" circumference, the boxes are about the same and antennae is not a big deal. The pole will be 40 feet and will shadow the panels as the sun moves east to west as the sun is south of the pole. The California solar Rights Act provides protections but I don't see any for utilities. My solar provider made me chose a location away form the panels because of significant impact and the extension now moves into that territory.
Yeah, in my view, you're kind of stuck with this new pole extension and antenna.
The precedent is pretty consistent where arguments along the lines of "5G causes health issues and allows Biden to spy on my dreams" don't work. And the notion of the upgraded pole being "ugly" would be hard to apply since they're not doing that wacky side-arm method.
At this point, the only thing I think could stop the planned pole "upgrade" is if a peregrine falcon started nesting atop the current pole. Or if you know someone at the city planning department and can encourage certain pro-unclepaul-behavior with a facilitation fee. It'll probably be easier to pay for an extra panel than to go with the facilitation fee.
I think there are people here who can explain why your inverter will not suffer much of an overall degradation of performance based on the partial shading.
Who is the TMC user who has solar panels on his suspenders? Maybe he can be paid with beer heh.
charlesj
Active Member
Talk to the city planning department who has or had the permit reviewed. Complain.
Who actually came out and did a sun survey with a meter for shading. This could be an issue in December when sun is low on the horizon and may extend some month on either side.
Where is that pole in relationship to the panels?
Who actually came out and did a sun survey with a meter for shading. This could be an issue in December when sun is low on the horizon and may extend some month on either side.
Where is that pole in relationship to the panels?
Well that's really odd because the dude in the video I linked showed all his work and came to the opposite conclusion.
In my experience with my 2100 watt system on my sailboat there obvious issues with shading when the boom or mast would cast a shadow on the panels. There was sometimes perceivable reduction in production when the shrouds would cast a shadow on the panels but considerably less.
I have three pairs of panels each on their own Victron 100/50 MPPT. I've put a different colored rectangle around each pair. I also put a little blue rectangle around the shadow that the boom is casting on the yellow pair. Usually I would swing the boom out and out of the way of the panels to maximize production during the day. But that little shadow right there would probably cause the yellow pair to produce half as much as the red pair.
You can also see a thin shadow from the shroud across each panel in the green pair. That probably reduced production by 10 to 15 percent. It's always hard to say in these circumstances, but I could definitely notice a difference as the boat swung around on anchor and the shadows went away from the panels.
Attachments
Eh.. well I mean… one is based on nothing and the other one is observable… I don’t think this comparison is very apt. Unless you suggest the losses are imaginary.
I would double check the fine print on the California solar law and go from there. You would appear to have exactly the case that it was intended to cover.
I have to say that unlike the Aussie NRG experience, we definitely see a difference for shading as well, like @LoudMusic (nice cat by the way!). I wonder if the paper used to shade the panels wasn't as opaque as they thought and transmitted more light. I would also be interested to know how the Fronius was actually wired up.
All the best,
BG
how old were the panels and inverters in the Dude video? I just don't see how the impact could be that great. If that were the case, bird droppings would have a huge impact, but they don't. Further, here in fire country, my panels were covered in ash and it had at most 15% impact.
skepticcyclist
Member
Did you even watch the original video? This is a completely different setup. The guy in the original video had an older string system in series with no DC couplers. And the software in his particular inverter didn't handle minimal shading well. He even stated that a newer system probably won't have this issue. This video you presented is a new efficient system that is completely different
Last edited:
Similar threads
