ᐅ Air-to-Water Heat Pump: Current Consumption and Data

netuser schrieb:

So, does this mean that especially with storage systems, 70% is strongly recommended?

If this clearly saves money and the inverter manages it properly (meaning it doesn’t shut off early and then charge the battery), it can be a good option. This is where the experts come in.

However, even with intelligent charge management (e.g., distributing the charging power throughout the day), the battery cannot cover everything because it will eventually be full, especially on sunny days when you tend to reach the limit.

netuser schrieb:

So does this mean that storage systems with about 70% efficiency are strongly recommended?

No, storage systems are generally not recommended. They don’t make economic sense right now because they are still far too expensive (currently about three times above profitability) and are environmentally unfavorable since their production is complex and the stored electricity amount PLUS charging losses PLUS operational losses are not fed back into the grid to replace coal power.

This could change in 10 years. But as of now, the only reason to get a storage system is as a hobby.

(Before someone comes at me with a Senec/Sonnen cloud storage brochure: no, their calculations are incorrect.)

BUT: I can comfort anyone who’s disappointed because they wanted storage. Most of you already have storage systems. Many even have two. And in a few years, it will be three or four. These include: hot water tanks, concrete screed, first and second cars. The first two can easily absorb 10 kWh of electricity, which should last well through the night. And electric cars under 50 kWh battery capacity are no longer common. What additional effect 5 to 10 kWh in the basement (for nearly as much money) should have... I don’t know.

Deliverer schrieb:

No, storage systems are generally not recommended. They are economically unreasonable because they are still far too expensive (currently about three times away from profitability) and environmentally unfavorable, as their production is complex. Additionally, the amount of electricity stored PLUS the charging losses PLUS the operational losses are not available to the grid to replace coal-generated power.

You are probably right.
In my case, the decision is that no storage system will be installed, not Senec either, at least as you already said, not at the moment.
However, I wanted to understand the additional aspect of 70% soft or hard. And if someone has a storage system, that would be an additional point in favor of 70% hard, right?

netuser schrieb:

My question was about understanding another aspect of 70% soft or hard. And if someone has storage, would that be an extra benefit for 70% hard, right?

No, that’s incorrect.
For self-consumption systems with surplus feed-in (which most rooftop systems probably have), using about 70% soft from around 7 kW (kilowatts) of module capacity with south-facing orientation actually makes the most sense.

Ok, thank you. I will probably need to look into this more closely soon.
In my case, it will probably be around 11 kWp...

netuser schrieb:

Ok, thanks. I’ll probably need to look into this more closely soon.
In my case, it will probably be around 11 kWp...

The orientation can also be important when determining the best solution for you. However, any (reasonable) solar installer should provide good advice on this—hard/soft costs, feed-in management, and so on.

For example, my solar installer didn’t even want to sell me a storage system because it wouldn’t be cost-effective for me—and this coming from a salesperson! There are also sensible consultations out there. 😉