Flextron bonded to standing seam versus 'normal' solar panels

[Bancroft]

We're building a house that will have metal standing seam roof panels.

 

We want solar but I hate the ugly carbuncles that are fitted to some homes.

 

I like the idea of Flextron (bonded to the seamed roof panels in the factory).  I acknowledge the fact that they're probably not the most efficient but the fact that they're innocuous and flat against the roof is more important to me.

 

My only concern is if the bonding fails and/or inefficiencies increasing over time to the point of them not being productive.

 

Question:

Does anyone have experience of the Flextron system that would help inform my decision on their use?

Or, does anyone have an alternative for seamed roof installations that are low profile from a visual perspective?

[JohnMo]

1 hour ago, Bancroft said:

I like the idea of Flextron (bonded to the seamed roof panels in the factory). 

Another thread on this last week - have actually looked a price? Shockingly expensive, not sure how you could ever justify PV going that route. Anything other than standard panels is really an expensive folly.

 

Ground mount and fence mount are other cost effective options

[saveasteading]

1 hour ago, Bancroft said:

metal standing seam roof panels.

see current discussion. Solar Gurus, please disect!

 

It's only fair to say that I am not a fan of SS.

Aesthetics? Yes if done very, very well.

Practicality, No.

Cost? I'm afraid they often get drawn on by a party who isn't paying or detailing.

 

Edited 7 hours ago by saveasteading

[Bancroft]

39 minutes ago, JohnMo said:

Ground mount and fence mount are other cost effective options

Lack of space and being in a national park limit options somewhat but, given the opportunity yes I'd agree would be much easier/cheaper.

[Bancroft]

35 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

see current discussion. Solar Gurus, please disect!

Seen that - thought this was a slightly different topic and didn't want to change the focus of that thread.

 

Roof was actually specified by us.  The whole build is going to be barn-like in appearance and, for our area, metal roofing is the more common solution.  The only other common option around here would be clay tiles and I'm no fan of those.

[JohnMo]

If your only option is stick panels at silly prices I wouldn't bother, just get a battery and that allows a TOU tariff and use cheap periods during the peak ones

[Russdl]

3 hours ago, Bancroft said:

My only concern is if the bonding fails and/or inefficiencies increasing over time to the point of them not being productive.

We looked at that system, years ago now, and eventually decided against it. If the bonding fails (and it’ll get bloody hot up there) or the panels fail what could you actually do about it with the roof in situ?

 

3 hours ago, Bancroft said:

Or, does anyone have an alternative for seamed roof installations that are low profile from a visual perspective?

Do you mean conventional panels? That’s what we went with in the end. Black PV panels mounted on the seams of a dark grey SS roof, looks nice IMO and no room for birds etc to get underneath the panels, but those panels hide a lot of expensive zinc. 
 

If you’re going with SS and dead against conventional panels then I’d say @JohnMo’s advice is spot on. Get a big battery and TOU tariff. 

[Russell griffiths]

My panels went up on my standing seam roof

i absolutely hated them, for a couple of weeks I considered removing them and not bothering with Solar at all, two years later I don’t even notice they are there. 
people even ask if I have Solar and I have to point them out. 

[Mr Blobby]

We looked at stick on panels and then decided against. 

After the standing seam roof went up we couldn't bring ourselves to cover it with panels on the SW front of the house so installed panels only at the rear, where nobody will ever notice.  And some on the flat roof garage to catch some rays in the winter months.

For the standing seam roof we used the s-5 railess pvkit.  Neat enough for the back but, IMHO, too ugly for the front.