Sure, any value that takes into account a fuller proportion of the expected lifetime production will likely be more reliable. But as long as you are comparing consistent, accurately verifiable data, (as I have done with the year-one numbers) then the comparison is relevant and valuable. The data used to obtain the year-one kWh production of the theoretical systems above comes from the California State Incentive EPBB calculator which takes into account the most factors I’ve seen to produce a consistent, comparable production prediction. If you know of, or have access to a more robust data set with which I could compare expected production, please contact me.

Thanks for the comment!

One question for you: why do you recommend looking at year-one kWh production as an evaluation tool? Since panels always start off (for the first few months) producing at a higher rate than that which they settle into, wouldn’t a projected average or a year-two number be more reliable?

Thanks for the thoughtful article.