Solar panel efficency
in [Design]
|
From: Tim Wescott on 30 May 2010 20:21 On 05/30/2010 03:16 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote: > On Sun, 30 May 2010 14:20:26 -0700, the renowned Robert Baer > <robertbaer(a)localnet.com> wrote: > >> I did a survey and this is the best i got. >> Makers: (1) BP Solar technology: Advanced multicrystalline& >> monocrystalline silicon nitride; (2) First Solar modules: Thin film >> cadmium telluride; (3) Nanosolar: Thin film CIGS (copper indium gallium >> selenium); (4) Sharp: Monocrystalline& polycrystalline (silicon?) (Thin >> film?); (5) Evergreen Solar: Silicon (Mono? Poly? not mentioned). >> >> The questions in above are due to incompleteness of disclosure (on >> the web). >> >> Of those technologies, which one is the MOST efficient in conversion >> of light / solar energy to electrical power (assume ideal load for given >> panel)? >> Is there another (commercially available) technology even more efficient? > > Oh, something like multijunction single-crystal GaAs or InS probably, > but unless you've got a NASA level budget you probably can't afford > them. > > The usual efficiency criteria for ground-based applications is $/peak > watt. And I _still_ think that the criteria should be the net energy return over the whole lifetime of the product -- mean _after_ you take into consideration the entire extract/manufacture/install/dispose cycle of the panel into account, _including_ the trees you'll need to chop down to make room for them and some projections of the proportion of panels that will be retired early due to defects, obsolescence, vandalism, remodeling, and just plain accident. Because I think that in principal the whole idea of renewable energy is a Really Good Thing, but it seems to be in the hands of a bunch of poly-anna ditzle-brains who turn off all thought processes when confronted by anything "green", and who are opposed by a bunch of mean-spirited ditzle-brains who let their thought processes get turned off by bibles long ago. -- Tim Wescott Control system and signal processing consulting www.wescottdesign.com
From: D Yuniskis on 30 May 2010 21:10 Hi Tim, Tim Wescott wrote: > On 05/30/2010 02:20 PM, Robert Baer wrote: >> I did a survey and this is the best i got. >> Makers: (1) BP Solar technology: Advanced multicrystalline & >> monocrystalline silicon nitride; (2) First Solar modules: Thin film >> cadmium telluride; (3) Nanosolar: Thin film CIGS (copper indium gallium >> selenium); (4) Sharp: Monocrystalline & polycrystalline (silicon?) (Thin >> film?); (5) Evergreen Solar: Silicon (Mono? Poly? not mentioned). >> >> The questions in above are due to incompleteness of disclosure (on the >> web). >> >> Of those technologies, which one is the MOST efficient in conversion of >> light / solar energy to electrical power (assume ideal load for given >> panel)? >> Is there another (commercially available) technology even more efficient? > > Big projects seem to lean toward concentrating a bunch of light on a > Stirling engine. http://www.stirlingenergy.com/. Agreed. These folks, IMHO, really *blew* a perfect "market opportunity". :< Seems like a 10KW stirling engine turning a genset would be *perfect* for a large portion of the population (sun belt) -- especially considering the cooling load they can carry!
From: Robert Baer on 30 May 2010 23:54 Artemus wrote: > "Robert Baer" <robertbaer(a)localnet.com> wrote in message > news:9e-dnUxMSfcAS5_RnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d(a)posted.localnet... >> I did a survey and this is the best i got. >> Makers: (1) BP Solar technology: Advanced multicrystalline & >> monocrystalline silicon nitride; (2) First Solar modules: Thin film >> cadmium telluride; (3) Nanosolar: Thin film CIGS (copper indium gallium >> selenium); (4) Sharp: Monocrystalline & polycrystalline (silicon?) (Thin >> film?); (5) Evergreen Solar: Silicon (Mono? Poly? not mentioned). >> >> The questions in above are due to incompleteness of disclosure (on >> the web). >> >> Of those technologies, which one is the MOST efficient in conversion >> of light / solar energy to electrical power (assume ideal load for given >> panel)? >> Is there another (commercially available) technology even more efficient? > > Are you restricted in the available real estate on which to put your collector(s)? > Are you concerned about the cost to place them in orbit? > If not then you may want to consider the $/watt efficiency instead. > Or not. > Art > > No real estate restrictions but do not need much panel area to light a small room. Orbit? Are you nuts? Do you have an an answer to the posed question?
From: Robert Baer on 30 May 2010 23:56 Tim Wescott wrote: > On 05/30/2010 02:20 PM, Robert Baer wrote: >> I did a survey and this is the best i got. >> Makers: (1) BP Solar technology: Advanced multicrystalline & >> monocrystalline silicon nitride; (2) First Solar modules: Thin film >> cadmium telluride; (3) Nanosolar: Thin film CIGS (copper indium gallium >> selenium); (4) Sharp: Monocrystalline & polycrystalline (silicon?) (Thin >> film?); (5) Evergreen Solar: Silicon (Mono? Poly? not mentioned). >> >> The questions in above are due to incompleteness of disclosure (on the >> web). >> >> Of those technologies, which one is the MOST efficient in conversion of >> light / solar energy to electrical power (assume ideal load for given >> panel)? >> Is there another (commercially available) technology even more efficient? > > Big projects seem to lean toward concentrating a bunch of light on a > Stirling engine. http://www.stirlingenergy.com/. > Not a "big" project in that sense, more like a large number of small projects each needing less than 100W.
From: Robert Baer on 30 May 2010 23:58
Spehro Pefhany wrote: > On Sun, 30 May 2010 14:20:26 -0700, the renowned Robert Baer > <robertbaer(a)localnet.com> wrote: > >> I did a survey and this is the best i got. >> Makers: (1) BP Solar technology: Advanced multicrystalline & >> monocrystalline silicon nitride; (2) First Solar modules: Thin film >> cadmium telluride; (3) Nanosolar: Thin film CIGS (copper indium gallium >> selenium); (4) Sharp: Monocrystalline & polycrystalline (silicon?) (Thin >> film?); (5) Evergreen Solar: Silicon (Mono? Poly? not mentioned). >> >> The questions in above are due to incompleteness of disclosure (on >> the web). >> >> Of those technologies, which one is the MOST efficient in conversion >> of light / solar energy to electrical power (assume ideal load for given >> panel)? >> Is there another (commercially available) technology even more efficient? > > Oh, something like multijunction single-crystal GaAs or InS probably, > but unless you've got a NASA level budget you probably can't afford > them. > > The usual efficiency criteria for ground-based applications is $/peak > watt. > > > Best regards, > Spehro Pefhany So i need to re-ask and base on $/peak watt (not $/watt?). So, of the 5 found, which is the most efficient? |