Solar panel efficency
in [Design]
|
From: Jim Thompson on 31 May 2010 18:46 On Mon, 31 May 2010 15:39:25 -0700, Tim Wescott <tim(a)seemywebsite.now> wrote: >On 05/31/2010 08:38 AM, Jim Thompson wrote: >> On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:21:25 -0700, Tim Wescott<tim(a)seemywebsite.now> >> wrote: >> >>> On 05/30/2010 03:16 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote: >> [snip] >>>> >>>> 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. >> >> Huh? I think most opposition to "green" energy solutions lies in only >> two camps... >> >> (1) NIMBY's >> >> (2) Those of us who want green, but not at the cost of immediate >> turn-off of existing energy sources... Obamanation-style :-( > >Well, I don't _know_ that green energy is a net positive enterprise or >not. But I've been an engineer for long enough that I've seen entire >herds of non-technical types go thundering after technologies that can't >do anything but cost more than they return. Quite frankly, this whole >green energy thing is showing a lot of the same hallmarks. > >My fear is that the true cost accounting just isn't being done, or is >being done exceptionally belatedly (take biofuel, for instance). It >seems that any time you start talking about "green energy" half the >world gets all googley-eyed and starts talking about how it's going to >Save the World, and the other half starts talking about how it's an >Excuse to Abrogate our God Given Rights. > >And any time people start talking in all caps I get suspicious that >they've stopped thinking. > >It'd be a shame if we put all our resources into "green energy" and find >out that it's really blacker than oil. "really blacker than oil" says it all :-( ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
From: Don Lancaster on 31 May 2010 19:12 > Well, I don't _know_ that green energy is a net positive enterprise or > not. I do. It misses by a country mile and clearly remains a gasoline destroying net energy sink. http://www.tinaja.com/glib/nrglect2.pdf -- Many thanks, Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073 Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552 rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: don(a)tinaja.com Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
From: Grant on 31 May 2010 19:18 On Mon, 31 May 2010 07:49:11 -0700 (PDT), MooseFET <kensmith(a)rahul.net> wrote: >On May 30, 11:17 pm, Grant <o...(a)grrr.id.au> wrote: >> On Sun, 30 May 2010 18:10:09 -0700, D Yuniskis <not.going.to...(a)seen.com> wrote: >> >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! >> >> Also don't forget solar cooling without compressors, minimal electricity >> required for that. Turn back the technology a bit, not everything has >> to be electric. > >I assume you are referring to the desiccant cycle coolers. They can >be >made to require no electrical input at all assuming you have water >pressure. >The small amount of water needed is enough to rotate the desiccant >cartridge. >You just need a small water powered motor to turn it and work the >fan. The >heat exchanger doesn't have to have moving parts. Desiccant cycle is a new one on me :) Yes, something like that and also the modern equivalents to the old ammonia technology they used to use for making ice, before power-sucking compressor type heat pumps became the norm. Solar power can be more than simple conversion to electricity, need heating, hot water, cooling too. I suspect an electric fan might be better, tap water can be precious too. Where I live (Central Victoria), we're at the tail end of a ten year drought, big trees die and now there's a pipeline to bring in more water to a town of ~100k people. Water usage restrictions look permanent. Grant. -- http://bugs.id.au/
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 31 May 2010 19:54 On 30/05/2010 22:20, 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? http://www.physorg.com/news193497748.html "...Dr. Andreas Bett and Dr. Frank Dimroth of the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE in Freiburg, Germany, developed metamorphic triple-junction solar cell consisting of III-V compound semiconductors: gallium indium phosphide, gallium indium arsenide and germanium. This special structure makes it possible to optimize the use of almost the entire solar spectrum for energy production. Researchers have been able to transform more sunlight into power than ever before, at a record degree of efficiency of 41.1 percent. In recognition of their work, they are receiving the 2010 Joseph von Fraunhofer Prize. This high degree of efficiency is made possible by stacking multiple top-quality solar cells on top of each other. "Our triple solar cell consists of more than 20 individual layers, all of which we have optimized," says Dr. Frank Dimroth. "We have improved both the structure of the semiconductor as well as the material quality, the metal contacts and the antireflection coatings, in order to arrive at this result." Originally, these compound solar cells were engineered for use in space - most satellites in space are loaded with them. They supply the operating power. Since the production process is comparatively expensive, these cells had not been used on earth before. The combination of highly efficient cells with a lens amplifier ensures that - in comparison to conventional solar modules - only one five-hundredth of the semiconductor surface will be needed. The cells within their own specially designed concentrator modules measure only three square millimeters in size. A Fresnel lens is situated over these mini solar cells, at a distance of approximately ten centimeters. This configuration concentrates the sunlight by a factor of 400 to 500. To prevent the cells from overheating, they are attached to a copper support that distributes the heat sufficiently well. Thus, passive cooling of the solar cells suffices. "Thanks to this construction, we were able to produce modules with a degree of efficiency in excess of 29 percent," says Dr. Andreas Bett. These modules have been on the market since 2007 under the brand name FLATCON�, and are being used in a solar park in Spain, for example...." -- Dirk http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK http://www.blogtalkradio.com/onetribe - Occult Talk Show
From: mail on 31 May 2010 22:26
I was able to make them by using magni guide under $200. see sneak preview here: http://renewablesolarenergy.water101.net/index/?page_id=128 |