Solar panel efficency
in [Design]
|
From: Robert Baer on 31 May 2010 00:03 Tim Wescott wrote: > 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. > Well, absolutely NO energy source is renewable; the sun is in a downward nuclear fission / fusion path leading to iron. What i looked for was an energy source that did not require energy rich carbon sources (trees, oil); the other alternative would be foot powered generators.
From: Robert Baer on 31 May 2010 00:07 Martin Riddle 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? > > Monocrystalline , well established reliability. > > Your survey was insufficient, are you into management? > > I found this with out trying hard... > <http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build05/PDF/b05047.pdf> > > I expected to find more at > http://photovoltaics.sandia.gov/pv_systems_reliability.htm > But it looks like it was stripped of info. > > > Cheers > > > Did i say i used google? Did i give the terms? Thanks for the longwinded PDF.
From: Michael on 31 May 2010 01:29 On May 30, 9:03 pm, Robert Baer <robertb...(a)localnet.com> wrote: > Tim Wescott wrote: > > On 05/30/2010 03:16 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote: > >> On Sun, 30 May 2010 14:20:26 -0700, the renowned Robert Baer > >> <robertb...(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. > > Well, absolutely NO energy source is renewable; the sun is in a > downward nuclear fission / fusion path leading to iron. > What i looked for was an energy source that did not require energy > rich carbon sources (trees, oil); the other alternative would be foot > powered generators. I've always been fond of the SEGS family of concentrating solar arrays, 30 to 80 MW each, in the California Mojave Desert. They focus sunlight onto a hydrocarbon heat transfer fluid, heating it to between 300 and 400 C, which then boils steam for a steam turbine. Apparently they can do it for a lower capital cost than the equivalent amount of solar cells would cost. Is this for a third-world project? 100W, huh? No cost constraints? Remember, the most efficient technology won't come cheap. What's wrong with charcoal? Trees are plenty cheap. Have you looked into organic solar cells? Michael
From: Grant on 31 May 2010 02:17 On Sun, 30 May 2010 18:10:09 -0700, D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(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. Grant. -- http://bugs.id.au/
From: Martin Brown on 31 May 2010 06:04
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). BP datasheets for a popular brand is online at : http://87.117.252.3//images/downloads/2602.pdf You do the figures but it is about 12.5% efficient and $8/W. If you choose the most cost effective you get something more like 8% efficient. Unless space is at a premium price performance wins. You have missed out Spire who claimed in a press release last year to have a III-V solar cell for a Concentrator PV system with 42% efficiency and awarded a DOE NREL contract to develop it. The figure seems suspiciously high to me but I expect the press release has been garbled somewhat in the journalists brain. http://www.solarfeeds.com/pr/6643-spire-semiconductor-to-develop-42-efficient-concentrator-solar-cells I suspect it is "efficiency" in some PR mans fictitious measure rather than in true engineering terms. Most other options for flat plate PV are in the 10-15% efficiency and unless you are looking at cost no object you actually want $/W as your measure of performance for ground based usage. You pay an incredible premium to get the last couple of percentage points improvement. Cheapest improvement with basic flat plate PV provided you have the space and engineering skill is by adding a couple of mirrors as concentrators and improved heatsinking of the PV array. > > 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? If Spire are telling the truth then yes. But I expect anything more than 15% efficient at present will not be cost effective. Regards, Martin Brown |