Solar panel efficency
in [Design]
|
From: MooseFET on 31 May 2010 10:42 On May 31, 5:43 am, John Fields <jfie...(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > On Mon, 31 May 2010 22:25:27 +1000, Sylvia Else > > <syl...(a)not.here.invalid> wrote: > >On 31/05/2010 1:54 PM, Robert Baer wrote: > >> No real estate restrictions but do not need much panel area to light a > >> small room. > > >I'd just open the curtains myself. > > --- > Where I live, sometimes it gets dark outside. Thats when you are supposed to go to bed and sleep. It is nicely arranged so the world is dark at bed time.
From: MooseFET on 31 May 2010 10:49 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. > > Grant. > --http://bugs.id.au/
From: MooseFET on 31 May 2010 10:51 On May 30, 6:10 pm, 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! A 1KW engine may be a better design. A 1 meter square system could be mass produced and then installed in as many increments as needed.
From: MooseFET on 31 May 2010 10:55 On May 31, 3:23 am, Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealm...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On a sunny day (Sun, 30 May 2010 21:03:16 -0700) it happened Robert Baer > <robertb...(a)localnet.com> wrote in > <aNednXw0P7ZkqZ7RnZ2dnUVZ_qOdn...(a)posted.localnet>: > > > 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. > > Well, oil is free these days, just take a bucket and help the clean-up. > And if you are a veggy then feet powered generators bikes0 > are fed by your eating vegetables. > So there really is no problem. Food in to energy out is not very good on a human. Back when I rode my bike a lot, I needed about twice the food intake if I was riding the bike on that day. Chances are I was making under 1KWH of energy in a day.
From: Martin Riddle on 31 May 2010 11:32
"Robert Baer" <robertbaer(a)localnet.com> wrote in message news:zrydnaUDi8RhqJ7RnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d(a)posted.localnet... > 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. Here's something that may help <http://sroeco.com/solar/most-efficient-solar-panels> Cheers |