SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd
Recently, Solartech Universal made headlines as part of solar machine maker Meyer Burger's heterojunction (HJT) solar cell and SmartWire (SWT) hardware announcements. Meyer Burger announced their new hardware manufacturing lines using a Solartech Universal solar panel. The 'champion module' hit 334.9W – a 20.5% solar panel efficiency. The cells used in the panel hit as high as 24.02% – higher than JinkoSolar's 23.45% (albeit with a different cell type).
Solartech Universal says this panel should be available in 2018 as the company works through the challenges of integrating the new manufacturing hardware into the current line (see Solartech Universal panel assembly video at end of article). The specification page for the panel family is available on the website – it peaks at 330W models, and notes being available soon.
[...] Meyer Burger calls heterojunction 'the Solar Cell of the Future (pdf).' An actual heterojunction solar cell just hit 26.6% efficiency in November. Again, well beyond, Jinko's 23.45%. This greater efficiency is partially because of additional layers of solar material – amorphous silicon – that grabs a different wavelength of light to make electricity.
Source: https://electrek.co/2017/12/19/florida-company-solar-cell-of-the-future-500w-heterojunction/
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday December 21 2017, @12:30AM (12 children)
How much more efficient would solar panels be if they were mounted on a device that would keep them pointed at the Sun?
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by frojack on Thursday December 21 2017, @12:42AM (5 children)
I would bet most solar efficiency is quoted at mid-day sun with a perfectly aligned panel.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday December 21 2017, @12:52AM
No, a perfectly-aligned panel receives more sunlight, hence its output is higher.
If the panel is not optimally aligned, or the time of day means less sunlight, then the input energy is reduced, as is the output electricity. Efficiency doesn't change (much).
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Thursday December 21 2017, @03:03AM (2 children)
I've done some PV installs but I forget the details- easy enough to look up. Peak power output spec. is with sun overhead, cool, clear day.
Yes, you get a bit more output with tracking systems, but there's one huge factor: when the sun is not directly overhead, there is more atmosphere between the sun and the panel. It may not seem significant, but it is because UV has more energy and you get much more energy from the UV component. The more atmosphere the light travels through, the less UV getting to the panel.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 21 2017, @04:23AM (1 child)
Not all panels just use UV. But your point remains the same.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday December 23 2017, @04:18AM
Uh, thank you, I guess. But I never said that any panels "just use UV". Of all the photons coming from the sun, UV photons contain the most energy. In other words, photon-for-photon, a UV photon carries more energy than a visible, or infrared photon. The PV converts the photon energy into electrical energy. The more photon energy, the more electrical energy you get. When the sun is lower in the sky, the light has to travel through more atmosphere and UV is attenuated more than infrared. Infrared carries energy, but also heats the panels, which reduces their efficiency.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 21 2017, @07:10PM
Yes, but that's OK because the way to figure out how many panels you need is to multiply the rating of the panel by the insolation for your area. Insolation is the average hours/day of optimal sun. In New York City it's 4 hours. So a 300W panel would generate 1.2kwh/day.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Informative) by NewNic on Thursday December 21 2017, @12:48AM (4 children)
Solar panels are sufficiently cheap that it is more cost effective to just install more panels rather than installing them on a solar-tracking mount.
To answer your question directly, efficiency is unaffected by their alignment with respect to the sun (mostly, there are probably second-order effects).
With a non-optimal alignment they receive less sunlight and they produce less electricity. Efficiency remains the same.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 21 2017, @02:34AM (1 child)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday December 21 2017, @01:45PM
That's a rare case. When you're looking at TCO, the cost of purchasing, installing and maintaining a tracking mount is going to (usually) be higher than just slapping in the necessary extra fixed panels. Though, if you do put in the tracking mount, then you can optimize for temperature as well as sun-angle - for the cost of some extra sensors and software development.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday December 21 2017, @10:38AM (1 child)
That assumes you have the available space. Many times that is limited. For instance, portable applications such as camping, or on top of a vehicle; or fixed applications such as a small home, or a small yard, or a balcony. In many such cases, to achieve the desired power levels, you need more efficient cells. It depends on what you're trying to power, generally speaking.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Friday December 22 2017, @12:32AM
The increased insolation you would get from using a tracking mount in those examples is almost insignificant.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by SixGunMojo on Thursday December 21 2017, @12:31PM
Here you go. http://smartflowersolar.com/ [smartflowersolar.com]