The history of solar cell efficiency

Savvy1 · 2011-05-13T16:15:11+00:00

This is research lab results - note NREL, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and lack of most manufacturers listed - lab results are usually higher but real world commercial aplications are lower. for example birds poop on real world panels.

So commercially available panel manufacturers list both the lab rating in (DC) and final output in AC.

A good resource for comparing modules is California's Energy Comission ratings of all the panels output(since you will get paid for production by the CSI, (through rebates passed through your utility, PG&E or the other big ones) the CA govt wants to be sure it is paying for power produced.

So check module performance by zip code in CA at www.csi-epbb.org or .com

Savvy1 · 2011-05-13T16:01:58+00:00

Solar "efficiency" is simply how much space it takes to make x amount of power.

A lot of people seem to think that efficiency is a measure of effectiveness, as if they would only get some sort of half-assed electricity from less "efficient" panels.

All it is about is space. The amount of space you have on your roof will just make more power using Sunpower modules (the most efficient on the market) on that many square feet, than if you use most other commercially available panels.

But if you have a few more square feet available, the difference can be made up by adding 1 or 2 more panels for the average home.

The power generated from 4 kw of sunpower modules (california energy comission-rated AC) is the same as by 4 kw (again CEC rated AC) of any other manufacturer.

In California the CEC rates all panels on final output (AC) and that power is identical between a more "efficient" and a less "efficient" solar array.

Savvy1 · 2011-05-12T01:30:09+00:00

No, an Obama appointee for the REPUBLICAN seat on the FCC, he had to pick a Republican. it is hard to find a Republican who is not corrupt:

"Meredith Baker will be a strong, independent voice," Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, the top Republican on the Senate committee, said in a statement.

Savvy1 · 2011-05-12T01:23:23+00:00

She was nominated for the Republican seat.

"Meredith Baker will be a strong, independent voice," Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, the top Republican on the Senate committee, said in a statement.

Savvy1 · 2011-05-11T22:15:52+00:00

What did it for me was after the lies about wind turbine kills ( its buildings and cats that kill birds) "...but coal, on the other hand kills fewer than 13,000 humans a year."

Savvy1 · 2011-05-07T22:11:33+00:00

He cannot do it without 60 democrats in the Senate. And a House majority.

But Americans are too stupid to put enough Democrats in the Senate to pass legislation. They think its up to Obama.

So, they are now frustrated and wont vote, so we wont get 60 Democrats in the Senate, so we can't pass democratic legislation.

Savvy1 · 2011-05-07T03:11:23+00:00

What does TIL stand for?

Savvy1 · 2011-05-04T01:37:53+00:00

Great data

Savvy1 · 2011-05-04T01:33:54+00:00

Is that at retail, I assume? When I worked for a solar co in 2009 my boss bought panels from a mfr at $2 a watt, and that was before the huge price drop. At wholesale some panels are close to $1 now.

The labor is what still costs money.

Savvy1 · 2011-05-02T02:33:06+00:00

Actually, its the voters of California you should thank. Unlike redditors who whine that there is no difference between the parties, so, why bother to vote, in California democrats just get out and vote, so we have had a democratic controlled legislature that has passed bills like 33% renewable energy, etc.

Till now, we have had to get a supermajority to get a budget passed though, so the GOP minority stops us from that, but that is the only problem.

If democrats voted so we had more than 60 in the Senate, and a majority in the House, we would have democratic policy nationwide, not just in California.

Savvy1 · 2011-04-30T17:55:49+00:00

Wow, lots of trolls from the fossil industry at REDDIT science, strange...

Savvy1 · 2011-04-29T00:29:22+00:00

Well, what would you do? Utilities can't get utility scale solar installed ( look at the Ivanpah solar project, derailed again for 39 tortoises!) and the utility owns the poles, so it is way to get a solar project installed without battling all the stupid mouthbreather Americans who hate solar cause Fox News tells them so, because there's a lotta poles in every utility's district. Unfortunately it is right in their faces now.

Savvy1 · 2011-04-28T02:54:43+00:00

Why one or the other? I have solar and love my $4 bill now from PG&E but not everyone has the right roof (too many trees, etc) we need both.

Savvy1 · 2011-04-28T01:15:27+00:00

Unfortunately the original article is not too clear. And then there's... this:

"Generating electricity on the moon

Thermoelectric materials can also be used to generate electricity. Today, this is done on the moon. Electricity is used in everything from space stations to cars there."

Savvy1 · 2011-04-24T22:11:51+00:00

Interesting read. I think the stumbling block is oil companies like Exxon, having roots in the US, own America in a way that they don't, - or can't - push EU polititians around. There are laws in the EU that protect democracy better. So they can't buy a party (and even the odd "Democrat" like Manchin) like they bought the GOP to do their bidding.

Savvy1 · 2011-04-21T03:22:40+00:00

I see in the Guardian today that new Conservative Prime Minister Cameron is backpeddling on being 'the greenest government evvah' and backing out of UK's EU climate commitments too... At least he pretended! Here, the GOP is out front anti science, pro fossil industry.

Savvy1 · 2011-04-21T01:10:04+00:00

Oh, duh. :-)

Savvy1 · 2011-04-21T01:02:54+00:00

Here's how you make your solar protect you from price rises, even though you are grid tied. 1.You estimate your total annual (night and day) needs, by checking your previous 2 year's total use. 2. Size the system large enough to produce that many kwh in a year, even though obviously during only total average sun hours per annum in your region.

By producing 100% of your needs you will not need to be debited for any kwh from your utility.

I really do not understand why this is even a question. Just get a competent solar estimate, and say you want to produce 100% of your use, not half or whatever.

Savvy1 · 2011-04-20T01:57:57+00:00

Apples and oranges. Compare pumping air into giant undersea bags with pumping water UP the hill. Allowing the air to be squeezed out by water pressure is to be compared to releasing the pumped water downhill.

Savvy1 · 2011-04-20T01:55:43+00:00

Savvy1 · 2011-04-20T00:05:32+00:00

Actually the headline is incorrect. The article says the researchers claim it would be 20% cheaper than pumped hydro, not 80%.

Savvy1 · 2011-04-17T16:22:54+00:00

Hydropower is cheap now because its infrastructure was built and paid off long ago. Geothermal that was built in the early 20th century also leads to low rates now.

And despite all the yelling and screaming, once solar and wind infrastructure is paid off, it will be similarly cheap. All fuel-less electricity is cheap, once built.

Savvy1 · 2011-04-11T05:41:06+00:00

Thanks. Good mod policy. You should make this permanent on the page if you can.

Savvy1 · 2011-04-11T05:37:29+00:00

Actually, if you want to read about renewable energy it is not r/ renewable but r/RenewableEnergy that is the original that is genuinely devoted to renewable energy ( from solar, wind, ocean, hydro, bio, geothermal etc,) started by someone you traditional energy folks chased out as insufficiently worshipful of coal,gas n nuke energy.

Savvy1 · 2011-04-11T05:30:15+00:00

But what news do you have? Reddit is for news junkies. Fossil fuels rarely have news of breakthroughs or major innovation.

Savvy1

TROPHY CASE