Hedges
I See Electromagnetic Fields!
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2020
- Messages
- 20,694
For some reason I have had great difficulty in locating such websites, but perhaps this is my mistake, my search queries having focussed a lot on thin film, and not so much on traditional mono- and polycrystaline panels. In any case, if you have a link to any such site at your disposal, it will be appreciated
Solar Irradiance Calculator
www.solarelectricityhandbook.com
Certain Amorphous and/or thin film panels, though they are less efficient, are so more consistently throughout the day, whereas the efficiency og the traditional crystalline technologies very much depend on them being angled correctly, ideally perpendicularly to the sun, thus requiring automatic mechanical mechanisms to get the most out of them.
Perhaps that is simply because thin-film is too thin to have high probability of photon interaction, so many photons pass through.
Off angle, longer path through the thin film, increasing probability of interaction.
Single or polycrystalline wafers, 10 mil to 25 mil thick, interact with most all of the photons so don't get that improvement off-angle.
Large scale purification and processing of silicon now supports many GW per year of single crystal PV panels, and they are highly competitive price-wise. No longer just for when space is at a premium.
Take an old school thin film amorphous panel, with and efficiency of 7%. On average this will not reach these 7%, but will they come closer to that goal, than say a monocrystalline panel with a peak efficiency of 21% will come to those 21%, even under the best of conditions?
Also amorphous degrades faster.
Premium crystalline panels will still be producing 80% after 40 years.
I knew, or at least should've known and recalled much of this, but to simplify matters, am I to understand that the main focus in the hunt for the perfect technology should be not only effective use of UV, but just as, if not more importantly the blue part of the spectrum, or is the potential gain insignificant in comparison?
To use more parts of the spectrum, stack additional thin-film layers. Each layer should harvest higher energy photons, which would have interacted with the lower layers but lost their excess energy as heat. Lower energy photons pass through.
This might get you 35% or so efficiency. Might matter where space is a premium (like on space vehicles.)
As for the rest of us, we care more about W/$
I have read about the micro lenses at least, but only now comprehension has dawned on me, as I was somewhat mystified as to how this could improve anything, but naturally it is all about the angle. Check.
But it may not improve W/$ compared to silicon wafers, index-match epoxy to glass, anti-reflective coatings.
This answers, and by the way also all the others, vastly surpass any expectations I might have had, when first venturing into this forum. I really mean it when In say that my appreciation ends only due to the need for breathing, and other mundane necessities of life.
There are people here with much experience in energy, alternative energy, also experts in various technology.
Together with people just trying to save energy or money, or be comfortable in off-grid or van life.