New solar cell with 22+% efficiency - Oh look, more snake oil!
Steven Lake
Solar Expert Posts: 402 ✭✭
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/this-strange-new-furniture-may-cut-your-heating-bill-in-half_062015
Thought you guys would find this interesting. It claims 22+% efficiency. Myself, I doubt that'll end up being the actual final numbers. But hey, who knows, right?
Thought you guys would find this interesting. It claims 22+% efficiency. Myself, I doubt that'll end up being the actual final numbers. But hey, who knows, right?
Comments
(I.E)14.5% conversion efficient poly crystalline maintains higher voltages, than 15.5% conversion efficient mono crystalline, allowing the lesser conversion efficient panel to operate a higher watt output under PTC.
The real fact is Boeing which contributed to the highest conversion efficient back contact cell mono crystalline panel at 89% in outer space, only operates at roughly 21% conversion efficiency in our atmosphere due to barometric pressures, resistance, continual climate change, and ozone layer.
I hate to break it to the world but we won't see PV making any outstanding record breaking numbers in this lifetime or the next.
I mean nano technology for the last 10 years has been all the hype, and on news it's a new record breaking conversion rate at less than 1%, kind of leads people to believe there is no more hype under this atmosphere. PV is what it is on this planet.
Okay, admittedly it's a small amount of energy, probably 1/10th per square foot of what a solar panel produces, but come on, that's a 10% increase in power output alone. That'd be worth it. Then find some way to convert heat into energy via that same solar cell, and even if that conversion only yielded another 10% more energy, just those two extra items alone have just boosted output by an additional 5th of what it was originally producing. But nobody seems to think about that. They're all after getting maximum efficiency on just the solar side and ignoring two other potential inputs, both of which could easily be implemented as part of the solar panel design, and cheaply too using existing technology.
I mean, sure, let's focus on something that nobody can actually prove to make us feel good and sell our junk panels to gullible people rather than making some real improvements in energy output. Oy, some people make me wonder.
Just as the sun which powers solar panels is a large fusion reactor. Weve come to realize the only true investment and in technology is in fusion energy.
Not that long ago i revisited small foldable panels for hiking use. I was suprised to find that they had reduced in area considerably since the last time i looked. The one i ened up buying is 13W nominal is only the size of an A4 page. And much of that is protective bezel. The spec listed the panel as 22% efficiency sunpower panels. While i havent tested it extensively yet, its output seems to be impressive, easily producing 10W on a late autumn day, and that includes the DC conversion losses. Looking sunpower up on the net, i see Sunpower in particular now marketing panels from 22-24%. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SunPower#Cells
http://us.sunpower.com/sites/sunpower/files/media-library/brochures/br-sunpower-solar-panels-are-most-efficient-solar-panels-pv-industry.pdf
See also http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/images/efficiency_chart.jpg
http://zoneblue.org/cms/page.php?view=off-grid-solar
The duplicative processes that Boeing/NASA used with change to the chemical application so it wouldn't be patent infringement.
Under the glass with A/R coating Sunpower isn't breaking any barriers or changes in the solar world, no different than Boeing/NASA did almost 3 decades ago. The only difference is the cost in the conversion rate dropped, where as 1 Boeing/NASA cell would cost $350 to produce, to now where one Sunpower cell of the same make up/ altered chemical processes can be made for under a dollar. That's adifferenceof 350% of the same conversion rate.
The solar market demands that in order for prices to go back up and become profitable as it was 7 years ago, with panels selling at $4 per watt, conversion efficiency ultimately has to play that key factor.
Companies such as Sunpower know the answer that conversion efficiency is not limitless and there for has focused more on concentrator technology to increase the concentration of light within 1/3 the surface area.
Technology improvements for solar are now more in concentrator developement, not how far the conversion rate of the cell can achieve.
None of these factors affect the efficiency of a solar module. Efficiency is a measure of what portion of the sun's energy that falls on a photoelectric material is converted to electricity; factors which reduce the radiant energy flux incident to the module reduce the amount of electricity produced, but that is not a change in efficiency.
Solar modules used in the aerospace industry typically achieve higher efficiencies due to advanced manufacturing processes, such as those which produce multi junction cells, but they are very expensive to make and for that reason are not suitable for terrestrially based arrays.
The suns potential level of UV radiation exposure per metered square in outer space is 300times greater, than the level of UV radiation we receive within our atmosphere.
Solar cells will never see a conversion efficiency higher than 25%.
Instead of arguing this fact we can meet back at this thread in a year from now and see if conversion efficiency has improved, which it won't.
According to this research article.
47% of the problem is heat. Heat will always play a factor and reducing temprature with semiconductive materials is moot. In space, there is no vacuum, and tempratures are below -300*F, so there is no heat, there is the resolution to part of the problem.
33% of the suns energy is what we recieve in this atmospher, that number doesn't get any better.
So unless the heating issues are resolved in conversion, we will never see passed 25%.
http://solarcellcentral.com/limits_page.html
http://members.sti.net/offgridsolar/
E-mail [email protected]
http://members.sti.net/offgridsolar/
E-mail [email protected]
Well of course that would be advantageous, but we are never going to see double the efficiency so 19% vs 22%, 23%, 24%.....who cares
http://members.sti.net/offgridsolar/
E-mail [email protected]
You may want to invest into LGmono X panels. More power than the Panasonic HITs.
There is actually an ongoing recall on the old Sanyo HITS. Apparently the amorphous cells are depreciating faster than the mono layer, causing high resistance, and the panels burn up.
LG's by far harvest are on the level of SUNPOWER. Been monitoring a Sunpower system VS the LG on enphase enlighten.
The LG's for having a conversion efficiency 1% less than SUNPOWER has harvested just as much if not more power of systems of proportionate size.
I did hear of the Sanyo recall but being that I never use anything that is really new I did not use them then. This was about 2006 I believe. Same thing with our friends at Tesla. They have to first produce a product, and then build it successfully for 3 years for me to even look.
23 years offgrid has taught me many things about this industry. Some good and some not.
http://members.sti.net/offgridsolar/
E-mail [email protected]
If the level of Light Energy we receive is only 33%, not 100%, conversion is based on the level we receive in our atmospher. We can't magically take 33% and say it's 100%, because if that were the case measured conversion would be 66% less.
We can only physically test at a level of 33% of that light energy. Hense why testing is done under a xenon light at 1meter square, that mimics the level of light energy we have in our atmospher.
there is 66% we will not be able to identify with conversion efficiency, because physically in this atmospher we have nothing to test on that level.
Barometric pressure has much to do with PTC. High pressure causes heat waives, low pressure causes cold snaps. Ambient temprature does affect cell operation.
http://members.sti.net/offgridsolar/
E-mail [email protected]
Believe what you want, but barometric pressure has no direct effect on the efficiency of solar modules.
I Do and thanks so much....
SolarPowered, I did look at LG again and they have new double sided modules (Similar size to Sunpower 325W's) that I would consider for tracking if I could buy them. They are new and my dealer does not have time estimates yet. They are like the Sanyo double sided and would be great performance wise and awesome looking for an awning. Probably like jewelry now as I could not find pricing.
http://www.lg-solar.com/downloads/products/LG-NeON-2/LGE-Data%20Sheet-LGxxxN1C-G4_EN_05.2015.pdf
http://members.sti.net/offgridsolar/
E-mail [email protected]
Yeah the neon 2's are hard to get ahold of.
There will probably be high inventory of that product in 6months.
Because it's the change in production and tech, it reduced the price of the mono X series of panels. So I've been buying inventory of the LG 300's and the 310's as low as $.96 a watt, the newer LG NEON 2's are on the market as high as $1.20 a watt. So I personally still prefer the 1st gen mono X neons. By far they have been outperforming, some of the Sunpower systems I,ve been monitoring with harvest yields 12% greater annualized than the SP systems. For the price tag compared to the grade B sunpowers that are open market source, I would take an LG VS the Sunpower. The quality control on the LG line is immaculate. The positive power tolerance of the modules is undoubtedly makes it a better performer on the market than most tier 1 panels.
According to the more stringent US standards, depreciation needs to meet .5%. In Europe they are depreciating at .6%.
While I believe Sunpower grade A panels depreciate at under .4%, and "blemished" grade B depreciates at .6% just as the LG 320N1C-G4's do in Europe.
The trade off is you could invest in the LG 310N1C-G3 or b3 at 19.2% conversion efficiency, and have a slower depreciation rate than the next gen neon 2 G4's.
The only difference now between Sunpower and the newer G4's is that LG has adapted to the engineering by placing the 3 contact buses to the back of the cell just as Sunpower does with back contact mono. In order to achieve greater light penetration.