Slashing costs of the collector by ~50%

2»

Comments

  • rollandelliott
    rollandelliott Solar Expert Posts: 834 ✭✭
    #32
    Re: Slashing costs of the collector by ~50%

    And others try something different and succeed.

    I agree with the original poster, it is very hard to find any data about how solar panels degrade due to increased energy from mirrors. Any reference documents people can link to woudl be appreciated instead of just saying it wont' work.

    3M announced a bidirectional solar cell this past october with a MIRROR backing on it which would obviously increase the intensity a lot.

    Is 3m wasting their money on a product that will fry and piss off consumers, or is the use of mirrors something not to be dismissed? Probably time will tell. I will not be too quick to judge it as a failure.

    http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/Renewable/Energy/Resources/Press_Releases/?PC_7_RJH9U52308NR50I0NISNKB32G3_assetId=1273671448474

    and the company pioneering this effort:
    http://www.tenksolar.com/advantages.html

    PS I have a different opinion, there is no need to send personal insults via Private Messaging. I am just offering my view point. All respectful replies are appreciated.
    · Share on Twitter
  • Cariboocoot
    Cariboocoot Banned Posts: 17,615 ✭✭✭
    #33
    Re: Slashing costs of the collector by ~50%

    rollandelliot;

    If anyone has been sending you insulting PM's we want to know about it. That sort of behaviour will not be tolerated.

    As for the bi-directional panels, they do not concentrate the sun's rays on the panel. Instead they pick up light that has "by-passed" the "front cells" and redirect it to the "rear cells". Yes there is an increase in temperature because, as I've pointed out before, part of the heat comes from the action of producing power itself.

    No one says concentrating solar panels don't work; we've simply pointed out that the laws of thermo-dynamics come in to play and that increased energy inevitably leads to shorter lifespan. It's also been pointed out that the reason there is no "hard data" on this is because it is somewhat unpredictable. The expected lifespan of a panel under normal use is 25 years. This is based on several companies' laboratory tests (controlled conditions) and field research. The conclusion is not that all panels will suddenly stop working at 25 years, but rather they can expect a reliable power output from the majority of them in that lifetime. Some will fail prematurely, others will go on producing well past their "expiry date" (rather like people).

    Is it possible someone can improve on this? So far they have, so it is entirely likely that further improvements will come. The crux of the problem is being able to dissipate the heat so that it doesn't tear the panels apart (it will literally cause failure of the PN junctions). This is going to require new materials capable of meeting the structural and insulative needs of panel construction while being more efficient at thermal transfer.

    The information provided here is not just a bunch of old naysayers putting down everyone's dreams. Most of us here have quite a lot of experience with electronics, manufacturing, solar panels, engineering, et cetera. We've fought that battle and have the scars to show, so to speak.

    What we are saying is: don't throw a lot of your time/effort/money into investigating this yourselves. There are some substantial obstacles involved. For practical purposes, it isn't worth the effort.

    I think I speak for all of us when I say anyone who wants to experiment with solar is welcome to do so. But as is always the case with "build your own panels" projects it is largely educational and not practical.
    · Share on Twitter
  • niel
    niel Solar Expert Posts: 10,300 ✭✭✭✭
    #34
    Re: Slashing costs of the collector by ~50%

    i can only say that if you're so right and we're so wrong then go do it for yourself. you won't be able to come back here to tell us we advised you wrongly or that you could hold us liable for your misdirection and misthinking. nor will it go by to allow your misdirection and misthinking to be posted without our input to it that would warn others that this is not the proper path. sometimes you only see the oak trees in a forest of many tree types and draw wrong coclusions. you are free to pursue your own wrong thoughts and conclusions with your own money. i challenge you to find 1 pv manufacturer that fully agrees with you and i challenge you to ask then for the proof of pv degradation under the circumstances you cite and why it violates the warranty.

    i submit to you that clouds are just snow aloft as it is cold, moist, and certainly looks like snow when above it when in a plane and to say otherwise is just hearsay until you can prove it.:cry::roll:
    · Share on Twitter
  • rollandelliott
    rollandelliott Solar Expert Posts: 834 ✭✭
    #35
    Re: Slashing costs of the collector by ~50%

    "or that you could hold us liable for your misdirection and misthinking. "

    You mean there have actually been documented court cases where some idiot reads something on the internet, foolishly assumes the information is correct, then the idea does not work, and they sue the person that wrote it and won?

    Seems a little crazy!
    · Share on Twitter
  • niel
    niel Solar Expert Posts: 10,300 ✭✭✭✭
    #36
    Re: Slashing costs of the collector by ~50%

    that could be morally liable, but i would suppose there have been many frivolous lawsuits over dumber issues. not sure if it has happened with solar yet, but i'm guessing with the high numbers of con artists out there making wild claims that it is bound to happen if it already hasn't.
    · Share on Twitter
  • nsaspook
    nsaspook Solar Expert Posts: 396 ✭✭✭
    #37
    Re: Slashing costs of the collector by ~50%

    Someone needs to make a cute name for renewable energy confidence tricks so we can add it the list. ;)
    A clever turn on the classic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_confidence_tricks#Pig-in-a-poke might cover most cases.
    · Share on Twitter
  • russ
    russ Solar Expert Posts: 593 ✭✭
    #38
    Re: Slashing costs of the collector by ~50%

    If you can sue because you walked into traffic while watching your GPS then you certainly could sue for bad/incorrect advice on a blog.

    The GPS thing is about the most stupid thing I have heard of.

    With the exception of the girl that walked into a fountain while texting.
    · Share on Twitter
  • niel
    niel Solar Expert Posts: 10,300 ✭✭✭✭
    #39
    Re: Slashing costs of the collector by ~50%

    concentrating cells may not be that cost effective even if they overcome the lifespan issues because one has to accurately track the sun.
    · Share on Twitter
  • Cariboocoot
    Cariboocoot Banned Posts: 17,615 ✭✭✭
    #40
    Re: Slashing costs of the collector by ~50%
    niel wrote: »
    concentrating cells may not be that cost effective even if they overcome the lifespan issues because one has to accurately track the sun.

    From which POV we realize that existing tracker technology makes panels much more efficient in terms of daily harvest. However, there's still that cost-benefit issue; it's usually cheaper and simpler to just add more fixed panel. So would any concentrator technology help on a cost-benefit basis, especially considering the inevitable lowering of the panels' lifespan? Jury says "no".
    · Share on Twitter

Categories