best low light performance

smkettner wrote:
Harold, there are two choices. Why strongly debate a choice that is not even on the table?

You may as well recommend a generator :R

Don mentioned amorphous in his first post. He put it on the table but I agree we can move on.

I simply put all three types in order of their efficiency.
I am still wanting to see anything showing that the efficiency of any type solar panel increases as light conditions deminish, or that one type produces more power even though it is less efficient to begin with.

Hi mena,

I'm asking about poly vs mono. Too bad I even mentioned Amorphous.

But since we are here. For a given area both poly and mono out perform amorphous. But the amorphous will produce power when both the poly and mono are not able to extract any energy.

Again all I'm asking is poly vs mono. I doubt the answer matters much as smk said.

Harold, there are two choices. Why strongly debate a choice that is not even on the table?

You may as well recommend a generator :R

Sorry Don but Harold is correct. And along with smk I would like to see irradiance curves between the two panels you're considering.

pianotuna wrote:
Hi harold,

Thank you. But I still fail to understand you. And your answer is wrong. Amorphous produce more in lower light than either mono or poly

My question is

Mono or poly. Do not confuse the issue by mentioning Amorphous in any future answer.

I have no doubt you dont understand. :B
My answer is not wrong. How can a less efficient solar grid become more efficient under low light conditions? :@

Is it too confusing for you to understand that Amorphous is the least efficient of the three types?

I would love to see any references that state that Amorphous panels produce more under low light, or become more efficient.

Can you get irradiance curve information? I think it will be a wash, close enough for RV use. Just as the 245 will produce more than the 240 (full sun) but I don't think you would notice the difference in practical use.

Hi harold,

Thank you. But I still fail to understand you. And your answer is wrong. Amorphous produce more in lower light than either mono or poly

My question is

Mono or poly. Do not confuse the issue by mentioning Amorphous in any future answer.

pianotuna wrote:
Hi harold,

Apparently you don't understand the question.

Let me restate it.

Which is more efficient in low light. Mono, or Ploy.

harold1946 wrote:

pianotuna wrote:
Hi,

Amorphous panels are clearly the best for low light performance--but are relatively speaking huge.

Does any one know if Poly or Mono are better in low light?

Define what is ment by best. :S Amorphous "thin film" is the least efficient of the three types, with Mono being the most efficient, and poly next.
Amorphous is not capable of producing nearly as much power per square foot of area as the other two. Common sense would dictate that low light conditions would render Amorpous even less efficient.

So to answer your question, both are better (more efficient) than amorphous, under all light conditions.

Apparently you do not understand the answer. :S The most efficient is Mono, then poly, then Amorphous, in that order; under all light conditions.

Hi smk,

I'm looking at two panels. Same price, and same physical size. One is mono and does 240 watts. The other is Poly and does 245 watts. Both are 24 volt, so MPPT would be a requirement. BTW the price in Canada is just a smidgen over $1.09 per watt.

smkettner wrote:
I might be off base on this but I think a high voltage series system with MPPT will outperform in low light conditions. And more watts per foot has to be worth something. Low light may also mean long shadows so that needs to be considered.