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?

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.

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.

Hi harold,Apparently you don't understand the question.Let me restate it.Which is more efficient in low light. Mono, or Poly.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.

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.

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.

best low light performance | Good Sam Community

173 Replies

HiTech
Explorer
Apr 29, 2013
harold1946 wrote:
One of the main reasons for early failure with all PV made by Unisolar is that the protective coating for both their rigid and flexable panels is plastic. UV destroys plastics, and it has to pass through that before reaching the cells.

Actually I think it's the other way around. I believe the plastic lense on the front of Unisolar units is heavily UV stabilized, resulting in the lower efficiency rating per square meter, because some of the light energy is absorbed by the stabilizing additive in the polymer coating.

UV stabilizer

Jim
harold1946
Explorer
Apr 29, 2013
MrWizard wrote:
well i have a roof top nearly covered, with 'second hand' unisolar frame mounted, no glass or plastic
except for what ever is covering the cells
and they work great
and when i clean / wash them off, their coating looks clear, no aging , no fogging or yellowing

i don't know what you mean by 'early'
prototypes ,or first run?? , a few of mine are ten years old, still produce full power

WRONG!! Unisolar panels all have some type of plastic coating to help protect the cells.
If need be I may be able to research what type of plastic was used, but most of their materials and processes are patented and held by the parent company.
MrWizard
Moderator
Apr 29, 2013
well i have a roof top nearly covered, with 'second hand' unisolar frame mounted, no glass or plastic
except for what ever is covering the cells
and they work great
and when i clean / wash them off, their coating looks clear, no aging , no fogging or yellowing

i don't know what you mean by 'early'
prototypes ,or first run?? , a few of mine are ten years old, still produce full power
harold1946
Explorer
Apr 29, 2013
MrWizard wrote:
as i recall
unisolar panels will convert uv to electric
they don't need uv protection
iirc they convert light of three different spectrrums

yes they are almost twice the sq ft per watt than some new high power mono cystaline panels
But place two 60 watt panels one unisolar one mono crystal side by side in heavy overcast conditions and measure the output of each

i think you will find the unisolar will out perform the mc panel

that being said you CAN fit 120w of MC panel in the same space as 60w of unisolar panel
i do not know whether that 120w will produce more power than the 60w unisolar under the same heavy overcast

it has been said many times on this forum if someone wants the most watts from the available roof space get crystaline panels

but if your power needs can be meet by a set number of watts that can be obtained from thinflim like unisolar, then the unisolar will produce power when the others do not
and they are lighter and there is no glass to break

One of the main reasons for early failure with all PV made by Unisolar is that the protective coating for both their rigid and flexable panels is plastic. UV destroys plastics, and it has to pass through that before reaching the cells.
Salvo
Explorer
Apr 29, 2013
I thought we covered that question. Low light performance is too close to call on mono vs. poly. Your poly spec doesn't give low light performance. The mono spec shows low light performance similar to my Kyrocera poly panel.

There you have it. Go with the one that looks the best (warm tummy feeling).

Sal

pianotuna wrote:

Which is why I was asking about better performance of mono vs poly. I need to pack as many additional watts as I can into the remaining limited space.
harold1946
Explorer
Apr 29, 2013
pianotuna wrote:
harold,

You ARE off topic. That topic is which is better mono or poly.
[COLOR=]That has been answered several times.
#1 Poly
#2 Mono
#3 Amor
My panels are deposited directly on metal. Should you wish to google about them you are welcome. The model number is US-64.

If you would not quote "out of context" it would help. I don't want more unisolars because they are huge. If I had enough real estate on the roof I'd buy them, in a flash. But I don't.

Show anywhere that what you have said has been used out of context.
pianotuna
Nomad III
Apr 29, 2013
Hi Salvo,

100% correct (as usual)

Which is why I was asking about better performance of mono vs poly. I need to pack as many additional watts as I can into the remaining limited space.

Salvo wrote:
It never makes sense to go with Unisolar if space is limited. You need more than twice the surface area to get perhaps 6% more output during low light conditions. That's crazy!

Sal
Salvo
Explorer
Apr 29, 2013
It never makes sense to go with Unisolar if space is limited. You need more than twice the surface area to get perhaps 6% more output during low light conditions. That's crazy!

Sal

bdosborn wrote:

The big difference is the 240 watt panel is ~18 sqf versus ~42 sqf for 248 watts of Unisolar panel.

Bruce
MrWizard
Moderator
Apr 29, 2013
as i recall
unisolar panels will convert uv to electric
they don't need uv protection
iirc they convert light of three different spectrrums

yes they are almost twice the sq ft per watt than some new high power mono cystaline panels
But place two 60 watt panels one unisolar one mono crystal side by side in heavy overcast conditions and measure the output of each

i think you will find the unisolar will out perform the mc panel

that being said you CAN fit 120w of MC panel in the same space as 60w of unisolar panel
i do not know whether that 120w will produce more power than the 60w unisolar under the same heavy overcast

it has been said many times on this forum if someone wants the most watts from the available roof space get crystaline panels

but if your power needs can be meet by a set number of watts that can be obtained from thinflim like unisolar, then the unisolar will produce power when the others do not
and they are lighter and there is no glass to break
pianotuna
Nomad III
Apr 29, 2013
harold,

You ARE off topic. That topic is which is better mono or poly.

The active material on the panels are deposited directly on metal. Should you wish to google about them you are welcome. The model number is US-64.

If you would not quote "out of context" it would help. I don't want more unisolars because they are huge. If I had enough real estate on the roof I'd buy them, in a flash. But I don't.

Forum Discussion

best low light performance

173 Replies

About Technical Issues

Related Content

Bad tail light wiring

LifePo4 Charge Performance

Lights in camper are dimming randomly

Travel trailer front lights stay on

Towing performance - F150 vs F250