best low light performance

Get yours now.

Flux Capacitor

full_mosey wrote:

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:
My effort of a question was simply to establish a basic formula for one square micron or a billion square miles of panel area.

Would it matter if my 130W 32x43" panel were expanded to 32x42 light years and the Unisolar expanded proportionally?

Ignoring that the panels may need to use insolation from different stars, why would the ratios change?

HTH;
John

It all becomes more relevent if the flux capacitor is quantified and equalized through the isolating and proportioning azimuth.

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:
My effort of a question was simply to establish a basic formula for one square micron or a billion square miles of panel area.

Would it matter if my 130W 32x43" panel were expanded to 32x42 light years and the Unisolar expanded proportionally?

Ignoring that the panels may need to use insolation from different stars, why would the ratios change?

HTH;
John

Say what??? One would think you're trying to hustle some stock.

8W increase from a 100W panel is 8%.

HiTech wrote:
Though another way to give the last result is that the Unisolar produces almost 50% more power at that low light level than the next best panel.
Jim

Good analysis. Though another way to give the last result is that the Unisolar produces almost 50% more power at that low light level than the next best panel.

One of my favorite quotes: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." -MT (SC)

Jim

LOL, I read your question and get dizzy and nearly fell out of my chair!

Why make the question so GD hard? All specs in metric!

Say we got 3 panels each 1 m squared. Let's look at the irradiance at 1000W/m^2 and 200W/m^2.

Efficiency spec (from Unisolar graph (not necessarily correct)) @ 1000 & 200 W/m^2:
Unisolar: 6%, 8%
Siemens: 13.2%, 12%
Kyrocera: 12%, 11.2%

Power output at 1000W/m^2
Unisolar: P = 1000W * 6% = 60W
Siemens: P = 1000W * 13.2% = 132W
Kyrocera: P = 1000W * 12% = 120W

Power output at 200W/m^2
Unisolar: P = 200W * 8% = 16W
Siemens: P = 200W * 12% = 24W
Kyrocera: P = 200W * 11.2% = 22.4W

Changing the question around, given 3 100W panels, how much power at low irradiance does each output?

We got to calculate the panel area first:
Unisolar: A = 100/60 = 1.66 m^2
Siemens: A = 100/132 = 0.757 m^2
Kyrocera: A = 100/120 = 0.83 m^2

Power produced at 200W/m^2:
Unisolar: P = 200W/m^2 * 1.66m^2 * 8% = 26.5W
Siemens: P = 200W/m^2 * 0.757m^2 * 12% = 18.2W
Kyrocera: P = 200W/m^2 * 0.83m^2 * 11.2% = 18.6W

In this case, the Unisolar will produce about 8 more watts from a 100W panel. That's a 8% improvement (not 6% as previously stated).

Sal

MEXICOWANDERER wrote:
I read this thread until I got dizzy and fell out of my chair.

MEX,

This may help with your basic question. It's not from the RV solar panel world, but it most likely approximately applies to RV systems - note from the info there (read the FAQ answers too) that the sun delivers about 10X more energy per square foot than what typical solar panels can capture:

http://www.iwantrenewableenergy.com/solar-products.php

My effort of a question was simply to establish a basic formula for one square micron or a billion square miles of panel area.

MEXICOWANDERER;

Pretty much right! However, consider whether there is a cost difference per sq ft for panel types. My 130W 32x43" panel cost $360, but it fits. It wouldn't matter to me if a panel were free if it won't fit. Panels are designed for residential installations with plenty of roof real estate, or at least the possibility of enough unshaded land to set up the array. We don't have that flexibility.

It would have been lovely for me if the tv antenna was placed better. As it is now it precludes the installation of at least a 200W+ 65x40" panel, plus it causes a shadow at just the time of day that insolation is readily available for what space is left. Roof vents are a problem as well. There is no good reason that plumbing vents must go directly up through the roof and block out panel installation. Is there any RV designed to facilitate a solar installation?

HTH;
John

Salvo wrote:
Been there, done that.

6% superior in low light.

Really, nothing to toot your horn about.

That's all I need to know.