best low light performance

Correction; Monocrystalline amorphous hybrid.

Hi harold,

So what type of panels do you have?

JiminDenver wrote:

harold1946 wrote:
Pianotuna made the statement that "amorphous panels are clearly the best for low light performance." I am still waiting for anything that supports that statement.
Anyone knowledgable of PV knows thin film cells produce less power per square foot at a much higher initial cost than conventional panels. Their industry tier rating is #5, making them the least efficient PV produced.

You are only looking at the footprint comparison, not what it can do for you in low light. I have nearly 200w more than Tuna does yet he gets more amps in low light than I do. Get a week of cloudy weather and I'd rather have his because they would keep us off the generator and ours will only delay it's running.

Now do you understand?

[COLOR=]
:)All PV panels are tier rated for efficiency (the ability to produce a given amount of power from a given amount of light). The highest rating being tier #1. Unisolars'thin film is rated tier #5, the lowest on the scale.
Now do you understand ?


When did you test what he claims?
His panels are made by Unisolar. They are ("thin film", amorphous technology).
It would make no sense to replace what is claimed (by him) to be superior with something inferrior. If they are truly better, would they not also be superior under all conditions, not just low light?
If what is being claimed is fact, where is the supporting documentation?

harold1946 wrote:
Pianotuna made the statement that "amorphous panels are clearly the best for low light performance." I am still waiting for anything that supports that statement.
Anyone knowledgable of PV knows thin film cells produce less power per square foot at a much higher initial cost than conventional panels. Their industry tier rating is #5, making them the least efficient PV produced.

You are only looking at the footprint comparison, not what it can do for you in low light. I have nearly 200w more than Tuna does yet he gets more amps in low light than I do. Get a week of cloudy weather and I'd rather have his because they would keep us off the generator and ours will only delay it's running.

Now do you understand?

Salvo wrote:
PT is mixed up. He doesn't mean low light conditions, but partial shade.

Sal

harold1946 wrote:


Still waiting for any links referring to the fact amorphous (thin film) panels are best for low light.
I am wondering if there are any statements you have made that can be supported.

Thats funny :B

PT is mixed up. He doesn't mean low light conditions, but partial shade.

Sal

harold1946 wrote:


Still waiting for any links referring to the fact amorphous (thin film) panels are best for low light.
I am wondering if there are any statements you have made that can be supported.

Pianotuna made the statement that "amorphous panels are clearly the best for low light performance." I am still waiting for anything that supports that statement.
Anyone knowledgable of PV knows thin film cells produce less power per square foot at a much higher initial cost than conventional panels. Their industry tier rating is #5, making them the least efficient PV produced.

Since I know little about it, I will reply! :) According to "my" solar dealer it doesn't matter Mono or Poly, a watt is a watt. A 100w Mono will do the same 100w as a 100w Poly.

Of course that is not the point here for how each might do under less than ideal conditions.

Would the spec curves at 500 show any difference where both would be the same at 1000? (where 1000 is the rating point for the watts?)

The dealer's views are here (question #2 and #4) but may not be to the OP's question:

http://www.windturbine.ca/questions.html

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?

Still waiting for any links referring to the fact amorphous (thin film) panels are best for low light.
I am wondering if there are any statements you have made that can be supported.

FYI: The 40 most efficient panels being produced are only from two companies, Sunpower and Sanyo, and all of them are monocrystalline.

smkettner wrote:

harold1946 wrote:
I will have to respectfully disagree. Lower efficiency, cheaper construction, little or no warranty, lack of blocking diods, do not equal best bang per buck in my book.
Quality panels can last 40+ years.

Same dimentions same wattage how do you measure efficiency?

Cheaper contruction? I have never read a post of these things self combusting or any other failure. Anyone have the frame suddenly fall apart or cells shifting around?

Warranties seem all about the same. Never heard a claim for long term performance issues.

You don't need blocking diodes with any decent controller. All 24v panels that I have looked at have bypass diodes as they are expected to be used in series.

I would expect any of these panels to last 40 years. Have not really read about off brands failing early.

I would like to see a link to the FUD.

How efficiency is measured
nmax (maxinum efficiency)= Pmax (maximum power output)/(ES,ysw (incident radiation flux))*Ac (area of collector))

When determining what solar panels are right for you, think about how important the efficiency of panels are in paying a premium price. Maybe you have a roof with a large area for placement of solar panels,and therefore, lower cost and less efficient panels would work.
If the space is limited, efficiency becomes more important to achieve the desired power output over a limited area.
Thats why I say the most bang for the buck is not necessarily the cheapest.

Just because you have not read anything does not mean it doesn't happen.
Some cheap panels are made without tempered glass. I have seen thin film cells destroyed by being scratched. The most reported failure is water intrusion due to seal leakage.

Some manufacturers give a 10 year warranty on materials and workmanship, as well as a gurantee of maintaining 80% of the stated power output after 25 years.

I have personally replaced failed panels made by almost every manufacturer.

What is a FUD?