- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Back side of perovskite panel achieves more than 90 per cent of the efficiency of the front side
Back side of perovskite panel achieves more than 90 per cent of the efficiency of the front side
From the reflection of the sunlight! Light bounces around everything and everywhere, so while it’s not direct sunlight, it’s still light. It generates less than the sun facing one but it’s still more power.
Typically you get 5-10% bonus outpit on bifacials.
Is it worth the additional cost tho? I guess if you’re limited on space there is no other option, but I feel like I’d rather entertain additional solar panels that are facing the sun than to add additional cost for such a low return.
Alternatively, you lay them out in north-south rows (like a fence) and they generate most power during morning and evening, when sunshine comes from east and west.
Coincidentally, their power maximum is when conventional solar parks are not yet producing or no longer producing.
Coincidentally, this also matches the ideal agrivoltaic setup, where you use almost zero surface (the panels are vertical) and grow plants between, not below solar panels.
I wonder how well it would work to use mirrors for more sunlight than just natural reflections.
While that would boost efficiency, it would add more to maintenance, which sometimes is just not worth
Wouldn’t it be a more efficient use of space to just put up another solar panel facing the sun instead? No need to elevate just to reflect the light into the underside.