- 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
You must log in or register to comment.
This is just bifacial and it’s been on the market for a little bit already.
Yeah… they’ve been standard for years now. I believe the uplift on a fixed tilt array on grass is approx 5 to 10%.
Ok guys hear me out, what if we make it 3 sided
I like your way of thinking, but why stop there? 4 sides anyone?
Guys, why are we still limiting ourselves to 3 dimensions?
4D solar panels
No no, the solution is clearly to use seven red solar panels, all strictly perpendicular to each other. Oh, and some of them should be transparent so sunlight can reach the others, which should be green to reflect our environmental aspirations.
I think we can ALL agree on a sphere panel.
360 degrees o’ solar
Genuinely curious how the EROI compares to a single sided panel.
It is generating more electricity. On the flipside (heh) it would cost more energy to produce.
EROI should be a standard part of renewables reporting. Without it these are basically just puff pieces.
If the solar panel isn’t facing the sun then how is it generating power?
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.
So then off reflections? That doesn’t sound very efficient or worth the additional cost if I can just face another solar panel at the sun.
Bifacial panels have been in use for several years in utility-scale solar installations because its cheap enough to do that the modest additional electricity generated is worthwhile.
Unless you plan on putting up some books and comics for voles and grasshoppers on the backside of those panels, that space is really useless.
Do not underestimate the importance of land use, it’s always been very important and it will be very important in this century.
Bifacial panels have been a thing for several years, mostly in utility-scale solar installations.
We have bifacial panels, cost was comparable, and rated at ~15% additional output. Now almost 2yrs old.
This is using perovskite tho and boosts more like 20%. Plus normal perovskite-silicon panels are more efficient as well. May not be a new concept, but it is new tech.
Fair enough, good point.
…harvests reflected sunlight hitting the back of the device, offering an unconventional route to producing higher energy yields for less space and cost.
Less cost seems probable. Less space really does not. Gonna probably need some mirrors to reflect onto that back surface, and it’s still going to require the same amount of incident area of solar radiation.
Mirrors are pretty cheap, though. So seems like a win.
It should have been obvious. A double-sided dildo creates twice as much friction.
