- Related Stories
-
Silicon vs. CIGS: With solar energy, the issue is material
October 2, 2006 -
Solar industry chases a cheaper kilowatt
March 9, 2006
The San Jose, Calif.-based company on Monday announced its second-generation, higher-power product at the Solar Power 2006 conference, and the panels are expected to be in mass production next year.
SunPower says it has managed to increase efficiency of the silicon cells from 20 percent to 22 percent. Further, the 5-foot by 3-and-a-half-foot panels will pack 96 individual cells within them, compared to the 72 contained in the company?s current product.
Overall, these changes result in a 43 percent increase in power, said Julie Blunden, vice president of external affairs at SunPower. Each panel can generate 315 watts of electricity and will have roughly the same cost per watt as the existing line, she said.
The theoretical limit of monocrystalline silicon cell efficiency is about 25 percent, Blunden said.
Other companies are developing solar photovoltaic manufacturing techniques around other materials, notably CIGS (copper indium gallium selenide).
But SunPower, which is owned by Cypress Semiconductor, intends to continue investing in higher solar efficiency and ways to lower the cost of installation, Blunden said.
See more CNET content tagged:
efficiency,
solar energy
Charlie
kakodes_too
Certainly we should protect the environment. But instead we should focus on eliminating coal/oil energy plants which are responsible for most of the pollution and replace them with efficient and powerful alternatives that could meet the future supply.
In that sense, I am confident that the only real solution is nuclear power based on a far modern design (such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_amplifier ). Fusion might be long way ahead but fission energy can be far greener than the public thinks.
The key is to learn to use the energy we have in a more efficient manner. Using solar panels for shingles is still too expensive (The more of us who do it, the cheaper it will get). Everyone can add insulation to there houses and upgrade/calk there windows.
Over the long term we can not use more energy than the total solar output collected by the Earth. Anything we burn more than that is deficit spending.
>Over the long term we can not use more energy than the total solar output collected by the Earth.
Not necessarily. It depends on how long term you're talking about. Have you heard of Kardashav Scale, Dyson Sphere? In any case the solar energy output could hardly be nonneglible in the near future unless entire cities are covered by panels. And consequently by the time we reach the sufficient wind/solar plant know-how, their output will be inconsequential.
However you will look like one yourself if you don't point out any flaws in my thinking. The arguments I am making were first proposed by Freeman Dyson, a gentleman considered to be one of the smartest men alive.
With a name like spacebuff I would think you would know who he is.
You sir, may not be an idiot, however if you study hard you one day may reach that level of intelligences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
My wife and I lived aboard our sailboat for almost 8 years relying on solar and wind for our energy requirements. Admittedly, we were working with a 12 VDC system, but the principle is the same for higher voltages. The panels we used were about the same size as the article and generated 51 watts each. We used 4 in parallel for a total panel output of 204 watts. But that was 12 amps @ 17.2 VDC (I know, that comes out to 206.4 watts). We had a voltage limiter installed which fed our batteries a max of 14.8 volts so we would not cook them.. So the actual usable output was about 177.6 watts. Our efficiency was therefore, 86 % based on available to actual. The rest was lost to heat.
Our windmill put out about 70 watts @ 10 knots of wind, and supplemented our solar, especially on overcast (& windy) days. There were times when we had to supplement wind/solar with our diesel engine, but with the massive house battery bank we had aboard, we could go for 4 days before we had to run the engine. We could also charge out starting batteries at the same time, if needed.
With the new breed of solar panels, one would have been sufficient for our daily energy requirement of 1.2 KW. We had TV, stereo, navigation instruments (GPS (2), Loran), 3 VHF radios, autopilot, inverter for small power tools, etc., but we were energy conscious, too.
To supply energy using wind/solar for a community, it must be converted into a useable form. Most present homes rely on the good old 120 VAC, and every time you convert to a different form of the energy, you lose a minimum of 10 %. It is therefore imperative that those conversion losses be kept to a minimum.
The major problem with energy today, is not that we don?t have enough, but the population is growing to fast and generating excessive demand. When I was born, the population in this country was about 30 % of what it is today. The huge population growth plus all the so called convenience items on the market, including computers, cell phones, IPods, whatever, all contribute to energy demands. More people, more air conditioners, more washers, dryers, rechargeable devices and on & on. And that is just this country. The same situation exists world wide.
I wouldn?t quibble about the numbers in the article. Look further and apply some basic math and ask what the useable output is. Ask how the energy is converted to something that can be transported to where it is needed, and then, at the end of the pipeline, ask just how much of the 315 watts are available for use. I wouldn?t be surprised that it is in the neighborhood of 60 %.
There is just a little more to it than numbers, young fellas.
Many solar panels on the market have a better negative 5 percent tolerance rating (Lower is better) For example their 215 watt solar panel has a negative 8% tolerance so this manufacturer would only guaranty that you would get 197.8 watts right out of the box even though you paid for 215 watts.
It says so right on their specification sheet, see (peak power tolerance) So if this new panel only has a peak power tolerance of negative 8 percent, you would be paying for 315 watts but they will only guaranty that you'll get 289.8 watts right out of the box. So much for efficiency !
-
by the_piano_man
June 1, 2008 6:16 PM PDT
- The solution to the "energy" problem is not "big" it is "small". Each individual has to make an effort. Large nuclear power generating plants are NOT the solution, nor are any large power generating plants - this outdated concept only puts the "power" in the hands of the rich. Unusable material from nuclear power plants stays dangerous for tens of thousands of years and provides weapons to those who want to do others harm. Each individual must be given the power to provide their own energy needs through education, and ethical governmental leadership. If "we the people" of this country (the U.S). really wanted to, we could change our lives for the betterment of all. A major change in living style MUST happen, particularly in the "developed" nations such as the U.S. - particularly in the U.S. - an energy glutton - yes, we are: huge massive "buses" for each soccer mom to drive - power boats and other energy suckers used for petrol sports, 5000 plus square foot wooden castles with 3 garages for all the suv's and humvees - ridiculous. Wind power works, so does solar power - if you have not tried it and say it won't work, you speak with empty words and an empty mind and show it. If our government spent as much money and political effort developing alternative energy sources such as solar power and wind power for the individual as they do on the hate and death of war, we would be far better off.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 32 Comments >>