Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Amorphous Vs cristaline Si

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by klatu on January 15, 2007, 5:06 pm
Hi all,

A question:
If Amorphus pannels are cheaper than mono or poly cristaline  and now
the related problems to amorphous technology are improving (efficiency
& degradation)...
why amorphous isn't used in large scale on facilities?

TIA and regards

Posted by KeesT on January 15, 2007, 6:52 pm

Amorphous is cheaper per square meter; per Wp the module prices are
comparable. However, due to the larger area you need more square meters to
install the same amount of Wp for amorphous than for crystalline. And
because some of the installation costs are area related, crystalline is
comparable in price.
Also, the durability of crystralline is better quaranteed than the
durability of amorphous.


Mijn Postvak In wordt beschermd door SPAMfighter
2694 spam-mails zijn er tot op heden geblokkeerd.
Download de gratis SPAMfighter vandaag nog!

Posted by Steve Spence on January 15, 2007, 9:40 pm
 klatu wrote:

Amorphous panels are about 8% efficient, vs. the 18% of mono-crystal, so
the panels need more real estate for a given wattage. The price per watt
is similar, so there's no savings there. Reputable vendors rate their
panels at the "after dropoff" wattage, so there isn't much difference in
power levels as they age.

Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust

This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread