Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Thin Film PV in Europe - Page 2

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by James W on March 10, 2009, 7:01 pm
 
On Mar 9, 10:32pm, maur...@tpg.com.au (Mauried) wrote:

Thanks, Mauried.

I checked one supplier I found.  The 32W TFPV panel I mentioned in my
reply to Graham cost 279 Euros.  The same company supplies a 20W
Crystalline panel for 249 Euros.  To be sure the crystalline panel is
about 50x60 cm, whereas the TFPV panel was about 100x120 cm or four
times bigger, so the efficiency is clearly lower than I had been led
to believe, but the TFPV panel looks like a better bet.  If I remember
correctly, it is guaranteed for 10 years and our crystalline panel is
still working after 15, so there is a risk with the lifespan.

Thanks for the suggestion about Kaneka.  I will take a look at them.

//James


Posted by Eeyore on March 9, 2009, 11:06 pm
 


James W wrote:


That would be astonishing at that likely latitude. Can you give me your location
?



Uh ? Has the marketing man been round ? That makes no sense.



Figures ! For all the WRONG reasons. Like trying to look 'green'.



You never will. Not in Sweden. End of story.



NO. 15% is very good. Who told you 20% ?



NO-ONE has produced TF panels in volume and released figures yet.



Expensive isn't the word for it. Little top-up heat ? How many kW ?

Graham


Posted by Mauried on March 10, 2009, 1:40 am
 On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:06:33 +0000, Eeyore


location ?

Theres currently a big push in Australia to promote the kaneka thin
film panels.
They are about 10% cheaper than conventional panels but because of the
low efficiency take up more roof space and cost more to install.
The typical panel is 60 watts and is about 1 sq metre.
The claimed benefit is that they dont droop in output power when they
get very hot, and this may be true but only makes sense if you are
installing them in hot climates.
Id be inclined to wait a bit until there is some reliable data
available on how they perform over a long time frame.
But the bottom line is that all solar voltaic at least is too
expensive to be of much value in replacing altenative forms
of power generation.
Large scale solar thermal has more chance.



Posted by Mauried on March 10, 2009, 1:56 am
 On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:40:21 GMT, mauried@tpg.com.au (Mauried) wrote:


location ?

Sweden is a long way north and not very suitable for PV because of the
low solar intensity.
Using PVwatts which is fairly good guide to help you determine power
output from a rooftop system a 1KWsystem installed in Stockholm yeilds
around 980kwh per year.
Pvwatts is here
http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/codes_algs/PVWATTS/version1/

Posted by James W on March 10, 2009, 7:04 pm
 On Mar 10, 2:56am, maur...@tpg.com.au (Mauried) wrote:

Thanks Mauried.  I have a LOT of homework to do before I can use that
url, but I'll work on it.

My figures for efficiency of panels may be so way out as I have
absorbed most of the information from research notes  which by their
nature are leading edge.  And I may have misremembered the figures.

//James

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