Interesting PV Solar Idea - 3D Solar Arrays - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2012, 05:15:37 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Please see below for a link to a Science Daily article about 3D Solar Arrays.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120327094615.htm--Now, the Western governments have been heavily subsidizing PV, and Germany is even paying China to bankrupt native PV Fabs. This combined with Chinese dumping, makes it hard to estimate a reliable cost for PV panels. Even so, this idea likely has merit. What say you?"People must understand that science is inherently neither a potential for good nor for evil. It is a potential to be harnessed by man to do his bidding."Glenn Theodore Seaborg 1912 - 1999Best RegardsClear Ether

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2012, 05:55:35 pm
content: The specific benefit for this configuration of panels is the energy produced per "footprint". They also acknowledge that the cost per watt is higher. I personally believe this has some use, but for the majority of solar panel installations it is less than useless.The best way to use panels is to have them facing the sun, period. The best use of land "footprint" is only a minor consideration for most installations. The absolute most efficient setup for panels is to have 2 axis full time tracking.My panels are now on a frame that faces north and I can vary the angle of the frame for each season. Given my solar production it is enough to leave the panels at one angle for spring, summer, autumn, and then another for winter. Fortunately I live in the best place in the world for solar energy.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2012, 06:23:18 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on March 28, 2012, 05:15:37 pmThat is almost a non-story. Typical that in these days of eco twitery it gets widespread coverage.QuoteIn the same amazing way that a skyscraper can be shown to have a floor area more than 20 times that of a single story building with the same base area.Base area is a thoroughly useless metric to understand how useful what they have discovered/calculated is.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 28, 2012, 06:27:26 pm
content: Dear Lightages:--I have read with interest your ongoing posts about your PV installation in the mountains of Chile, and I recommend them to all. I freely admit that you know more about this than I do. So, I hope you will not take it amiss if I ask you to what you make of the statement that:"Currently, up to 65 percent of the cost of photovoltaic (PV) energy is associated with installation, permission for use of land and other components besides the cells themselves."--Right now, here in Central Florida, the only cost effective Solar technology is passive solar water heating, with a payback time of approximately two years. I wonder if passive solar water heating is cost effective, where you are in Chile. I also wonder if it is effective in places like Sydney.P.S. A friend of mine has somehow gotten a case of "Crystal Black". He wants two six packs of Moosehead for one of Crystal Black. Should I go for it?"Evabody gotta be someplace."Jackie Mason 1936 -Best RegardsClear Ether

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2012, 06:36:14 pm
content: Good if you have limited space, or at high latitudes. All I want is a cheap panel that can be used to drive a grid tied inverter ( and that you can have grid tied solar here, instead of only water heating or off grid solar -Thanks Eishkom!)

author: SoftwareSamurai
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2012, 08:05:23 pm
content: The major cost in a solar power system is not the panels anymore. It's all of the rest of the electronics: The inverter(s), power distribution system(s), regulators, and if you're off-grid or want backup capacity, batteries. I wish everyone would stop ooo'ing and ahh'ing at new panels and their "extraordinary" $/watt/area/efficiency/whatever and start looking at the rest of the puzzle.And speaking of batteries...they suck! Unfortunately right now they're pretty much the cheapest, easiest to buy and operate energy storage methods we currently have available.(There are other energy storage methods that are either cheaper or store more joules/cubic area, but those are typically more expensive, more complicated, or nearly impossible to purchase.)

author: graynomad
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 28, 2012, 11:49:35 pm
content: I've been living on solar for about 12 years now and the $/W rate for panels is probably 4x better than when I bought my first ones.But as has been said the inverters/batteries etc still cost about the same.FWIW I think here in Aus we work on an average of 5 solar hours per day, but it's a big country and that varies a LOT according to latitude.______Rob

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2012, 12:44:34 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on March 28, 2012, 06:27:26 pmPassive Solar Water Heating is certainly a winner in most parts of Australia.It has had fairly deep penetration of the market in Western Australia since back in the 1960s.We recently had to replace our unit--not cheap at $A2800,but seeing the original one was installed in 1988,& has only had one replacement tank about 12 years back,we have done well!Our unit has an Electric Booster for when there isn't enough sun,but we turned the Booster off last year all through winter,& never were without hot water.There was a big push to get people to use Natural Gas water heating a few years back,which was apparently to help make up for a shortfall in revenue from exports of gas.A bit shortsighted in my opinion,as Solar HWS prices were undercut in order to get these systems in.Passive Solar Hotwater systems do one job,& do it well,as they don't have the complication & losses of trying to turn the Solar energy into electricity.Of course,they lend themselves more to use on detached dwellings,& they look a bit too "unsightly" for the Yuppies!By the way, I've never tried "Crystal Black".(I have tried "Moosehead" & it was very nice indeed.)Perhaps a trip to the Grog shop is in order----even if they don't have it,I'll no doubt find something else interesting.

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 29, 2012, 03:47:59 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on March 28, 2012, 06:27:26 pmHmm, I really can't comment on that. My experience is with three solar systems in the Atacama desert on the land of the owners (my friend and I). The panels were about 1/3 the total cost of equipment perhaps. The installation was done by me so I cannot account for labor in the balance.Quote from: SgtRock on March 28, 2012, 06:27:26 pmI use a totally passive solar hot water heater. It cost me about $700USD and has been producing more than enough hot water for two people for two years. It has a storage capacity of 300 liters. It is rare to use more that 2/3 of it per day and usually by late day the thing is literally boiling, 93°C here at 2500m altitude.Quote from: SgtRock on March 28, 2012, 06:27:26 pmAsk for the value in cash instead, they are both crap.

author: graynomad
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: March 29, 2012, 06:26:33 am
content: Quote200ltrs a day, wow you must have water to burn (so to speak).The cheapest solar HWS I've seen was a roll of 1" poly hose laid out on the ground, not well regulated of course so the more water you drew the cooler it got, but worked pretty good overall.______Rob

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: March 29, 2012, 11:37:10 am
content: Quote from: graynomad on March 29, 2012, 06:26:33 amThat is an estimate and probably not accurtae, but I do have a woman in the house!Imagine the cost in gas if I had to heat the water that way.