Comments on: Sharp expanding beyond silicon in solar
Company experiments with new materials and techniques--and even partners with a bank--to push solar energy forward.
Company experiments with new materials and techniques--and even partners with a bank--to push solar energy forward.
November 30, 2009 9:29 AM PST
November 30, 2009 8:39 AM PST
November 30, 2009 8:32 AM PST
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Related quotes
If they do get solar to except more energY mnaybe solor powered cars will become more viable.
Perhaps one day you will see an electric car that suppliments its charge with solar, but will also plug into a wall outlet for charging. A pure solar car doesn't have the energy capacity to maintain what we expect in automobile performance.
Instead, we have automakers more concerned with price-gouging the green buyer, and focused on "bling" rims a lowprofile tires...on SUVs and Trucks! No wonder the Japanese should get a pat on the back for their determination at providing a solution.
Supposedly a 12.5 foot by 16 foot (approximately 18.6 square meters) outputs 2.9 kW.
The solar constant (the amount of light hitting the Earth) is over 1.35 kW per square meter. Even assuming 50% of that is lost in the atmosphere (which it's not, but I'm too lazy at the moment to look up the actual percentage) this would be over 675 watts per square meter. Thus a minimum of 12.5 kW falls on that 18.6 square meter array.
With only 2.9 kW out (in the form of electricity) and over 12.5 kW in (in the form of light) This gives an average efficiency of about 23% -- no where near the claimed 36%.
It is 1 kWp/m^2 on the Earth's surface, so:
1 kWp/m^2 * 18.6 m^2 * 36% = 6.7 kWp can be converted at direct normal sun. Their number of 2.9 kW is 43% of 6.7, so there are two options:
1. They are being conservative and adding losses for inverter, performance ratio, actual cell efficiency due to not be a lab-based cell and temperature differences (possibly the 36% efficiency is only for non mass-produced cells). However, 43% is a large loss.
2. They are not talking about peak wattage but rather average wattage over the course of the solar irradiation cycle (for instance, 24 hours). For a flat-panel non-tracking PV panel, the irradiation gets about an equivalent of 5 hours per day of full peak sun (1 kW/m^2). For a tracking panel, this could maybe be 10 hours I am guessing, which is about 42%. So they are then quoting a maximum power output averaged over the course of a day, with optimum tracking and optimum cell efficiency.
I think #2 is most likely.
- solar PV on cars
- by pzev October 23, 2006 10:15 AM PDT
- Back in the 1990s a number of thin film PV companies (notably ARCO Solar)developed thin film a-Si sunroofs to power a fan to keep car temperatures down during the summer. This application never attracted enough interest from customers. Remember that to power a car you need 60-100 kWatts of power. A 4 sg ft solar panel provides 100-200 watts so even stored in a battery solar PV doesn't provide enough energy to make a significant contribution to battery recharging.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(10 Comments)