Solar Panels Useless above 85 Degree F.

[White 6]

No.

they lose 0.35% of their output for each one degree C rise above 77 degrees F.

77 F to 100 F is about a 13 C rise. 13 x 0.35% = 4.55%

Thanks. I did not even think about that paragraph starting in Fahrenheit, but calibrating the change of on degrees Celsius. Makes a big difference. Looks like Westerjournal.com was going for sensational. Good catch.

 

[Donald H]

Don't buy Chinese panels... they suck and won't last... they fall short of what they state their ability is....

Actually Chinese built panels are the best in the world.

And that's not all they're best at building!

 

[Donald H]

Thanks. I did not even think about that paragraph starting in Fahrenheit, but calibrating the change of on degrees Celsius. Makes a big difference. Looks like Westerjournal.com was going for sensational. Good catch.

Forget about the technical data.
The thread has been disrupted by climate change denialists already.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks. I did not even think about that paragraph starting in Fahrenheit, but calibrating the change of on degrees Celsius. Makes a big difference. Looks like Westerjournal.com was going for sensational. Good catch.

Their source article was from the UK. They screwed up when they used both scales.

Billy screwed up more with his "logarithmic" confusion.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually Chinese built panels are the best in the world.

And that's not all they're best at building!

You have a list of what else they're best at building?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

So at 100 deg F, they are 11.55% less efficient than at 77 deg F?

According to article it is logarithmic, or exponentially compounding.
So it would be much worse than that... if I calculate right... closer to 40%

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Well this is fucking huge.
And it isn't like these bastards didn't know it all along!! Of course they did - but built them anyway!
Sorry liberals - but that is what you guys do - you base decisions on the IDEA of something rather than FACTS and REALITY.
A conservative, unless he was a corrupt bastard invested in the industry, would NEVER do this because they would actually look into it before plastering them everywhere so they can stand at a podium and await applause for how awesome they are.
"LOOK AT ME!!... I love the environment"

 

[Donald H]

You have a list of what else they're best at building?

We'll have to make a list but we can start with tall buildings, electric vehicles, semi-conductors, electronic consumer goods.

Don't be confused by the cheap junk they supply to Wmart for the US market.

America could catch up a bit when the cheap labour is replenished but that calls for an understanding that it was stupid to interfere with it!

 

[airplanemechanic]

Hard to take liberals claims of loving the environment seriously when they want us to drive electric cars that require huge amounts of precious metals that are extracted from the earth using very harmful methods and then charge them on power grids that are, by far, powered by coal fired power plants.

Too funny.

 

[Billy_Bob]

No.

they lose 0.35% of their output for each one degree C rise above 77 degrees F.

77 F to 100 F is about a 13 C rise. 13 x 0.35% = 4.55%

You didn't look at the paper they cited. It is logarithmic. WJ got some things mixed up. It is closer to 40% loss at 100 degrees.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Well, isn't this special...

Researchers in England tested five major brands of PV panels and found that they lose 0.35% of their output for each one degree C rise above 77 degrees F. When you consider that these panels only output around 70% of rated value anyway, even in direct sunlight, once you reach about 85degrees F the logarithmic loss becomes very problematic. Many of our solar fields are in desert regions where temperatures generally climb into the 100's daily, meaning they are pretty much a waste of resources to place them there. Your roof top is no different and generally reaches 120 deg F daily. Now these solar panels are clogging up landfills...

Solar Panels Suffer Stunning Failure as Weather Becomes 'Too Hot' for Them to Handle

The Western Journal has retracted this commentary.

www.westernjournal.com

They reckon 45% of panels are manufactured by using forced labour.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We'll have to make a list but we can start with tall buildings, electric vehicles, semi-conductors, electronic consumer goods.

Don't be confused by the cheap junk they supply to Wmart for the US market.

America could catch up a bit when the cheap labour is replenished but that calls for an understanding that it was stupid to interfere with it!

electric vehicles, semi-conductors, electronic consumer goods.

Aren't they mostly putting together parts made elsewhere?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You didn't look at the paper they cited. It is logarithmic. WJ got some things mixed up. It is closer to 40% loss at 100 degrees.

You didn't look at the paper they cited. It is logarithmic.

Can you post the portion of the paper that said it was logarithmic?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

According to article it is logarithmic, or exponentially compounding.

Where did the article say that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Enjoy... The Data is not your friend. https://www.researchgate.net/figure...system-at-each-station-without_fig3_324456322

It can be observed in Equation (1) that PV output decreases linearly with increasing temperature, therefore, it is very important to consider the effect of temperature while finding the most feasible sites for solar PV generation.

Not logarithmic.

 

[surada]

It can be observed in Equation (1) that PV output decreases linearly with increasing temperature, therefore, it is very important to consider the effect of temperature while finding the most feasible sites for solar PV generation.

Not logarithmic.

They don't have trouble with solar in Saudi Arabia, Israel or Hawaii.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They don't have trouble with solar in Saudi Arabia, Israel or Hawaii.

Who said they did?

 

[Crick]

Well, isn't this special...

Researchers in England tested five major brands of PV panels and found that they lose 0.35% of their output for each one degree C rise above 77 degrees F. When you consider that these panels only output around 70% of rated value anyway, even in direct sunlight, once you reach about 85degrees F the logarithmic loss becomes very problematic. Many of our solar fields are in desert regions where temperatures generally climb into the 100's daily, meaning they are pretty much a waste of resources to place them there. Your roof top is no different and generally reaches 120 deg F daily. Now these solar panels are clogging up landfills...

Solar Panels Suffer Stunning Failure as Weather Becomes 'Too Hot' for Them to Handle

The Western Journal has retracted this commentary.

www.westernjournal.com

Logarithm? What logarithm? Losing 0.35% per degree is not a logarithmic relationship. And you claim to have a PhD in physics?

A chart of percent output vs temperature

 

[ding]

they lose 0.35% of their output for each one degree C rise above 77 degrees F.

The temperature coefficient of power for the selected module for this research is −0.45%/ • C [44].

They didn't state the reference temperature.

 

[ding]

They don't have trouble with solar in Saudi Arabia, Israel or Hawaii.

But they are derated for temperature and age.