Solar Panels Useless above 85 Degree F.

[ding]

This is a stupid lie. Solar is very, very effective in Saudi Arabia.
,

I believe the majority is solar thermal and not solar PV.

 

[ding]

They also work very well in Houston. Here in Atlanta solar is popping up on large office buildings and office parks.

Rooftop installations in the south aren’t very efficient.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Only because they over built. Temps above 100 degrees create a 30% loss or more in most photovoltaic panels. You could cover the whole earth with them, and it still would not provide enough power to power our industries.

Temps above 100 degrees create a 30% loss or more in most photovoltaic panels.

Link?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Temps above 100 degrees create a 30% loss or more in most photovoltaic panels.

Link?

I just went back to the article, and this appears...:

CORRECTION, Aug. 9, 2022: This headline and commentary as published exaggerate the facts. Our fifth and sixth paragraphs, taken together, indicate that, even at record-setting temperatures, solar panels continued to perform at better than 90% efficiency. While one could argue that a less-than-10% drop in efficiency might represent the “Stunning Failure” we claimed in our headline, it certainly did not render solar panels “useless” as we claimed in the third paragraph and our claim that they were “severely negatively impacted” in the fourth paragraph is questionable, as well. In reality, the data show that solar panels became marginally less efficient for a brief period of record-setting heat that may or may not ever repeat itself.

I will go back and look at the actual papers. It appears the assumptions were incorrect. There is also an issue with the type of panel at issue.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I just went back to the article, and this appears...:



I will go back and look at the actual papers. It appears the assumptions were incorrect. There is also an issue with the type of panel at issue.

There is also an issue with the type of panel at issue.

What issue?

 

[Billy_Bob]

After a little more looking and a bit of math. the figures were exaggerated by the article. Above 77 Deg F PV cells lose 0.035% of efficiency per degree rise in temperature. At 104 degrees F they lose roughly 10% of their output. As one scientist described it:

Surprisingly, they perform worse as the temperature rises! Solar panels work by using incoming photons to excite electrons in a semiconductor to a higher energy level. But the hotter the panel is, the greater the number of electrons that are already in the excited state. This reduces the voltage that the panel can generate and lowers its efficiency.

Higher temperatures also increase the electrical resistance of the circuits that convert the photovoltaic charge into AC electricity. Modern hybrid solar panels are designed to suffer less from the heat, but they can still lose 10 per cent of their rated efficiency on hot days

Most roof top installations reach 140 degrees F. So, a loss of 20% or more is found.

I stand corrected.

 

[Billy_Bob]

There is also an issue with the type of panel at issue.

What issue?

materials used in construction. I will go into that later.

 

[abu afak]

After a little more looking and a bit of math. the figures were exaggerated by the article. Above 77 Deg F PV cells lose 0.035% of efficiency per degree rise in temperature. At 104 degrees F they lose roughly 10% of their output. As one scientist described it:
Most roof top installations reach 140 degrees F. So, a loss of 20% or more is found.
I stand corrected.

How many posts did it take to correct you?
I made several early on and you stayed in BS/Logarithmic denial.
You are finally Right on something after being beat over the head for nearly 4 MONTHS to get there/Admit it.
There's still a lot more to admit you were/are wrong about if you're in the mood.
The OP headline was laughable on it's face.
`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How many posts did it take to correct you?
I made several early on and you stayed in BS/Logarithmic denial.
You are finally Right on something after being beat over the head for nearly 4 MONTHS to get there.
`

I corrected him in post #15, 16, 18.

You didn't show up until #41. Two months later. LOL!

 

[abu afak]

I corrected him in post #15, 16, 18.

You didn't show up until #41. Two months later. LOL!

Well no doubt he didn't take your quips seriously. Who does?

You are a One line Troll/quipster who should only be dealt with with a Fly Swatter.

I can get you into a GED course that can get you up to a paragraph in 4 months or so!
`

 

[KissMy]

CORRECTION, Aug. 9, 2022: This headline and commentary as published exaggerate the facts. Our fifth and sixth paragraphs, taken together, indicate that, even at record-setting temperatures, solar panels continued to perform at better than 90% efficiency.

 

[abu afak]

CORRECTION, Aug. 9, 2022: This headline and commentary as published exaggerate the facts. Our fifth and sixth paragraphs, taken together, indicate that, even at record-setting temperatures, solar panels continued to perform at better than 90% efficiency.

Solar Panels Useless above 85 Degree F.
`

 

[Billy_Bob]

Solar Panels Useless above 85 Degree F.
`

Ah yes... dog pile... The act of cowardice. At least some of us are open to correction, but like you, some are not.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I made several early on and you stayed in BS/Logarithmic denial.

You can't let this go as it disproves CAGW. This is one of the things that we scientist agree on. CO2 logarithmic affect is well documented science. You have disproved NOTHING. You do as you usually do and ignore it..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well no doubt he didn't take your quips seriously. Who does?

You are a One line Troll/quipster who should only be dealt with with a Fly Swatter.

I can get you into a GED course that can get you up to a paragraph in 4 months or so!
`

Quips?

I used math and everything.

Maybe you need help understanding it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ah yes... dog pile... The act of cowardice. At least some of us are open to correction, but like you, some are not.

Come on Billy, you've gotta admit you fucked up.
Did you ever find backup for this stinker...."The loss is logarithmic"?

You just pulled it out of your ass, right?

 

[ding]

Come on Billy, you've gotta admit you fucked up.
Did you ever find backup for this stinker...."The loss is logarithmic"?

You just pulled it out of your ass, right?

Why? You didn’t.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Come on Billy, you've gotta admit you fucked up.
Did you ever find backup for this stinker...."The loss is logarithmic"?

You just pulled it out of your ass, right?

Tell me Todd, If 200 to 400ppm will cause a 6.5 deg C rise and the next doubling (400 to 800ppm) will only create a 1.8 deg C Rise. The reaction to a doubling is diminishing and therefor a loss of potential, is it not? This loss of potential is logarithmic. Any more stupid questions?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tell me Todd, If 200 to 400ppm will cause a 6.5 deg C rise and the next doubling (400 to 800ppm) will only create a 1.8 deg C Rise. The reaction to a doubling is diminishing and therefor a loss of potential, is it not? This loss of potential is logarithmic. Any more stupid questions?

If you can show the loss of power for the panels is logarithmic, like you claimed,
I'll stop pointing out your error.

 

[ding]

Tell me Todd, If 200 to 400ppm will cause a 6.5 deg C rise and the next doubling (400 to 800ppm) will only create a 1.8 deg C Rise. The reaction to a doubling is diminishing and therefor a loss of potential, is it not? This loss of potential is logarithmic. Any more stupid questions?

He’s like four posts away from becoming Apu.