Comments on: Solar panel efficiency

By: kesava

kesava — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:41:09 +0000

I think that solar panels are required for today’s world to cut off the pollution. We see many adverse effects of pollution in our surroundings. scientists have tried their level best to come out with a solution to the existing problems caused by the use of technology, but the problems still exist in reduced form. That’s why I think that solar panels cut off, if not, save us from pollution

By: A. Sweet

A. Sweet — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 14:32:07 +0000

Reading one of the earlier comments about “solar panels absorb more solar radiation than the surface on which they are placed was previously absorbing, they must in principle increase, not decrease, global warming.”

How is it possible to draw that conclusion? Global warming is caused by the greenhouse effect in which radiation REFLECTED by the Earth is trapped by gasses, there by preventing the loss of energy. If it is ABSORBED it can’t be REFLECTED. Thus it would reduce global warming simply by being in the sun.

By: mike m

mike m — Sat, 25 Sep 2010 05:02:17 +0000

if a person within the united states, or any country for that matter, was to own a single piece of land and create enough energy for themselves there would seem to me to be little reason to work in a conventional manner for money.

when i say energy i mean two forms of it: food for nourishment of the body, and electricity for care of the physical shelter and self.

given enough land mass, the general output would exceed a single persons needs.this could benefit said person in the form of the sale back into given markets. the energy that said person uses to collect and distribute that energy, i believe, would be considerably less than the energy the common man spends in the office.

given today’s current resources and technology this lifestyle is available.

By: mike m

mike m — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 23:26:46 +0000

Photovoltaic conversion of sunlight does not seem to follow the same pattern of conventional fossil fuel consumption. This I believe is the most fundamental reason we need it on and around our homes.
Traditional forms of electrical production ask us to look at energy purely thru the eye of cost, and no focus or awareness on the actual consumption of that energy.

Less energy forces one to consider first the idea of using less energy, the real culprit related to our money issues.

By: Terry

Terry — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:21:40 +0000

You pay for fossil fuel. You pay for the delivery cost to the power plant. Then it is burned to produce energy and pollution. Conversion to electrical power after that initial inefficiency is only about 33%. Now it gets worse. The fossil fuel power plant will then lose at a minimum 50% of the power generated before it gets to your house. This loss is called line loss. We pay for the fuel cost and the wire and the line loss too, it is embodied in the cost of the system.

Conversion of chemical energy to heat is and then heat to mechanical energy is poor typically about 33% after huge embodied costs.

You pay to put panels on your roof. The panels on your roof will not have any measurable line loss. There will be no pollution. There is no fuel cost. At best there will be only 20% conversion to electricity. When it comes to delivering the solar energy produced by the solar panels, however, it is better than fossil fuel! That energy starts as direct current which must be converted over to alternating current to be used in the home. This conversion process loses another 20% of the resulting energy according to the article. From all the fossil fuel sources you lose 50% post generation and from the solar energy source you only lose 20% to the DC to AC inverter. So Solar energy on the rooftop is more efficient.

Both fossil fuel and Solar light up the same light bulb. Clearly this is a STUPID article. It is distorted but worse than that the logic is corrupt.

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 10 Jun 2010 06:46:13 +0000

WHAT!!! Please do not use youtube for research or examples.

By: steve

steve — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 10:51:37 +0000

I know that this is not really the place but maybe spark a few minds there is a engine I found in youtube that runs on heat. There is a Mirror that can focus 4 feet of mirror into 2inch beam and focused on the Engine and you have free power all day if you have it hooked up to a generator check it out and its way more powerful then solar

By: Simon

Simon — Sat, 22 May 2010 13:43:37 +0000

seems like a better alternative is to use 12 volt LED based lighting.

(you also didn’t count the 25% loss when you use the panel to charge the battery that powers the lights when presumably no sunlight is available

By: Burhan

Burhan — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 13:55:10 +0000

I have yet to find a solar panel that will give 20% efficiency. As a matter of fact I have yet to find cos that will consistently give 15~17% of efficiency. I think solar research has to go a long way before it becomes commercially available at acceptable rates.

By: Zach M

Zach M — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:43:42 +0000

Everyone that has commented so far, and the author himself, need to learn to use Google properly to dispel their crackpot theories, faulty logic, and get advice based on real facts. And when you find results that back up your opinion, look at the opposing arguments to see if they seem more rational, authentic, and fact-based.
I somehow stumbled upon the url of stupid, one of the many spreading disinformation through spectacle and willful ignorance. Will (no.7) is partially right, but sadly all the others are fools, apparently incapable of skeptical independent research. 2 smart comments for 6 dumb ones is a bad ratio… doesn’t bode well for humanity.