Photovoltaic off roof by Sharp: solar panels on pole!

[jean.caissepas]

Hello,

New solution via a vertical post and panels optimized for this type of installation:

http://www.enerzine.com/comment-produire-de-lenergie-solaire-sans-panneaux-sur-le-toit/24485-2018-01

[izentrop]

Hello,
The panels behind and on the side take the sun how?

arti_24485-730x442.jpg (69.72 KB) Viewed 8290 times

[Christophe]

Hey must read izentrop: these are "optimized" panels ... that means they no longer need the Sun !!

ps: disappointing on the part of enerzine to relay this bullshit ...

[izentrop]

Maybe by reflectors, but in this case, they should follow the sun and go as far as direct heliosat.
Cool for taking in the wind and the shadow cast, but for efficiency we will iron

[Christophe]

Good I read in details and the explanations are very foggy and it is an understatement ... on the part of a large industrialist like Sharp it is astonishing!

He is probably looking for buzz, free publicity ... or to cloud some naive people?

The solar tower should not compete with the photovoltaic panels installed on the roof: it is an alternative solution, which can be complementary to an installation on the roof, or which can be deployed when the latter is not possible. "

The Sharp NQ-R256A (256 Wp) is a monocrystalline photovoltaic module, which offers an efficiency of 19,8% despite its reduced dimensions (1318 x 980 x 46 millimeters): “the rear contact technology offers even more power in less space than conventional solar modules. ”

With traditional solar technologies, the cells have electrical wires on the front side, which block about 6% of the light likely to be accumulated. With the rear contact cells, all of the connectivity is moved backwards, which greatly reduces loss of reflection.

a) The yield has NOTHING to do with the dimensions!
b) The rear contact (WTF ???)
c) 6% of the light blocked by wires on conventional panels?

In short, increasing the yield will not compensate for an ABSENCE of primary energy to be converted!

We could have a panel yield of 100% ... in the shade it will always give less than a panel of 20% in the sun!

Or sharp has just invented the solar panel that works without the sun!

[Did67]

If I understood correctly, it is not Sharp, but a "box" using Sharp panels without contact before ...: "Arndt Peters, Commercial Director of HKW Solar Energy Systems UG"

And after, always the same delusions about the "installed power" - which does not mean anything. If I install 1 kW in my cellar, it will produce 000!

But they will surely "catch" a few naive people, without notions of physics, ready to do anything for a good cause ("ecology").

[izentrop]

They sell it and only sell it elsewhere.
There's even a video that goes around https://www.hkw-solar.com/

They must have planned this for an exoplanet with 4 suns

[sicetaitsimple]

The purpose of this message is not to talk about the Sharp system presented above in particular, but more generally to talk about "small systems" for private use.

The period of the prohibitive sales tariffs in full to the obligated buyer (EDF in France) is, and it is a very good thing, over or in the process of being so.

From now (or soon) a new individual photovoltaic installation will not economically be justified only by the gains made by self-consumption, not by a drain on the bill of other consumers.

In this context, it will be necessary to maximize the share of self-consumption.

Orienting the panels east-west, rather than full south, allows for a production that is certainly lower in total over the year, but more "flat" and "longer" during the day, therefore favorable to self-consumption. I imagine that the 3 faces we see in the photo are oriented East, South, West.

Putting the panels more vertical than "the optimum of annual production" makes it possible to favor winter production over summer production, so again a plus for self-consumption.

In short, let's forget the example proposed which can be disturbing by its "bobo" aspect, but basically there are in my opinion things that we will see generalize.

[Did67]

I thought there were only 3 sides, in which case, in fact, it is defended as you do!

But there is indeed a North face! Finally, there are indeed 4 faces oriented I don't know how.

It remains to take into account the performance in diffuse, indirect light?

Finally, I believe that we have discussed it elsewhere, the fact remains that certain energies, even renewable ones, are "flexible": dam hydraulics, biomethane if we wanted to ... And therefore a certain "peak" of electricity injection PV is manageable, within these limits ...

[sicetaitsimple]

I thought there were only 3 sides, in which case, in fact, it is defended as you do!

But there is indeed a North face!

So it's a bohemian thing, although the PV produces even without incident direct light.

PS: I made it clear "let's forget the proposed example".