1. Bi-facial solar panels: can take in sunlight from either end
2. Mounting bi-facials vertically so they can take in sunlight from both directions.
I've been hearing experiments about these for a few years now. There's three main benefits to the vertical arrangement that could, given certain situations, make it more economically valuable:
1. In places with high-albedo snowy winters, this arrangement can boost winter production, which if you have snow, tends to be the energy-heavy time of year.
2. Keeps panels cooler. Panels lose efficiency when they get hot, and by having them vertical, they can run cooler. Losses in less direct sunlight are somewhat offset by efficiency gains from cooler operations.
3. More power during shoulder periods (anti-duck-curve). Especially in places like California that have high solar penetration, prices for excess energy are minimal during peak solar activity. Vertical arrangements give more power in the morning and evening, which is when traditional fields are just ramping up or ramping down. Thus, even if you're making less power overall, you can be making more valuable power by having more production during these ramp-up/ramp-down periods.
Unclear how much of an effect these counter-acting forces actually add, but I understand solar developers are looking into these arrangements.
The panels still don't generate any electricity at night of course, but other than that the output is an almost perfect inverse of the conventional equator-facing angled mounted panel output.
Just search for "bifacial solar panels graph".
Don't think it's a coincidence that the demo vid they're showing off is a flat factory roof
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/how-germany-outfi...
I'm not sure how true that is of course but it does make you think a bit. The optimal place where to put solar panels increasingly is becoming "wherever you can afford to". If vertical space is what you have, why not use it?
People in apartments don't have access to roofs. But they might have balconies. Balcony railings can fit a few solar panels usually.
You can buy solar panels for use on balconies in the supermarket in Germany. They only generate a few hundred watt. But that can add up to close to something like a kwh per day if you get a lot of sun on your balcony. At 40 cents per kwh. That's 12 or so euros per month. I pay about 70 per month currently. And I can get a couple of balcony panels for something like 200-300 euros. And I might get some money back on those even. The idea with balcony solar is that it might offset part of what your fridge uses. You simply plug it into a wall socket and your fridge takes that power instead of from the grid. All safe and approved equipment, the inverter cuts the power if there is no grid power.
I haven't done this (my balcony faces east and only gets a few hours of sun in the early morning). But it's easy to see how this could work.
So, not price parity but also only about a factor of 2 or so. On the other hand, Ali Express panels are about half that UK price at a 10 panel quantity, with unknown shipping.
I'm kind of eyeing the concrete block wall in the back garden currently covered by a hedge.
That said, WW3 terrorism acts may change that. It could be wise to have at least some backup.
I have yet to find conclusive evidence if it is possible to use a small full inverter to drive grid tied inverters, that is, have the grid off capability of a full inverter with the cheap cost of a grid tied inverter. It sounds reasonable, but I don't see anyone doing it.
My current strategy for small installations when you have an equator facing wall or fence is slap the panels on it and be done with it.
It turns out these enable a very high specific-power PV cell that adds another even more attractive production curve behind what is happening in vertical bi-facials. See e.g.:
https://ee.stanford.edu/frederick-nitta-koosha-nassiri-nazif...
Approaches range from straight vertical to flat on the ground: https://erthos.com/earth-mount-solar/
Whole industries are going to pop up to take advantage of the intermittent very cheap electricity. Also there will be a competitive balance between the cost of storage and the "cost" of non-optimally aligned solar panels.
Also: "Specifically, [Dave] is using bifacial solar panels– panels that have cells on both sides. In his preferred orientation, one side faces South, while the other faces North. [Dave] is in the Northern Hemisphere, so those of you Down Under would have to do the opposite, pointing one face North and the other South."
Isn't that the same thing? Is one of the sides specifically meant to face the sun? Maybe I'm just not as knowledgeable about solar panels, but what sunlight is being harnessed by the backside of the sun facing panel? Are they catching reflected light, otherwise, they are directly in shadow.
But it's usually more common to orient them east-west, so they have peaks in the mornings and in the afternoon/evening, which combines well with other solar panels that are mounted south-facing, or might even just match your electricity consumption pattern better.
77% of the ’normal orientation’ per year, but the graph and 131% value is for a day in winter (January 15 this year). At least that’s my read.
I'm still trying to decide if the entire post is trolling or not. Nothing about it sounds sane to me.
Yes, it’s a joke.
This is also in January, when the sun in Ohio is very low in the southern sky. So north/south oriented panels are much more ideal.
I had the same reaction. I noticed the top comment reading "some of us live in the southern hemisphere" so maybe this was a quick edit and not thought through?
Unless one of the sides of the panel is meant to face north, but that doesn't sound likely
"My scarecrow is the best in the business! He's out standing (outstanding) in his field!" (i.e. a field in a farm, or in his area of expertise)
That is not the kind of thing I come here for.
[0]https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...
Reminds me of the critics of digital photography circa the year 2000.
The reason i say this is that in some parts of the world capitalist things like building renewables to make or save money is politicised as a left or right wing issue with people arbitrarily for or against purely on that bucketing.
The politicisation is stupid and doesn’t even align well to any traditional left/right political divide other than ‘at one point in history they fell on one side or the other of the issue’ so now they are stuck there. It’s interesting with the perspective of someone who’s experienced a different countries right/left wing politics which have completely different views on various issues. As in there’s often no reason for such things to be in either side honestly. In fact for certain things that never got politicised in the USA such as battery storage the red states are leading the world in grid connected battery installation rates since it’s so profitable and the topic has avoided being bucketed into a left/right category all the while blocking offshore wind farm installation which has been bucketed as such.
Anyway due to this politicisation you cannot just post ‘this renewable initiative doesn’t work’ without honest analysis to back it up. This would need to include the massive drop in solar power and battery prices that have occurred recently.