Solar Panels Useless above 85 Degree F.

[abu afak]

Billy Bob is a Grotesque Liar/deceiver.
"useless"?

"...For example, let’s say you have the Sunpower module and the solar cell temperature is measured at 45 degrees C. (113 F) That’s 20 degrees C above STC. To find how much the power output will decrease, you multiple the 20 degrees C difference by the -0.29% temperature coefficient.
That gives you a 5.8% drop in the module's power output.

That means when the panels’ temperature is 45 degrees C, (113 F) the maximum power output of the module will fall to 329.7 watts, instead of 350 watts, meaning, your panels will still produce enough energy to power your home...

How hot do solar panels get and how does it affect my system?

`

 

[surada]

But they are derated for to temperature and age.

What does that mean? They've had whole villages off grid since 1982.

 

[abu afak]

Billy Bob is a Grotesque Liar/deceiver.
"useless"?

Understanding temperature coefficient
If you really want to understand how much energy your solar panels may produce depending on the temperature outside, check the temperature coefficient on the manufacturer’s data sheet for your solar panels. The temperature coefficient tells you, in a percentage per degree Celsius, how much power a solar panel will lose when the temperature increases by 1 degree over 25°C (77°F).

For example, the temperature coefficient of LG NeON® 2 solar panels is -0.38% per one degree Celsius. This means that for every one degree Celsius above 25°C, the maximum efficiency of an LG NeON® 2 solar panel will decrease by 0.38%. Conversely, for every one degree Celsius below 25°C, the maximum efficiency of that solar panel will increase by 0.38%. (Yes — cooler, sunny weather is best for your solar panels and can help offset any decreased efficiency in the summer.)

So, if the outside temperature were 82°F (or 28°C) — the average daily high in Boston in July — and the surface of an LG NeON® 2 solar panel were roughly that same temperature, solar panel efficiency for that solar panel would decrease by just 1.14%.

How Temperature & Shade Affect Solar Panel Efficiency | Boston Solar

 

[abu afak]

Billy Bob is a Grotesque Liar/deceiver.
His Own OP link, just under the headline NOW posts a Correction.

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.


And even the above "Correction" is not nearly good enough and is itself still a Giant Lie considering the facts. It is not a "stunning failure" either. Crackpot website.
Billy Bob needs to resign.
As a "physicist" he is both a Joke and a disgrace. He apparently misspelled "psychotic."
So many Grotesque lies in just the last few days!
(ie Temp sensitivity of .3 instead of 3.0)
`

 

[Flash]

Not in Saudi Arabia. They work just fine.

You are confused. They don't work well anywhere.

They are waste of money. Just like wind generators. Nothing more than an Environmental Wacko's wet dream.

They will generate some electricity but the only way they become competitive with other sources of energy is because of wasteful massive government subsidies.

I would put them on my house here in the "Sunshine State" but the economics just don't work out.

If you want to waste your money put them in.

 

[ding]

What does that mean? They've had whole villages off grid since 1982.

It means their performance degrades due to time and temperature. There's no such thing as a free lunch. SLoT.

 

[surada]

It means their performance degrades due to time and temperature. There's no such thing as a free lunch. SLoT.

They are still doing great. Look at Farasan island in the Red Sea.

 

[toobfreak]

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...

What kind of idiot mixes celsius with fahrenheit in the same statement?! Of course these panels lose efficiency in the hot sun, as temperatures increase, this reduces the band gap in the PV cells thus reducing hole mobility and so, terminal voltage as Rin increases due to more energy being transferred to minority carriers diffused in the substrate itself. Solar cells are after all, just a bunch of transistors.

 

[ding]

They are still doing great. Look at Farasan island in the Red Sea.

Great at what? It's not a great investment for generating electricity at scale. It's not practical. Great at green washing? Sure. It's great at that. I'm not saying it doesn't have a place. I'm saying it's place will be defined by its limitations. I don't see solar or wind replacing fossil fuels. Augmenting fossil fuels, sure. But they aren't practical replacements.

 

[Billy_Bob]

What kind of idiot mixes celsius with fahrenheit in the same statement?! Of course these panels lose efficiency in the hot sun, as temperatures increase, this reduces the band gap in the PV cells thus reducing hole mobility and so, terminal voltage as Rin increases due to more energy being transferred to minority carriers diffused in the substrate itself. Solar cells are after all, just a bunch of transistors.

I just quoted the article... I would have made the distinction and used only one scale.

 

[toobfreak]

I just quoted the article... I would have made the distinction and used only one scale.

Right. I wasn't implying anything on your part.

 

[surada]

Great at what? It's not a great investment for generating electricity at scale. It's not practical. Great at green washing? Sure. It's great at that. I'm not saying it doesn't have a place. I'm saying it's place will be defined by its limitations. I don't see solar or wind replacing fossil fuels. Augmenting fossil fuels, sure. But they aren't practical replacements.

Great at what? It's not a great investment for generating electricity at scale. It's not practical. Great at green washing? Sure. It's great at that. I'm not saying it doesn't have a place. I'm saying it's place will be defined by its limitations. I don't see solar or wind replacing fossil fuels. Augmenting fossil fuels, sure. But they aren't practical replacements.

Saudi Arabia’s first solar power station inaugurated on Farasan Island

<p>Saudi Arabia inaugurated its first solar power station on Sunday. It is located on Farasan Island and will produce 864,000 kilowatts.<br/><br/>The station, which contains 6,000 solar cells, was built by ...</br/></br/></p>

english.alarabiya.net

 

[ding]

Saudi Arabia’s first solar power station inaugurated on Farasan Island

<p>Saudi Arabia inaugurated its first solar power station on Sunday. It is located on Farasan Island and will produce 864,000 kilowatts.<br/><br/>The station, which contains 6,000 solar cells, was built by ...</br/></br/></p>

english.alarabiya.net

It's called green washing.

How much oil do they produce daily?

 

[Crick]

Great at what? It's not a great investment for generating electricity at scale. It's not practical. Great at green washing? Sure. It's great at that. I'm not saying it doesn't have a place. I'm saying it's place will be defined by its limitations. I don't see solar or wind replacing fossil fuels. Augmenting fossil fuels, sure. But they aren't practical replacements.

Please explain why you think PV panels are "not a great investment for generating electricity at scale".

 

[surada]

It's called green washing.

How much oil do they produce daily?

12 million bpd.

 

[ding]

Please explain why you think PV panels are "not a great investment for generating electricity at scale".

Low energy density technology which requires a massive scale to replace fossil fuels, finite life, diminishing performance, affected by temperature. Would require disposing of old panels and remanufacturing of new panels every 25 years or so and that doesn't even factor in demand growth which doubles the magnitude of problem every 25 years. It's not practical and it's not sustainable at scale like fossil fuels are.

 

[ding]

And I can't think of a better way of ushering in the next glacial cycle other than the widespread use of solar.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And I can't think of a better way of ushering in the next glacial cycle other than the widespread use of solar.

When I see lower albedo, advancing glaciers is always my first thought.

 

[ding]

When I see lower albedo, advancing glaciers is always my first thought.

That's because you don't understand what incremental means.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's because you don't understand what incremental means.

And you're confused about what albedo means.