Back side of perovskite panel achieves more than 90 per cent of the efficiency of the front side

    • Serpent
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah… they’ve been standard for years now. I believe the uplift on a fixed tilt array on grass is approx 5 to 10%.

  • PlaidBaron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 year ago

    Genuinely curious how the EROI compares to a single sided panel.

    It is generating more electricity. On the flipside (heh) it would cost more energy to produce.

    • Yuumi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      From the reflection of the sunlight! Light bounces around everything and everywhere, so while it’s not direct sunlight, it’s still light. It generates less than the sun facing one but it’s still more power.

      • Coreidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is it worth the additional cost tho? I guess if you’re limited on space there is no other option, but I feel like I’d rather entertain additional solar panels that are facing the sun than to add additional cost for such a low return.

        • perestroika@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Alternatively, you lay them out in north-south rows (like a fence) and they generate most power during morning and evening, when sunshine comes from east and west.

          Coincidentally, their power maximum is when conventional solar parks are not yet producing or no longer producing.

          Coincidentally, this also matches the ideal agrivoltaic setup, where you use almost zero surface (the panels are vertical) and grow plants between, not below solar panels.

        • Delusional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I wonder how well it would work to use mirrors for more sunlight than just natural reflections.

          • Yuumi@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            While that would boost efficiency, it would add more to maintenance, which sometimes is just not worth

      • Coreidan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        So then off reflections? That doesn’t sound very efficient or worth the additional cost if I can just face another solar panel at the sun.

        • silence7@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Bifacial panels have been in use for several years in utility-scale solar installations because its cheap enough to do that the modest additional electricity generated is worthwhile.

        • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Unless you plan on putting up some books and comics for voles and grasshoppers on the backside of those panels, that space is really useless.

          Do not underestimate the importance of land use, it’s always been very important and it will be very important in this century.

  • silence7@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Bifacial panels have been a thing for several years, mostly in utility-scale solar installations.

  • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    …harvests reflected sunlight hitting the back of the device, offering an unconventional route to producing higher energy yields for less space and cost.

    Less cost seems probable. Less space really does not. Gonna probably need some mirrors to reflect onto that back surface, and it’s still going to require the same amount of incident area of solar radiation.

    Mirrors are pretty cheap, though. So seems like a win.

  • Hotdogman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    It should have been obvious. A double-sided dildo creates twice as much friction.