2- For the example on the video using polished metal as hinged mirrors; what is the cost of those metal sheets + attaching them to the panel ?
I found surprisingly, that buying more panels to double or triple the generated power is cheaper than attaching contraptions !
I wanted to add/mount a thin metal sheet under a dozen of my 400W 2m x 1m panels and found the sad reality. So for the original poster; just buy more panels ! They want to wring your wallet for thin sheet metal more expensive than solar panels !
And tracking mechanisms are still more expensive than mirrors and panels !

Absolutely agree. . .
Thin sheet metal will blow about in the wind, and rattle at night; and it would shade the solar panel next to it.
Tracking mechanisms just add motors and moving electrical connections and other things that can go wrong.
Even adding a tilt mechanism to optimise summer and winter inclination angles is a waste of time - optimise for winter because if you have enough panels for your requirements in winter there will be a surplus in summer regardless of the inclination angle.

 

1) The change of tilt works according the cosine law, thus the variance between perfectly adjusted angle and just about average adjusted is some 10...20% only. I assume the motor system cost no less than some 200-300 USD for each panel or even more, but new panel is about the same, then is obvious the best choice is work without tilting motor but more panels
2) My classmate from past now is earning money by buying up the German bank sales-off the 10-yr old roofs. Just Germany have law - no bank may lend a money bfor repair building works or new building if it isnt accompanied by purchase of new solar panels. And no of these panels may not be exploited more than 10 years. Thus the available count is huge always. He sells it out for 8 Eur per piece. New price is 250-350. Work end expectations are about 30 years, thus 20 still are left. I bought 10 pieces, and now am meditating to cover all the roof with it. Cheaper as change the roof oldened coverage and each panel still gives out about 100W instead of 130 W originally.

 

By the way, little warning. I am using the 100 Amp converter made in China. It is created for double use - 12 or 24 Volts battery. I have only 12. He understands by it own what voltage must be used to stop charge before battery had been exploded. So, its very important to set the battery first and only then a panel. But batteries always may have a slight contact problem. This controller is so much damn sensitive, that even shortest micro-spark in the battery contacture reprograms that item to 24V regime. And I wonder, what happens, my system V-meter shows 12.8...13.2...13.6...14.2...18.3....21.2 and then I stopped that game-to-death. So, better use a 24V battery or care about contacts be best of imaginable.

 

Yeah, it sounds like your converter would kill your batteries sooner rather than later. Perhaps that 12/24V option was a poorly thought-out feature.

I was not aware of that degradation until you mentioned it. UV does the bulk of the damage, no surprise there.

 

UV does the bulk of the damage, no surprise there.

Is it due to the UV making the plastic encapsulating film go opaque?

 

2) My classmate from past now is earning money by buying up the German bank sales-off the 10-yr old roofs. Just Germany have law - no bank may lend a money bfor repair building works or new building if it isnt accompanied by purchase of new solar panels. And no of these panels may not be exploited more than 10 years. Thus the available count is huge always. He sells it out for 8 Eur per piece. New price is 250-350. Work end expectations are about 30 years, thus 20 still are left. I bought 10 pieces, and now am meditating to cover all the roof with it. Cheaper as change the roof oldened coverage and each panel still gives out about 100W instead of 130 W originally.

Is he selling them on Ebay? €250-€350 seems a lot for a new panel - must be a larger size. 300W seems like a popular size and although they have gone up lately they are not much above £100.

 

Not meaning to derail the original discussion:

Is it due to the UV making the plastic encapsulating film go opaque?

The UV (I was surprised it could get through the "window" be it soda glass or plastic much at all) reduce the conductivity of the silicon. That is as far as the description I found goes.

 

I never suggested that a sloppy installation of a collection of poorly chosen materials was appropriate, nor purchasing anything from the poor-quality-overpriced vendors.
Many folks are well able and adequately capable of doing a very solid and effective installation with materials not from such sources. Quite a few participants can do very good work and produce very high quality assemblies.

 

I'm curious about this now - I didn't think UV light had enough energy to alter diffused silicon.
I also thought solar panels used low-iron glass.
Low-iron glass was what I was told I needed to make a UV-exposure box for PCB making, because of its high transparency and because it remains transparent below 400nm.
So, if that is true, it would seem that solar panels are designed to allow the UV through to the silicon.

 

I have a friend who is was the chief scientist at for a solar cell maker and from conversations with him they went to extremes in an attempt to hit the theoretical maximum efficiency. I would not put it past them to allow a little UV in if the cells are sensitive to it.

He mentioned a couple of years ago that Pervoskite cells had the highest efficiency.


That's down in the UV.