X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1470w Poly or 1100w Mono Panels

    Is there a real difference between 6 x 245w Poly Hanwha ($899.95) and 4 x 275w Mono Recom Panther ($908.32)?
    Charging Time, Power production, etc.

    Hanwha 245w Poly - 14.8% eff, Vmp 30.3V, Imp 8.08A, -0.45%/C Pmax Temp
    Recom Panther 275w Mono - 16.6% eff, Vmp 32.12V, Imp 8.45A, -0.39%/C Pmax Temp
    Last edited by gjlsan; 03-26-2018, 02:21 PM.

  • #2
    Originally posted by gjlsan View Post
    Is there a real difference between 6 x 245w Poly Hanwha ($899.95) and 4 x 275w Mono Recom Panther ($908.32)?
    Charging Time, Power production, etc.

    Hanwha 245w Poly - 14.8% eff, Vmp 30.3V, Imp 8.08A, -0.45%/C Pmax Temp
    Recom Panther 275w Mono - 16.6% eff, Vmp 32.12V, Imp 8.45A, -0.39%/C Pmax Temp
    um yeah...
    6 X 245 = 1.47kw
    4 X 275 = 1.1kw
    so the difference is 370 watts

    solar module efficiency is just the size but 1.47kw will outperform 1.1kw all day
    OutBack FP1 w/ CS6P-250P http://bit.ly/1Sg5VNH

    Comment


    • #3
      As you noted the Mono panels are more efficient then the Poly type. But the poly may harvest more electrons in lower light (partially cloudy days) then the Mono type. IMO it is almost a wash choosing between the two types based on output.

      But for cost comparison, the Poly gets you 1470 watts for $899.95 or ~ $0.61/watt. The Mono gets you 1100 watts for $908.32 or ~$0.83/watt. More watts for less money might be something to think about but then again the quality of the panels may make the $/cost different.

      Now if you had included thin film type solar I would say that is another story.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by SunEagle View Post
        Mono panels are more efficient then the Poly type. But the poly may
        harvest more electrons in lower light (partially cloudy days) then the Mono type.
        Is that REALLY true? If so, the mono are more efficient at high levels, but there is a cross over at
        some intensity below which the Poly are more efficient. If that is true at all, I would expect it to be
        at a level so low that it doesn't matter any more. Bruce Roe

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by bcroe View Post

          Is that REALLY true? If so, the mono are more efficient at high levels, but there is a cross over at
          some intensity below which the Poly are more efficient. If that is true at all, I would expect it to be
          at a level so low that it doesn't matter any more. Bruce Roe
          It is hard to really quantify. I just know that Poly type tend to harvest better in low light then Mono but Mono usually have a higher efficient rating under full sunlight.

          The % of better harvest in low light may not overcome the higher efficiency rating in bright sunlight but as with real estate "location, location, location" is important for any solar pv systems.

          If you live farther south in areas that get high amount of sunlight then Mono's make sense. If you live up north and get more cloudy days then Poly might be better for you.

          Comment


          • #6
            Howdy Guys,

            Yeah Bruce I think it is, now results may vary depending on pitch angle and orientation and location etc BUT from what I have observed over the last 10 years I agree with SunEagle, I think that polys represent better value for money than mono's simply because the yield seems to even out and the mono,s cost more upfront. That being said I have seen heated debates from people far more learned than myself who cannot agree, so there you go at the end of the day I think we are splitting hairs.

            Comment


            • #7
              It is the multiple angles the diffused low light is coming in that makes poly better than mono. The multiple crystal grains have better odds at matching the incoming light. In general, mono will have higher efficiencies from direct low light than poly. Thin film behaves similarly and in general better than poly in diffused light.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by frankiek3 View Post
                It is the multiple angles the diffused low light is coming in that makes poly better than mono. The multiple crystal grains have better odds at matching the incoming light. In general, mono will have higher efficiencies from direct low light than poly. Thin film behaves similarly and in general better than poly in diffused light.
                Perhaps someone should put a panel out in strong sun and take a few readings while changing
                the incidence angle. If that is true, the output of poly will drop off faster than the cosine of the
                angle. I never see any numbers, how much more loss at what angle, what level of intensity?
                My panels run at angles all day. Not convinced here. Bruce Roe

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by bcroe View Post

                  Perhaps someone should put a panel out in strong sun and take a few readings while changing
                  the incidence angle. If that is true, the output of poly will drop off faster than the cosine of the
                  angle. I never see any numbers, how much more loss at what angle, what level of intensity?
                  My panels run at angles all day. Not convinced here. Bruce Roe
                  The only way to quantify that experiment would be to do it in a lab with a constant light and temperature source. Outside you would have too many variables concerning the amount of sunlight or temperature of the panel to get reasonable measurements.

                  Still the idea has some merit for a panel manufacturer to try so that they can make a claim (or not) that their "cell" type is better to use because of X, Y, Z.

                  I still say that Mono will work the best in areas where high amounts of solar are available like the South West US. But when it comes to cost it looks like the Thin Film type may harvest enough sun for much lower manufacturing prices to compete with Mono.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Multiple grain orientations make for multiple incidence angles, increasing odds of capturing different diffuse light..
                    Grain boundaries lead to bottlenecks in power output, an earlier death, and a weaker temperature coefficient.

                    Interesting read, although a bit older.
                    3.2.1 Solar irradiance effects
                    https://www.intechopen.com/books/thi...ing-conditions

                    ​​​​​​​I prefer mono as it is generally the best. Poly has it's place with cost being the main factor, but location could be factor if poly would consistently out-preform mono annually (but this would be quite rare).

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X