Vertical mounting bi-facial panels

[sdold]

It looks like he typed up a response in another language, and used a translator app or site to English.

[SunEagle]

Huh?

I think English is not that posters first language. I will be watching them to make sure they don't post any spam.

[solarix]

Huh?

[RosBaig]

Hi....the board is outlined to undertake to urge to the maximum producible on a confront, in fact the moment confront could be a compensating confront, so in the event that a confront is within the sun and produces 60% of the top control, the other confront to the 'shadow' assimilates the scattered light guaranteeing a recompense by expanding the yield of the board. In case the vessel turns the raise confront will gotten to be the overwhelming one and the front confront will be the one to compensate. Without having to situate the boards or without losing execution depending on the introduction of the sun.

https://www.7pcb.com/

[solarix]

I haven't been able to find actual data on how productive the backside of a bifacial panel is. The data sheets say something like "up to" 25% more output - as it depends on reflected sunlight which can vary widely. How much will the backside of a bifacial panel produce if it was placed in full sun? I can't find that data anywhere, but my understanding is the backside is nowhere near as productive as the front side.

[peakbagger]

Not sure if I would want a lawn anywhere near one of those fences. Objects thrown by lawnmowers might be real problem.

[Steeler.Fan]

I too considered installing a vertical rail with bifacial panels. The rationale is depicted Bruce's diagram above. With all south facing panels one gets a production profile that is tall and narrow, usually resulting in surplus solar energy that has to be stored or exported to the utility at a price far less than what they charge you to import it! The combination of a South facing roof array and a E-W facing vertical bifacial array will produce a much wider, shorter production profile, which is much more conducive to self consumption.
I did the same calculations for my home but ended up with estimated production that was slightly less than the S facing array. However the increase in self consumption and reduced need for battery storage would more than make up for the small reduction in production.
My county required an engineering report looking at ability to withstand windows. Only a few bafacial panels have equal production on both sides. I couldn't find a commercially produced solar rail but think I have seen one or two advertised since then. Ideally, the wires would run inside the lower rail. My intended location had low foot traffic potential.

Until battery prices fall substantially, maximizing self consumption is crucial.

[bcroe]

I do not see any wiring, are they hooked up? The usual thought with fences is
that you can touch them, I would not consider that safe in a high voltage string
system. Strength wise they are mounted by the most extreme dimension, usual
mounts are closer around the center of mass.

The vertical mount would allow minimum snow pickup. In theory if faced E-W,
with same sensitivity on both sides, they could produce good power early and
late in the day, each REPLACING 2 panels I use to do that. BUT that leaves a
big drop out in output around solar noon. I got this curve for about 61 deg elevation.
Guess some south facing panels could fill that in.

PVm17Jn16.jpg

Then, what, about dispersed light under clouds? My multiple panels all work
together to boost energy collection, can a 2 sided panel accept dispersed light
from both sides under clouds? Bruce Roe

[SunEagle]

You can be as skeptical as you wish amd I might tend to agree with uou in a lot of designes, but [

Because a panel's orientation is not known a priori at the design stage, for any code compliant wind design I ever performed or was ever associated with, if not stated otherwise, worst design conditions (including gust and bluff conditions) were assumed. Since a wind vector that's normal to a panel will probably exert the greatest normal wind loading, and there are more than a few ground mounts with vertical panel orientation, I'd expect (and come to think of it so probably would Bruce) that condition would be covered up to and including the stated allowable wind speed or design wind pressure rating unless otherwise stated on the data sheet.

There's also the issue of combination loads such as snow and wind, for both dead, and live.

Treating that as a separate subject for this conversation, commonly, for structures including buildings and appurtenances and other structures or attachments to structures, the max. load criteria for wind loadings is commonly stated as max. allowable wind velocity using the worst vector conditions that the design conditions stipulated for that structure. For some reason, panel data sheets seem to commonly state max. wind pressure in units of lbf/ft2 or kN/m^2 (= kiloPascals). That's also done in the rest of engineering but was less common when I was designing structures.

As an example, my Sunpower 327 data sheet shows a max. allowable wind loading of 50 lbf/t^2 front and back. That translates to a wind velocity of ~ 141 M.P.H. without modifications/reductions for structure importance, gust or other factors as determined by the design engineer.

Cool. Good to know that those puppies can stand up to a steady gale.

[J.P.M.]

I agree the design of the panel would make a difference but I am skeptical of any solar panel of handling 130 mph winds at a 90 D angle.

Although there are a lot of ground mounted systems around here that seem to make it through our storms so maybe the vertical fence would survive.

You can be as skeptical as you wish and I might tend to agree with you in a lot of designs.

Because a panel's orientation is not known a priori at the design stage, for any code compliant wind design I ever performed or was ever associated with, if not stated otherwise, worst design conditions (including gust and bluff conditions) were assumed. Since a wind vector that's normal to a panel will probably exert the greatest normal wind loading, and there are more than a few ground mounts with vertical panel orientation, I'd expect (and come to think of it so probably would Bruce) that condition would be covered up to and including the stated allowable wind speed or design wind pressure rating unless otherwise stated on the data sheet.

There's also the issue of combination loads such as snow and wind, for both dead, and live.

Treating that as a separate subject for this conversation, commonly, for structures including buildings and appurtenances and other structures or attachments to structures, the max. load criteria for wind loadings is commonly stated as max. allowable wind velocity using the worst vector conditions that the design conditions stipulated for that structure. For some reason, panel data sheets seem to commonly state max. wind pressure in units of lbf/ft2 or kN/m^2 (= kiloPascals). That's also done in the rest of engineering but was less common when I was designing structures.

As an example, my Sunpower 327 data sheet shows a max. allowable wind loading of 50 lbf/t^2 front and back. That translates to a wind velocity of ~ 141 M.P.H. without modifications/reductions for structure importance, gust or other factors as determined by the design engineer.

[SunEagle]

That's a design consideration. If the panels have a cert. or calculation saying they're good for the site conditions, the posts and the rest of the support structure are a matter of design.

I agree the design of the panel would make a difference but I am skeptical of any solar panel of handling 130 mph winds at a 90 D angle.

Although there are a lot of ground mounted systems around here that seem to make it through our storms so maybe the vertical fence would survive.

[nerdralph]

Once bi-facial solar panels cost the same per foot as fencing that will be a great idea!

Seriously, I'm sure there are cases where a solar fence might make sense when conventional won't do but in my opinion, bi-facials panels are a solution looking for a problem.

Bifacial mono panels have a lower degredation rate of about .45%/yr vs .55%/yr. They are probably more reliable as they will not have backsheet failures since they are glazed on both sides. The main drawback is the extra weight. LONGi LR4-72HPH panels weigh 23.3kg, vs. the 72HBD panels at 27.5kg.

[J.P.M.]

I don't see how a fence like that could stand up to high winds which would be an issue down here in Florida.

That's a design consideration. If the panels have a cert. or calculation saying they're good for the site conditions, the posts and the rest of the support structure are a matter of design.

[J.P.M.]

Once bi-facial solar panels cost the same per foot as fencing that will be a great idea!

Seriously, I'm sure there are cases where a solar fence might make sense when conventional won't do but in my opinion, bi-facials panels are a solution looking for a problem.

Yea, mostly +1 but given what I think I might know by training, education and experience, I don't think they're as much of a solution as a B.S. marketing gimmick peddled to people who don't know better.

[SunEagle]

Once bi-facial solar panels cost the same per foot as fencing that will be a great idea!

Seriously, I'm sure there are cases where a solar fence might make sense when conventional won't do but in my opinion, bi-facials panels are a solution looking for a problem.

I don't see how a fence like that could stand up to high winds which would be an issue down here in Florida.