5 ms·
> My rule of thumb: solar power generates 10 watts per square meter. > There's a fixed maximum of 1300 watts per square meter of sunlight. I'd suggest you qua
by Jedd 9y ago
> My rule of thumb: solar power generates 10 watts per square meter.
> There's a fixed maximum of 1300 watts per square meter of sunlight.
I'd suggest you qualify your numbers by noting that you're talking specifically about Solar PV.
Solar Thermal appears to offer 3x the kWh/m2 over Solar PV -- and mitigates at least one of your concerns ('night'). That ratio will doubtless change as PVC efficiency improves, but if that 3x factor is accurate now, it'll be a long time before PVCs match or exceed on square metre ratings alone.
- ctdonath 9y agoSolar Thermal appears to offer 3x the kWh/m2 over Solar PV I'm wondering at the difference between your measuring "kWh/m2" vs mine of "W/m2". Upshot: averaged over a year, what's the power output? are you including all "off" hours?
- Jedd 9y agoGood question. I simply did some googling for comparative efficiency per unit area between PVC and solar thermal -- the 3x factor seemed to come up regularly from different sources. The kWh/m2 was the unit most of those sources were using. Time of day is very interesting, as PVC's are going to be useful earlier in the day, and solar thermal can still be providing good power output well after sunset. Consequently, in practice, I'd see a combination of both technologies (combined with good storage and grid capabilities, etc) as being most effective way of harnessing sunlight in the short to medium term. Averaging over a year ... geo / climate variations (eg distance from equator, monsoon cycles, etc) are likely going to affect both technologies similarly.