6 ms·

The high efficiency panels are typically semi-flexible without the frame, are they not? Do you think it would be possible to obtain and mount them without a rig

The high efficiency panels are typically semi-flexible without the frame, are they not? Do you think it would be possible to obtain and mount them without a rigid frame? Or even to remove them from the frame? I'm asking partly because I had considered making some sort of basic, folding, portable solar panel structure- imagine a few semi-flexible panels duct-taped together. (I'd likely not _actually_ use duct tape).

driverdan 6y ago
That's backwards. Flexible panels are less efficient than rigid ones.
- walrus01 6y ago
  Correct, flexible cells are 10-14% efficient, the best rigid monocrystalline single junction Si cells are 23% plus.
  - mkingston 6y ago
    I think that's correct for thin film panels. But it appears that monocrystalline panels can be manufactured with some flexibility. Hence my usage of the term "semi-flexible". Sunpower, for example, claims to produce high efficiency semi-flexible monocrystalline panels that would flex sufficiently for use on a bimini top, for example. It further appears that my statement "high efficiency panels are typically semi-flexible without the frame" is inaccurate- they are typically not reasonably described as semi-flexible, even without the frame and coating.
    - walrus01 6y ago
      Real high efficiency monocrystalline si cells are not flexible in any way, for example the typical 156mm cell that makes up a 315-400W rated 60 or 72 cell panel. In fact they're quite brittle and fragile when not encapsulated on a backing sheet and under protective glass. Monocrystalline by definition is not flexible, you're referring to thin films (cadmium telluride or amorphous silicon or other)
      - mkingston 6y ago
        Thanks for the reply. Is there any middle ground? Is Sunpower's claim of 22-25% efficient monocrystalline semi-flexible panels not to be believed? Have I been fooled by the marketing? Are these thin film panels? Nothing I can find online suggests this is a dubious claim, but it's possible I'm simply failing to find correct information.

driverdan 6y ago

That's backwards. Flexible panels are less efficient than rigid ones.

walrus01 6y ago
Correct, flexible cells are 10-14% efficient, the best rigid monocrystalline single junction Si cells are 23% plus.
- mkingston 6y ago
  I think that's correct for thin film panels. But it appears that monocrystalline panels can be manufactured with some flexibility. Hence my usage of the term "semi-flexible". Sunpower, for example, claims to produce high efficiency semi-flexible monocrystalline panels that would flex sufficiently for use on a bimini top, for example. It further appears that my statement "high efficiency panels are typically semi-flexible without the frame" is inaccurate- they are typically not reasonably described as semi-flexible, even without the frame and coating.
  - walrus01 6y ago
    Real high efficiency monocrystalline si cells are not flexible in any way, for example the typical 156mm cell that makes up a 315-400W rated 60 or 72 cell panel. In fact they're quite brittle and fragile when not encapsulated on a backing sheet and under protective glass. Monocrystalline by definition is not flexible, you're referring to thin films (cadmium telluride or amorphous silicon or other)
    - mkingston 6y ago
      Thanks for the reply. Is there any middle ground? Is Sunpower's claim of 22-25% efficient monocrystalline semi-flexible panels not to be believed? Have I been fooled by the marketing? Are these thin film panels? Nothing I can find online suggests this is a dubious claim, but it's possible I'm simply failing to find correct information.