3 ms·
It's a wildly exaggerated figure. Maxeon cells are rated for 0.25% degradation per year which works out to about 8% in 30 years. An inferior cell might be rate
by aifooh7Keew6xoo 3y ago
It's a wildly exaggerated figure. Maxeon cells are rated for 0.25% degradation per year which works out to about 8% in 30 years. An inferior cell might be rated for 0.75% which works out to 20% in 30 years rather than 10 years. I believe a lot of the panels rated for 0.75% are seeing around half that actual rate of degradation.
- davedx 3y agoYup that's what I found with a cursory google, I kind of hoped OP would at least have the courage to post some reference even if it wasn't accurate, but no. Unfortunately this is par for the course in discussions with nuclear power cultists. It honestly is that bad.
- defrost 3y ago> If it's real, why don't you provide evidence? Because I went to bed, it was late in my time zone. > nuclear power cultists. Say what now? Are you an idiot? The vast bulk of PV performance studies are dominated by relatively short term studies in temperate climates - the latitudes of California and Germany eg: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf references Australia and links to papers from Perth and Melbourne which are cooler climates. See my comment above re: my region of interest - equatorial tropical regions with harhser temperature cycling and probable requirements for cooling to maximise returns (still part of an open study). I'd be happy to provide more details but I'm afraid your comment above doesn't warrent engagement.
- Reubachi 3y agoCalling someone a cultist because they went to bed and didn't reply in a timeframe you considered proper is not suitable discussion for HN.