Friday, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:47
Rolly replied: " One down side is that they are a bit bigger in area for the same nominal output.
That, however, tends to be minimised by the overall better efficiency"
When a direct comparison (numerically) between Unisolar and Kyocera panels, of about the *exact same Wattage capacity* you get these results.
Unisolar 64 Watt & Kyocera 65 Watt solar panels, yes just one (1) Watt difference.
Unisolar = 3.9 Amps per Square Mtr
Kyocera = 5.4 Amps per Square Mtr
It can be clearly seen the Kyocera solar panel puts out more Amps per square Mtr, this equates to far more "efficiency" from the Kyocera solar panel when comparing same sized solar panels.
An 80 Watt Sharp panel is 4.65 Amps, this equates to ~7 Amps per Square mtr.
64 Wt Unisolar $714 = $183 per Amp per Sq Mtr
65 wt Kyocera $849 = $157 per Amp per Sq Mtr
80 wt Sharp $970 = $138 per Amp per Sq Mtr
(prices shown are recommended retail)
The price of the panel IS relevant to the performance of the panel.
Expensive solar panels are not !!
I've travelled extensively in the north of Australia and never, ever seen a Unisolar panel used in a *commercial
grid battery bank* (Telstra etc) as the
solar power supply source.
You have to wonder why the large companies who specify the tech specs don't use them in these large commercial installations if they are as good as some wish to believe, as yes they are less expensive (per panel) to buy, than Mono-crystalline, Multi-crystalline or Poly-crystalline solar panels.
Mainey . . .
FollowupID:
613585