<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Most Efficient Solar Panels</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sroeco.com/solar/most-efficient-solar-panels/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sroeco.com/solar/most-efficient-solar-panels</link>
	<description>Advancing solar renewable energy.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2010 15:32:42 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Eco Periodicals &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Renewable Energy, Winning by Default</title>
		<link>http://sroeco.com/solar/most-efficient-solar-panels/comment-page-1/#comment-104</link>
		<dc:creator>Eco Periodicals &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Renewable Energy, Winning by Default</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:33:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sroeco.com/solar/?p=487#comment-104</guid>
		<description>[...] become more efficient, rising from less than 10 percent conversion rate a decade ago to more than 15 percent today (in real-world trials) for affordable panels, the possibility of solar systems becoming affordable [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] become more efficient, rising from less than 10 percent conversion rate a decade ago to more than 15 percent today (in real-world trials) for affordable panels, the possibility of solar systems becoming affordable [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SRoeCo Solar</title>
		<link>http://sroeco.com/solar/most-efficient-solar-panels/comment-page-1/#comment-101</link>
		<dc:creator>SRoeCo Solar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 05:49:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sroeco.com/solar/?p=487#comment-101</guid>
		<description>Hi Jocelyn,

It doesn't matter. A solar leasing or PPA (power purchase agreement) installer like Solar City can use whatever panels they want, because they will own the system, which means they receive the rebate (not you). Several Kyocera panels are listed on the CA SB1 Compliant List, and if you were buying a solar system from an installer in California, you should make sure that your equipment makes you eligible for the rebates. But since it's a PPA, it doesn't matter for you.

PPA's or solar leasing are great ways to go solar, and as long as you feel you understand the terms and are getting a good deal (which you likely are) then you don't need to worry about eligible or efficient equipment. You only buy the energy produced, and the provider will make sure that it installs solar panels that produce over the long-term, or they won't make any money! So you don't have to worry!

Thanks for the question! Glad you're going solar! You're going to be happy that you did!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Jocelyn,</p>
<p>It doesn&#8217;t matter. A solar leasing or PPA (power purchase agreement) installer like Solar City can use whatever panels they want, because they will own the system, which means they receive the rebate (not you). Several Kyocera panels are listed on the CA SB1 Compliant List, and if you were buying a solar system from an installer in California, you should make sure that your equipment makes you eligible for the rebates. But since it&#8217;s a PPA, it doesn&#8217;t matter for you.</p>
<p>PPA&#8217;s or solar leasing are great ways to go solar, and as long as you feel you understand the terms and are getting a good deal (which you likely are) then you don&#8217;t need to worry about eligible or efficient equipment. You only buy the energy produced, and the provider will make sure that it installs solar panels that produce over the long-term, or they won&#8217;t make any money! So you don&#8217;t have to worry!</p>
<p>Thanks for the question! Glad you&#8217;re going solar! You&#8217;re going to be happy that you did!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SRoeCo Solar</title>
		<link>http://sroeco.com/solar/most-efficient-solar-panels/comment-page-1/#comment-100</link>
		<dc:creator>SRoeCo Solar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 05:35:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sroeco.com/solar/?p=487#comment-100</guid>
		<description>Hello Matej,

Thank you. SunPower 300 and 315 are not included on the chart above because the chart is of "30 of the most common" solar panels used. The size and cost of the SunPower 300 and 315, though they are very efficient, cause them to be used in solar installation projects much less commonly than the panels listed. That's why I have included a link to the &lt;a href="http://sroeco.com/solar/top-40-most-efficient-solar-panels" rel="nofollow"&gt;40 Most Efficient Panels&lt;/a&gt; available which includes both mentioned. Good question!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Matej,</p>
<p>Thank you. SunPower 300 and 315 are not included on the chart above because the chart is of &#8220;30 of the most common&#8221; solar panels used. The size and cost of the SunPower 300 and 315, though they are very efficient, cause them to be used in solar installation projects much less commonly than the panels listed. That&#8217;s why I have included a link to the <a href="http://sroeco.com/solar/top-40-most-efficient-solar-panels" rel="nofollow">40 Most Efficient Panels</a> available which includes both mentioned. Good question!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matej</title>
		<link>http://sroeco.com/solar/most-efficient-solar-panels/comment-page-1/#comment-99</link>
		<dc:creator>Matej</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Mar 2010 08:22:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sroeco.com/solar/?p=487#comment-99</guid>
		<description>Hello

Nice chart! Very usefull.

Can I ask you why SunPower 300 and 315 are not included?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello</p>
<p>Nice chart! Very usefull.</p>
<p>Can I ask you why SunPower 300 and 315 are not included?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jocelyn</title>
		<link>http://sroeco.com/solar/most-efficient-solar-panels/comment-page-1/#comment-97</link>
		<dc:creator>Jocelyn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:18:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sroeco.com/solar/?p=487#comment-97</guid>
		<description>I am confused.  I live in So.Cal. and am getting estimates from 3 companies, the first, Solar City is going with the Kyocera panels (preliminarily), but I don't see Kyocera listed on the California SB1 Compliant list.  I also see that SunPower's panels are more efficient.  Since we are considering a PPA or lease, does it matter?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am confused.  I live in So.Cal. and am getting estimates from 3 companies, the first, Solar City is going with the Kyocera panels (preliminarily), but I don&#8217;t see Kyocera listed on the California SB1 Compliant list.  I also see that SunPower&#8217;s panels are more efficient.  Since we are considering a PPA or lease, does it matter?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SRoeCo Solar</title>
		<link>http://sroeco.com/solar/most-efficient-solar-panels/comment-page-1/#comment-96</link>
		<dc:creator>SRoeCo Solar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 05:24:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sroeco.com/solar/?p=487#comment-96</guid>
		<description>This data comes from the List of Eligible SB1 Guidelines Compliant Photovoltaic Modules used to receive California state rebates related to solar installations. It is from PV USA Testing conditions performed at a research facility in Davis, California. California is by far the state with the most solar installations at more than 530 megawatts (MW). New Jersey and Colorado are a distant 2nd and 3rd with 70.2 MW, and 35.7 MW installed respectively (according this Reuters report). This is why the current data is from California, and not the Northeastern USA.

The data is mainly for comparison purposes as the measurements are consistent. Local installers will have more information regarding local production output. My comparison charts are best used to confirm and/or ask about differences in output or efficiency.

&lt;blockquote&gt;PTC refers to PVUSA Test Conditions, which were developed to test and compare PV systems as part of the PVUSA (Photovoltaics for Utility Scale Applications) project. PTC are 1,000 Watts per square meter solar irradiance, 20 degrees C air temperature, and wind speed of 1 meter per second at 10 meters above ground level. PV manufacturers use Standard Test Conditions, or STC, to rate their PV products. STC are 1,000 Watts per square meter solar irradiance, 25 degrees C cell temperature, air mass equal to 1.5, and ASTM G173-03 standard spectrum. The PTC rating, which is lower than the STC rating, is generally recognized as a more realistic measure of PV output because the test conditions better reflect "real-world" solar and climatic conditions, compared to the STC rating. All ratings in the list are DC (direct current) watts.

Neither PTC nor STC account for all 'real-world' losses. Actual solar systems will produce lower outputs due to soiling, shading, module mismatch, wire losses, inverter and transformer losses, shortfalls in actual nameplate ratings, panel degradation over time, and high-temperature losses for arrays mounted close to or integrated within a roofline. These loss factors can vary by season, geographic location, mounting technique, azimuth, and array tilt.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

 –from &lt;a href="http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/equipment/pvmodule.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;List of Eligible SB1 Guidelines Compliant Photovoltaic Modules&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This data comes from the List of Eligible SB1 Guidelines Compliant Photovoltaic Modules used to receive California state rebates related to solar installations. It is from PV USA Testing conditions performed at a research facility in Davis, California. California is by far the state with the most solar installations at more than 530 megawatts (MW). New Jersey and Colorado are a distant 2nd and 3rd with 70.2 MW, and 35.7 MW installed respectively (according this Reuters report). This is why the current data is from California, and not the Northeastern USA.</p>
<p>The data is mainly for comparison purposes as the measurements are consistent. Local installers will have more information regarding local production output. My comparison charts are best used to confirm and/or ask about differences in output or efficiency.</p>
<blockquote><p>PTC refers to PVUSA Test Conditions, which were developed to test and compare PV systems as part of the PVUSA (Photovoltaics for Utility Scale Applications) project. PTC are 1,000 Watts per square meter solar irradiance, 20 degrees C air temperature, and wind speed of 1 meter per second at 10 meters above ground level. PV manufacturers use Standard Test Conditions, or STC, to rate their PV products. STC are 1,000 Watts per square meter solar irradiance, 25 degrees C cell temperature, air mass equal to 1.5, and ASTM G173-03 standard spectrum. The PTC rating, which is lower than the STC rating, is generally recognized as a more realistic measure of PV output because the test conditions better reflect &#8220;real-world&#8221; solar and climatic conditions, compared to the STC rating. All ratings in the list are DC (direct current) watts.</p>
<p>Neither PTC nor STC account for all &#8216;real-world&#8217; losses. Actual solar systems will produce lower outputs due to soiling, shading, module mismatch, wire losses, inverter and transformer losses, shortfalls in actual nameplate ratings, panel degradation over time, and high-temperature losses for arrays mounted close to or integrated within a roofline. These loss factors can vary by season, geographic location, mounting technique, azimuth, and array tilt.</p></blockquote>
<p> –from <a href="http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov/equipment/pvmodule.html" rel="nofollow">List of Eligible SB1 Guidelines Compliant Photovoltaic Modules</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jay Tyson</title>
		<link>http://sroeco.com/solar/most-efficient-solar-panels/comment-page-1/#comment-91</link>
		<dc:creator>Jay Tyson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 23:24:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sroeco.com/solar/?p=487#comment-91</guid>
		<description>Where does this data come from?
Is it from the manufacturers, from a testing lab, or from real-world conditions?  
If it is from real-world conditions, which part of the real world?  Was the testing done in New Mexico or Maine, or somewhere in between?  And if so, does it cover a full year cycle?  Were all of the panels tested at the same location?

I know some panels behave better in low light conditions, some are more shade tolerant, heat tolerant etc.  I would like to see some true side-by-side annual (or multi-year) results, especially if they come from the northeastern USA.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Where does this data come from?<br />
Is it from the manufacturers, from a testing lab, or from real-world conditions?<br />
If it is from real-world conditions, which part of the real world?  Was the testing done in New Mexico or Maine, or somewhere in between?  And if so, does it cover a full year cycle?  Were all of the panels tested at the same location?</p>
<p>I know some panels behave better in low light conditions, some are more shade tolerant, heat tolerant etc.  I would like to see some true side-by-side annual (or multi-year) results, especially if they come from the northeastern USA.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SRoeCo Solar</title>
		<link>http://sroeco.com/solar/most-efficient-solar-panels/comment-page-1/#comment-88</link>
		<dc:creator>SRoeCo Solar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 01:01:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sroeco.com/solar/?p=487#comment-88</guid>
		<description>My charts are currently up-to-date. There is nothing available on the market more efficient that what is listed. Anything more efficient has only been achieved in &lt;a href="http://sharp-world.com/corporate/news/091022.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;research laboratories&lt;/a&gt; and has yet to be available for the common consumer.

I will be sure to update these &lt;a href="http://sroeco.com/solar/learn-solar/solar-panel-comparison/" rel="nofollow"&gt;charts&lt;/a&gt; when new efficiencies are reached. However, don't expect this to happen regularly. Solar cells are not equivalent to computer chips. Let us know how the car progresses!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My charts are currently up-to-date. There is nothing available on the market more efficient that what is listed. Anything more efficient has only been achieved in <a href="http://sharp-world.com/corporate/news/091022.html" rel="nofollow">research laboratories</a> and has yet to be available for the common consumer.</p>
<p>I will be sure to update these <a href="http://sroeco.com/solar/learn-solar/solar-panel-comparison/" rel="nofollow">charts</a> when new efficiencies are reached. However, don&#8217;t expect this to happen regularly. Solar cells are not equivalent to computer chips. Let us know how the car progresses!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://sroeco.com/solar/most-efficient-solar-panels/comment-page-1/#comment-87</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:28:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sroeco.com/solar/?p=487#comment-87</guid>
		<description>I'm looking for the highest wattage per square foot, but the price on the 20% efficient sanyos are $4 per watt..   Is there anything more efficient than these yet as your post is getting old... The more wattage per square foot the better.I am going to cover a car with them as much as I can to run a hydrogen generator, and I will need as much power as i can possibly fit into that space.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m looking for the highest wattage per square foot, but the price on the 20% efficient sanyos are $4 per watt..   Is there anything more efficient than these yet as your post is getting old&#8230; The more wattage per square foot the better.I am going to cover a car with them as much as I can to run a hydrogen generator, and I will need as much power as i can possibly fit into that space.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SRoeCo Solar</title>
		<link>http://sroeco.com/solar/most-efficient-solar-panels/comment-page-1/#comment-70</link>
		<dc:creator>SRoeCo Solar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:52:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sroeco.com/solar/?p=487#comment-70</guid>
		<description>Glad to hear that you're talking with a local installer. You're correct: my &lt;a href="http://sroeco.com/solar/learn-solar/solar-panel-comparison/" rel="nofollow"&gt;charts&lt;/a&gt; do not include aesthetics. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, no? It would be hard to scientifically measure aesthetics. However, you're not the only person who has considered the looks of the system. Looks actually ends up being an important factor for many people. Your major differences in price of these three systems are going to come from their output, not their looks.

Sharp actually recently came out with the &lt;a href="http://www.sharpusa.com/SolarElectricity/SolarForResidential/ResidentialSolarProducts.aspx" rel="nofollow"&gt;OnEnergy&lt;/a&gt; roof-mounted system with a "low-profile rack designed to blend beautifully with a home's roofline". Ask your installer if he can provide this system.

The cliff's not as steep as you think. Solar panels are going to look like solar panels. Companies are focusing on improving efficiency and reducing cost much more so than they are working on aesthetics. Don't wait for that reason. Plus, the sooner you take the plunge, the sooner you'll reap the benefits!

As for wiggle-room, solar installers actually have low profit margins despite the news that it's a booming business. The competition is strong (which is good for the consumer). The wiggle-room, if any, will be in the salesman's commission. Talk to multiple installers, but remember - they've got to feed themselves too.

Good luck Rick!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Glad to hear that you&#8217;re talking with a local installer. You&#8217;re correct: my <a href="http://sroeco.com/solar/learn-solar/solar-panel-comparison/" rel="nofollow">charts</a> do not include aesthetics. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, no? It would be hard to scientifically measure aesthetics. However, you&#8217;re not the only person who has considered the looks of the system. Looks actually ends up being an important factor for many people. Your major differences in price of these three systems are going to come from their output, not their looks.</p>
<p>Sharp actually recently came out with the <a href="http://www.sharpusa.com/SolarElectricity/SolarForResidential/ResidentialSolarProducts.aspx" rel="nofollow">OnEnergy</a> roof-mounted system with a &#8220;low-profile rack designed to blend beautifully with a home&#8217;s roofline&#8221;. Ask your installer if he can provide this system.</p>
<p>The cliff&#8217;s not as steep as you think. Solar panels are going to look like solar panels. Companies are focusing on improving efficiency and reducing cost much more so than they are working on aesthetics. Don&#8217;t wait for that reason. Plus, the sooner you take the plunge, the sooner you&#8217;ll reap the benefits!</p>
<p>As for wiggle-room, solar installers actually have low profit margins despite the news that it&#8217;s a booming business. The competition is strong (which is good for the consumer). The wiggle-room, if any, will be in the salesman&#8217;s commission. Talk to multiple installers, but remember - they&#8217;ve got to feed themselves too.</p>
<p>Good luck Rick!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
