Comments on: Economical Solar Panels to Yield More Energy

By: Keith Elliott

Keith Elliott — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 02:54:04 +0000

In some areas, the amorphous panels work better than others.

It isn’t a matter of being cheaper, as usually prices are based on a “per watt” unit of price.

In lower light conditions, such as the Pacific Northwest, the Uni-Solar amorphous panels work well. Attach that to edge-of-cloud-effect, which is common up this way, and these panels are just fine.

The only disadvantage is that they require at least twice the space per watt of production. If you have the roof area, this isn’t a concern.

Mine have been working perfectly for over a decade.

I will say this though, I can buy crystalline panels for less than 1/4 the price I paid for the amorphous panels well over 10 years ago.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:37:39 +0000

As above I think uptown solar made some good points, sure everyone would like to pay less for something but it should be the lifetime cost that is considered.

By: Robert Easterling

Robert Easterling — Wed, 18 Aug 2010 13:01:33 +0000

Uptown Solar nailed it right on the head! Solar is most certainly NOT something you want to find the cheapest price on. You end up with a system incapable of generating enough energy to make a dent in your needs.

By: microhousehold

microhousehold — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 21:33:24 +0000

It is always good to look for cheaper production methods.
Especially when the banks refuse credit.

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:14:57 +0000

‘normal’ Crystalline solar cells range into much higher efficiencies than 18%. Not sure if these numbers are BS or just an overly specific article for laymen like myself to understand.

By: Uptown Solar

Uptown Solar — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 08:27:34 +0000

It’s funny that Amorphous technology attracts low price shoppers. In this market everyone needs to be educated to the truth of energy production versus cost. Buying cheaper panels is like saving 100 bucks on a car to get half the gas mileage. As it is, solar companies do poor jobs in marketing.

By: Robert Easterling

Robert Easterling — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:17:45 +0000

According to this article that still means that Amorphus solar is 9% lower than Crystalline Silicon in their yields. It seems to me that the true target for any manufacturing would or should be in their overall conversion percentiles.