View Single Post
Old 10-25-2014, 05:42 PM   #6 (permalink)
solarguy
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 196
Thanks: 4
Thanked 34 Times in 26 Posts
In general, monocrystaline is more efficient, and longer lasting than amorphous.

The cheaper ones are often amorphous.

Amorphous may be slightly better under a partially cloudy sky.

Efficiency is sort of irrelevant. What does it cost, per delivered watt? The exception being a small roof that needs panels that are high watt per square foot.

The big companies that have been at it for a while are less likely to go out of business and stiff you on a warranty.

Wholesale solar is often very illuminating on the good deals to be had on panels.

Solar Panels from Wholesale Solar

If I could get amorphous panels for half the cost of mono-crystaline, I'd just put up twice as much, assuming both from a name brand company with similar warranties.

Ten years from now, I think it will look uneconomic to make electricity out of coal, with the possible exception of base load at night.

There's talk of .36 a watt solar panels on the horizon. If that happens, it's going to be a disruptive game changer. Hey, we can all hope.

I'd hate to see the big fossil energy companies suffer. I knew there was a fundamental sea change when traditional energy companies started buying pv manufacturers.
__________________
2004 VW TDI PD on bio

want to build 150 mpg diesel streamliner.
  Reply With Quote