Swiss manufacturer unveils 500W solar module with 23.2% efficiency

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Megasol said the solar module relies on new back-contact technology that is able to reduce internal resistance, ohmic losses and cell spacing.


The company claimed to have improved the efficiency of the panel, which previously featured an efficiency of 22.1%, through a new back-contact technology dubbed “RearCon.”

“By moving the busbars to the rear, we eliminated the problem of self-shading, as every contact on a cell covers cell area with which electricity can be generated,” explained Michael Reist, head of communications and marketing at Megasol. In addition, the manufacturer said it used busbars with particularly high conductivity for the rear contact. “This reduces the internal resistance and, as a result, the ohmic losses considerably,” Reist continued, noting that this also reduces the cell spacing. “In fact, the cell spacing is negative — the cells overlap very slightly by 0.3 millimeters. This gapless stringing leads to space savings and higher efficiency,” he affirmed.

The rated output of the new 144-cell glass-glass module is 500 W. Depending on the albedo of the ground, a bifacial additional yield of up to 30% is possible, according to the product sheet from the Swiss photovoltaic manufacturer.



 

Kyle

Beloved Misanthrope
PREMO Member
All the bitching we hear about conversion loss from coal, oil or natural gas to electric and they're raving about 23% on a solar panel.

Drill, Dig and Distribute the fossil fuels.

Solar and Wind aren't ready for the big leagues.
 

Sneakers

Just sneakin' around....
Solar and Wind aren't ready for the big leagues.
Agree. Not only the conversion process to electricity, but the ability to store it for use during non-producing hours. Battery tech for those huge mega kilowatts just isn't there.
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
23% efficiency doesn’t sound that great to me. What am I missing?

23% is pretty great for a shipping product, but efficiency doesn't matter nearly as much as cost per watt. They should be focusing on reducing cost as much as possible rather than chasing the last couple of percent efficiency.

Guys in labs have been producing near 50% efficiency for a couple of years now, but they may never be cost effective.
 

Sneakers

Just sneakin' around....
All the bitching we hear about conversion loss from coal, oil or natural gas to electric and they're raving about 23% on a solar panel.
But after some consideration... you need to account for the conversion metrics of coal and gas because the original product costs money, the coal and the gas. The better the conversion, the less it costs overall to produce energy.

That's not true with solar. The starting point of solar is "free", so the original cost to explore, mine, process, transport, etc... are negated. Solar energy costs nothing for the photons, so the only costs are the manufacture and transport of the converters. A lower efficiency still yields lower costs.

But it's still not ready for prime time.
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Guys in labs have been producing near 50% efficiency for a couple of years now, but they may never be cost effective.


a different solution I read recently .. a filter that converts unusable colors to usable ones blocking colors that ' heat up ' the cell degrading performance
 

Clem72

Well-Known Member
All the bitching we hear about conversion loss from coal, oil or natural gas to electric and they're raving about 23% on a solar panel.

Drill, Dig and Distribute the fossil fuels.

Solar and Wind aren't ready for the big leagues.

That's not really equivalent in coal/oil (maybe natural gas). Going from the suns rays to electricity is more like going from the original tree to electricity produced from coal, what's the conversion from dinosaur to electricity produced from oil?
 
Top