If aiming for a particular power output \(^{109}\) from a PV array, describe explicitly/quantitatively how PV panel efficiency interacts with the physical size (area) of the array. For instance, what happens if the efficiency doubles or is cut in half, while keeping the same target output?

Short Answer

Expert verified
Answer: The area of a PV array is inversely proportional to its efficiency when maintaining a constant power output. If the efficiency doubles, the required area is halved, whereas if the efficiency is cut in half, the required area doubles.

Step by step solution

01

1. Understand the equation for power output

The power output of a PV array can be calculated using the following formula: Power output = Efficiency * Area * Solar radiation Where efficiency is the percentage of sunlight converted into electricity, the area is the surface area of the PV array, and solar radiation refers to the energy received from the sun.
02

2. Keeping power output constant

Our goal is to analyze what happens to the area of a PV array when efficiency changes under the condition that the desired power output remains constant. To do this, first, rewrite the power output formula as follows: Area = \(\frac{Power\, output}{Efficiency \times Solar\, radiation}\)
03

3. Compare changes in efficiency

When the efficiency of a PV array changes, we can compare how its area changes by finding the ratio of the new area to the original area. Let's denote the original efficiency as \(Eff_{1}\) and the new efficiency as \(Eff_{2}\).
04

4. Doubling efficiency

If the efficiency doubles, we have \(Eff_{2} = 2 \times Eff_{1}\). To find the new area (Area\(_{2}\)) required for the same power output, we can use the formula from step 2. \(\frac{Area_{2}}{Area_{1}} = \frac{Power\, output}{2 \times Eff_{1} \times Solar\, radiation} \cdot \frac{Eff_{1} \times Solar\, radiation}{Power\, output} = \frac{1}{2}\) This means that when the efficiency doubles, the required area for the same power output is halved.
05

5. Halving efficiency

If the efficiency is cut in half, we have \(Eff_{2} = \frac{1}{2} \times Eff_{1}\). To find the new area (Area\(_{2}\)) required for the same power output, we can again use the formula from step 2. \(\frac{Area_{2}}{Area_{1}} = \frac{Power\, output}{\frac{1}{2} \times Eff_{1} \times Solar\, radiation} \cdot \frac{Eff_{1} \times Solar\, radiation}{Power\, output} = 2\) This means that when the efficiency is cut in half, the required area for the same power output doubles. In conclusion, the area of a PV array is inversely proportional to its efficiency when aiming for a constant power output. If the efficiency doubles, the area required is halved, whereas if the efficiency is cut in half, the area required doubles.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

If we had two monochromatic (single-wavelength) light sources-a green one at \(\lambda=0.5 \mu \mathrm{m}\) and a near-infrared one at \(\lambda=1.0 \mu \mathrm{m}-\) each emitting photons at an energy rate of \(1 \mathrm{~W}, 103\) how does the number of photons emerging per second from each source compare? Is it the same number for each because both are \(1 \mathrm{~W}\) sources, or is it a different number-and by what factor, if so?

One way to look at solar payback time time is to note that an installed system will cost something like \(\$ 3,000\) for each \(\mathrm{kW}_{\mathrm{p}}\) (peak capacity), and that you'll produce \(x \mathrm{kWh}\) from that \(1 \mathrm{~kW}_{\mathrm{p}}\) array if your region gets \(x\) hours of full-sun- equivalent on average. Since each kWh of electricity costs something like \(\$ 0.15\), it becomes straightforward to compute the value per day as \(\$ 0.15 x\), and determine how long to match the \$3k investment. The result is independent of the actual array size, depending only on the cost per \(W_{p}\), the solar yield at your location, and the cost of electricity. What would the payback time be, in years, if the cost is \(\$ 3 / W_{p}, 17\) the yield is 6 hours per day of full-sun-equivalent, and electricity in your region costs \(\$ 0.15 / \mathrm{kWh}\) ?

Many people have an instinctive reaction to discount the \(<20 \%\) PV panel efficiency as disappointingly low-perhaps thinking they should hold out for higher. Present a multi-point argument about why the efficiency is actually pretty good, and why in practice it is plenty good enough to be practical.

Solar photovoltaics are practical for individual homes, but solar thermal is only to be found in large utility-scale installations. What is the practical reason why we should not expect solar thermal installations on peoples' rooftops for electricity generation?

The outcome of Problem 5 indicates that a hot light bulb filament emits thousands of times more power per unit area than human skin. Yet both a human and a light bulb may emit a similar amount of light \(^{105}\) - both around \(100 \mathrm{~W}\). Explain how both things can be true?

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Environmental Science Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free