Monocrystalline vs polycrystalline solar panel test

[MrNoodly]

Monocrystalline panels are more efficient and therefore worth the higher price, right? Well this guy tested them to see how they compare with polycrystalline panels.



If you don't want to use your mobile data watching the video, his results show the poly panels he tested have higher output. He has a damaged flexible panel with higher output that the monocrystaline panels he tested.

 

[regis101]

Interesting video. He used to post on here fir awhile but....

 

[regis101]

I had a coupla , yeah but, and what if, moments while watching. It is nice to know however that either will produce power.

 

[bigskybob]

Yes and no.It could be a case of simple transfer of power generated vs what is available at the inverter and is inverted correctly depending on the load and voltage produced..There would have to be tests under much more controlled conditions

 

[WILD@HEART]

Interesting question & good backyard vid, A+ for enthusiasm too, I've watched some of his vids.
I agree with bigskybob and would add the importance of Electrical knowledge, practice & theory to compare & substantiate any findings.

 

[XERTYX]

I have watched some of his vids. He does seem to have a lot of knowledge. Although I suspect much of it is book learning. Not knocking it but i value practical knowledge a bit more, and it seems he isnt lacking there either. I think the variable being overlooked here is surface area. Monos have a smaller footprint so in partial light as it was in the video the polys would HAVE to outperform the monos. They have a much wider area to capture light. I'd be interested to see him repeat the experiment on a super bright full sun day. I'd imagine the balance would shift. If you had a 100w panel that was 40 feet wide it would do even better than the ones he tested. Surface area was what he proved made the difference in my opinion.

My takeaway? If you have the roof space why not try the cheaper panels? Also food for thought if you live in an area with lots of cloudy days and or the far north and lose lots of light in the winter months.

 

[Seminole Wind]

judging a solar panel output based on one aspect over a very short period of time is not a good way to select solar panels if you are worried about getting the "best"panel for your situation. take note, he even mentioned he had to wait a long time to get the "right" conditions to do his little test. so big deal one panel out performed the other in that moment under those conditions. using info like that to judge a solar panel is like picking your wife after just meeting her as she left the beauty salon. probably not representative of the whole picture. which in both cases can be far more important in the long run.

if you really want to know which is best in your situation you would need to run them side by side over a long period of time in differen seasons and weather and store all that data.

for me, i would rather be out on the road enjoying life rather than fretting over which panel is best. heck with today's prices just buy an extra panel. or if you are limited on space spend the extra $ to buy higher efficiency panels. the cheap panels are in the 15-16% efficiency so a jump to 20+% efficiency can make a sizeable impact in your daily/weekly/yearly solar harvest

 

[RVTravel]

Having a way to shop for a purchase that may last a decade or more is certainly not fretting.

 

[Seminole Wind]

but using such a tiny irrelevant bit of info is fretting over inconsequential issues. when looking at a purchase that should last you a lifetime you want the big picture not some staged picture someone had to wait weeks to find the conditions to show. think big picture

 

[jimindenver]

I have been telling people to buy poly based on years of side by side testing. Yes my polys out produced the mono's in bright light but more importantly to me, they really out produce mono's in cloudy conditions.

 

[regis101]

Due to inch for inch surface area between the two, yes?

 

[XERTYX]

Due to inch for inch surface area between the two, yes?

That's my take on it. Given an unlimited area for installation and a general cloudy environment like maybe Seattle. The polys would seem the more likely choice. A roof top install especially on a van I'd think monos would win. I think what the video proves is that there is no real universal answer. Installation environment issues should also affect your photovoltaic application decisions as well. One tech may well have advantages in an area another is lacking. I honestly dont know. I dont have  a surface area square inch radiation vs density of whatever chart. Just my logical digestion of the raw data. 

I would like to think the long wait to find the perfect conditions were due to generally good weather in his locale. I think the scenario he was replicating wasnt a one day out of the month style test but rather a look at the worst case scenario type situation. 

Like if it were cloudy for the past 6 weeks and the forecast was rains for the next 2 weeks which would you rather have?

Unsolicited and potentially unwanted opinion of one man.

*Mike drop* out.

(Haha everyone is so serious on these forums. Lighten up) 

 

[regis101]

Talking thru the internet is different than talking around a campfire. It’s all good

 

[XERTYX]

Talking thru the internet is different than talking around a campfire.  It’s all good

Very true. Just seems to me that a more dense photovoltaic element only truimphs when surface area is a concern and there is plenty of full light sun. A satellite for instance would benefit from more density of PV elements. A cabin in the north country with a gigantic field available for a solar array would benefit from cheaper poly panels in a wider overall area.

 

[regis101]

Coke. Pepsi.
Ford. Chevy.
PWM. MPPT.
Mono. Poly.

oy vey

 

[RVTravel]

Tastes great. Less filling.

 

[XERTYX]

Haha. We all do have our brands and such we like dont we?

Mountain dew btw. You only mentioned coke and pepsi.