The big question with our solar power calculations has been: what would we see in the real world? The 320 Watts per panel (of which there are four) is the theoretical maximum. You then degrade for shadows, less-than-perfect angle of panel and sun, dirt on the panels, and clouds. We have assumed Maine would be an interesting test with its summer fog. The data has been surprising, and how it relates to the FB 97 assumptions even more so.
We are in the second week of August, so well past the extra long days around the summer solstice. On totally foggy days we collect a surprising 2.8 to 3.5 kWh. We are not sure how this happens, but there does seem to be a surprising amount of energy coming through the clouds.
We’ve had some days which have heavy fog, then high clouds, and maybe 10% of the time relatively clear sunlight. Production here ranges from 6.0 to 7.5 kWh. And we have set a Wind Horse record on one day with no fog and mostly clear sun, with about 25% of the day having high thin clouds: 8.05 kWh.
Another pleasantly surprising item is the lack of issue with dirt on the panels. They wash off easily and, for the most part, have not required cleaning. Salt buildup offshore has occurred, but also rinses right off.
We were originally concerned with the need to maintain a positive ground on the panel frames for maximum output, something not possible on a negatively grounded vessel, even with the panels isolated. Further research indicates that this is more of a marketing benefit rather than real world efficiency gain. The data on power collection is based on a negatively grounded panel.
If you talk to the purveyors of solar systems about the battery charging cycle they will tell you that every bit of power collected, that’s left over after deducting for the consumption going on during the day, will go towards charging the batteries. However, our research indicates this is not the case. Hoppeke, the suppliers of the traction batteries used so far aboard the FPBs, says that there is an initial amperage required before the amps collected actually go toward charging. For their tubular traction batteries this is calculated as follows: 60 milliamps for every 100 amp hours of battery capacity (at the C-10 rating) times the number of cells in the battery. For Wind Horse, this works out to 60 X 15 x 12, or 9.6 amps (24 VDC). Anything over the 9.6 amps does charge the batteries. Less than this and nothing happens. Since the amp hour meters show all the in/out, they will be overstating the charge benefits in most cases.
For the FPB 97, with substantially more panels and a 2000 amp hour battery bank, the numbers are as follows: 60 milliamps times 20 x 12, or 14.4 amps. The FPB 97 has five times as many panels as Wind Horse, although they will be somewhat less efficient due to angles and shading. To be conservative, assume four times the Wind Horse output. We regularly see +10 amps within two hours of sunrise or sunset, even in somewhat cloudy conditions.
This scales to an initial 40 amps with the larger FPB 97 array. Of course you need to deduct the consumption aboard from these figures.
While we installed the array aboard Wind Horse as a test to see what we could expect on the FPB 97, now that we see the results, we are very pleased to have made this choice. At their very worst in terms of output, assuming no charging of the batteries, they cover 100% of our daytime power needs, excluding the dryer during wash cycle. This is more than half our normal total consumption, and it means we can sit for a week or ten days without moving or running the genset. Very cool indeed. Should there be a disruption in the fuel supply, or a world gone mad, we could easily modify our power consumption habits to live within the output of these four panels.
For the FPB 97, what we now know is that, in a somewhat less-than-optimal solar environment, as represented by summertime Maine, the solar panels will do the job envisioned.
It will be interesting to see how things work out in a winter tropical environment, with shorter, albeit sunnier days.
So far, it looks like the assumptions on solar energy are holding up.
Post script: Friday has given us low fog, interspersed with overcast, leading to rain in the evening. Solar output has set a record low, just 1.9 kWh. Given what must be a relatively thick deck of clouds, and a temperature cool enough to have us in long sleeves and jackets, we consider the output nothing short of amazing.
August 11th, 2012 at 3:49 am
I am a fan Steve… absolutely love the professionalism and the detail here… and these solar stats are very very interesting with application to power and sail
But… is there any chance you could still post some specifically sailing comments every few weeks or so… for example, what do you think of the roller down spinnaker furling… I’m happy to think of a topic regularly for your consideration 🙂
cheers
Warren
August 11th, 2012 at 4:47 am
Good suggestion, Warren. Will try to diversify a bit.
August 11th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Good news about the lack of salt and dirt accumulation. When you do your first year analysis of solar panel usage post, please include the water and cleaning time budget as line items. Can you tell what kind of coating the solar panels have? While it seems obvious that solar panel design would optimize for UV resistance, it is going to be interesting to check on how long the ease of cleaning lasts.
I’m sorry if my gloom about the lasting benefits of solar panel usage is annoying. My experience at sea is with badly maintained gear that wasn’t anything as well designed as your work. It may be churlish to want to do microscopic examination of the surface of the panels after one year, but that will reveal problems long before sections start flaking off. I respect you and your designs, but I respect the ocean more.
August 11th, 2012 at 5:45 pm
These panels are typically used in huge, as in multi megawatt, systes with thousands of panels. They supply a 20+ year guarantee, and I suspect they will be around a while. Time will tell. The surface looks like a Tedlar or similar finish. We’ve only cleaned the panels once since they were installed. And the process took just a few minutes.
August 15th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
Steve,
You said above:
“Hoppeke, the suppliers of the traction batteries used so far aboard the FPBs, says that there is an initial amperage required before the amps collected actually go toward charging.”
Can you say where the power goes if not into charging the batteries?
Thanks,
Henry.
August 15th, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Our understanding is there is a certain amount of “overhead” required for the chemical processes, that does not go towards the actual recharge cycle.
September 5th, 2012 at 3:11 am
Steve, I’m seeing the same effect wrt. an overhead current on our boat, but I’m not sure I understand the rule of thumb from Hoppeke.
For their tubular traction batteries this is calculated as follows: 60 milliamps for every 100 amp hours of battery capacity (at the C-10 rating) times the number of cells in the battery.
I can understand how the size of the battery matters (every 100 AH) and the constant (60 mA) but why does the number of cells matter?
As far as I know Windhorse has 12 cells, 2 V each, wired in series to produce 12 x 2 = 24V. Thus all cells are wired serially.
In such a configuration if you have the solar cells produce a current X out of the controller then that is a current X through each of the cells.
If we make an absurd 1500 Ah @ 240 VDC battery that produces 240 V with 120 cells in series the rule would say that you need 60 ma x 15 x 120 = 108 A. At 240 V that is 108 x 240 = 25,920 W, or 216 W per cell! I can see those batteries literally cooking now!
Thus I think what was meant was 60 mA x (cel capacity / 100 Ah) x parallel cells, and thus the Windhorse figure should be 60mA X 15 x 1, or 0.9 A. This comes out at a reasonable 24 x 0.9 = 21.6 W for the entire battery.