
Tesla unveils its new ‘sleek and low-profile’ solar panel made by Panasonic - prostoalex
https://electrek.co/2017/04/09/tesla-solar-panel-panasonic/
======
taneq
This looks slick, but there's actually a reason that rooftop solar panels are
installed with a gap between the panels and the roof. Panel power output drops
noticeably on hot days as panel temperature rises. The air gap creates a
siphon effect, pulling air past the panels and cooling them.

~~~
aerovistae
I seriously doubt that they've spent 10 years in the industry and would read
this comment and go "Wait, what?? Oh shit! We fucked up! Turns out nobody
working here had any relevant expertise at all, and we were just guessing how
this worked and how to design it! If only we'd talked to anyone who knew had
even basic knowledge about solar panels before creating a factory to produce
them!"

A more valid wording for this comment would be "I wonder how they altered the
design to accommodate for the siphon effect the gap generated," instead of
implying they have no idea what they're doing.

~~~
taneq
> A more valid wording for this comment would be "I wonder how they altered
> the design to accommodate for the siphon effect the gap generated," instead
> of implying they have no idea what they're doing.

If you want a rewording that's closer to my original meaning, it'd be more
like "I bet these were made with a cold climate, like that in the northern
USA, in mind. They'd lose 10-20% efficiency in summer where I live."

Edit: Although that may not be a terrible thing, if they're overprovisioned
compared with the inverter's maximum output so as to keep the inverter at full
power for a larger proportion of the time. Depending on climate, you could
probably balance out losses due to summer heat with losses due to reduced
winter daylight, at least to a degree, giving more reliable year-round power.

~~~
tw04
At the end of the day - does it matter? People expect X output at $X price. If
this meets that desire, they're fine. A lot of people would probably be just
fine losing some power on hot days to not have something ugly on the roof of
their house. For some things aesthetics DO matter - the roof of a house is one
of them for most people. Cars tend to be another one as Elon is well aware of.

------
itchyjunk
Solar power is catching on. Along with it, other things are changing. Selling
back to grid only gets you credit towards your power bill which you need to
use up in 6-12 months or you lose it (someone who recently got solar told me
this is how it works for him).

I would like to see ways for customers to sell power among themselves (if
possible) in this case. If I generate some extra power and someone needs it to
charge their car, i'd rather sell it to him. Instead of the shady power
company. But maybe it doesn't work like this.

~~~
matt4077
Ignoring the time limit you mention, I fail to see the difference? Electricity
isn't tangible. In the case of AC, they're just wiggling the electrons in your
appliances back and forth. Any promise that your power goes to your neighbour,
via the grid, would be a lie.

In financial terms, letting anyone sell electricity to the "shady power
company" at the same price they buy it at is only possible as a government-
mandated subsidy paid by all customers, intended to promote clean energy. It
effectively makes the grid your free, unlimited, zero-loss battery.

If you want to sell it to your neighbour at the same price they and you pay to
have the grid wiggle your electrons, there's no difference. If you want, for
unfathomable reason, to set a different price, you can just walk over and hand
them some money whenever you feel like it. But currently, there are no
circumstances under which it would make sense to not sell as much as you can
to the power company: if you're producing at costs above grid prices (still
likely in most locations), your neighbour could always get his power cheaper
from the grid. If you're producing below grid prices, selling as much as
possible at the subsidised rates is your best choice.

~~~
roel_v
"they're just wiggling the electrons in your appliances back and forth"

Sorry for highjacking your comment, but are there any physicists here who can
comment on whether this is accurate? More in particular, does electricity have
mass? Is 'current' electrons moving across a wire, or wiggling without
'moving'?

I've asked this years ago on the physics stack exchange, but I never got an
answer I actually understood. The context for my question was a legal paper I
was reading whose core argument relied on 'current' having mass, or rather,
the consumption of electrical energy requiring the transfer of mass, however
small. Note that there is an important precedent in my jurisdiction (the
Netherlands) that sort of assumed this back in the 1930's, but in this
particular argument (on ownership of virtual goods, like a sword in World of
Warcraft), the issue of the mass was even more pertinent.

(note that I'm not interested in debating whether that matters re: ownerships
of virtual goods; in my legal context it does. And yes I have a law degree.
I'm just putting this in because I've asked several times in several places
over the years, and there are always people who like to go 'XY problem!' and
then make ridiculously wrong pseudo-legal arguments.)

~~~
maggit
The comment is accurate, and electricity should not be considered as having
mass.

In a direct current (DC) setup, electrons will be moving continuously though
the wires in a big loop. But the displacement of the electrons is not the
electrical energy we are interested in.

It is instructive to think about alternating current (AC). In this case,
electrons will be moving a bit forward, and then a bit back. So, basically
wiggling more or less in place. There is still a lot of energy transferred.

A metaphor is a chain, like in a bicycle. You can use the chain to transfer
energy, but it is not the chain links that are the energy. The movement is the
energy. This is similar to electricity; it is not the electrons that move that
is the electrical energy, instead the electrical energy is the movement
itself.

(Due to Einstein's theory of relativity, we know that E=mc^2, which can be
summarized as "all forms of energy are also mass". Considering this, all
transfer of energy is transfer of mass. But it is miniscule. A small nuclear
power plant could produce 4450 GWh in one year. The relativistic mass of this
is 180g. All the energy produced in one full year of this plant has a total
mass of 180g. So you should not consider electricity to be transfer of mass,
even though it technically is :P )

(Also, since you asked for a physicist: I am not a physicist)

~~~
roel_v
No worries, I'm using a loose definition of 'physicist' \- anyone knowing
about physics is fine :)

Thanks for your contribution; as I mentioned below, I've gotten some different
answers, e.g. on [http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2188/does-
electri...](http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2188/does-electricity-
have-mass-is-electricity-tangible) where I asked the first time. Essentially,
are you saying that with DC current, there _is_ transfer of 'mass', but with
AC, there isn't? In the case such as I've explained it elsewhere in this
thread, this might mean that it matters how a computer is build to decide on
whether the virtual sword can be stolen or not... (maybe, I haven't really
looked hard at it in a few years, so I'm probably forgetting some details of
it).

~~~
IanCal
[Similar disclaimers about not being a physicist go here]

Something that's going to be a bit tricky here is that electrons are really,
really slow when we're talking about electricity through a wire. The electrons
will bounce around very quickly at random, but the average flow caused by a
current is _slow_. Really, really slow.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drift_velocity)

For a specific but not unreasonable example:

> Therefore in this wire the electrons are flowing at the rate of −0.000023
> m/s. At 60 Hz alternating current, this means that within half a cycle the
> electrons drift less than 0.2 μm. In other words, electrons flowing across
> the contact point in a switch will never actually leave the switch.

That kind of speed means that any messages sent over a copper wire are not
going to be sending electrons all the way for that message. The electrons that
'carry' the message "I AM A VIRTUAL SWORD" will not go from my machine to
yours as a rushing block. Instead all I'll be doing is tapping the end of a
very long pole connecting our two properties, so you can read the message by
the patterns of the end of the pole in your house moving ever-so-slightly.

So, I guess I am transferring mass, but nothing that comes from me goes to
you.

This also assumes a very particular direction. There's nothing, as far as I'd
understand, that requires me to be pushing electrons at you. I could be
_pulling_ on the pole slightly rather than _pushing_.

I'd love any corrections or additions to this, purely my lay understanding of
the topic.

~~~
pwagland
Even ignoring the speed of the electrons, this ignores that several steps of
that route will almost certainly be done over fibre anyway, and at that point
there is clearly no transfer or electrons from the "seller" to the "buyer".
Although I have no idea whether or not this is relevant to the legal question
at hand…

------
moonka
When I was a child this is how I thought solar panels would look in the
future. These look much nicer, and I imagine will help win over those who are
very concerned about curb appeal.

~~~
astrodust
I think the reason you thought that was because of Syd Mead:
[http://www.sydmead.com/v/12/](http://www.sydmead.com/v/12/)

------
codecamper
Amazing how much press Tesla gets for solar panels. How about JK Solar,
Canadian solar, JA Solar.. these companies ship GWs of solar panels. Today.
Meanwhile their stock is worth tiny multiples.

~~~
_-__---
Not sure about the products/companies you're listing, but cult of personality
must have a lot to do with the extra press. People will click on links to
stories about Tesla/Elon/SolarCity without the journalists having to do as
much.

------
makomk
This seems like the final nail in the coffin for SolarCity's in-house solar
manufacturing technology from Silveo, which as I recall was meant to be part
of the justification for Tesla buying them. The tiles were already announced
to be using Panasonic solar cells, and with their non-tile solar product
switching to Panasonic-made panels too...

------
OrwellianChild
With a relatively attractive panel like this one, what case remains for the
solar roof product? Particularly considering the fact that there is a positive
social signal associated with visible solar on your house? I'm not sure I
understand the trade-offs between the two. Isn't this the superior product?

------
ckastner
The full title reads "Tesla unveils its new ‘sleek and low-profile’ exclusive
solar panel _made by Panasonic_ ". From the sources it references, it also
appears that Panasonic is manufacturing Tesla's batteries.

Does anyone know how much of this is Tesla's technology, and how much
Panasonic's? If it's mostly the latter, what would stop Panasonic from
providing the same technology to other parties?

~~~
bigtimeidiot
> _If it 's mostly the latter, what would stop Panasonic from providing the
> same technology to other parties?_

There's a big benefit for Panasonic supplying a company with hot products,
like Tesla. But outside of whatever contractual obligations they have, there's
nothing stopping them.

I implore you to look around at these industries from other sources. If you
only read HackerNews, you'd think Tesla is the only company that can make a
decent EV (even though motortrend said the Bolt performed nearly as well, had
longer range and was $30k cheaper than the Model 60), that no one is close
with self-driving and that Tesla are the only one providing this type of solar
panel or battery storage solution. These are _all_ hyper competitive, low
margin spaces.

Tesla is doing some very cool things, but the unjustified hype is going to
blow up in people's faces. Expectations are too high.

~~~
ckastner
I browsed Tesla's recent 10-K filings [1,2] in the meantime. The lithium-
battery cells, at least, are purchased from Panasonic by Tesla, which (I
assume) implies that it's Panasonic's technology to manufacture and sell.

The Gigafactory 1 appears to be some sort of joint venture which is bankrolled
by Tesla, but operated by Panasonic, where the batteries are produced. The
Gigafactory 2 is similar, but produces PV cells and modules.

[1]
[https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000156459016...](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000156459016013195/tsla-10k_20151231.htm)

[2]
[https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000156459017...](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000156459017003118/tsla-10k_20161231.htm)

------
rb808
The pictures look great, but black or slate roofs are not so common in the USA
so I'm not so excited. If you want the nice look a black roof parts that
aren't covered with panels will probably make the attic way too hot. With less
airflow the panels must be less efficient too.

I preferred the Tesla Solar Roof Shingles they announced last year
[https://www.tesla.com/solarroof](https://www.tesla.com/solarroof). I any case
its an exciting time and great to see people working to make them better
looking.

------
Animats
That's a nice design. The bevel around the edge makes it look better, as does
making the interconnects and edges black.

Uni-Solar had a similar all-black look with their solar shingles.[1] They were
once #1 in flexible solar panels. But they went bankrupt in 2012.

[1] [http://www.uni-solar.com/#&panel1-1](http://www.uni-solar.com/#&panel1-1)

------
ecopoesis
They look a lot like Sunpower's all black panels. I wonder how efficient they
are? In Sunpower's case, the all-black ones are lower wattage and less
efficient then their traditional looking ones, but also cheaper.

------
_Codemonkeyism
Panasonic batteries, Panasonic panels. Panasonic does a very bad PR job.

