It loses about 0.29% of (relative) power output for every degree Celsius of temperature increase. If the module is operating at its maximum rated temperature of 85 degrees C, it's still about 83% as efficient as it would be under standard test conditions (25 degrees C).
Solar farms in sunny, hot regions generate more energy per year than identical installations in cooler, less sunny regions. The benefit of extra light dominates over the efficiency loss from higher temperatures. A location with as much sunlight as Las Vegas but the temperatures of Anchorage would be ideal, but there are few if any locations with those characteristics. That's why Las Vegas is still a good location for solar farms despite the heat.
That’s why you want high altitude to get the sun without the heat. I carefully left New Mexico out of my list of “not seeet spots” for that reason.
I did see some citizen science that showed a cooling fan added more power overall to panels, but I guess that’s another moving part and the way the subsidies work… who cares about increasing panel life.
https://static.trinasolar.com/sites/default/files/Datasheet_...
It loses about 0.29% of (relative) power output for every degree Celsius of temperature increase. If the module is operating at its maximum rated temperature of 85 degrees C, it's still about 83% as efficient as it would be under standard test conditions (25 degrees C).
Solar farms in sunny, hot regions generate more energy per year than identical installations in cooler, less sunny regions. The benefit of extra light dominates over the efficiency loss from higher temperatures. A location with as much sunlight as Las Vegas but the temperatures of Anchorage would be ideal, but there are few if any locations with those characteristics. That's why Las Vegas is still a good location for solar farms despite the heat.