If you were on a planet in a binary star system would solar panels pick up more energy?
-------------------------------------------------------
answers:
ngc7331 say: only if the intrinsic brightness arriving on the panels is greater than attained here.
-
Ronald 7 say: Probably
Depend on the Stars and their paths and distance from each other. and the planet
-
Paula say: Possibly.
It depends on how hot each star is,
how far each star was from the planet.
Example, if the stars orbited each other at the distance of Mercury or less, and the planet was as far away as Mars, then both stars would appear close together in the sky. And there would be a :night" where both stars were below the horizon.
The solar panel would receive energy fro both stars.
Example. One star is as per our solar system, the other is where Jupiter is.
Then for most of the time the solar panel would only see" on star. When both were visible, the 2nd star would be on the other side of the solar system, and very little energy would be received from it.
-
Raymond say: Solar flux, at our distance to the Sun, is roughly 1345 W/m^2 (Watts per square metre).
If you had a 100% efficient solar panel that measures 1 metre by 1 metre (a little over a yard by a yard), placed exactly facing the Sun, you'd get 1345 W from it.
Once you get to the ground, with whatever is lost to the atmosphere (on average), you are left with approximately 900 to 1000 W per square metre. (I am still assuming 100% efficiency, and panels that face the Sun precisely).
The Solar flux is what determines how much energy the Earth gets. The efficiency of our atmosphere as "insulation" is what determines the average temperature we get, based on that flux of energy.
If we had (let's say) two stars equivalent to the Sun, and if we were orbiting at the same average distance from them (probably not possible, and it would have to be a "polar" orbit, relative to the stars' orbit around each other), then the flux would be twice as much and, in such a case and with everything else being equal (atmosphere, etc.), the solar panels should get roughly twice as much sunlight, therefore twice as much power.
HOWEVER, twice as much flux (everything else being equal) means that the average temperature would be hotter by 60 C (a little over 100 F hotter than what we have now, on average). There would be no free water on the surface of the planet as all the oceans would evaporate relatively rapidly (a few thousand years at best).
Therefore, if "we" go settle on a planet in a binary star system, it will be because that planet has good conditions for humans; this means that the total (average) flux we get from the two suns is the same as what Earth gets from our present Sun.
Furthermore, since these two stars will appear separated from each other, this means that you cannot get the solar panels to face both of them at the same time (thus a slight inefficiency in gathering the energy of at least one of the suns).
Therefore, my answer to your question is "no".
-
tham153 say: depends on type of stars, their sizes, and their respective distances
-
john say: That is a really great question. I'm doing solar energy lab right now and what seems more important than out side brightness appears to be the varible resistor used to limit the high energy from plasma.
Granted on the surface a dual sun (binary?) system may appear to pass more energy however than would really appear to be affected by high energy impact
It's possible any system other than our gas giant/single sun may actually be dimmer due to impact.
Gas giant really only impell reflected plasma with higher energy and single sun's have star shine for impact.
Simpler systems are usually a little better in energy production, too much junk ads to mechanical losses.
-
Fred say: If you found such a binary solar system planet that was compatible with the human life form the incoming solar energy would be very close to what exists on the Earth for temperature reasons. The problem is that the larger star is usually enormous. The outer star smaller. The planet located on large or small sun would be subject to wildly varying temperature swings and would extinguish life forms. On a human life cycle base temperatures would be compatible for a few generations ranging perhaps to a short thousand. But the planet's life forms would be toast alternating to frozen up in blocks of ice.
But the human temperate range demands that incoming solar energy is very close to what exists on Earth and that range could be slightly less or slightly more.
-
amania_r say: Compared to Earth?
Would depend on so many factors: brightness of the stars, distances from planet, spectral intensity in the visible light range, type and thickness of atmosphere, latitude, where the planet was in relationship to the stars.
Hoping that you'd get more hours of daylight is unlikely. For a planet to still be orbiting a binary star, it would need to be some distance from the pair so you'd always see the suns near each other in the sky.
-
oyubir say: No, on the contrary.
Of course I assume that the two stars, together, provide the same amount of energy to the planet than the Sun. If they are more powerful, or even each exactly as powerful than the sun, and the planet within the same distance, then, obviously there is more available energy. Your solar panel just have to face one of the suns, to get the same energy it would get on Earth, and get an extra energy bonus from the other Sun.
But in that case, life would be impossible on the planet anyway.
So let's assume that you are on Tatooine. There are two suns. And their power and distance from the planet is such as it gives the planet a climate similar to the one on Earth (like in Tunisia, where the scenes are shot, for example...)
Which means that each sun, alone, has to give less energy than ours. Or else life would be impossible (if you double the amount of energy received by a planet, you multiply by 2^1/4 the average temperature. It may sounds not a lot. 2^1/4 is only 1.19. So you add only 19% to the temperature. But to the temperature in Kelvin. So if temperature is 300K (80°F) in Tataouine, Tunisia, it would be 357K (182°F) on Tatooine, Outer Rim (and my 80°F in Tataouine estimation is quite low; it was just to have a round kelvin numbers. So in reality, it would be even more).
So, each sun have to be less powerful than ours. Twice less on average.
But then, you cannot optimize has well the panel position.
If your solar panel is orientable (it follows the sun), it has to choose which one to follow (I would go for the higher one, since it is the one whose rays are less intercepted by atmosphere), and be unoptimal for the second one.
If your soiar panel is fixed (which most are: the gain for mobile panel is not much), then again, unless it optimize both sun zenith (because the suns have the same trajectory - they follow each other in the sky), it has to be less optimal.
So, bottom line: if the planet if inhabitable, that is if the two suns, together, provide roughly the same amount of energy to the planet, then it will be harder for a solar panel to capture an optimal proportion of the energy, it that energy it distributed among two suns, at two different places in the sky
(Unless the suns follow the exact same trajectory, even with a delay between them, in the sky. In which case it would be the exact same efficiency as on Earth)
In short: no. It is easier to be optimal if energy come from a single direction.
-
Billy say: Probably but you ain’t gonna need to worry about it kid
-
poornakumar b say: Theoretically 'Yes'.
-
say: No. A solar cell is only interested in solar impact, it can absorb and convert only its capability. More source does not affect once the maximum capability is reached.
This is of course dependent on the angle to the source. So a binary star system may have better "coverage".
-