<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style>
<style type="text/css">body { font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:13px}</style>
</head>
<body class="hmmessage">On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 16:37:44 -0400, Carmine Vasile <gfx-ch@msn.com> wrote:<br><br><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0.80ex; border-left: #0000FF 2px solid; padding-left: 1ex"><div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="2">system for our all-electric house that can produce only 72% </font></div></blockquote><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0.80ex; border-left: #0000FF 2px solid; padding-left: 1ex"><div dir="ltr"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10pt;">to attain 99% we need panels capable of delivering at least</span></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Don't know nuttin' about nuttin' about PV gizmology and can't help you on the leasing companies ... but I do remember my neighbour, a theoretical physicist at the (Canadian) NRC, telling me about the Fresnel lenses-based concentrated PV systems that he had been playing with where PV cells the size of one's fingernail could replace the much larger PV arrays one typically sees around the neighbourhood.</div><div><br></div><div>If available roof-top mounting area is a limiting factor (as seems to be CV's case) then it would seem that the Fresnel lenses concentrators might be useful . </div><div><br></div><div>Also, I do know that tracking systems seem to increase a system's performance by about 30-40% (or more) in my neighbourhood (when comparing the production of two identical sized 52 panel arrays within a few concession roads of each other). </div><div><br></div><div>But as to which approach would provide the biggest bang for the buck, I haven't a clue but my my wild-@$$ guess would be the Fresnel lens concentrators simply because fewer PV cells would be required and Fresnel lenses should be fairly cheap.</div></body></html>