Scientists make game-changing breakthrough that could slash costs of solar panels: 'Has the potential to contribute to the energy transition'
Technology
126
Beiträge
88
Kommentatoren
6
Aufrufe
-
I think their approach with module is 20-50x concentration instead of 500x, with cooling permitted to be module wide on air gap, as well as usual bottom cooling.
usual bottom cooling.
Nothing like it on a summer day.
-
Kinda works if you use bifacial panels.
Bifacial panels as a fence provides 3% extra yield but 30% extra revenue
Solar Fence vs Conventional Ground-Mount Solar
What is a solar fence and how does a solar fence stack up compared to conventional ground-mount solar in London and Sydney?
(www.gridcog.com)
-
This is 36% MODULE efficiency with expensive cooling. 30% actual year long efficiency without it. Requires dual axis tracking. Seems heavy as its very tall/deep.
Headline of cost reduction is very unlikely. Especially on a per acre/fairly large area basis. Dual axis tracking requires more spacing than fixed orientation rows, and loses benefits under cloudy conditions. While power at 7am and 5pm is more valuable when competing against high penetration solar, batteries are now more competitive than tracking, and can serve edge of day and night power needs. Tracking solar tends not to be built anymore, due to low cost of panels. The cooling infrastructure is also not as useful as it is on rooftops because the heat capture has useful benefits for homes.
It is also unclear how this has advantage over parabolic mirror.
Agri PV is a real use case, where more free land means more land use, even if most of it gets more shade, except around noon.
You are at least completely and utterly wrong about tracking solar not typically being built anymore. Any major solar site uses tracking if you have a couple acres on a corner maybe not but I think you are being a bit too general. Panels are only one of many costs per solar panel installation, its still cost effective overall to increase efficiency.
-
cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/24690127
Solar energy experts in Germany are putting sun-catching cells under the magnifying glass with astounding results, according to multiple reports.
The Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems team is perfecting the use of lenses to concentrate sunlight onto solar panels, reducing size and costs while increasing performance, Interesting Engineering and PV Magazine reported.
The "technology has the potential to contribute to the energy transition, facilitating the shift toward more sustainable and renewable energy sources by combining minimal carbon footprint and energy demand with low levelized cost of electricity," the researchers wrote in a study published by the IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics.
The sun-catcher is called a micro-concentrating photovoltaic, or CPV, cell. The lens makes it different from standard solar panels that convert sunlight to energy with average efficiency rates around 20%, per MarketWatch. Fraunhofer's improved CPV cell has an astounding 36% rate in ideal conditions and is made with lower-cost parts. It cuts semiconductor materials "by a factor of 1,300 and reduces module areas by 30% compared to current state-of-the-art CPV systems," per IE.
US Government - not on my watch....
-
Bifacial panels as a fence provides 3% extra yield but 30% extra revenue
Solar Fence vs Conventional Ground-Mount Solar
What is a solar fence and how does a solar fence stack up compared to conventional ground-mount solar in London and Sydney?
(www.gridcog.com)
Sure, but if you wanted solar panels to work on both sides of your East/West facing fence, you'd have to buy 100% more panels, so bifacial saves you 70% there. Seems like a good deal. I'm sure you read the "Model Overview" of that article and caught that the monofacial panels were facing the equator, and the bifacial panels were facing East/West...
Edit: bad read on my part, I didn't not understad the full content of the previous message.
-
Sure, but if you wanted solar panels to work on both sides of your East/West facing fence, you'd have to buy 100% more panels, so bifacial saves you 70% there. Seems like a good deal. I'm sure you read the "Model Overview" of that article and caught that the monofacial panels were facing the equator, and the bifacial panels were facing East/West...
Edit: bad read on my part, I didn't not understad the full content of the previous message.
I don't think we are arguing. I was just giving you more details.
-
cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/24690127
Solar energy experts in Germany are putting sun-catching cells under the magnifying glass with astounding results, according to multiple reports.
The Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems team is perfecting the use of lenses to concentrate sunlight onto solar panels, reducing size and costs while increasing performance, Interesting Engineering and PV Magazine reported.
The "technology has the potential to contribute to the energy transition, facilitating the shift toward more sustainable and renewable energy sources by combining minimal carbon footprint and energy demand with low levelized cost of electricity," the researchers wrote in a study published by the IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics.
The sun-catcher is called a micro-concentrating photovoltaic, or CPV, cell. The lens makes it different from standard solar panels that convert sunlight to energy with average efficiency rates around 20%, per MarketWatch. Fraunhofer's improved CPV cell has an astounding 36% rate in ideal conditions and is made with lower-cost parts. It cuts semiconductor materials "by a factor of 1,300 and reduces module areas by 30% compared to current state-of-the-art CPV systems," per IE.
They need changes in laws too. Instead of chewing up open space and farmland I'd rather see more urban areas used like parking lots and industrial sites.
-
Solar panels as fences is what is needed.
Urban shade
-
You are at least completely and utterly wrong about tracking solar not typically being built anymore. Any major solar site uses tracking if you have a couple acres on a corner maybe not but I think you are being a bit too general. Panels are only one of many costs per solar panel installation, its still cost effective overall to increase efficiency.
You're right about US. seems half uses tracking. No numbers on China which is 30x larger market. Economics still only make sense at consumer level of $1/watt panel prices, to me, but I guess there are reasons I don't understand.
-
I don't think we are arguing. I was just giving you more details.
My interpretation of your comment was that bifacial solar panels are a useless gimmick which allows companies to charge more for a cheaper product.
Is that correct?
-
My interpretation of your comment was that bifacial solar panels are a useless gimmick which allows companies to charge more for a cheaper product.
Is that correct?
No, the opposite. They are superior. Bifacial panels have a 3% additional yield over standard panels. The +10-20% cost premium is covered by the +30% revenue
Even with traditional mountings, Bifacial panels pick up extra light reflected from the ground.
-
No, the opposite. They are superior. Bifacial panels have a 3% additional yield over standard panels. The +10-20% cost premium is covered by the +30% revenue
Even with traditional mountings, Bifacial panels pick up extra light reflected from the ground.
Bad read on my part, sorry for the snark. Carry on.
-
Bad read on my part, sorry for the snark. Carry on.
No problem. Take a closer look a the link, particularly the graphs.
-
They need changes in laws too. Instead of chewing up open space and farmland I'd rather see more urban areas used like parking lots and industrial sites.
Roughly 50% of germany is used as farmland. On 60% of the farmland crops to feed livestock are grown. On 20% of it crops for energyproduction (biofuel, biogas).
If you take for example rapeseeds, used for biodiesel, you would harvest around 50 times as much energy with a pv-plant on the same area.
You would need to install pv on 5-6% of the farmland to produce enough electric energy for all of germany for a year. Granted you also can provide the grid for it and enoguh storage. -
I've been thinking about getting solar for a while, how bad is the efficiency loss at -30C to -20C?
They gain efficiency at lower temps. Cool, clear days are best. At negative 20C you're looking at ~15-20% increase in power output from the panel itself. Look for the "temperature coefficient" on a solar module spec sheet.
-
cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/24690127
Solar energy experts in Germany are putting sun-catching cells under the magnifying glass with astounding results, according to multiple reports.
The Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems team is perfecting the use of lenses to concentrate sunlight onto solar panels, reducing size and costs while increasing performance, Interesting Engineering and PV Magazine reported.
The "technology has the potential to contribute to the energy transition, facilitating the shift toward more sustainable and renewable energy sources by combining minimal carbon footprint and energy demand with low levelized cost of electricity," the researchers wrote in a study published by the IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics.
The sun-catcher is called a micro-concentrating photovoltaic, or CPV, cell. The lens makes it different from standard solar panels that convert sunlight to energy with average efficiency rates around 20%, per MarketWatch. Fraunhofer's improved CPV cell has an astounding 36% rate in ideal conditions and is made with lower-cost parts. It cuts semiconductor materials "by a factor of 1,300 and reduces module areas by 30% compared to current state-of-the-art CPV systems," per IE.
at this point it doesnt matter. theres no saving us from extinction due to climate change. this serves only for the intermediate period where we can "save" some money on energy day to day, before the inevitable collapse that makes money and savings worthless.
dont get me wrong, if i could afford a house, let alone additional panels and the additional fees that come with installation, maintenance, regulations, licensing, etc. then id be all in, even if it was just to contribute to the dying ideal that there was some semblence of hope for a better future. this is up to the landlords and the upperclass to give a shit about, and most of it is for grandstanding and keeping up with the joneses.
i used to install these for a living during covid. only people in my area who could afford them were multigenerational farmers and eco concious suburbanites. even for the suburbanites living in million+ dollar homes it was a stretch financially, and a hastle due to regulations.
good idea. but a bit late. we are at the point that if someone waved a magic wand tomorrow, and everyone stopped driving cars and pulled a full 180 on coal, oil, and gas, it would still be far too late.
if you can afford the inevitable markup that comes with proffessional installation. be my guest. if you are a poor person wanting to slap some panels on a tiny home, go nuts. just dont expect to save the world by doing so. its fucked. live how you want to while you can. drink, fuck, fight, eat good food, play video games, bed rot and consume to your hearts content.
nothing can save us. not even the "indomitable will of the human spirit" not a god damned thing.
sorry to shit in your salad. but thems the breaks.
-
They need changes in laws too. Instead of chewing up open space and farmland I'd rather see more urban areas used like parking lots and industrial sites.
Yeah, Don't put the solar farms in meadows, or on mountains. put them on warehouse roofs, over highways, over parking lots, on government buildings, etc etc.
-
id guess a lot went into designing a solar cell that could take being heated to 167F without losing efficiency or breaking. I think most common house solar panels have a temperature coefficient listed on their datasheet that measures how much its ability to generate power decreases per every degree above 77F
Tech ingredients did a test with active cooling on standard solar panels and found the energy to cool it was about what was gained by having a cooler panel.
The upshot should be longer life if the panel though, so the conclusion was still a net gain.
-
Roughly 50% of germany is used as farmland. On 60% of the farmland crops to feed livestock are grown. On 20% of it crops for energyproduction (biofuel, biogas).
If you take for example rapeseeds, used for biodiesel, you would harvest around 50 times as much energy with a pv-plant on the same area.
You would need to install pv on 5-6% of the farmland to produce enough electric energy for all of germany for a year. Granted you also can provide the grid for it and enoguh storage.Not only that, but livestock can still graze under panels, on grass that often grows just as well with a little shade.
-
cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/24690127
Solar energy experts in Germany are putting sun-catching cells under the magnifying glass with astounding results, according to multiple reports.
The Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems team is perfecting the use of lenses to concentrate sunlight onto solar panels, reducing size and costs while increasing performance, Interesting Engineering and PV Magazine reported.
The "technology has the potential to contribute to the energy transition, facilitating the shift toward more sustainable and renewable energy sources by combining minimal carbon footprint and energy demand with low levelized cost of electricity," the researchers wrote in a study published by the IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics.
The sun-catcher is called a micro-concentrating photovoltaic, or CPV, cell. The lens makes it different from standard solar panels that convert sunlight to energy with average efficiency rates around 20%, per MarketWatch. Fraunhofer's improved CPV cell has an astounding 36% rate in ideal conditions and is made with lower-cost parts. It cuts semiconductor materials "by a factor of 1,300 and reduces module areas by 30% compared to current state-of-the-art CPV systems," per IE.
That is Fraunhofer who are the people most responsible for developing MP3
