Skip to content

Scientists make game-changing breakthrough that could slash costs of solar panels: 'Has the potential to contribute to the energy transition'

Technology
96 70 0
  • 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.

    I'm not sure what to think about the Fraunhofer institute in general. They have made some nice discoveries/inventions in the past, such as audio compression algorithms and such. That is why i hyped them for a bit.

    But they really disappointed me with their writings on solar panels in the past few years.

    They said that the efficiency of solar panels today is too low to deploy them widely in practice, which is simply not true. They tried pushing Perovskite solar cells for no reason.

    I'm not sure what to think about this article's idea. On one hand, adding lenses to solar parks makes them significantly more complicated and therefore expensive to build. Also, if the parks have complicated physical forms, they're more susceptible to wind, and that could damage them.

    On the other hand, yes, adding lenses means you need fewer actual solar panels for the same amount of energy harvested.

    I'll therefore put it in the category of inconclusive inventions, together with the idea of adding a motor to the solar panels so they can track the sun. That would also make the solar panels more efficient, but also more complicated and more prone to mechanical failure.

  • I am not a scientist so please correct me if I am off base, but did it really take them this long to attempt to focus light onto PV cells using a fresnel lens?

    My hobby as a 15 year old was buying broken projectors to harvest the fresnel lenses in the lamp on top. They could focus sunlight so powerfully that you could burn shit. I didn't do that, surprisingly. I was like Marge Simpson, I just thought they were neat.

    i guess a lot of research projects are just there to give the researchers something to do and money, and i'm sure the idea of using lenses has been floated before.

    the thing is that it's not really as good an ideas as it originally seems. After all, you need heavy solid lenses that you have to install above all solar panels, and the cost of that is not negligible. On top of that, there's other problems that others have already mentioned.

  • My numbers were wrong:

    Hardware costs (module, inverters, etc.) are about half the price of the installed residential cost. The rest is "soft costs", and labor is included in it, but it's a pretty small fraction of it. The "other" soft costs are the big thing--stuff like permitting and planning and sales taxes. Better efficiency might somewhat lower it, but not a lot.

    Notice that when things get to utility-scale, those soft costs shrink a lot. The best way to do solar is in large fields of racks, and it isn't even close. The solution to this is community solar, where you and your neighbors go in on a field. Some states ban this, and that should change.

    Yeah, community solar parks are really the best because they remove a whole lot of these soft costs.

    These soft costs include:

    • bureaucracy (you need 1 permit instead of 100 permits),
    • nobody needs to climb on a roof,
    • shipping many panels at once to the installation site is much more efficient than only shipping 5-8 modules at a time

    additionally, any kind of fixed-cost complexity is spread over a bigger field.

    i.e., you should add circuit breakers to make sure the solar panels don't feed into the grid when the energy prices are already negative. adding that breaker has a fixed and constant price. adding one breaker to a large park is more efficient than adding 100 breakers into just as many households.

  • I think the point is that you can replace one big solar panel with one big lens and a small solar panel. The footprint on the roof is the same, but the implication is a big glass lens is cheaper than a big solar panel.

    the glass lens probably is cheaper than a big solar panel

    but the cost of setting up a glass lens in 5-10 meters altitude (because that's what's needed to bundle any sunlight) and make it storm-proof is probably more expensive than setting up a big solar panel at hip height.

    and considering that labor cost is a significant part (i guess 10% - 50%) of overall solar park cost, i guess it's probably not worth it.

  • Yeah, community solar parks are really the best because they remove a whole lot of these soft costs.

    These soft costs include:

    • bureaucracy (you need 1 permit instead of 100 permits),
    • nobody needs to climb on a roof,
    • shipping many panels at once to the installation site is much more efficient than only shipping 5-8 modules at a time

    additionally, any kind of fixed-cost complexity is spread over a bigger field.

    i.e., you should add circuit breakers to make sure the solar panels don't feed into the grid when the energy prices are already negative. adding that breaker has a fixed and constant price. adding one breaker to a large park is more efficient than adding 100 breakers into just as many households.

    Thanks. There's way too many people who don't see the problems with rooftop residential solar. Commercial/industrial rooftop can work out, but fields are the cheapest electricity you can get.

  • Grid forming will just mean the keep running the house when the power goes off, it's not safe for them to be pushing power when it's disappeared, that has been set by regulation in many countries.

    What you describe is more like black start, providing power to the grind when it is down. This has to be controlled well, and only a few plants need to be capable of it.

    Grid following means something like whatever the grid does, the inverter injects power supporting it. A grid forming generator or inverter also follows the grid somewhat, but tries to get it to an optimal condition. This entails things like voltage control by reactive power, frequency control by operating reserve, fault ride trough capability and so on. Many of those are naturally provided by large conventional power plants using synchronous generators like gas, nuclear or hydro. For inverter based systems, they have to be considered explicitly. For battery storage most are relatively easy to implement, some also in solar inverters. The tech exists, but yes, in some countries the regulations have not kept up with rapid expanse of inverter based power generation in the last years.

  • I'm not sure what to think about the Fraunhofer institute in general. They have made some nice discoveries/inventions in the past, such as audio compression algorithms and such. That is why i hyped them for a bit.

    But they really disappointed me with their writings on solar panels in the past few years.

    They said that the efficiency of solar panels today is too low to deploy them widely in practice, which is simply not true. They tried pushing Perovskite solar cells for no reason.

    I'm not sure what to think about this article's idea. On one hand, adding lenses to solar parks makes them significantly more complicated and therefore expensive to build. Also, if the parks have complicated physical forms, they're more susceptible to wind, and that could damage them.

    On the other hand, yes, adding lenses means you need fewer actual solar panels for the same amount of energy harvested.

    I'll therefore put it in the category of inconclusive inventions, together with the idea of adding a motor to the solar panels so they can track the sun. That would also make the solar panels more efficient, but also more complicated and more prone to mechanical failure.

    I'd like to know what they're going to do about the heating issue. Concentrating solar radiation carries with it an increased heat load. And heat reduces solar PV efficiency. I'm already losing about 30% in summer when the panels heat up.

  • I'd like to know what they're going to do about the heating issue. Concentrating solar radiation carries with it an increased heat load. And heat reduces solar PV efficiency. I'm already losing about 30% in summer when the panels heat up.

    This was my first question too! I thought heat makes them wear out faster.

  • 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.

    Hey it's those guys that invented MP3s.

  • 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.

    Just wanted to drop a comment.

    I love solar. It's the best form of energy that's attainable by the average person.

  • Adding to what the others wrote, solar cells become less efficient at power conversion (light -> electricity) as the temp of the solar cell materials (semiconductors) increases. So the issues is how to get more photons to the semiconductor without heating it up.

    Would a UV filtering lens help? Do solar cells generate more power from certain parts of the light spectrum?

  • 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.

    Concentrating solar cells have been around for decades, but I suppose the efficiency Fraunhofer achieved here is nothing to sneeze at.

  • 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.

    I feel like this is one of those discoveries thats like, well duh of course it would work that way

  • This was my first question too! I thought heat makes them wear out faster.

    It does. Also seems weird nobody thought of a magnifying glass before.

    But its also the beauty in science. Now somebody else thought about it, and they might work harder to fix the next problem: Heat.

    If that gets better now, solar panels will increase in output even more. There are so many technologies going into one product, and each field have its own experts.

    I'm excited.

  • Hey it's those guys that invented MP3s.

    It really whips the sun's ass.

  • I'm not sure what to think about the Fraunhofer institute in general. They have made some nice discoveries/inventions in the past, such as audio compression algorithms and such. That is why i hyped them for a bit.

    But they really disappointed me with their writings on solar panels in the past few years.

    They said that the efficiency of solar panels today is too low to deploy them widely in practice, which is simply not true. They tried pushing Perovskite solar cells for no reason.

    I'm not sure what to think about this article's idea. On one hand, adding lenses to solar parks makes them significantly more complicated and therefore expensive to build. Also, if the parks have complicated physical forms, they're more susceptible to wind, and that could damage them.

    On the other hand, yes, adding lenses means you need fewer actual solar panels for the same amount of energy harvested.

    I'll therefore put it in the category of inconclusive inventions, together with the idea of adding a motor to the solar panels so they can track the sun. That would also make the solar panels more efficient, but also more complicated and more prone to mechanical failure.

    well, adding lenses kinda requires motorizing the panels to track the sun, right? otherwise the "hot spot" is going to move around across the day/year

    is there a way to shape the lens to mitigate this?

  • 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.

    I thought this has already been done. Guess there's some nuance to it that is above my understanding of it.

    Anyhow, advancements in solar are cool in my book.

  • well, adding lenses kinda requires motorizing the panels to track the sun, right? otherwise the "hot spot" is going to move around across the day/year

    is there a way to shape the lens to mitigate this?

    You make them convex.

    You can shape them that no matter how the light falls on it, it will align to the center. Kind of like how satellite dishes work but in reverse.

  • well, adding lenses kinda requires motorizing the panels to track the sun, right? otherwise the "hot spot" is going to move around across the day/year

    is there a way to shape the lens to mitigate this?

    Could have some refraction or hologram thing that bends the light the right way, maybe? Or like a matte glass that equalises the load.

    Or why not just use (big) mirrors?

    Won't help with heat ofc!

  • It does. Also seems weird nobody thought of a magnifying glass before.

    But its also the beauty in science. Now somebody else thought about it, and they might work harder to fix the next problem: Heat.

    If that gets better now, solar panels will increase in output even more. There are so many technologies going into one product, and each field have its own experts.

    I'm excited.

    They probably did, but like they said, the heating is probably the issue.

    I can see them adding a cooling element. Maybe even water cooling.

  • On Demand App Development Company

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 169 Stimmen
    5 Beiträge
    16 Aufrufe
    K
    But but we need to power our virtual idiot with more energy than entire countries use :((
  • Las Vegas LED Video Wall Rental

    Technology technology
    1
    2
    0 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    11 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 112 Stimmen
    23 Beiträge
    119 Aufrufe
    exec@pawb.socialE
    I mean no more live view via the screen
  • 179 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    54 Aufrufe
    R
    They've probably just crunched the numbers and determined the cost of a recall in Canada was greater than the cost of law suits when your house does burn down
  • 85 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    63 Aufrufe
    cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zoneC
    i like how ask photos is not just a dumb idea but it's also a dumb name
  • 74 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    55 Aufrufe
    C
    Time to start chopping down flock cameras.
  • Why Japan's animation industry has embraced AI

    Technology technology
    12
    1
    1 Stimmen
    12 Beiträge
    65 Aufrufe
    R
    The genre itself has become neutered, too. A lot of anime series have the usual "anime elements" and a couple custom ideas. And similar style, too glossy for my taste. OK, what I think is old and boring libertarian stuff, I'll still spell it out. The reason people are having such problems is because groups and businesses are de facto legally enshrined in their fields, it's almost like feudal Europe's system of privileges and treaties. At some point I thought this is good, I hope no evil god decided to fulfill my wish. There's no movement, and a faction (like Disney with Star Wars) that buys a place (a brand) can make any garbage, and people will still try to find the depth in it and justify it (that complaint has been made about Star Wars prequels, but no, they are full of garbage AND have consistent arcs, goals and ideas, which is why they revitalized the Expanded Universe for almost a decade, despite Lucas-<companies> having sort of an internal social collapse in year 2005 right after Revenge of the Sith being premiered ; I love the prequels, despite all the pretense and cringe, but their verbal parts are almost fillers, their cinematographic language and matching music are flawless, the dialogue just disrupts it all while not adding much, - I think Lucas should have been more decisive, a bit like Tartakovsky with the Clone Wars cartoon, just more serious, because non-verbal doesn't equal stupid). OK, my thought wandered away. Why were the legal means they use to keep such positions created? To make the economy nicer to the majority, to writers, to actors, to producers. Do they still fulfill that role? When keeping monopolies, even producing garbage or, lately, AI slop, - no. Do we know a solution? Not yet, because pressing for deregulation means the opponent doing a judo movement and using that energy for deregulating the way everything becomes worse. Is that solution in minimizing and rebuilding the system? I believe still yes, nothing is perfect, so everything should be easy to quickly replace, because errors and mistakes plaguing future generations will inevitably continue to be made. The laws of the 60s were simple enough for that in most countries. The current laws are not. So the general direction to be taken is still libertarian. Is this text useful? Of course not. I just think that in the feudal Europe metaphor I'd want to be a Hussite or a Cossack or at worst a Venetian trader.