costs too much
Various trade wars are changing those economics.
A lighthouse uses the same lens, just with the light coming from the inside. Since this is old knowledge, what is the drawback? Why isn’t this widespread?
My completely uninformed guess:
The lens and assembly costs too much compared to just more solar panels
The lens/panel combo is so bulky it becomes unreasonable to actually install/use.
costs too much
Various trade wars are changing those economics.
They mention standardisations and cost savings in their paper, as well as solving the heat load per cell problem by decreasing cell size. They also mention that there’s been a lot of micro-CPV module designs but that they haven’t been scaled up. Some quotes below:
Various researchers and developers have been exploring different micro-CPV module designs [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Most approaches have been tested on small prototypes or minimodules, while fewer have been realized with aperture areas (Aap) above 200 and 800 cm2,[…]
By decreasing the sizes of the primary optics and the solar cells, the heat load per cell is minimized. This reduction allows for sufficient heat spreading via the circuit board, enabling the direct assembly of solar cells onto the circuit board on glass.
At Fraunhofer ISE, we have developed a micro-CPV module concept [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], which is based on parallelized manufacturing processes and commercially available components.
The final module features a panel size of 24” × 18”, which is a standard in the microelectronics industry, facilitating machine adaption without necessitating special adjustments.
Adding to what Eldest_Malk said: They aren’t just putting a new type of lens over standard solar cells, they are also designing/fabricating custom cells to work with the lenses. [I’m not a PV expert, but the fact that the IEEE paper focuses so much on the cells and not just the lenses leads me to believe that the lenses can’t just be used with whatever standardized solar cells are on the market]
The cells are super expensive but super small. They need cooling for efficiency, but if the heat moving is useful, can ignore the energy cost.
The article states that it’s smaller and cheaper. The reason it’s not widespread is that they just invented it.
It is interesting that someone just recently thought to use a fresnel lens with photovoltaics when they’ve existed for hundreds of years
It isn’t that. They have been talking about Fresnel lenses on PV for decades. It’s solving the heat issue and the size issue. A Fresnel lens gathers a large area of light and focuses it down, including focusing the heat. Normal PV cells cannot handle that amount of heat.
This is exactely how most inventions are made: put together two things from different realms that might have a good fit.
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
I suspect that the lens makes the whole solar assembly more directional and the Sun moves in the sky.
glimse@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Commercial solar panels often move with the sun, too
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 8 months ago
The overwhelming majority of them don’t, traditionnal rooftop installs don’t either.