|
Wednesday, May 07, 2008 Focusing on Solar's CostContinued from page 1 By Tyler Hamilton
For example, connected to the bottom of each cell is a small fluid-filled chamber that acts as a heat sink. Murthy says that the fluid contains high-temperature composites and nanomaterials that rapidly remove the heat from the cells. This "super cooling" allows the cells to stay cool enough to work, about 10 to 20 °C above ambient temperatures. Murthy won't say what materials are in the fluid. "It's our secret." Electronics engineer Thomas Forrester, another founding partner at Sunrgi, says that the chamber isn't filled with much: "We're talking as little as drops of liquid." But it's enough, he says, to absorb the heat and move it to another part of the cell so that it can dissipate rapidly into the environment. Future versions will attempt to capture that waste heat as useful energy. "We have patents pending on other designs that do this," he says. Simon Fafard, founder and chief technology officer at Ottawa-based Cyrium Technologies, a maker of high-end cells for the concentrated photovoltaic market, says that the heavy-duty heat sinks that Sunrgi relies on leave little room for error during manufacturing. "It also makes testing the cells a bit more of a challenge," he adds. Forrester says that's why most of the founders of Sunrgi have an expertise in manufacturing. "The question people ask us is, why hasn't any other solar company done this?" he says. "Well, we're taking a different approach that directly applies principles from chip manufacturing. That's one of the keys to our technology." But other challenges remain. Concentrated photovoltaic systems need direct sunlight to work, meaning that they must be designed to track the sun through the day. Fafard says that Sunrgi's system, at 2,000 times concentration, will need to use tracking with pinpoint accuracy to keep the light focused on the tiny solar cells. He compares it to looking at a star through a telescope: the higher the magnification, the more accuracy is required to keep the star within view of the lens. This makes Sunrgi's system potentially more vulnerable to the elements. "Wind would definitely be bad," says NREL's Friedman. "If the thing is shaking even a little bit, the light will go off the cell." The need for direct sunlight also means that concentrated photovoltaic systems don't work on cloudy or hazy days when conventional solar systems can at least capture some of the sun's energy. "So it makes the most sense for places like Phoenix, Spain, Australia," says Fafard. Sidlo says that Sunrgi will initially be targeting utility-scale developments and is in talks with strategic partners, including manufacturers. The company is currently self-funded but says that it is talking with top venture capitalists. |
Slicing Up Silicon for Cheaper Solar
03/14/2008



Comments
Gaetano Marano on 05/07/2008 at 5:23 AM
51
"competitive with fossil-fuel generation"
yes, but, at WHICH oil price?
- past $20-30 per barrel?
- today's $120 per barrel?
- tomorrow's $200+ per barrel?
-------------------------
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com
NewSpaceAgency.com
.
cgs on 05/07/2008 at 6:25 AM
1
Fresnel lenses.
Special dissipation fluid.
And some energy wasted in the fluid circulation.
Let's wait and see...
asdar on 05/07/2008 at 8:03 AM
60
doug_houseman on 05/07/2008 at 4:24 PM
1
More important, if they are really getting 1800 degrees C as waste heat, they have a perfect opportunity to use salt as a heat storage mechanism and provide thermal generation of electricity at night.
This would further lower the average cost per KWh, if they can build it for a reasonable price.
As the article states and I agree, it is all on paper. NanoSolar has claimed that they will over installed thin film for a dollar a watt, again on paper. That would mean that with each installed watt producing 1KW per year (non-optimal location average - in the desert it would be closer to 2.5KWH per year) and a 20 year life that they would be in a similar range for power.
Lets see if either company is willing to sign a 20 year deal at that price for solar power. If they are, I am willing to sign up.
What say - a locked in price for 20 years at 5 cents a KWH (not including transmission and distribution, taxes, license, fees, etc).
Sounds good to me.
Doug
Monsterboy on 05/07/2008 at 8:33 AM
42
How does this work? They still need to initially collect the sunlight from the same area that the thin-films do, even though they're concentrating it on a smaller photovoltaic area. So how does this save land area?
MITBeta on 05/07/2008 at 8:48 AM
21
FRE on 05/08/2008 at 3:03 PM
1
<P>
It is unlikely that concentrating the sunlight would increase the efficiency of the solar cells, i.e., the percentage of the light that would be converted to electricity. Thus, light concentration WOULD NOT reduce the amount of land necessary to generate a given amount of power. Assuming that the optical system were 100% efficient, the land area required would be exactly the same as if there were no concentration whatever. If concentration actually did boost conversion efficiency, the land area required would be reduced only by the amount that the efficiency is increased. Reducing the land area required by the stated amount would probably require solar cells with an efficiency exceeding 100%. It may be that the author is unaware that efficiency cannot exceed 100%.
<P>
Light concentration could conceivably reduce costs by reducing the mass of solar cells required, but the article does not cover that possibly. It is only a possibility, since any savings in the cost of the solar cells could be offset (or more than offset) by the required optical system and cooling system.
<P>
It appears to me that the author of the article has only limited technical competence. I suggest that it be made impossible to get a degree in journalism without having studied physics at the college level for at least one year.
zeddy on 05/13/2008 at 11:13 PM
4
The efficiency (percentage usable power out/power in) of a solar cell increases when the light intensity increases.
ie if you had a 1 square metre ordinary flat panel, you would get about 150 watts (15% efficiency).
If you had a 1 square metre concentrating array (at 40% effiecient), you would get
1) 400 watts out (for the same power in)
2) at the same time, you would use a smaller amount of silicon
So if you concentrate 500x, you would use 1/500 of the silicon cf normal flat panel, AND you would get much higher output for the same solar input, AND you could use the waste heat in a heat engine to generate even more power.
Monsterboy on 05/14/2008 at 8:50 AM
42
RobGraham on 05/07/2008 at 9:22 AM
1
stevehadd on 05/07/2008 at 10:57 AM
1
javs on 05/07/2008 at 9:47 AM
30
Sunrgi solar technology on many roofs seems to be the logical case for distributed solar generation that statistically would have a high net input into a smart grid that transport electricity in both ways. Do non utility-scale developments need the elimination of price controls to the end-customer to be viable? Most energy will be produced where needed without transportation losses.
The price controls debate seems to be overdue.
javs on 05/07/2008 at 10:34 AM
30
camdaddy09 on 05/07/2008 at 1:41 PM
12
winterspan on 05/09/2008 at 5:13 PM
3
nekote on 05/07/2008 at 3:38 PM
98
2,000 Suns obviously takes 2 axis tracking.
Rather than the simpler single axis elevation tracking that "trough" systems use.
Those entire linear banks rotating to track the East to West movement of the Sun?
wbc97 on 05/07/2008 at 5:35 PM
1
MakeSense on 05/09/2008 at 1:05 PM
42
As far as the 1/16 land use claim, the factors that contribute to it would include:
1. Tracking versus non-tracking
2. 37.5% eff versus about 20%
3. Concentration of sunlight versus none
4. Heat removal versus none
5. Additional layers in multijunction cells that permit more light into the cell and keep it there longer
It's not as simple as saying that the same area has the same sunlight.
FreddyG on 05/10/2008 at 1:20 PM
4