When it comes to photovoltaic (PV) systems, the PV components are generally the most expensive pieces of the puzzle. So upping the power output through the use of less expensive materials can greatly reduce the cost per generated kilowatt hour of electricity. SolFocus is laying out a strategy for their CSP PV systems to attain cost parity (or even beat) traditional fossil-fuel energy systems, even without a price on carbon.
SolFocus' concentrated solar power (CSP) panels use two different mirrors to focus the sun's energy 500 times before directing the light onto a very small, highly efficient solar cell. Because the cell is so small, they can use much more expensive (and efficient) PV cells. The vast majority of the system -- "over 95%" -- is either aluminum or glass and uses traditionally fairly inexpensive and easy-to-find materials and easy materials to acquire from recycled sources. The system is fully enclosed, to keep everything clean (just imagine cleaning 500 tiny mirrors once a month.) Materials costs are low, maintenance costs are low, and efficiency is high. Looks like an equation for cheap solar to me.
Their preliminary (not yet finished) efforts suggest that they might have the lowest cradle-to-grave carbon footprint of any energy option available at this time. If true, this makes SolFocus cost-effective option for solar electricity just that much more appealing.
Hits: 10103
Comments (17)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by JB, March 10, 2008
The cells they use are almost 40% efficient. That means that they dissipate the remaining 60% energy which is heat. Now if they could find a way to capture and use this energy, (all houses need hot water, for instance) or even generate electricity from the excess heat, then we are talking.
-
- +0
-
-
written by recycle, March 10, 2008
A parabolic mirror is designed to get straight sunlight. These boards are tracked after the sun then? Nothing mentioned in the text.
The energy needed for tracking would reduce efficiency.
btw, I like solar trackers. Imagine a small tracker on your shoulder. Would be extremely cool.
The energy needed for tracking would reduce efficiency.
btw, I like solar trackers. Imagine a small tracker on your shoulder. Would be extremely cool.
-
- +0
-
-
written by ASiegel1, March 10, 2008
The material here is edited and, to be honest, extremely well. This time, perhaps due to the length of what was provided, some details got dropped. Yes, SolFocus has tracking of the sun, using a dual-axis system. See: Energy COOL: SolFocus and Three Critical Rs.
-
- +0
-
-
written by ASiegel1, March 10, 2008
See: Energy COOL: SolFocus and Three Critical Rs: http://energysmart.wordpress.c...itical-rs/
-
- +0
-
-
written by Vladan, March 10, 2008
I'd like to know what is the cost per Watt of an installation like this... ;) The material is 'low cost' so Is possible to have an aproximative price? That would be nice to have a system like this at home, non? 8) 8) 8)
www.best-solar-energy.com
www.best-solar-energy.com
-
- +0
-
-
written by ASiegel1, March 10, 2008
Vladan: The claim/comment was that, with mass production, that they start to see this as cost-competitive with other energy sources, and that (if I remember correctly) they are already cost-competitive in peak demand cycles. Now, this really is not a "home" system (as of yet), with the sophisticating tracking systems. There becomes, at some point, an economy of scale (again, as I understand it).
-
- +0
-
-
written by Joel, March 10, 2008
I'm excited by this news. I'd also like to commend you on the care and accuracy of this article...I criticize you guys a lot, but I respect the work you do.
-
- +0
-
-
written by hey, March 10, 2008
So the parabolic mirrors reduce costs - good. But they require tracking - bad. Does a tracker have to be electric powered? Sounds like something that could break. And of course, adds to the cost. So where do we end up? Will this be more reliable than regular PVs? probably not. Will it be cheaper? Hard to say.
-
- +0
-
-
written by rollie, March 10, 2008
'But they require tracking - bad. Does a tracker have to be electric powered?'
Would you prefer gas powered? How is tracking bad when it improves the overall effeciency! What little power it would consume would more than be made up for.
And yes there would be an extra cost- but youre gaining 40% effeciency!
I swear sometimes people would nitpick a non polluting perpetucal motion machine because it came encased in bubble wrap!
Would you prefer gas powered? How is tracking bad when it improves the overall effeciency! What little power it would consume would more than be made up for.
And yes there would be an extra cost- but youre gaining 40% effeciency!
I swear sometimes people would nitpick a non polluting perpetucal motion machine because it came encased in bubble wrap!
-
- +0
-
-
written by recycle, March 10, 2008
Would you prefer gas powered?
Did you read about the tracking system which uses thermally expanding gas or fluid as actuator?
Every moving part is bad. It's the first thing to break.
If you could choose between a system which requires you to check/repair/calibrate and a system which just sits there and sometimes needs to be cleaned. You probably choose the solid system.
But solar cells are that expensive so a complex system like this can do in the meanwhile until cells become less expensive.
-
- +0
-
-
written by rollie, March 11, 2008
If i could choose between an expensive system with limited return- or a lower cost system with a few moving parts but a much higher output....guess which one I would choose.
-
- +0
-
-
written by King Critter, March 12, 2008
Don't forget that solar panels also need tracking in order to maximize efficiency. And unless you're running a huge solar farm or something, I don't think one or two breakdown per year would be all that troublesome.
-
- +0
-
-
written by campbell, April 04, 2008
terrific! EXACTLY the technology I envisioned for use as hull material on SOLAR POWERED AIRSHIPS....aluminum, micro parabolic mirrors, solar cells, carbon fiber backing to create RIGID SHELLED AIRSHIPS.
Perfect!
Perfect!
-
- +0
-
-
written by TheUtopian, July 03, 2008
Its a all BS until I can go to Home depot and pick up the parts and Install it in my own home. I'm sick of all these awesome technologies out there that are supposedly ready to give the consumer the independance that it needs so that I don't have to rely on anyone but my damned self. Get it out on the market already and quit teasing us.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Hap, October 04, 2008
you can do the same thing with cheap materials ... no need to wait for their panel. Fresnel lenses from any scientific or surplus supplier and cheap solar cells will do the same thing though not with the same efficiency ... but it's still cheap. Though you will want a heat sink or another way to dissipate heat from the cell. We married small homemade thermopiles to the back of our individual cells. Not very efficient recovery of the wasted heat, but it adds a couple percent to the electrical equation. the rest of the heat is dissipated into water which is sequestered in what is essentially thermal storage (insulated tank full of water and rocks). Cheap solar pump slowly circulates/replenishes it during the day. This supplies about 96% of our hot water needs. Total cost for everything was a couple hundred $. Doesn't look pretty but we don't really care. Solar doesn't have to be expensive.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Christian Schade, November 10, 2008
Please support the renewable energy industry. See my website
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
MAR 10
"Please support the renewable energy industry. See my website ..."
View all Comments