Another interesting technology, the article as usual omitting critical info: what’s the cost & efficiency of the PV components? Selective conversion of wavelengths, transparent to others, is novel for some applications but significantly limits the energy extracted; not saying it’s not worthwhile, just that it has a specialized application that may or may not benefit cost-wise.
Remember: the absolute upper limit for solar power is 1300 watts per square meter; various factors (efficiency, conversion loss, etc) reduce the practical peak energy extraction to 130 W/m^2, with other factors (angle, night, clouds, etc) reducing average long-term collection down around 13 W/m^2. By further discarding visible light & other wavelengths, we’re down to maybe 1 W/m^2. If the greenhouse surface is 1000 m^2, maybe it’s just better to use regular PV on an adjacent 100m^2 space. (Back of napkin SWAGs here.)
Interesting, yes. Exploring options for expanding solar power collection is a good thing. Solid-state localized power production promotes self-sufficiency.
1) The amount of photovoltaic material required is confined to a thin strip around the outside of the rectangular panel. The collector area is much, much larger, but it is simply doped glass (or plastic). Such "edge cell" collectors have been done before.
2) The construction of the greenhouse absorbs the whole cost of the support structure and land for the photocells, and turns that investment from a "sunk" cost into a profit generator instead
The combination of the two offers the potential of reducing cost and increasing income of the total system. I like the "outside the box" thinking that is evidenced.
Yes, there are a lot of details that would be nice to have, but R&D mag is a technology survey focussed source, not one that offers exhaustive analysis.