Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: r9etb
Yeah, that's a good point on the lens being a cheaper component. I just skimmed the article - my thought was "who cares if the PV is a little tiny thing, if you need a massive lens to make it work?"

The maximum amount of energy from sunlight that you can get per area is more-or-less a constant...I'm guessing that all the lens does is take a big area and condense it down to a small one. Hopefully, no one is planning to turn up (or down lol!) the sun to satisfy some power requirement.

I wonder if this PV is more efficient, or can use superconductors to minimize the transmission losses?

26 posted on 05/16/2008 9:22:16 AM PDT by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: wbill
I wonder if this PV is more efficient, or can use superconductors to minimize the transmission losses?

The big problem with concentrators has always been the heat. It's hell on materials, and with PV you get big efficiency losses the hotter something gets.

The big deal here is that they've found a way to cool the cells so that they're operating at 85 degC, rather than the 1600C that uncooled cells would experience.

28 posted on 05/16/2008 9:30:23 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson