60% solar power efficiency?

[begreen]

This is quite a lofty claim. Has anyone been following this research?
Layman:
(broken link removed to http://www.exeter.ac.uk/research/newsandevents/news/title_672538_en.html)
https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/boo...could-power-a-whole-home-in-new-breakthrough/
Technical:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04099-7

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[peakbagger]

Maybe its is a radical improvement in technology but the author is using hyperbole. Standard solar irradiance is 1000 Watts per square meter. Lets use a conventional solar panel which is 18% efficient, so every square meter of roof is 180 watts. A typical home PV array is around 6 KW (I have 4.1 K for small efficient home but many larger AC dependent homes will install 8 KW). A 6KW 18% array is 33 square meters (6000/180) roughly a 19 foot square array). Use the same math for a 60% efficient array and the array drops down to 10 square meter roughly 10 by 10 feet. That is a pretty big "book" in my estimation. Next item is cost per installed watt. Unless the site has poor sun exposure, unless the cost per watt is competitive with conventional panels there really is no good reason to go with a more expensive panel.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

Beginning to look like something only Elon Musk could sell.

 

[begreen]

Maybe its is a radical improvement in technology but the author is using hyperbole. Standard solar irradiance is 1000 Watts per square meter. Lets use a conventional solar panel which is 18% efficient, so every square meter of roof is 180 watts. A typical home PV array is around 6 KW (I have 4.1 K for small efficient home but many larger AC dependent homes will install 8 KW). A 6KW 18% array is 33 square meters (6000/180) roughly a 19 foot square array). Use the same math for a 60% efficient array and the array drops down to 10 square meter roughly 10 by 10 feet. That is a pretty big "book" in my estimation. Next item is cost per installed watt. Unless the site has poor sun exposure, unless the cost per watt is competitive with conventional panels there really is no good reason to go with a more expensive panel.

Yes, the author did single out a best case scenario (tiny house, no ac in say New Mexico). This is why I provided the technical papers as well. Even if the solar array is only 50% smaller this development should greatly enhance performance even during cloudy weather. If so, it would be a boon to some northern locations. Our current winter production sucks. I would love to be able to improve that.

 

[Dobish]

so I read this "solar funnel" as a big magnifying glass turned laser turned power generator. I sort of want one!

 

[vtwoodheater]

Please no one take this the wrong way, it has been a long day and I am tired. So you are telling me a standard solar panel is only 18% efficient?!

How is this even allowed to be acceptable?

 

[Dobish]

Please no one take this the wrong way, it has been a long day and I am tired. So you are telling me a standard solar panel is only 18% efficient?!

How is this even allowed to be acceptable?

that is the average when you look at the entire system. Most panel systems do not have individual dc optimizers, so any shade anywhere in the system will severely decrease your efficiency. I think that their numbers are a little skewed for marketing research, as if you look at the actual panel with the correct optimizer, it is much higher than that.

 

[peakbagger]

Please no one take this the wrong way, it has been a long day and I am tired. So you are telling me a standard solar panel is only 18% efficient?!

How is this even allowed to be acceptable?

Short answer - Physics is a b*tch

Its not a big conspiracy, lots of money is being spent to improve efficiency. If someone gets a 1% increase they can make a lot of money. The trade off is life cycle cost, if the efficiency gain is offset by a big increase in panel cost then unless its for aerospace use (mars and satellites) folks will not buy it. Solar panels cost less then windows these day (per square foot). Realistically unless someone has limitations on their roof, it all comes down to $per watt installed.

Light is composed of range of wavelengths and only a small band of them are suitable for generating power.

 

[woodgeek]

Hey, corn in the field is only 0.2% efficient. And yet we find that acceptable?

 

[Highbeam]

And if you use that solar power to run a 100% efficient resistance heater it really brings up the average!

 

[jharkin]

Short answer - Physics is a b*tch

Its not a big conspiracy, lots of money is being spent to improve efficiency. If someone gets a 1% increase they can make a lot of money. The trade off is life cycle cost, if the efficiency gain is offset by a big increase in panel cost then unless its for aerospace use (mars and satellites) folks will not buy it. Solar panels cost less then windows these day (per square foot). Realistically unless someone has limitations on their roof, it all comes down to $per watt installed.

Light is composed of range of wavelengths and only a small band of them are suitable for generating power.

Yep, and that car you drove to work this monring is not much better at about 20-25% efficent. A diesel truck is 30%. Some hybrids might approach 40% combined. The electricity delivered to you home is generated in a really efficient plant that is maybe 40% (coal fired steam) up to a current max of about 60% (gas turbine/steam co-generation)


But all of these are a real improvement on what we had 100 years ago when coal fired steam trains were maybe 3-5% efficient.

 

[jebatty]

... and a standard incandescent light bulb is only about 2.2% efficient in converting electricity into usable light.