The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search
Don't Miss The Great Solar Debate: Where Does the Global Solar Industry Stand? Click Here to Register! ×

Solar Junction Does it Again, Sets New CPV Efficiency Record

Vince Font, Contributing Editor
October 18, 2012  |  40 Comments

World records are broken every day, some to more fanfare than others. While earlier this week the eyes of the world were watching daredevil Felix Baumgartner's 24-mile skydive from the edge of space, a San Jose-based solar energy company called Solar Junction was busy breaking another kind of record.

As a company that specializes in the development of high efficiency multi-junction solar energy cells for the CPV (concentrated photovoltaic) market, Solar Junction is no stranger to breaking through previously established barriers and setting new records. Especially when those records are their own. In April of 2011, the company set a new standard for the energy efficiency of commercial-ready production solar cells, reaching 43.5 percent efficiency at 418 suns. Their new world record, announced on October 15 and verified by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), brings that new standard up a significant notch, establishing 44 percent efficiency at 947 suns.

Solar Junction’s multi-junction cells are used in CPV solar panels, which focus concentrated sunlight onto the cells through the use of special optics. “CPV is different from standard flat-plate solar,” says Jeff Allen, VP of Business Development at Solar Junction. “Think of a magnifying glass. Basically, you have a very high performance solar cell that sits at the focal point of these focusing optics. The solar cell converts the photon flux into electrons, and power.”

The company’s trend of record breaking is welcome news in an industry that has lately hit a plateau in improvement, according to Allen. “Up until about five years ago, multi-junctions were running at about a one percent clip in terms of annual efficiency improvements,” Allen says. “Because the maturation of the three-junction technology was occurring, and because there was a lack of clarity about how to get to higher efficiency, that one percent per year diminished drastically over the last three to five years from the current technology providers.”

Allen says Solar Junction’s latest accomplishment, fueled by its proprietary Adjustable Spectrum Lattice Matched materials, is a sign that the sky’s the limit with respect to the capacity of CPV technology and the multi-junction cells that are integral to its efficient operation. “Flat-plate silicon type solar cells have largely met their physics limits in terms of increasing efficiency,” Allen says, “whereas multi-junction solar cells have not. You can actually add additional junctions to increase the efficiency over the coming years.”

2012 has been a period of exciting growth for Solar Junction, which has seen the formation of several key partnerships and the receipt of an esteemed government grant. Earlier in the year, Solar Junction announced separate partnerships with semiconductor company IQE, which has a facility in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, and solar module manufacturer Semprius, which recently opened its first solar module production facility in Henderson, North Carolina. In addition, Solar Junction was named one of three recipients of the highly sought after SUNPATH grant from the Department of Energy, which has resulted in the company commissioning a 6” production fabrication facility in Sunnyvale, California. Allen predicts between 30 and 50 new jobs will be created at the company’s forthcoming Sunnyvale location.

“The nice thing is,” Allen says, “is that as capacity expands for us, that drives employment in North Carolina, it drives employment in Pennsylvania, and in California.”

Lead image: Red arrow via Shutterstock

40 Comments

Register To Comment
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
October 22, 2012
The good news about this story is that people can get excited over good-old-fashioned incremental engineering. That's technology that is close to practical use. Even simple systems such as solar panels do not hinge on one element so incremental improvement is supported by a myriad of other established technologies. PV is still in the throes of incremental improvement. Efficiency tends to have the greatest cost-benefit since the cost of capacity ($/W) is inversely proportional to efficiency. As some point out, efficiency also buys down BOS costs so classic $/Wp price comparison is inexact - there is extra value in increased module efficiency. One example problem is module cover glass: one may use clearer glass with AR coat to improve efficiency; but, we had to wait years for high quality glass with durable ARC to be commercially available at a sufficiently low price. This was delayed by concurrent declines in module BOM cost. On the other hand, as optical gains multiply cell efficiency, increasing cell efficiency helped make 'better' glass 'affordable'. But there are more gains to be had from glazing and encapsulant - this story continues.
Note: materials cost is a function of supply and demand - new applications create low initial demand and must somehow build volume to drive a new material to the 'right' cost. This is a big problem for CPV as there is little standardization of anything among manufacturers (as we can see from the above discussion of optical systems): basically, CPV doesn't have economy of scale working for it. A breakpoint for solar glass occured when it went from special run to mainstream production.
A third point: existing production has sunk costs tied to a process and a cost model that may have not yet achieved ROI. Changes with cost impact may have to wait and then change disrupts continuous production (a cost in itself). Plan B, starting from scratch, is also costly (reflected in incumbent's sunk costs) and risky (recent history).
Bernhard Scheffler
Bernhard Scheffler
October 20, 2012
John - As shown in Welford & Winston's text, as well as most other texts on Nonimaging Concentrators, even a PERFECT parabolic concentrator, with the OPTIMAL RIM ANGLE of 45 degrees, has only one quarter of the maximum concentration ratio of an ideal (nonimaging) concentrator of the same acceptance angle.

With other rim angles, such as the convenient 90+ degree choice that permits easy protection with a flat glass sheet, parabolic concentrators fall short even more. Perhaps this is a reason why the SEGS and Spanish parabolic troughs appear to have an approx 45 degree rim angle.
Bernhard Scheffler
Bernhard Scheffler
October 20, 2012
John - I have looked at your website. Your systems do appear to be of excellent quality -- the most important criterion of all -- with meticulous attention to detail, reliability and durability, and I wish you all success.

As far as I can see your concentrators are parabolic troughs. Paraboloids (their 3D variant) are the primary element of Newtonian telescopes, which include most of the largest (as well as many smaller) astronomical telescopes, where they do indeed form images.

Welford, Winston, Rabl, Gallagher, Chaves & others in the field of nonimaging concentrators would not call your systems nonimaging concentrators -- unless they have a 2D variant of the (3D) TERC first described by Jeff Gordon en Harald Riess.
John Nistler
John Nistler
October 20, 2012
In general, all theoretical approaches have limited applicability in real world situations. Fixed roof installations need to be able to handle 90 mph wind situations. Full polar tracking dual land use pier/pole systems need to be able to handle 125 mph wind situations. In the real world, dust and bird droppings occur. Cleaning is required. Sand and dust tends to scratch surfaces if the surface is not hardened. Debris can break or damage optics if it is not tempered or done with special epitaxial or CVD approaches.

High reliability of all components is required with maximum kWh production and at minimal costs to be competitive. Research may lead the way to better manufacturing or processes, but not all research can be incorporated due to costs or a lack of infrastructure. Yet certain innovations or improvements can lead to a quick adoption.
John Nistler
John Nistler
October 20, 2012
Bernhard, this is why I requested a clarification. We are talking about two different design criteria. I agree trying to go for 947 sun concentration would make a straight CPC approach bulky and expensive. High concentration using CPC is not practical for PV applications, and also not necessary. For example, using CPC to obtain solar thermal concentrations greater then 700 F becomes extremely cost prohibitive due to the necessary size and complexity of the equipment. But at 350 to 700 F design criteria is still a reasonable size and cost. To obtain 2200 F, we approach the system design from a different perspective using CPC to obtain 700F and then using a thermo-chemical approach to obtain 2200F. In designing a practical refractive truncated CPC approach for commercial solar PV panels, there are design trade offs that are considered with weighting factors in regards to concentration obtained, cost and ease of manufacturing. Reasonable targets of 1.5 to 1.9X can be obtained, but not anything like 947X.
Bernhard Scheffler
Bernhard Scheffler
October 20, 2012
CPCs become excessively bulky at high concentration ratios -- leading to excessive materials cost & weight, and excessive wind loads. This has been well known & understood for half a century.
Bernhard Scheffler
Bernhard Scheffler
October 20, 2012
CPCs are basically useless at ratios much above 10, and most certainly at 100s of suns. As I understand it, even truncated CPCs do not have credibilty in this region.

Only TERCs (tailored edge ray concentrators) show promise -- although I find it difficult to see how adequate heat sinking can be arranged for them (and for the secondary reflector) in a CPV environment.
Bernhard Scheffler
Bernhard Scheffler
October 20, 2012
John - I refer to my calculation in #28, based on the basics of classical CPCs as described by Welford & Winston. I thought you accepted that. The LENGTH of the individual CPC along the optical axis (pointing at the sun as it is being tracked) becomes the THICKNESS of an array for a multitude of concentrator cells -- see Welford's later chapters.

As Welford and many other authors note (and my calculation illustrates), CPCs become excessively bulky at high concentration ratios
John Nistler
John Nistler
October 20, 2012
Bernhard, you are loosing me in regards to your discussion on thickness. Thickness of the glass on the truncated CPC? Thickness of the reflector? The type of metal used for the truncated CPC has a bearing on the thickness required. Utilization of structural members to support thinner reflectors reduces overall weight and bulk. How you build the positioning also affects weight and bulk.

In addition, how you incorporate the transmissive element also impacts the truncated CPC. In an overall design, principal component analysis is required to address all aspects of the product specifications and market requirements. The real trick is in defining the specifications or boundary conditions of the problem. Not an easy task, but doable.
Bernhard Scheffler
Bernhard Scheffler
October 20, 2012
I know Welford's book well -- I have taught university courses on nonimaging concentrators to engineers and scientists.

The viability of a nonimaging concentrator array depend critically on the cell size. The area of course remains unchanged, but the thickness is directly proportional to cell size.
John Nistler
John Nistler
October 20, 2012
Bernhard, your statement is correct, CPC or compound parabolic concentrator as was originally used in the 70's for solar thermal and still used today for solar thermal is inadequate for large solar panel PV arrays. I would suggest you review Welford's original work in 1957. Had nothing to do with Compound parabolic concentrator as is normally used for solar power thermal units. In regards to my 1 inch cell assumption, the discussion is still correct. Does not really matter what the size of the cell is. The area required to obtain 947 sun concentration is still the same. There is only so much energy available in sunlight.

If you review our website, www.psida.webs.com you will note that we still use CPC for solar thermal applications. But a refraction enhanced approach with complementary truncated CPC is used for solar PV.
Bernhard Scheffler
Bernhard Scheffler
October 20, 2012
A Fresnel lens will be much compacter (a few mm thick) and less expensive. BUT The CPC (or other -- possibly more compact -- nonimaging concentrator, eg a TERC, truncated CPC, or refraction-enhanced CPC) will require a much relaxed manufacturing and tracking tolerance, which will save on costs and improve overall efficiency.
Bernhard Scheffler
Bernhard Scheffler
October 20, 2012
John - A 1 cm diameter ROUND cell, at 947 concentration ratio will require a ROUND entrance aperture of about 35cm dia (taking reflection losses into account). If the concentrator is a straight CPC, its length (along the optical axis -- that is pointing at the sun) will according to Welford & Winston, be 35x(35cm)/2 = 612.5cm, over 6 metres. Tracking such a 6+ metre (20 foot +) monster to follow the sun for a 1 cm cell size will not be economical. Even the smaller 5.5 mm cell size would still require an 11 ft thick concentrator array of classical CPCs.
Bernhard Scheffler
Bernhard Scheffler
October 20, 2012
John - according to the Solar Junction website, their square cell sizes are 5.5 mm and 1 cm, not 25.4mm
Bernhard Scheffler
Bernhard Scheffler
October 20, 2012
Nigel Morris & Cool Guy - The Solar Junction website http://www.sj-solar.com/technology/ states: "These systems integrate a solar cell that in the case of Solar Junction, deliver efficiencies over 40%, resulting in system efficiencies of 28% or higher."

This illustrates the effect of the rather less than 100% efficiency of the concentrator+tracking system even at concentration ratios in the region of 300.
John Nistler
John Nistler
October 19, 2012
Bernhard, the discussion is in regards to overall system design. While simple fresnel focusing lens may sound worthwhile to begin with, the focal point is specific, aka, the cell needs to stay in the focal spot or line. CPC or compound Parabolic Concentrators as part of a non-imaging optical system can be designed robustly handling high winds and maximum programming flexibility to adjust for latitude and time of year. An overall system design has various product and market specifications associated with maximum power (not watts) per area, reliability, maintenance overhead, capital cost, ease of installation, liabilities and total market. Amonix uses a simple fresnel lens approach focusing on a single high efficiency solar cell. There systems due to extreme control criteria are 3 to 4X the price of our non-imaging optics tracking systems and the Amonix system is only applicable in Texas to the El Paso area due to the requirement that they need a DNI ratio of 6.2 or greater to be cost effective. I am quite familiar with Welford and Winston starting with the original work using a ruby collector. It appears you are referring purely to Compound parabolic Concentrators, while very worthwhile for thermal applications, the designs need modification to handle solar panel arrays.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
October 19, 2012
@maury good catch. "Flat-plate silicon type solar cells have largely met their physics limits in terms of increasing efficiency," Allen says. First, a module is a complete opto-electronic device not just a cell and cells themselves, have a fair way to go to reach both their theoretical conversion limit and their best aperture efficiency. Modules, have even a bit further to go in terms of optical and aperture efficiency - much of the technology is there mostly waiting on cost of production and process concerns. As you say, just because it's flat doesn't mean it has to be single junction. Also, stacking junctions isn't the only way to reduce quantum losses: multi-junction tries to make the best of the photons you've got but another choice is to make the photons into the ones you want - that's coming on fast and rapidly getting affordable. It's probably also a mistake to assume that the conventional simple photo-junction is all there is -if you follow other areas of photonics you kind find lots of examples of quantum magic taking performance to formerly improbable or even theoretically impossible levels. Og have fire, Og never think electric range possible.
Maury Markowitz
Maury Markowitz
October 19, 2012
"Flat-plate silicon type solar cells have largely met their physics limits in terms of increasing efficiency," Allen says, "whereas multi-junction solar cells have not"

This is a non-sequitur. Flat-plate does not imply single-junction. Sure, existing examples are indeed single-junction, for the most part, but that's only because the cost of increasing the number of junctions isn't worth it - as the lack of any commercial examples in operation demonstrates.
Bernhard Scheffler
Bernhard Scheffler
October 19, 2012
John -- Anyone who knows the rudiments of classical CPC Nonimaging Concentrators knows that they are much more bulky (& expensive) than simple parabolic concentrators -- not to even mention Fresnel lenses. This is especially true for high concentration ratios. See the excellent text Optics of Nonimaging Concentrators by Welford & Winston. The newer TERC Nonimaging Concentrators of Gordon & Riess are more compact, but the secondary stage (which operates at highly concentrated sun) is prone to heat damage.
Bernhard Scheffler
Bernhard Scheffler
October 19, 2012
To Nigel Morris & Cool Solar Guy. My first comment (#2) refers to the efficiency increase from 43.5% @ 418 suns to 44% @ 947 suns. This tiny increase in cell efficiency comes at the expense of a generally larger decrease in concentrator efficiency.

This is because the sun is not a geometrical point, but a disk. And solar rays scattered through small angles in the atmosphere create an effective disk of circumsolar rays. These rays are lost at high concentrations.
John Nistler
John Nistler
October 19, 2012
Gerald, sorry, I was referring to solar thermal with useful btu content to use for adsorption cooling, or heating/cooking. We utilize air cooling and heat reduction of the solar junction on our designs.

Bernard, sorry, the non-imaging optics is actually less expensive then the imaging optics, but design aspects are totally different and have to be well understood.

Another area in regards to PV versus CPV is the shadowing impact reduction using electronics such as buck/boost DC to DC converters and smart combiner electronics. The electronics to achieve kWh production improvements especially on existing roof installations that may not be optimized for solar can add up significantly especially during months with low solar insolation. The problem with CPV is if focus is off due to diffuse light from clouds, it is pretty much off or on like a light switch. Whereas for PV panels using non-imaging optics, its more like a transistor thus you can optimize for current output on your string and then match voltage on your combiner box.

This can pick you up an additional 15 to 17% under low light situations. Done every day that equivalent 1/2 hour at peak power will add up over a full year.
Michael Mayhew
Michael Mayhew
October 19, 2012
I have a cooling loop on the back side of my small (proof of concept) CPV system (with only a Sun factor 4). The low grade heat typically is in the 60-80-degree F range, but this provides heat to a 1000 gallon thermal storage tank in my greenhouse. It isn't hot, but my plants really like it. With a larger CPV system, I imagine a more significant heat source that could work very nicely with a heat pump.
Bernhard Scheffler
Bernhard Scheffler
October 19, 2012
Excellent comments by Gerald R and John Nistler. As noted by John, Nonimaging Concentrators are much more efficient (but also more expensive) than simple imaging ones. They also allow easier less expensive tracking.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
October 19, 2012
@john-nistler 'We constantly look at the aspect of combining PV and Thermal. No practical approach has yet been identified'. Cooling a PV module is a simple way to incrementally improve the efficiency of a module. This is in fact a big advantage of ground mount over rooftop. Water and electricity is not the best idea but everyone owns an electric kettle. The problem is that the water helps the PV if it's cool enough - in turn, you need a heat pump to make it warm enough to be a hot water source. Interestingly, the application of cooling makes the cells produce less heat. But why use water? A low boiling point fluid perhaps driving an expansion engine might be used.
There's a low cost approach to cooling modules using a bit of sheet metal to create an air scoop and heat exchanger which can lower the operating temperature by convection alone or forced air in large arrays. Racking suppliers are missing a bet here.
There's a bit of work being done on pyrolitic devices which could take heat away as electricity.
This seems like an area that could use some serious research.
Choice B - build solar farms in high mountain areas - more insollation and cold all in one package for free.
Antonio Found
Antonio Found
October 19, 2012
This is still fair news for the development of high efficiency multi-junction cells for the CPV market.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
October 19, 2012
Total panel surface area for large farms is only 20-21% of total land area occupied.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
October 19, 2012
@john-nistler - good point. The effect of moderate humidity is to reduce CPV efficiency but enhance the PV as diffuse radiation is intensified.
@claven - you can make a hybrid PV setup using flank mirrors. This is definitely low concentration but up to ~2X is practically possible. This can be a way to improve off-axis gain in fixed mount systems. Alternately, trough reflectors can do a bit better. There are low concentration approaches that can be embedded into the module itself. Recycling the light that falls between cells (~5-10% boost without changing the manufacturing process) or lenticular glazing over thin cells. Either method optimizes when modules are assembled by specialized equipment (multi-wire segmenting tabber/stringer) and can practically achieve 3-5X. Note: cell efficiency falls with temperature - so concentration comes with a penalty without supplementary cooling.
Another issue with CPV is spectral match - typically the base cell is over spec so that the first and second cells are current limiting which leads to a loss of efficiency under yellow light. On the other hand, PV uses bluish light inefficiently but we can approximate the advantage of multi-junction down-shifting those photons to the peak quantum efficiency of the cell and reformulating the cell AR coating. Conversion inefficiency is more than offset by the improved quantum efficiency; as a byproduct, cell degradation is reduced. This approach doesn't necessitate spectral matching as with multijunction cells.
Sidebar: PV module design and manufacturing technology has a long way to go to yet. Recall that traditionally manufacturers have been battling cell efficiency, process yield and materials costs and still haven't closed out on any of them - other battles are yet to be fought.
The main advantage of CPV is use of complex but tiny cells. PV has dabbled with 2-junction cells but there are other ways to manipulate photons just approaching the cost barrier.
Donald Wagner
Donald Wagner
October 19, 2012
Cliff: Prism Solar does something similar, using holograms and TIR to increase efficiency. Too concentrate and separate the spectrum it is easier to use a single Fresnel lens which can be created very inexpensively using injection molding. Check out the Rainbow Concentrator at www.sol-solution.net for details. I am not sure what you mean by "currently I see only 20% coverage for single-axis tracked systems"
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
October 19, 2012
Could a hologram interference pattern be used in place of optics to image and focus light? It would seem like an upper plane of semi-transparent non-tracking PV with a hologram pattern etched into it could passively image and concentrate sunlight to multiple foci below at each of which is placed a small PVC cell. And the bleedover light that diffuses through without being focused or that missed the PVC cells could then be caught by a third plane of conventional PV further below. Non-tracking panels lets them be mounted contiguously for more land area coverage density (currently I see only 20% coverage for single-axis tracked systems).
Donald Wagner
Donald Wagner
October 19, 2012
cliff -
One way to extract nondirect sunlight for a CPV system is using a scavanger cell (http://www.google.com/patents/US20100170557) the idea is that while you will have an average of 947 suns on the solar cell, you will probably still have between 200 and 20 suns for about twice the area. So you have a simpler less expensive cell surrounding the main solar cell. I don't believe any commercial systems currently do this. Note that these higher concentration systems are using smaller solar cells .5cm x .5cm rather than 1cm x 1cm to help with the heat issue.

To get higher efficiencies, besides going to more junctions, you can also have a 6 termimal solution so you don't have to worry about current matching.
Splitting the spectrum (which is is how the current submodule record is currently set)and have several different solar cells with different bandgaps receive the appropriate parts of the spectrum.
John Nistler
John Nistler
October 19, 2012
Cliff, not sure why I would do so. CPV is an imaging approach. In my opinion, tracking systems are more robust, reliable and less expensive using non-imaging approaches.

The work being done on higher efficiency solar cells is very worthwhile. The sooner this technology can be made cost effectively and enter into mainstream, the better.

Production single junction solar cells at 20% are easily obtained and cost effective now. The 21% efficient solar cell cost will be competitive by middle of 2013. If multi-junction cells come on market for cost effective implementation in solar panels any time soon, CPV will have even more of a difficult time.

We constantly look at the aspect of combining PV and Thermal. No practical approach has yet been identified so perhaps someone will be innovative in a way not yet thought about for CPV and PV hybrids.
Cliff Claven
Cliff Claven
October 19, 2012
GerarldR, John-N: thank you for the detailed technical elaboration. I found it very "illuminating" in my quest to better understand the relative advantages and disadvantages of CPV. Question: is there a way to hybridize PV with CPV?
John Nistler
John Nistler
October 19, 2012
Gerald has made some very good points about CPV, but lets elaborate a little further. What is implied but not well known is you need a high direct normal incidence of sunlight ratio, aka, little humidity and few clouds to make CPV work. Imaging optics requires a high degree of positional accuracy which requires finer movement. Finer movement requires smaller gears - detrimental in meeting wind load criteria.

Using the theoretical rating of 1000 watts of sunlight per square meter, we have the following. Since flash tests are using normal incidence measurements for solar panel ratings, we will assume absolute normal incidence of all sunlight (not real, but ok for this discussion)

The area required for this CPV cell assuming a 1 inch square cell is .6109 m^2 (947 sun equivalent - terra insolation). Maximum solar watts available from the sun is 610.96 watts. At 44% conversion efficiency this is 268.8 peak watts. Using a 17% efficient panel (on a tracking system) this is equivalent to 201.6 watts. Actual real improvement based on area is 1.33x.

Ok, now we build pv tracking systems with optical enhancement (non-imaging optics) and sale at $3.25 per watt. Thus a full CPV system to be cost effective needs to be at $4.33 per watt or less to be capital competitive. Since CPV systems require finer positioning, this adds to the Balance of System (BOS) costs. While it would be difficult to do this finer movement, optics and maintain wind shear performance - lets assume it only costs $0.50 more per watt. Thus the cost per watt of the new CPV solar cell needs to be on the order of only $0.58 per watt higher then typical single solar cell junction cells at 20% efficiencies in order to be cost effective.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
October 19, 2012
Perhaps I should mention that the required precision of tracking for CPV drills down to the level of manufacturing tolerances of the modules and/or arrays of modules and racking. Since modules are usually deployed in a large matrix, all of the modules must have consistent angular alignment to a fraction of one degree in two degrees of freedom. This alignment must be maintained across a broad temperature range, under variable windload and at variable attitude of the structure. Flat plates, on the other hand, can be made to pretty coarse tolerance and carried on pretty ordinary racking; nowhere in the process is any precision alignment needed and a simple clockwork tracker roughly aligned to the compass at installation is sufficient.
Of course, the precision requirements for CPV modules translates into addional testing during manufacture. We have to implement a number of additional test capabilities in a production line in order to fully characterize module performance. This approximately doubles the cost of end-of-line testing.
Christina Nelson
Christina Nelson
October 19, 2012
Cooling should not be looked at as a cost but rather a source of thermal energy.
Gerry Wootton
Gerry Wootton
October 19, 2012
CPV does need better trackers and clearer sky, especially at high concentration ratios. If you do an optical analysis of flat-plate collectors, there is a high tolerance to misalignment; in fact, at moderate angles, increased optical losses are offset by longer absorption length in the photoabsorber and interaction with cell texture. Near peak efficiency is obtained over a broad range of incident angles, which translates into a wide tolerance to tracking error (and of course makes fixed installation useful). Also, because of this optical property, flat plate modules, can make use of diffuse sunlight in addition to direct sunlight which results in higher yield under typical real world conditions. Also, flat plates can use single axis tracking which provides performance improvements at significantly lower cost than 2 axis tracking and substantially reduces land use requirements. For CPV, tracking must be better than you'd think because of the fact that the solar disk is circular and subtends ~0.53 degrees of arc. There's a tradeoff between the amount of concentration and the ability to keep the cell well centered on the concentrated spot. One option is to use a light guide to improve positioning tolerance (as well as prevent huge thermal gradients) though this introduces additional optical surfaces with multiple reflections that increase the optical losses but reduce the geometric losses.
Cell efficiency is only a moderately good indicator of module performance. Flat plate modules can have efficiencies less than up to somewhat more than the raw cell efficiency depending on materials used and use of optical effects. CPV modules have additional real world issues related to thermal stability of the optics. There's also a minor tracking issue at low angles where atmospheric refraction shifts the sun's apparent position slightly which can cause problems on variably cloudy days.
Michael Mayhew
Michael Mayhew
October 19, 2012
At Bernard: With flat plate collectors, the cost of trackers add about 30-35% to the installation cost, similar to the increase in collection efficiency, used with a 15-20% efficient PV module. With a PV that is about 3X more efficient, intensified 1000 times, and with the waste bi-product being useful hot water, how can this not be a great, extremely cost-ffective break-through? I look forward to getting my hands onto this very exciting commercially available product.
Nigel Morris
Nigel Morris
October 19, 2012
@Bernhard Scheffler
Yes, there will be tracking losses and cooling costs.
But why will the tracking losses be any greater, percentage wise than other tracking based systems?
Optical concentration losses will occur also.
But there will be a very significant decrease in inverter and string losses, and unless the chip is 2,000 times more expensive than mono Silicon there will be panel savings.

It would be interesting if you could put some numbers on the losses you say will outweigh the efficiency and other gains of these chips.
Bernhard Scheffler
Bernhard Scheffler
October 19, 2012
As the new efficiency is only reached at 947 suns, these new cells will be of limited use. Optical concentrator and tracking losses (and the extra costs of such high precision optics & tracking -- not to mention more stringent cooling) will more than offset the benefits of the increased efficiency.
William Fitch
William Fitch
October 18, 2012
Hi:

Probably about 3 years ago, there was a piece on a full spectrum breakthrough from IBM for 1 sun cells. Silicon at its current config is topping out eff. wise, but the door is still way open for more complex cell structures and layering. For small systems 10KW ball bark, CPV is really not practical and especially in non clear sky climates.

.....Bill

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create a Free Account!
  • Sign-In
Vince Font

Vince Font

Vince Font is a professional freelance writer specializing in the fields of renewable energy, high tech, travel, and entertainment. Read his blog at www.vincefont.com or follow him on Twitter @vincefont.
  • About
  • Articles
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Editors' Picks

  • America's Real Problem with Solar Energy
  • US, Australian Companies Taking Giant Steps for Global EGS Geothermal
  • EU Debate Over Climate Change Policy Could Dampen Renewable Energy Growth
  • Wind Power — Even without the Wind
  • Massachusetts Resets Its Solar Energy Bar, Four Years Early

Most Commented

  • 15
    Fracking and Solar: Friends, Foes or the Bridge to Clean Energy Adoption?
  • 12
    Breakdown: Penetration of Renewable Energy in Selected Markets
  • 7
    San Antonio Solar Fans Delay Introduction of SunCredit Program
  • 6
    Renewable Energy Research Initiative Launched in UK

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • groSolar
  • Renewable Energy World Asia
  • Solar Power International 2013
  • Panasonic Eco Solutions North America
  • The Stella Group, Ltd.
  • Festo
  • Alternative Matters
  • PLANSEE SE
News
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hyrdo Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information