|
Wednesday, May 07, 2008 Focusing on Solar's CostSunrgi claims that its concentrated photovoltaic system outshines the competition. By Tyler Hamilton
A Hollywood-based solar startup says that it will soon be able to produce electricity from the sun at costs that are competitive with fossil-fuel generation. The key is the company's dramatic improvement in the performance of concentrated photovoltaic technology. Sunrgi, which emerged out of stealth mode last week, has created a concentrated photovoltaic system that uses a lens to focus sunlight up to 2,000 times onto tiny solar cells that can convert 37.5 percent of the sun's energy into electricity. Stronger concentrations of sunlight allow engineers to use much smaller solar cells, making it more economical to use higher-efficiency--but higher-cost--cells. Sunrgi, for example, will use cells based on gallium arsenside and germanium substrates. Paul Sidlo, one of seven founding partners of Sunrgi, says that the system uses four times less photovoltaic material than other approaches, which typically aim for 500 times sun concentration. This includes systems being developed by California rivals SolFocus and Soliant Energy. "We've miniaturized everything," Sidlo says. "What this leads to is reduced cost, and the big breakthrough here is all about lower cost." The company has also designed its system to be produced on slightly modified computer assembly lines, enabling further savings through high-volume production. The higher efficiency also means that a solar park built with Sunrgi's modules could use one-sixteenth of the space needed with conventional thin-film solar cells, adds Sidlo. The result is lower real-estate costs for developers. Sunrgi estimates that its system will be capable of producing electricity at a wholesale cost of five cents per kilowatt-hour. Prototypes have been built and tested both in the laboratory and in the field, and the company expects to start commercial production in 12 to 15 months. "It's quite an aggressive claim," says Daniel Friedman, a solar-energy researcher at the U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). He says that most others in the space are still working toward seven or eight cents per kilowatt-hour. "I can't say Sunrgi won't achieve what it's claiming, but right now, it's just on paper, and costs like that are only going to be a reality at the large manufacturing level," he says. "Even then, the five-cent figure sounds really optimistic." Arguably the biggest breakthrough for Sunrgi is in the area of heat management, which is essential to any concentrated photovoltaic system. The intense heat created by concentrating the sun so much can reduce both the efficiency and the life of the solar cell. At 2,000 times sun concentration, temperatures can exceed 1800 °C--similar to the heat from an acetylene torch, and hot enough to melt the solar cell. Cells in such systems are usually cooled through a combination of heat conduction, air or liquid convection, and radiation; the goal is to remove as much of the heat as quickly as possible, says Sunrgi partner KRS Murthy, who has been labeled the "thermal wizard" by his colleagues. "At each stage of conduction, convection, and radiation, we've made an improvement over what others have done," he says. |
A Cool Trick for Solar Cells
05/16/2008



Comments
Gaetano Marano on 05/07/2008 at 5:23 AM
55
"competitive with fossil-fuel generation"
yes, but, at WHICH oil price?
- past $20-30 per barrel?
- today's $120 per barrel?
- tomorrow's $200+ per barrel?
-------------------------
gaetanomarano.it
ghostNASA.com
NewSpaceAgency.com
.
cgs on 05/07/2008 at 6:25 AM
1
Fresnel lenses.
Special dissipation fluid.
And some energy wasted in the fluid circulation.
Let's wait and see...
asdar on 05/07/2008 at 8:03 AM
60
doug_houseman on 05/07/2008 at 4:24 PM
1
More important, if they are really getting 1800 degrees C as waste heat, they have a perfect opportunity to use salt as a heat storage mechanism and provide thermal generation of electricity at night.
This would further lower the average cost per KWh, if they can build it for a reasonable price.
As the article states and I agree, it is all on paper. NanoSolar has claimed that they will over installed thin film for a dollar a watt, again on paper. That would mean that with each installed watt producing 1KW per year (non-optimal location average - in the desert it would be closer to 2.5KWH per year) and a 20 year life that they would be in a similar range for power.
Lets see if either company is willing to sign a 20 year deal at that price for solar power. If they are, I am willing to sign up.
What say - a locked in price for 20 years at 5 cents a KWH (not including transmission and distribution, taxes, license, fees, etc).
Sounds good to me.
Doug
Monsterboy on 05/07/2008 at 8:33 AM
53
How does this work? They still need to initially collect the sunlight from the same area that the thin-films do, even though they're concentrating it on a smaller photovoltaic area. So how does this save land area?
MITBeta on 05/07/2008 at 8:48 AM
21
FRE on 05/08/2008 at 3:03 PM
1
<P>
It is unlikely that concentrating the sunlight would increase the efficiency of the solar cells, i.e., the percentage of the light that would be converted to electricity. Thus, light concentration WOULD NOT reduce the amount of land necessary to generate a given amount of power. Assuming that the optical system were 100% efficient, the land area required would be exactly the same as if there were no concentration whatever. If concentration actually did boost conversion efficiency, the land area required would be reduced only by the amount that the efficiency is increased. Reducing the land area required by the stated amount would probably require solar cells with an efficiency exceeding 100%. It may be that the author is unaware that efficiency cannot exceed 100%.
<P>
Light concentration could conceivably reduce costs by reducing the mass of solar cells required, but the article does not cover that possibly. It is only a possibility, since any savings in the cost of the solar cells could be offset (or more than offset) by the required optical system and cooling system.
<P>
It appears to me that the author of the article has only limited technical competence. I suggest that it be made impossible to get a degree in journalism without having studied physics at the college level for at least one year.
zeddy on 05/13/2008 at 11:13 PM
4
The efficiency (percentage usable power out/power in) of a solar cell increases when the light intensity increases.
ie if you had a 1 square metre ordinary flat panel, you would get about 150 watts (15% efficiency).
If you had a 1 square metre concentrating array (at 40% effiecient), you would get
1) 400 watts out (for the same power in)
2) at the same time, you would use a smaller amount of silicon
So if you concentrate 500x, you would use 1/500 of the silicon cf normal flat panel, AND you would get much higher output for the same solar input, AND you could use the waste heat in a heat engine to generate even more power.
Monsterboy on 05/14/2008 at 8:50 AM
53
Siphon on 06/05/2008 at 8:30 AM
69
RobGraham on 05/07/2008 at 9:22 AM
1
stevehadd on 05/07/2008 at 10:57 AM
1
javs on 05/07/2008 at 9:47 AM
32
Sunrgi solar technology on many roofs seems to be the logical case for distributed solar generation that statistically would have a high net input into a smart grid that transport electricity in both ways. Do non utility-scale developments need the elimination of price controls to the end-customer to be viable? Most energy will be produced where needed without transportation losses.
The price controls debate seems to be overdue.
javs on 05/07/2008 at 10:34 AM
32
camdaddy09 on 05/07/2008 at 1:41 PM
18
winterspan on 05/09/2008 at 5:13 PM
3
nekote on 05/07/2008 at 3:38 PM
114
2,000 Suns obviously takes 2 axis tracking.
Rather than the simpler single axis elevation tracking that "trough" systems use.
Those entire linear banks rotating to track the East to West movement of the Sun?
wbc97 on 05/07/2008 at 5:35 PM
1
Siphon on 06/05/2008 at 8:35 AM
69
A lot of red flags on these claims. The company appears rather incompetent when judged by their website and their claims, many of which are simply impossible by physics. If I were an investor, I'd hold on to my wallet, for now at least.
MakeSense on 05/09/2008 at 1:05 PM
61
As far as the 1/16 land use claim, the factors that contribute to it would include:
1. Tracking versus non-tracking
2. 37.5% eff versus about 20%
3. Concentration of sunlight versus none
4. Heat removal versus none
5. Additional layers in multijunction cells that permit more light into the cell and keep it there longer
It's not as simple as saying that the same area has the same sunlight.
FreddyG on 05/10/2008 at 1:20 PM
5