21 Oct 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou notice in the article, they are very tightlipped about the efficiency and costs of these new cells, nice idea but will it pan out in the marketplace? They have to be more forthcoming with data. My guess is the picture shows the '50 Kw' unit on their own roof. If that is the case, these cells are very ineffiecient indeed. Those are a lot of cells for just 50 Kw of energy.
Yes, but it seems a bit more practical for me to cover my roof with solar panels than erect a giant wind turbine in my backyard.
EDIT: And there is this as well:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=cylindrical-solar-cells-give-new-meaning-to-sunroof&ec=su_cylindricalsolar
21 Oct 08
Originally posted by sonhouseThey quote cell efficiency at 14% but nothing on module efficiency, I think BP solar give a module efficiency of 15% to 18% depending on the product.
[b]You notice in the article, they are very tightlipped about the efficiency
It would be nice to see the mathematical model which reckons they get an extra 20% from their design, unless it’s from experimental data, interesting idea though.
21 Oct 08
Originally posted by joneveryI missed that 14% number. What I wonder is why they need to pave the cells all the way round the tube? Why don't they do just half the circumferance or make a series of bends like corrugated aluminum, seems like that would be cheaper yet and accomplish the same thing.
They quote cell efficiency at 14% but nothing on module efficiency, I think BP solar give a module efficiency of 15% to 18% depending on the product.
It would be nice to see the mathematical model which reckons they get an extra 20% from their design, unless it’s from experimental data, interesting idea though.
21 Oct 08
I can only assume that as a thin film it’s easy (compared to wafer based PV) to form a cylinder, which if the substrate is transparent the incident photons make one complete pass with the non absorbed component scattering through to the other side of the cylinder. But I guess they’re not going to reveal too much of their design or data, for example are the cylinders one thin film cell or a number in series? CIGS appears to be a great material but I’d be interested in the cost, compared to say a similar instillation in polycrystalline Si.
21 Oct 08
Originally posted by joneveryIt seems that the biggest benefit cited is the cheap and quick installation. If Solar Power is to be employed on a mass scale, the cost of installation would be of paramount importance.
I can only assume that as a thin film it’s easy (compared to wafer based PV) to form a cylinder, which if the substrate is transparent the incident photons make one complete pass with the non absorbed component scattering through to the other side of the cylinder. But I guess they’re not going to reveal too much of their design or data, for example are the ...[text shortened]... but I’d be interested in the cost, compared to say a similar instillation in polycrystalline Si.
23 Oct 08
Originally posted by epiphinehasI would agree that installation costs would be quite a contributing factor, the only data I have is quite old and based on silicon, for example, wafer cost 20%( given the fluctuating price of silicon which I could see taking up to 50% dependent on the market), cell manufacturing 20%, module raw materials 25% and installation 35%. If CIGS really can reduce the process costs instillation will be one, if not the dominant cost.
It seems that the biggest benefit cited is the cheap and quick installation. If Solar Power is to be employed on a mass scale, the cost of installation would be of paramount importance.
Is anyone familiar with the supply of Indium, Gallium and Selenium?
23 Oct 08
Originally posted by joneveryPretty low and expensive, especially gallium, half of the famous Gallium Arsenide semiconductor group. We here at Cyoptics use Indium Phosphide and quantum wells to get optical gain and modulation capablities.
I would agree that installation costs would be quite a contributing factor, the only data I have is quite old and based on silicon, for example, wafer cost 20%( given the fluctuating price of silicon which I could see taking up to 50% dependent on the market), cell manufacturing 20%, module raw materials 25% and installation 35%. If CIGS really can reduce t ...[text shortened]... if not the dominant cost.
Is anyone familiar with the supply of Indium, Gallium and Selenium?
24 Oct 08
Originally posted by sonhouseMaterial supply could be seen as a problem with a mass uptake of CIGS technology, but I suspect that no PV material will dominate for the foreseeable future it will be application specific.
[b]Pretty low and expensive, especially gallium,
Are you familiar with intermediate band gap solar cells using quantum wells?