Do you think AGILE will catch on and make a difference with solar? Visit brilliant.org/undecided to sign up for free. And also, the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium membership. If you liked this video, check out: The Future of Solid State Wind Energy - No More Blades th-cam.com/video/nNp21zTeCDc/w-d-xo.html Or Exploring Solar Panel Efficiency Breakthroughs in 2022 th-cam.com/video/m8crjuL8FFs/w-d-xo.html
I really miss you also addressing the downsides or (unsolved) potential problems of the technologies you discuss. You seem to be extremely optimistic about basically every technology you discuss, but you seldom touch on potential problems in any depth. Here, the technology only makes sense if the combination of a small but expensive multi-layer cell + the concentrator lens on top can be produced cheaper per Kw generated as a conventional cell for the same area, or there is at least the outlook that that can be reached. Or, if it would enable specific niche applications that are not worth it or not possible now, but you don't really discuss either. Also, you don't discuss how panels like this deal with heat. The concentrators will also make the heat concentrated on these small, expensive cells. If a normal cell on a sunny summer day reaches 50-60 degrees C, what kinds of temperatures do the cells using a 10-100x magnifier on top have to deal with? Can they? Is that a fire hazard?
Here’s a funny thing, this tech was “invented” in the TV show “Medium” by the Husband. The show is from the early 00’s. It was supposed to be so efficient that it could work with moonlight.
I worked on a similar tech in my research lab around 8 years ago. The main benefit of a low concentrator PV is increased efficiency at suboptimal angles. The numbers were often muddy - you can get twice the energy per square meter of PV panel, sure, but when you ultimately use less PV panel (as a lot of room is taken up by the concentrator) then its a moot point. The biggest limiting factor is that the greatest degradation factor for PV panels is their operating temperature - when you concentrate, they will get hotter causing them to degrade faster. Our research was specifically looking at ways to extract thermal energy from a domestic scale solar concentrator. This was to (1) cool the panels (2) extract some thermal energy for hot water tank pre-heating and (3) prolong the life of the panel. It was ultimately not deemed cost effective. You could double or triple the life of the panel but you have massively increased your installation cost, so it would likely be cheaper to replace the panels every 10-15 years.
This system looks incredibly similair to the photosynthesis system in plants, maybe your insights about these kind of solar panels could be used to reduce heat stress on plants in warm conditions. However, these photosystems in plants are made up of proteins which of course degrade over time and are incredibly heat sensitive. Maybe something could come from this.
Every lab technology always promises "reduced cost, easy manufacturing" until they have to manufacture the thing and discover the cost is higher and is harder to manufacture at scale.
Those are engineering problems that just need the right conditions to be solve all it takes is time and money, a lot easier than the research and development already done
@@Hjernespreng Efficiency sure, price, nope. Price of PV has gone down because most of the panels are manufactured in China with subsidies, low labor cost and no environmental laws. Panels made in other countries are still expensive. By the way, this guys are high on their own gases, 3d printing doesn't make something cheap or scalabe.
@@erickzts everyone always handwave "engineering problems" over the basic research problems, until they have to manufacture at scale, at a price point and under certain quality. If everything was so easy to take out of the lab, we should have hundreds of battery technologies circulating around, but we don't.
Agile clearly also has a larger front area than that of the cells beneath, so aren't we back where we started? Unless the focusing lens thingy costs less than the equivalent change on area in solar cells, it's self defeating. Another issue with a field of tracking panels is that they must be spaced apart in order to prevent them shading each other. So you reduce the total area of panels at the same time as increasing their output. A classic trade-off
ALL of the concentrated cells have smaller cells than traditional PV. The mirrors, the lenses, each takes up more space than the cell itself. However, with concentrated cells touting twice the efficiency of a traditional cell in addition to 3x concentration (not to mention improved angles at all hours of the day) it's undoubtedly more efficient than traditional cells in terms of power/area.
The concept is definitely necessary to increase efficiency. Let's also consider these cells are processing more energy and will burn out faster than typical cells. With enough motivation I'm sure that Agile will eventually figure it out
So fun fact, unless it’s a novel object, it will have losses. Most cells convert energy into electricity via diffusion of photonic bombardment throughout the day. This process isn’t perfect and creates heat; the color of the cell absorbs some of the light too more heat; but then we add a glass array on top? Well I’d think a dome would work better than half of a retro reflective array for the given purpose. Collect more light from more angles. But small issue. That makes more heat. And as that heat goes up it can impact efficiency of generation. So that’s the challenge. Not exceeding ambient cooling capabilities. Because if we cooled it then that cuts into whatever gains we make because of the energy it takes to remove the excess heat.
Hi Mr Ferrell . Mark here from Dublin Ireland ..... Your channel is the 1st and only one I have ever subscribed to .... I install PV's for a living , On average (10/12 )hrs a day ... The knowledge and honesty is truly refreshing . I genuinely look forward to the videos you produce , they are a joy after a long days work .... please keep up the good work & thank you
I mechanised my panels using linear motors and a raspberry pi and I noticed quite an improvement tracking the sun. Beefing up the whole installation over the next few months - very therapeutic seeing the Kw/h being home grown vs the rip off energy companies that are shafting us in the UK & EU currently. Also I don't use a sensor, mine is math based using longitude, latitude and date - credit to the egg heads that wrote the original Python code I plagerised - I wish I was that clever!
@@johnslugger In the UK/EU with energy prices through the roof, I'm not sure what the trade-off is. I've got more electricity than I can use parts of some days, it's not cost effective selling it back to the grid so I'm building a sand battery in a disused sauna to offset cost of gas.
something i find incredibly interesting is how this system could be a part of a design which integrate these and the negative space that they provide in between the solar cells for very small, very high efficiency thermal conduits that whisk away the concrentrated heat from the reflective materials and mini cells, being further connected to a home heat pump system
Some single access trackers do thermal capture as well, the trough focuses light on a thin strip of photovoltaics with a pipe behind it to carry away heat and keep the cells at an efficient operating temperature.
There are solar panels available that do have water/fluid running in the backside of the panel, it cools the panel and heats the water/fluid . Used in colder parts of Asia to keep the pool at a pleasant temperature, heating systems etc. Very easy to setup , inlet outlet and on . the total energy output of the solar panel is very good
@@fixandtests sure but that’s still an ineffective thermal dynamic. heat is being generated on the face of the panel, migrating through the sensitive materials, and into your heat transfer system. with these there’s enough empty space between the heat generating cell circuitry and reflective equipment to house a thermal conduit with peak heat transfer capacity. higher heat output on one end and more efficient solar panels on the other.
It's always been my thought that it would be better to apply a long wave infrared reflector on the outer surface to avoid the majority of the heat issue. As most cells work in the short wave infrared to red spectrum.
I could see why this improvement would be very applicable to solar-powered yachts, where most of the panels are, necessarily, pointing straight up. Your videos are always excellent.
The first thought that came to my mind when I saw the rendering was: „Man, that stuff looks heavy!“ When solar panels get mounted on old roofs that were originally built without PV in mind, weight becomes a deciding factor. Do you have any data on the actual weight of these lenses?
weight will depend on the materials used. current flat panels use glass but from the information in the video it appears these lens will be plastics of some sort (3d printable) and so lighter, perhaps even lighter than current panels. However, plastics and UV light generally don't go well together. For example, current flat panels can last for decades while flexible panels are only rated for 5 years because the plastic sun gathering surface is a polymer that become opaque with the time spent in the sun.
Yeah, I was thinking the same. Even using plastic, which would be cheaper to use anyway, it's going to increase weight. That could be a limiting factor on some places. However, If I understand how they work correctly, they will focus not only the optimal angle light, but all light from all sides. So theoretically they could be more efficient than tracking. Which does make them quite interesting.
@@lenwhatever4187 you can use titanium dioxide doped polycarbonate as a UV resistant top layer, though. Or even use one of the new co-polymers for photon-downconversion and convert the UV photons into usable longer wavelengths that can be absorbed by the solar cell.
DANG - your viewership is smart! I get so much education out of the comments, with many flyovers. As a grad student in business sustainability transformation I may not know the way a prism grabs more light, nor the 5 layer part, but I enjoy soaking up as much as I can. I’ll be guiding businesses or cooperatives in ways to do just this sort of thing. Thank you and thanks to Brilliant. Love the courses.
All your videos are excellent. I don't know if you have a degree in pedagogy or something, but it's just a sharp contrast from all the rest of junk chanels that tyr and fail to do what you do every day. Your videos grab you bay tha hand and fill you in from 0-100 of a whatever the subject matter is. Clear, concise, perfect diction and information. I'm studying for my architectural registration exam, and your videos on solar, heat pumps, and general residential MEP systems have been invaluable to my success in my exams. Please keep it up. If I had more money, I would join your patron
I came up with this concept myself thirty years ago. I attempted to patent it prior to producing a working model. I had proved the concept with small scale experiments - all was good - except for the cost of even a patent search. A patent itself was prohibitive let alone attempting a full size collector. My design was not fully usable at the time due to the non-invention of 3D printers and the lack of affordable high quality concentrator transparent material - I used fresnel lenses and marbles. An advance on this concept was for the light to be amalgamated by using a system of light guides in a hub formation leading to a fibre cable. This cable would transfer the light energy to a radiator panel - which would be an almost exact copy of the collector but used as a distributor. I called it a Portable Window. No energy cost in use at all. No tracking issues and no pesky conversion to electricity - natural light wherever you want it. I still think this is a brilliant idea even all these decades later,. Really irritating that I could not get it off the ground - even more so that no one else has yet either !
The cost to patent is always a barrier to innovation. It is a pretty bad designed process. I recall I have come to the conclusion 10 years ago that doing a inverted pyramid of 15 degrees of inclination was too much trouble. 15 degrees is the appropriate angle to get all the light in and nothing out. The problem is that you are going to need a lot of material to make the device to work well. Who is going to put that big and heavy thing in your roof?
@@hyfy-tr2jy I was thinking SolaTubes myself. Although those are even simpler since there are no fiber-optics involved, simply a reflective tube mounted between the skylight on the roof and the light panel below.
One thing that you didn't mention is Winter! Maybe not for your location, but for my system in Canada a steep panel angle, low temps and snow on the ground can actually boost the panels output significantly - doesn't make up for the shorter days though. I also don't use a tracker, as the location is actually very windy. The risk of wind damage is a grave concern.
You are correct in stating that light reflecting off of the snow did boost the energy production significantly, it's important to note that that boost is in reference to the expected amount of energy to be produced given the conditions. Energy production in winter in Canada still sees significant decreases in peak production relative to summer months to the point that an experiment out of Edmonton found that snow covering the panels only had an approximately 3% observed decrease in energy production relative to panels that had snow removed. 3% isn't a lot Edit: corrected the power production value to 3% from 5%
Yep. You'd almost think that everyone being so enthusiastic about solar is living in the subtropical area. Where I live we lose around nine hours of daylight time between summer and winter and it is pretty obvious that the energy contained in the solar radiation itself is also a lot less because it is cold outside. In my view scientists should concentrate more on fixating the position of Earth towards the Sun then try to generate more electric power when the total demand is already met at optimal times.
If snow already boosts your solar output then getchu some proper mirrors for a year round boost. Snow is reflecting lots of light sure, but likely in a diffuse way diminishing the benefits vs a proper mirror. Even some cheap aluminium foil based mirrors stretched flat over plywood would ante up. Just be careful not to give it concave curvature, else you get a parabolic mirror effect concentrating the light in a smaller spot, and potentially setting something on fire 😅
@@WhoStoleMyAlias "In my view scientists should concentrate more on fixating the position of Earth towards the Sun" Have you heard of space based solar? One benefit of this is that (depending on elevation) it can receive solar energy even during night time on Earth and beam it back to the surface using ultra high output microwave generators.
Outstanding clarity and very relevant to those looking at the rapidly-evolving solar market. Your drone sequence showing the solar panels of your house is every effective. You demonstrate solar can offer advantages, despite unfavorable factors.
It is amazing how expensive FV installations are in the US. I just signed today for an addition to my existing installation - 14/455W Canadian Solar HiKu panels coupled to a Fronius SYMO 5kW inverter, including 2 TIGO optimizers, and everything on the roof AND 21%VAT for 8,400€/$8,400 ($1.33/W vs what you show of $3.25 - more than twice as expensive).
I worked for Mobil Tyco Solar Energy in the 70s. We were building PV concentrators back then albeit a different design. They were linear with extruded fresnel lenses to focus the light.
The real win would be combining concentration and frequency separation, so you can have a patch of PV optimized for each frequency band, and outright reflect anything below the lowest useful frequency to reduce heat buildup
@@funkybuddha2448 practically? No clue, but the optics, in theory, aren't too complicated. First, recognize that sunlight, while spherical is, at our distance, effectively planer, with all of the rays being parallel, so a lens and it's inverse can concentrate it into a parallel beam, second, run it through a prism to spread out the beam by frequency, onto patches of pv tuned to particular frequencies. Downside: the prism effectively reverses some of the concentration; you would need some sort of sun tracking to maintain beam and prism alignment Upside, the pv patches can each be single layer with a reflective backing, and can use a variety of technologies You could probably manage the sun tracking via a pair of internal mirrors, and depending on the usful frequency ranges, handle the concentrator lenses with Fresnel's The optics alone can probably get up to 90% efficiency, so the overall efficiency is likely dictated by the variety of individual components, their efficiencies within the frequency bands they are exposed to, and the annoyance that the sun isn't actually a point source and has a measurable disk The other annoyance is the assemblage would likely be bulky, and, considering it hasn't actually been done, the optics may be more expensive than the photovoltaics the effectively replace
Simple answer: metallic window films aka "tinting". More complicated answer: nano-structured materials have been proven in labs to filter specific wavelengths of light and control thermal transmission.
As a mathematician, I'm really skeptical. If you don't move your panel facing the sun, you don't get more surface capturing sunrays. The only purpose of this concept is to get sunrays hitting perpendicularly the cell. A very small improvement ...
I suspect that solar cells can only absorb a few percent of the available rays. I think that increasing the surface area of solar panels without increasing the required footprint might result in better efficiency.
I was thinking the same thing. If you have a 1sq meter panel at 20 degree tilt putting concentrators on doesn’t change how much sun energy is hitting that 1sq meter.
@@ecospider5 we are going to the same thing: when you concentrate is the PV the best fit as technology. It absorbs the upper side of the spectrum and the infrared spectrum converts to unnecessary heat which needs to be dissipated. Good discussion: :)
AGILE is a classic idea used on sailing vessels in the form of deck prisms. It's amazing how much sunlight is brought belowdecks from a a few square inches of flat glass on deck level. It makes perfect sense that prismatic techniques could be applied to solar panels.
I was thinking the same thing, that agile sounds like a new version of good old deck prisms. There’s a lot to be said for looking at existing time tested technology and asking if it can be applied to new situations.
those deck prisms can’t change the incidence of light that hits them. they would let the exact same amount of light pass through as open holes, but they’d also let the rain in. they might spread out the light a bit or focus it a bit but that’s it. you don’t get a free lunch with light waves.
The first Solar job I designed the electrical system for was CPV. Dual axis trackers and to point exactly at the sun. You are correct, efficiency is extremely important going forward! Shading is a big solar system killer.
Your presentations are so comprehensive, and so data rich and so fast in delivery, my brain blows a fuse at regular speed after about 5 minutes. I have to revert to playback at 0.75 or 0.5...need something in between those settings for optimal, non-barin-fuse-blowing...LOL...thank you!
What would be really cool is if AGILE lenses could be used as a retrofit for existing home solar installations- like getting new prescription glasses for your panels. If they could demonstrate cost/benefit efficiency increases to pay for themselves in under 5 years, I’d buy ‘em!
Very, very unlikely. #1. The retrofit alone would degrade an older system at least twice as fast - the panels might literally give out before you get your money back on the install/retrofit costs. #2. Concentrated PV without higher efficiency PV cells (tandem or multi junction cells) means too much solar energy is lost to heat, which in turn causes the panels to degrade faster still. #3. Concentrators start bigger and focus light on a smaller spot on each PV cell, which means the layout of your non CPV panels isn't going to work very well with it. Better to just buy the entire thing from scratch once your current PV setup gives out. If money is burning a hole in your pocket in the interim then get some domestic battery storage units instead which will allow you to get more out of what you already have. The increases in efficiency from PV and the increases in battery density plus the lowering costs of both for home setups is going to make the next few decades very interesting with the topsy turvy costs of fossil fuel derived power from corporate grid suppliers.
This was a good and interesting video Matt. Myself and others have thought about this idea in the past. My thoughts were equivalent to a magnifying glass over the solar panel. I remember that the problem many DYI people who were trying to get better performance out of their panels was overheating the panels and ruining them in a short time. Surely this new process that is being experimented with has taken that challenge into consideration. It would be interesting to know about how they are dealing with that overheating issue. Thanks for the video Matt.
There _are_ PV cells and panels which use a simple 'magnifying glass' kind of lens over the semiconductor. They have existed from the beginning of PV power. _This thing is not that!_ A simple lens will NOT properly concentrate light that comes in off the central optical axis. So that simple, old-fashioned kind still require solar tracking... the most expensive kind, 2-axis tracking. Even that is NO help when the sky is milky. This Graded Index Non-imaging Light Concentrator does NOT require tracking. It DOES work even when the sky is milky. That is what makes it interesting.
If you want efficiency for movement, write an algorithm to move the panels instead of using sensors. If you have to have a system that's always active that wastes energy. If you program movement, you could probably move the panels 6 times in the day and it's good enough to be near max efficient. And this is where my comment about being within 10 degree of the equator comes in. The day lengths are pretty close throughout the year. You can program 6 position changes and then a reset and it's good all year long. If you're in the ares outside the tropics (latitude) then tilt angle for N. and S. has to change a few times during the year and the day lengths vary more. It could still be programmed so you don't have to use sensors, but now you need a table to reference. Since this is without sensors you don't get a situation of panels chasing the sun. With a fixed tracking of E. to W., anyone who is electrically inclined could mount panels in a group and with motors and hydraulics could build the entire system. If you've built you're own home, you could even roof mount this like over a garage. In which case, you've provided the necessary strength to the structures to take the weight of the panels. You could probably run about 12 panels this way, and then you'd have to install another 12 panels somewhere else. This is the build I plan to do.
This is an interesting development in PV technology. I look forward to seeing where this can go, but in conjunction with Solar Panels, we need stability, such as battery or some kind of storage as once the sun is gone, the power is gone. I see that where I live (Victoria, Australia) In the middle of the day on a really sunny day the wholesale price of electricty can sometimes be negative (as in get paid to use power) because so much solar is being generated, but once the sun is gone, the reliance on fossil fuel comes back, with the more expensive price. We really need to look at storage and solar as being a compulsory pair.
The intermittency issue is one of the reasons why solar and wind together are the renewable energy sources that get the most research. As the sun goes down and solar panels become less efficient, wind almost always picks up for a couple of hours which lets wind turbines supply us until bed time. And of course, this is why almost everyone wants nuclear, tidal, and geothermal energy production to make up 10-20% of electricity production. That would provide an excellent steady backbone to ensure that we don’t constantly have rolling blackouts.
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet In the modern world, a reliable 24hour power supply is needed. Where I am, the wind usually gets up in what would be the "off peak" times, after bedtime. Unfortunately the evening peak time is very reliant on fossil fuel at the moment here. This is where storage cells of some kind would help. If we could store some of the excess solar from during the day to release it during the peak, we would just about get by without needing fossil or nuclear. Tidal could be interesting to just provide that little top up though :)
@@EsotericArctos sorry, I got excited and didn’t mean to make it sound like storage isn’t needed at all. Strong storage systems are definitely needed across the board in order to reduce the amount of “just in case” generation that we install
Recently I was looking into solar power and wondered why automated tilting mechanisms are used more for solar panels. Its good to actually see the installation / efficiency / maintenance costs. Apparently its cheaper just to buy more panels.
Single axis trackers dominate the US utility scale solar installations. Not sure why he downplays them except that his viewer demographics likely skew more to the home installation user and in that case trackers are not often practical.
Even for a home viewer, I'm not sure why there wouldn't be some sort of adjustment for summer vs winter. It doesn't have to be automatic with heavy equipment.
@@remyllebeau77 Look at the "Life Uncontained" channel here on TH-cam. They have a manual single axis (elevation) on their off-grid system, ground mounted, that seems to be working quite well for them. I think he adjusts the panels at least 4x a year. And best of all, it's all home built/designed.
In Australia we have a percentage of the solar arrays facing east and west for another reason. While its less optimal at noon it helps meet the dawn and dusk spikes, providing more power at those times than the noon optimized units do. The demand curves in most countries do not peak at noon.
The Itek panels I installed 9 years ago put a row of glass bumps, about 1/8" wide by 1/2" long, on the inside of the glass above each cell to improve collection in the PNW. My main roof is S but the pitch of the roof is 2' in 15'. Great for the summer solstice when the sun arcs just a bit north of me for a few days. My 4.85 kW system [260 W panels] puts out 5.1MWh a year on average. Because of a great state program that treated me like a power company I got production credits for 6 years for buying all system parts made in the state. As of the first of the month it turned 9 and I am in the green. It supplies 1/3 of my power needs annually. I should be able to update the panels to 320 for the same size panel and get close to 6kWh. Would be nice if it would get me some of the fed incentives and allow to also cover installing batteries. Hard to believe that battery packs are not a separate item for a tax credit. But I will have a fair amount of wiring to set up two charging stations in the carport and possibly a new power panel and just enough batteries with my panels going to Ecoflow's. I am going to give it about 18 months for the tech or the legislation to change before I lock in what I will really do. I did my first solar tour many years ago and one home was owned by a power company worker. He found old satellite dishes out of use and offered money [$ depending on if the tracker motor and controls worked] and would remove them. Scraped most of the dish and built a frame and welded it. Mounted a simple solar eye to move the panels horizontal [with no light it would reset to the east] and adjusted the tilt angle 4 times per year. They all ran to a shed with lead acid marine batteries and was selling power to his former employer. He had 5 in a field across from his house. The most expensive was $350. Hard to find these days.
Hello Matt and thanks for this nice update. The thing that strikes me as just as problematic as the heat issues discussed by the other viewers is the geometric optics issue. Shrinking the superficial area of the cell to try to recover collection effect will quickly prove self defeating unless the commensurate increase in the intrinsic efficiency of ultimate conversion device - your "super solar cells" - grows quickly. Indeed, the Louisville theorem (used in light pipe design for nuclear detectors), suggest you cannot win the game of trading frontal collection area for some sort of concentrator optic - this is why astronomical telescopes must increasingly grow in area (although better CCD sensor DO help with claiming more sensitivity). Sounds, as you suggested, like a niche interest in this. with respect DK.Barillari
I had the same thought from the start. In lay terms, what's the point of having less actual PV cells if they still need the same surface area? Sure, the overall cost might come down, but such benefits would be marginal at best. After viewing, the main benefit seems to be less loss of efficiency at suboptimal angles. So the real question seems to be whether that benefit is worth the extra cost in a given setup. Hopefully maturation of the tech will ease such margins.
@@simonmasbaum8399 "...the main benefit seems to be less loss of efficiency at suboptimal angles." I think that that's the point, not to increase gains, but reduce (energy and economic) losses. The reduction of effective surface area is still a problem though.
Unless I misunderstood, they have increased conversion from around 22% to 40%. I don’t know if that’s due to increased light or the mj cells, or what conversion they would get just using a full module of mj cells.
Could be a significant innovation for Solar power...still at the early stage of development but definitely looks extremely promising. We have had our Solar panels for just over a year and have been extremely pleased with the result. Any unused Solar electricity heats our hot water which has saved a small fortune as we used to use heating oil to heat the water...and oil is like liquid gold nowadays.. Another good video Matt.
"Early stage of development" isnt really correct ... because the "science" (the MATH on how to shape the funneling system) has been done and now it is a problem of "optimising the production process to make these things as cheap as possible". Having much smaller photovoltaic cells is one step, because they require to be "perfect/without any flaws" ... and smaller cells make it easier to get those from a batch of raw material. Layering the cells for different wavelengths adds another layer of efficiency on top of it. The best way would be to have a panel where the top / "light concentration layer" can be replaced in case there is a better version ...
Matt, there was a company back around 2010 that used solar concentrators and built an 8’ x 4’ panel that could generate 8kw. It could have been brilliant but the inventor got greedy and instead of starting small WITH DOMESTIC UNITS, he wanted immediate scale up to 100MW. He went bust. The company was called SolFocus and I wonder if anyone ever picked up the patents?
> 8’ x 4’ panel that could generate 8kw Something is wrong here. 8' x 4' is about 3.2 m^2, and the total solar energy hitting a 3.2 m^2 area is under 4kW. I don't think anyone has yet produced a solar cell with >50% efficiency, so at best we're looking at 2kW.
Those numbers are bunk -- that's likely why it went bust. You can't collect that kw from that area because that's way more solar energy than we get from the sun in that area. That would require the panels being more than 100% efficient and we all know how that works -- scam.
@@dosadoodle I’m a little lost. Your response to something that allegedly concentrates sunlight onto a smaller area is that you wouldn’t get enough sunlight on a small area?… But that’s the point? The idea as far as I can tell is that you take 10M2 of Sunlight and focus it down on 2m2 of area so that you can have a much smaller more efficient panel, I assume cheap materials would be used to concentrate the light.
Nice to see my ideas are inlined with the Geniuses. I've had an idea of concentrating solar with lenses like this ever since I learned refraction in physics class.
I set my tilt angle to the winter sun angle - overall works really well. More energy when I need it. Solar trackers are great when you have limited space and desire max efficiency !
@@christianvanderstap6257 These devices, when well made really do not break - although they do require maintenance (like all mechanical devices). Also with the maturing of Rasberry Pie and Arduino, it is very possible to build your own - which is where I am going at the moment - using a wheelchair motor to turn a shaft and move the whole array on one axis - I have a row of sheds that point north but can not jam too much capacity on them...
@@christianvanderstap6257 Exactly my point - I have 2x arrays on my roof and it is full - just need a bit more capacity for when the weather is shitty - and not enough room to do it - hence the solar tracker project in my workshop ! Horses for courses cuz.
It's been looked into, and yes it does help but the light intensity breaks the solar cells down faster as they heat up too much, now pair that downside with something that can use the excess heat to heat water and you've got something.
@@a-aron2276 how come the exact astronomically defined amount of light coming from the sun is fine and no more than 10% will ruin them. an increase of 10% would coarsely increase the RON with 10%. even if would decrease the lifespan also with 10% i tend to think that waiting 2 years less to get your (Same) money back still more attractive.
This is especially exciting for off-world applications like the moon and Mars, where other factors than pure materials cost are far more important. Cost per kg to orbit, efficiency, portability (ie: how big of solar panel you can realistically deliver to the surface), and reliability (no moving parts for trackers) are great features!
AGILE reminds me of sailing ship deck gems. During day light, sunshine on deck shone below deck too via these pyramidal flat topped prisms. Smart and fuel free. With fire such a hazard, they improved ship safety and conserved stores of lamp oil for night use.
What I want to know is for the same square footage as a normal solar panel. How much energy is produced because it looks like the lens system blocks what could otherwise be actual photovoltaic space.
One question I had that wasn't addressed is regarding efficiency and heat. Currently I've noticed large differences in production related to the temperature in my own system. Would the AGILE system be more or less sensitive to changes in efficiency related to temperature?
Great video Matt, 2:03 My roof is also facing east/west. And although an East/West roof produces less electricity than a south facing roof, in many states with "Time Of Use" billing (coincidentally, in the UK, it's called Agile Tariffs), facing the bulk of your panels West can have a bigger monetary value than facing them south since you can get double the kWh credits during super peak (2pm-6pm) for every kWh you push on the grid during that time. If for example, California gave better incentives for mounting panels on West facing roofs, they wouldn't have an over abundance of supply at noon, and at the same time, issue Flex Alert warnings during the afternoon. All without the need to implement battery storage to shift the available supply.
Problem is relying on the grid to offset costs. Alot of power companies started to pay 1/4 the amount per kwh that they charge the customer. So if you sold them 20kwh you would only get 5kwh back at night then it would start to cost you money. Alot of people based their solar break even points on the electric company using net metering or buying electricity at the same price they sell it back to you. The more house get solar the less they will keep doing it.
I often wondered if options like light focusing domes and/or curves to just push the Light into a focus, even if the Sun is not at an ideal angle for a flat panel. The light would generally be focused into a finer area. The Agile design definitely sounds like a great method there, and it just needs time to be implemented effectively. That definitely makes an impact towards better production of solar energy. Though storage is still the long term issue.
Sodium batteries r the way to go. They have pros & cons but safety makes them far better for homes (since size isn't a Problem). Total Cost while considering the total life charge cycles (with size & safety also factored in) = money $aver.
They've been doing this on certain types of systems for a very long time. Check out the focused parabolic reflectors that heat some material in a tube at the focus, water will work. Also, go look up heliostats. Now THAT is some focusing, there is one that is HUMONGOUS, many acres worth of mirror. You would be instantaneously fried if you stood at that focal point. And it generates a LOT of watts. I don't remember if they use water and a steam turbine in that one. Might be some other fluid.
Technically the best orientation for maximum power production is North/South, but I have seen it argued that West facing panels do have one significant advantage in that they produce a bit more peak power in the evening when demand peaks and North/South panels sag a bit. This is particularly useful at the moment where storage is possible but non trivial at large scale. If you've got multiple directions of panels you need a more sophisticated inverter setup though to maximise output at any given moment.
I have a mix of monocrystalline and polycrystalline panels. I need to run test but the monocrystalline panels seem to be more sensitive to the sun angle than the polycrystalline panels.
This certainly looks like a great idea. I have to wonder about the maintenance/longevity of the lenses. My experience with optical polymers shows issues with scratching/fogging over time. Would they need to be repolished every year? What about polymer breakdown under the all-day intense sun? Thanks for coverage of this topic.
One fundamental problem with fixed solar panels is that the effective area (i.e. the area perpendicular to the rays of sun which cover the solar panels) will decrease as the sun moves during the day, like you explain well in the beginning of the video. These lenses will not fix this issue and the performance will still decrease a lot when the rays of the sun are not perpendicular as it has no effect at all on the effective area of the incoming sun rays. 8:42 wtf? This is just wrong interpretation of the numbers. Efficiency should always be with respect to the area of the panels, not with respect of the electric power producing area.
Yea when he said that I imediately knew he was off. The benefits of using smaller pv cells like this is they can be made with less crystaline imperfections and more expensive materials as not as much is needed. It should also be pointed out that PV cells can be made more efficient with higher concentrations of light so that for the same area of energy collection more electrisity is generated but it maxes out at around 2x the efficiency, not 10 - 100x.
In addition to the argument of energy collection is directly proportional to surface area... the concentration of sunlight will produce more heat and the PV modules will be prone to early degradation.
@@Quickened1 Yes, it does compensate for angularity effect of the rays hitting the solar panel, but the effect is marginal compared to the difference between the effective area of the sun rays and the area of the solar panels, the is just less sun rays hitting the solar panel when the panels are not perpendicular to the sun rays. The latter effect still holds for AGILE.
It would be interesting to see some field trial results with AGILE integrated onto mono-crystalline PV modules. It sounds a promising concept, but I worry that a cooling mechanism will be needed since, with concentrated irradiance, the cell temperature will increase dramatically thus reducing the electrical cell efficiency. With that said, it would be interesting to see if the solar tracking benefits outweigh such thermal losses, and if not whether the cost of integrating a passive cooling circuit would then provide any benefits. I'll definitely be keeping a keen eye out on AGILEs developments!
I'm not an expert, but wouldn't higher efficiency photovoltaic cells produce less heat. Then given that the cels themselves are relatively small and far apart this would allow diffusion of energy into the entire panel.
looking at the graphic, could it be possible to have some sort of heat sink in-between the smaller end of these pyramids? and that heat could be pushed to something to warm your house in the winter 😀👍
What do you by AGILE, I thought that had to do with like management practices during development. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm genuinely curious.
@@lukasvandeputte9299 Its not the cells generating the heat its the concentration of sunlight. Even just a mirror will increase output, but then heat losses will negate those pretty quickly. Might work ok in a pretty cold climate.
Single axis solar trackers dont need to be expensive or complex. Just built into the support frame a manual mechanism that lets you change the angle 10-15 degrees. Change it as many times as you consider it necessary, but 4 times a year should be good enough.
I think that Agile would be incredible if it could be retro fitted to existing installations. If I could lay it across my current panels it could increase efficiency and possibly extend their life span.
Oh yeah, I guess you could do that. Since the light bending effect is essentially surface refraction rather than actually relying on bouncing off the walls of the prism, you could sell sheets of this stuff and just cut to fit. It won't increase the life of your panel any, in fact it might decrease the life a bit due to increased heat, but you could reuse the AGILE layer if you wanted to. Just remove the AGILE layer from an old panel, buff it a bit, and glue it onto the new panel. The hardest (and maybe most expensive) part would be finding an optical grade glue with the right refractive index.
Hi Matt, I like your content but find 'new science breakthroughs' often end up in disappointment or not meeting expectations. Have you revisited past videos and maybe taken a retrospective look at how a new technology has actually delivered to date? I say this as someone who worked in a lab around time graphene was discovered and know how hard it often is implementing new tech that has loads of promise when it comes into contact with reality, entrenched gov systems or even corruption.
The CPV and AGILE will also work well in the marine industry because the solar panels mounted onboard yachts/boats are always moving about with the wave movement and course changes. One thing not mentioned is that these hyperparabolic concentrators and prismatic/Fresnel lenses also have the added benefit to filter out IR light, which will help keep the solar cells cooler with what would otherwise be very hot intensified light. We used similar prisimatic technology back in the 1980's to concentrate for surgical lights to create a shadowless pure white light that did not raise the temperature of the skin or internal organs during surgeries.
I was thinking of a solar cooker approach. But if it's too concentrated it will deteriorate the PV panel a lot faster, if not just melt it straight away.
I work in the solar projects industry in Europe and it absolutely makes sense to build tracker systems, most of our projects are tracker in Spain, it is economically advantageous to fixed tilt. And there is absolutely no talk to concentrator PV in the industry... way to expensive haha. Our modules at the moment cost about 0.28 EUR/Wp while no one even produces concentrator PV modules...
Complex production process maybe much more costly than a simple good balance mechanic system in most cases, for couple of watts you can move whole row of panels at once with relatively small motor if the weight is balanced.
I’m an optical engineer who works in the concentrated solar industry. As many have commented here, the #1 limitation of this tech is that the system as a whole will still suffer the same “cosine losses” as the un-tracked panel front will still get the same reduction of total energy as the sun moves . That said, looking at “cost-performance”, there may be some advantages - let’s look at them one at a time.: COSTS: As a rough frame, while a PV installation may from $1/W~$2/W, the Module (panel itself) only represents ~$0.40/W (let’s say ~40%). Then, of the Module costs, the cell itself (consisting of silicon wafer, metallization, fabrication/energy, production labor/O&M, etc) is roughly $0.18~$0.24/W - or roughly half of the panel cost. So, even assuming the concentrators are ‘free’, a 3x concentration will reduce wafer costs to ($0.2/3) = ~$0.07/W. Assuming a $1/W installation cost (utility scale, not residential), this would reduce cost to ~$0.93/W. *BUT*, the researchers claim that the optics are ~90% efficient, so we’ll get 10% less power… resulting in ~$1.03/W. Yikes!! That’s not a win (and of course the tech isn’t free!), but… PERFORMANCE: Two possibile gains here: First - activation threshold. There may be unseen gains here as the silicon bandgap has a ‘activation energy' (threshold), and on cloudy days may not reach it. Having 2~5x concentration goes a *big* way to ensure turning the semiconductor “on” in low light environments. BTW, I don’t see thermal issues being a problem here, as this is a very low conc, and I’d bet $100 that the polymer-based optics absorb most of the unusable IR. So, chips may run cooler! Second - reflection losses. When light hits silicon at an angle, some is lost due to ‘fresnel reflections’ that increase exponentially at higher angles. This concentrator does an interesting job of having those grazing rays hit the cell at more normal incidence. It has a field of view of 2pi steradians… which is huge (a whole hemisphere). This effect will be less when the sun is more direct to panel face, but may add-up at wider angles (and *especially* for the diffuse light of clouds). SO… could add-up!! But, the devil is in the details - and these are much more complicated on factors such as panel orientation, %-cloudcover/yr, etc… Could have merit and I believe it’s worth investigating! ;)
I haven’t watched the video yet as am busy on a project, but the PV Concentrating solution is an essential of the future. I explored this some 10 years ago. The advantage here is the use of the SpectraLab 40 watt 40.5% efficient chips (used of the space station) with 700 to 1 solar concentration to a group of devices mounted on high efficiency heat transfer modules. These PV devices are just 15mm square and with max tech mounting will deliver up to 80% energy efficiency where the thermal energy is able to be used. This means that they should be utilized in a domestic or industrial installation. The SpectraLab devices were just $40 at the time we looked at them. Run the numbers and you will see that a 10 Kw PV capacity with up to 10Kw thermal capacity is readily achievable. NB. To heat a 200Ltr water cylinder through 40 degC requires 10Kw Hrs of energy, so if this energy is extractable from the surplus energy of a PV system the recoverable energy more than sufficient for 100% sustainable domestic energy. NB2 non solar periods are covered with domestic refuse converted to syngas powering Liquid Piston 3Kw generators. The only negative of such a system is that it requires a unique mounting system that is best achieved where dwelling roofs have a mansard feature to give sufficient solar access for the 10Kw PV/10Kw thermal system in a solar well in the roof (such a solar well is invisible in the building profile from ground level).
I have worked on this topic when working at a University in Cyprus. I have made some tests with some simple PVs and burned them. Be careful when concentrating towards a solar panel with Fresnel lenses.
I see your 26 panels and raise you 14. My goal when installing solar was to maximise my self-consumption needs. Hence 10 panels face East. 10 panels face North (in the sthn hemisphere). And because of space restrictions, 20 panels face West. In the 4 years they have been up, in total, they have produced over 62 MWh of electricity. Would love to install battery storage, but the numbers still don't add up in its favour. Thanks for the video. Another good one as always.
I won a tonne of those in auction (the concentrated PV cells and the lenses), from a company that went out of business 15 years ago. So this isn't really new per se. Probably the techniques for creating the lenses has improved which is why it's being revisited? Regardless of the ability to bend light, the beginning of your video still needs to be computed (optimized incident angle for the region being installed) for maximum year round efficiency. One of your better videos IMO Matt. Thanks for sharing your passion.
When we had solar panels installed, we have hardly any north facing roof so we decided on 10 panels facing east, 13 panels facing west. In comparing to friends and family, although we generate less peak power across the day, we generate similar total kWh per day but our generation is longer than those we have compared to. At low latitudes in the southern hemisphere (Perth, Western Australia), the sun rises and sets south of east/west. We have found having east/west panels is better for self sufficiency by using power when it is generated.
SUGGESTION: Matt, I'd like to see you do some episodes summarizing the state of each field you study on this channel. For example - - which technologies (energy storage, etc.) do you expect to see by 2024/25; by 2030, etc. Looks like a very exciting future - but talk about where you think we can be by 2040.
I saw nearly this exact design in a TH-cam video about 6-7 years ago, I actually found this video searching for that video. However the magnifying lens in the other design was actually moving on x&y plane above the cell to adjust for angle.
When I was in grad school, I had a friend whose capstone design project for his batchelor degree had been building a system that determined the sun's position based on GPS and the time of day and then angled solar panels accordingly. I asked him if the increased efficiency was enough to offset the power consumed by all the extra equipment, and he said it wasn't really. Edit for context: The project was commissioned by the school's paleontology department to boost the efficiency of the solar panels used to power the equipment used at dig sights. The fact that the panels are used in varying locations across North America was the primary driving force behind building a system that's more complicated than the ones described in the video.
6:27 They don't use a tracker per module: in small solar farms usually a single row of modules is connected via two sets of rods: one set of rotating rods adjusts the tilt, while the other set slides to adjust the orientation. I've seen many of them in action in the fields nearby...
From 1977 - 80 I worked at a company in Rochester, NY called Fresnel Optics. We made plastic micro services lenses for overhead projectors, reflective tape, landing sights for aircraft carriers, And one that was particularly interesting at the time was 2’ x 3’ acrylic magnifying lenses for large screen TVs. They let me have a few of the rejects and in the full sunshine these things were powerful and mind blowing in terms of concentrating power of the sun. In 30 seconds you could ignite a tennis ball 🎾 into flames 🔥. You could burn holes into asphalt. My boss pulled me into his office one day when We started talking about making assembled arch shaped and mirror coated lenses for solar. We made lenses for a company called Spectra Optics in California that was in theory, storing energy in tiles using a laser. Never heard more about it. Think I’ll Google
One thing about PV panel angle that I think isn't looked at enough is what you are optimizing for. Most people and companies optimizie for maximum kWh per year which may not what you want. If you instead have a battery and want the greatest amount of self-sufficiency you have an excess of solar energy in summer but don't have enough in winter. So a higher tilt angle that gives you better efficiency when the sun is low would be beneficial. The same is true if you want to support the shift to renewable energy on a large scale because the bottleneck is always in winter so we should concentrate on maximum yield in winter.
I see you got animations from Array Technologies. Up until this February, I worked at the company that makes all of Array's drive lines (the shafts and universal joints that connect one row of panels to the next so that one motor can adjust the angle of many panels). They've known for years that solar panels are getting so efficient that mechanical angle adjusters are becoming obsolete. With this new technology you're talking about, they might finally close down that line! Don't worry though, they make every single F150 drive line today. I think they'll be in business for a while yet. 😅 Especially if they keep expanding into the electric car markets needs.
The best solution is altitude! I tested the watts per square meter at Boulevard CA, at 3,600 feet elevation and San Diego at near sea lever. You get over 925 watts per square meter at the higher elevation and only 850 at the lower elevation.
I have some ground post solar path lights that have glass domes with focusing dots all through the inside. Works great! Downsize? The heat from full sunlight, even north of the 49th, means that the internal plastic mounts have melted in pretty much all of them. Focusing means heat, heat means lower efficiency and DAMAGE past a certain point. Double edged sword to be sure.
Spectacular new idea indeed! Thank you for keeping covering such interesting subjects… with the professionalism and deepen of same Regards from Mozambique
Matt, have you heard anything about development of partially transparent solar panels? I’m thinking they could be used for (1) combining agriculture with solar, panels would allow some light thru to allow plants to grow; (2) a way to combat the increasing death due to heat of trees in cities - solar panels could form partial sun shields for trees.
I understand “Agile’s” function, but the effective area of any array using this system will be reduced by the ratio of of Agile’s upper/input area and lower/output areas. For example, if the lower “square” adjacent to its designated cell is a 3 cm square and the upper/input aperture is a 4 cm square, the effective area is reduced to 9/ 16ths. This restricts the number of array (and cells) that will fit in a given roof area.
long time listener and first time commentor. Thank you for the great work that you do researching these things for those of us that cannot keep up with the science.
Another variable when determining the ideal tilt angle is the amount of electricity needed at different times of the year often more in winter unless you’re in a cooling load dominated climate.
Thank you very much for speaking in a nice manner. That sounds like you actually enjoy what you're talking about. I'll be looking into this brilliant course. Thank you very much and love what you're doing. I'm a look at the older videos too
Solar is already good enough. Most of the time just adding more panels to the system is the cheapest option. The real limiting factor is storage and/or moving usage patterns to the daytime. Eg changing fridges to have a greater internal thermal mass and then 'charging' that thermal mass during the daytime would help way more.
My parents live in Macapá, Brazil, a city that is on the equador exactly. The solar panel angle there is basically flat up, but because it rains a lot there people usually install them slightly angled west or east so rain helps keep dust off the panels
You won't magically get more energy out of the same lighted area because you focus it on smaller cells instead. The same area of surface will always receive the same amount of light, no matter if you use flat panels, tracking panels or lenses. It's just about the tradeoff how much surface area you need in solar cells. However, while this lensed assembly requires considerably less surface area of solar cells than a classic one, you additionally have to consider the extra cost for the lenses and precision assembly, the added weight that requires stronger support, as well as the efficiency loss and reduced longevity due to the heat issue. The classic flat, well ventilated panels already have heat issues as-is. Focusing 100-1000x the amount of light onto a tiny spot means that it will heat up 100-1000x as fast as well - that's in the lower ranges of those mirror tower assemblies that use the heat rather than the actual light to generate power...
I heard about this in 2007 and since then I've been racking my brain to figure out what's the advantage of replacing a square meter of PV cell with a square meter of lens.
My wife and I are planning on a PV system for our house to offset monthly bills. We can get most of our power made for the majority of the year. I wish I had thought about when we built the house. That being said PV technology has improved quite a bit performance and cost since 2016
Matt, Any idea when this technology will become commercially available? I have a garage roof which I’d love to cover in solar PV, but it’s sloping exactly in the wrong direction, lowest part facing North. Strikes me Agile would sole this problem for me!
Matt, this is an excellent video. Thank you for your ongoing efforts. I have two thoughts. FIRST, you show a graphic of the sun's movement starting at 2:36. This graphic is technically incorrect because it shows the axis of the sun's motion changing. Yes, the sun moves in an arc about the house. But the axis of that arc is always aligned with the earth's axis. On the equinox, the plane of the arc intersects the house. At noon, the sun passes over the house at a 90 degree angle to the axis of rotation. At winter solstice, that same arc, on the same axis, shifts towards the equator so that at noon the angle to the sun from the axis is 90 degrees minus 22.5 degrees. This arc intersects the horizon towards the equator from east and west. By the summer equinox the arc shifts away from the equator to give a sun angle at noon 22.5 degrees higher than 90 degrees to the axis. That arc intersects the horizon away from the equator from east and west. In essence, the circular path of the sun shifts in an approximately sinusoidal way north and south along the earth's axis. Bringing this back to your video, there is a practical implication related to movable panels. You point out that aiming the panel brings collection improvements but that each axis of motion costs money. If one panel motion axis is aligned with the earth's axis, there is a great benefit to providing timed motion about this axis (at 15 degrees per hour). Even if the panel were fixed in the other axis to be perpendicular to the axis, the greatest sun angle error would be 22.5 degrees. If the panel can be manually adjusted just a few times a year, this error can be reduced, resulting in negligible collection loss. So you get almost everything with only one, simply timed, axis plus a simple manual adjustment a few times a year. SECOND: I believe that energy collected by solar panels is very closely tied to the sun flux intercepted. Losses at low angles are modest, I believe. For this reason, I believe the AGILE device will provide little benefit in terms of sun energy collection. Instead, I believe it may be better to think of AGILE as a solar concentrator that may enable the use of smaller, more efficient (and expensive per unit area) solar cells. Thanks again for your thought-provoking videos!
This is a great innovation. More focusing lenses makes panels more recyclable and requires fewer rare elements due to fewer actual solar cells needed. It may not be the be-all-end-all for solar, but every innovation to the process helps!
An interesting observation about seasonal needs and tracking system orientation is that in heating dominated climates orienting a single access tracker east west so that it points down at the lower winter sun better, provides 30% more electricity in the winter when it’s needed more.
Hi, thanks for the nice video. Try angling the panels 90 degrees towards the sun when there are equinoxes. then you spread the energy by having a slightly higher effect just at the equinoxes. Have a good day.
If I understand this correctly, it's a very similar effect to the Fresnel lenses used by lighthouses to extend their visible range... but instead it's collecting sunlight and focusing it on the solar cell. Very cool... and seems like it should be scalable.
That's cool but it seems that the power comparison isn't per square foot of panel area and are instead on PV cell area. If I am correct then the numbers are a bit cooked and wouldn't reflect total panel area. Also that prism seems like a lot of material when you expand it out across a lot of surface area due to the added depth, does it need glass on top of it too? etc. If it turns out to be a better option, that's cool but I would be surprised if it has a cost advantage over standard panels in the future.
Do you think AGILE will catch on and make a difference with solar? Visit brilliant.org/undecided to sign up for free. And also, the first 200 people will get 20% off their annual premium membership. If you liked this video, check out:
The Future of Solid State Wind Energy - No More Blades th-cam.com/video/nNp21zTeCDc/w-d-xo.html
Or Exploring Solar Panel Efficiency Breakthroughs in 2022 th-cam.com/video/m8crjuL8FFs/w-d-xo.html
Please add persian (farsi) subtitle to your videos 🙏
I really miss you also addressing the downsides or (unsolved) potential problems of the technologies you discuss. You seem to be extremely optimistic about basically every technology you discuss, but you seldom touch on potential problems in any depth. Here, the technology only makes sense if the combination of a small but expensive multi-layer cell + the concentrator lens on top can be produced cheaper per Kw generated as a conventional cell for the same area, or there is at least the outlook that that can be reached. Or, if it would enable specific niche applications that are not worth it or not possible now, but you don't really discuss either. Also, you don't discuss how panels like this deal with heat. The concentrators will also make the heat concentrated on these small, expensive cells. If a normal cell on a sunny summer day reaches 50-60 degrees C, what kinds of temperatures do the cells using a 10-100x magnifier on top have to deal with? Can they? Is that a fire hazard?
x
Here’s a funny thing, this tech was “invented” in the TV show “Medium” by the Husband. The show is from the early 00’s. It was supposed to be so efficient that it could work with moonlight.
No....one word... .HEAT
I worked on a similar tech in my research lab around 8 years ago. The main benefit of a low concentrator PV is increased efficiency at suboptimal angles. The numbers were often muddy - you can get twice the energy per square meter of PV panel, sure, but when you ultimately use less PV panel (as a lot of room is taken up by the concentrator) then its a moot point. The biggest limiting factor is that the greatest degradation factor for PV panels is their operating temperature - when you concentrate, they will get hotter causing them to degrade faster.
Our research was specifically looking at ways to extract thermal energy from a domestic scale solar concentrator. This was to (1) cool the panels (2) extract some thermal energy for hot water tank pre-heating and (3) prolong the life of the panel. It was ultimately not deemed cost effective. You could double or triple the life of the panel but you have massively increased your installation cost, so it would likely be cheaper to replace the panels every 10-15 years.
Thanks for sharing your insights!
This system looks incredibly similair to the photosynthesis system in plants, maybe your insights about these kind of solar panels could be used to reduce heat stress on plants in warm conditions. However, these photosystems in plants are made up of proteins which of course degrade over time and are incredibly heat sensitive. Maybe something could come from this.
Yea I had the same conclusion.
I hoped someone would bring up the overheating issue.
T r a s h Tech..?
Every lab technology always promises "reduced cost, easy manufacturing" until they have to manufacture the thing and discover the cost is higher and is harder to manufacture at scale.
You realize that the efficiency of solar has gone up while costs go down year over year BECAUSE OF stuff like this, right?
Those are engineering problems that just need the right conditions to be solve all it takes is time and money, a lot easier than the research and development already done
@@Hjernespreng Efficiency sure, price, nope. Price of PV has gone down because most of the panels are manufactured in China with subsidies, low labor cost and no environmental laws. Panels made in other countries are still expensive.
By the way, this guys are high on their own gases, 3d printing doesn't make something cheap or scalabe.
@@erickzts everyone always handwave "engineering problems" over the basic research problems, until they have to manufacture at scale, at a price point and under certain quality. If everything was so easy to take out of the lab, we should have hundreds of battery technologies circulating around, but we don't.
No the man has a point How many laboratory technologies have we seen that suddenly disappear.
Agile clearly also has a larger front area than that of the cells beneath, so aren't we back where we started? Unless the focusing lens thingy costs less than the equivalent change on area in solar cells, it's self defeating.
Another issue with a field of tracking panels is that they must be spaced apart in order to prevent them shading each other. So you reduce the total area of panels at the same time as increasing their output. A classic trade-off
ALL of the concentrated cells have smaller cells than traditional PV. The mirrors, the lenses, each takes up more space than the cell itself. However, with concentrated cells touting twice the efficiency of a traditional cell in addition to 3x concentration (not to mention improved angles at all hours of the day) it's undoubtedly more efficient than traditional cells in terms of power/area.
@@ShadowlessDeath47 they can't tout twice the efficiency before the lens is in place because such technology doesn't yet exist.
The concept is definitely necessary to increase efficiency.
Let's also consider these cells are processing more energy and will burn out faster than typical cells.
With enough motivation I'm sure that Agile will eventually figure it out
So fun fact, unless it’s a novel object, it will have losses. Most cells convert energy into electricity via diffusion of photonic bombardment throughout the day. This process isn’t perfect and creates heat; the color of the cell absorbs some of the light too more heat; but then we add a glass array on top? Well I’d think a dome would work better than half of a retro reflective array for the given purpose. Collect more light from more angles. But small issue. That makes more heat. And as that heat goes up it can impact efficiency of generation. So that’s the challenge. Not exceeding ambient cooling capabilities. Because if we cooled it then that cuts into whatever gains we make because of the energy it takes to remove the excess heat.
Oh and the lens would absorb some of the energy too as heat changing it’s reflective/refractive qualities as it expands
Hi Mr Ferrell . Mark here from Dublin Ireland ..... Your channel is the 1st and only one I have ever subscribed to .... I install PV's for a living , On average (10/12 )hrs a day ... The knowledge and honesty is truly refreshing . I genuinely look forward to the videos you produce , they are a joy after a long days work .... please keep up the good work & thank you
Appreciate that! Thanks for watching.
I mechanised my panels using linear motors and a raspberry pi and I noticed quite an improvement tracking the sun. Beefing up the whole installation over the next few months - very therapeutic seeing the Kw/h being home grown vs the rip off energy companies that are shafting us in the UK & EU currently. Also I don't use a sensor, mine is math based using longitude, latitude and date - credit to the egg heads that wrote the original Python code I plagerised - I wish I was that clever!
It is not the power utilities ripping you off. It is insane energy policies pushed by extremists ripping you off.
Solar tracking kills solar panel life span. No free rides.
@@johnslugger In the UK/EU with energy prices through the roof, I'm not sure what the trade-off is. I've got more electricity than I can use parts of some days, it's not cost effective selling it back to the grid so I'm building a sand battery in a disused sauna to offset cost of gas.
you were still smart enough to setup a tracking solar panel with an R-pi...your doing fine my man
Very clever and this is the best way to increase solar panel output.
something i find incredibly interesting is how this system could be a part of a design which integrate these and the negative space that they provide in between the solar cells for very small, very high efficiency thermal conduits that whisk away the concrentrated heat from the reflective materials and mini cells, being further connected to a home heat pump system
Some single access trackers do thermal capture as well, the trough focuses light on a thin strip of photovoltaics with a pipe behind it to carry away heat and keep the cells at an efficient operating temperature.
There are solar panels available that do have water/fluid running in the backside of the panel, it cools the panel and heats the water/fluid . Used in colder parts of Asia to keep the pool at a pleasant temperature, heating systems etc. Very easy to setup , inlet outlet and on . the total energy output of the solar panel is very good
@@fixandtests sure but that’s still an ineffective thermal dynamic. heat is being generated on the face of the panel, migrating through the sensitive materials, and into your heat transfer system. with these there’s enough empty space between the heat generating cell circuitry and reflective equipment to house a thermal conduit with peak heat transfer capacity. higher heat output on one end and more efficient solar panels on the other.
It's always been my thought that it would be better to apply a long wave infrared reflector on the outer surface to avoid the majority of the heat issue. As most cells work in the short wave infrared to red spectrum.
@@kitteecatt4681 It could be coupled with heat pump, sacrificing a bit of energy for better managed heating of the house under it…
I could see why this improvement would be very applicable to solar-powered yachts, where most of the panels are, necessarily, pointing straight up. Your videos are always excellent.
The first thought that came to my mind when I saw the rendering was: „Man, that stuff looks heavy!“
When solar panels get mounted on old roofs that were originally built without PV in mind, weight becomes a deciding factor. Do you have any data on the actual weight of these lenses?
weight will depend on the materials used. current flat panels use glass but from the information in the video it appears these lens will be plastics of some sort (3d printable) and so lighter, perhaps even lighter than current panels. However, plastics and UV light generally don't go well together. For example, current flat panels can last for decades while flexible panels are only rated for 5 years because the plastic sun gathering surface is a polymer that become opaque with the time spent in the sun.
Yeah, I was thinking the same. Even using plastic, which would be cheaper to use anyway, it's going to increase weight. That could be a limiting factor on some places.
However, If I understand how they work correctly, they will focus not only the optimal angle light, but all light from all sides. So theoretically they could be more efficient than tracking. Which does make them quite interesting.
@@lenwhatever4187 you can use titanium dioxide doped polycarbonate as a UV resistant top layer, though. Or even use one of the new co-polymers for photon-downconversion and convert the UV photons into usable longer wavelengths that can be absorbed by the solar cell.
Thinking Alon will be a good replacement for glass when it becomes more mass produced.
DANG - your viewership is smart! I get so much education out of the comments, with many flyovers. As a grad student in business sustainability transformation I may not know the way a prism grabs more light, nor the 5 layer part, but I enjoy soaking up as much as I can. I’ll be guiding businesses or cooperatives in ways to do just this sort of thing. Thank you and thanks to Brilliant. Love the courses.
All your videos are excellent. I don't know if you have a degree in pedagogy or something, but it's just a sharp contrast from all the rest of junk chanels that tyr and fail to do what you do every day.
Your videos grab you bay tha hand and fill you in from 0-100 of a whatever the subject matter is. Clear, concise, perfect diction and information.
I'm studying for my architectural registration exam, and your videos on solar, heat pumps, and general residential MEP systems have been invaluable to my success in my exams.
Please keep it up. If I had more money, I would join your patron
I came up with this concept myself thirty years ago. I attempted to patent it prior to producing a working model. I had proved the concept with small scale experiments - all was good - except for the cost of even a patent search. A patent itself was prohibitive let alone attempting a full size collector. My design was not fully usable at the time due to the non-invention of 3D printers and the lack of affordable high quality concentrator transparent material - I used fresnel lenses and marbles.
An advance on this concept was for the light to be amalgamated by using a system of light guides in a hub formation leading to a fibre cable. This cable would transfer the light energy to a radiator panel - which would be an almost exact copy of the collector but used as a distributor. I called it a Portable Window. No energy cost in use at all. No tracking issues and no pesky conversion to electricity - natural light wherever you want it. I still think this is a brilliant idea even all these decades later,. Really irritating that I could not get it off the ground - even more so that no one else has yet either !
Sir, these do exist, they are called fiber optic skylights.
The cost to patent is always a barrier to innovation. It is a pretty bad designed process.
I recall I have come to the conclusion 10 years ago that doing a inverted pyramid of 15 degrees of inclination was too much trouble. 15 degrees is the appropriate angle to get all the light in and nothing out. The problem is that you are going to need a lot of material to make the device to work well. Who is going to put that big and heavy thing in your roof?
Don't tell me about patent costs...nearly bankrupted myself over a single patent application!!
@@hyfy-tr2jy I was thinking SolaTubes myself. Although those are even simpler since there are no fiber-optics involved, simply a reflective tube mounted between the skylight on the roof and the light panel below.
... and 30 years later it still isn't made... BECAUSE IT'S BULLSHIT.
One thing that you didn't mention is Winter! Maybe not for your location, but for my system in Canada a steep panel angle, low temps and snow on the ground can actually boost the panels output significantly - doesn't make up for the shorter days though. I also don't use a tracker, as the location is actually very windy. The risk of wind damage is a grave concern.
You are correct in stating that light reflecting off of the snow did boost the energy production significantly, it's important to note that that boost is in reference to the expected amount of energy to be produced given the conditions.
Energy production in winter in Canada still sees significant decreases in peak production relative to summer months to the point that an experiment out of Edmonton found that snow covering the panels only had an approximately 3% observed decrease in energy production relative to panels that had snow removed. 3% isn't a lot
Edit: corrected the power production value to 3% from 5%
Yep. You'd almost think that everyone being so enthusiastic about solar is living in the subtropical area. Where I live we lose around nine hours of daylight time between summer and winter and it is pretty obvious that the energy contained in the solar radiation itself is also a lot less because it is cold outside. In my view scientists should concentrate more on fixating the position of Earth towards the Sun then try to generate more electric power when the total demand is already met at optimal times.
@@WhoStoleMyAlias ...?
If snow already boosts your solar output then getchu some proper mirrors for a year round boost.
Snow is reflecting lots of light sure, but likely in a diffuse way diminishing the benefits vs a proper mirror.
Even some cheap aluminium foil based mirrors stretched flat over plywood would ante up.
Just be careful not to give it concave curvature, else you get a parabolic mirror effect concentrating the light in a smaller spot, and potentially setting something on fire 😅
@@WhoStoleMyAlias
"In my view scientists should concentrate more on fixating the position of Earth towards the Sun"
Have you heard of space based solar?
One benefit of this is that (depending on elevation) it can receive solar energy even during night time on Earth and beam it back to the surface using ultra high output microwave generators.
Outstanding clarity and very relevant to those looking at the rapidly-evolving solar market.
Your drone sequence showing the solar panels of your house is every effective. You demonstrate solar can offer advantages, despite unfavorable factors.
It is amazing how expensive FV installations are in the US. I just signed today for an addition to my existing installation - 14/455W Canadian Solar HiKu panels coupled to a Fronius SYMO 5kW inverter, including 2 TIGO optimizers, and everything on the roof AND 21%VAT for 8,400€/$8,400 ($1.33/W vs what you show of $3.25 - more than twice as expensive).
I worked for Mobil Tyco Solar Energy in the 70s. We were building PV concentrators back then albeit a different design. They were linear with extruded fresnel lenses to focus the light.
The real win would be combining concentration and frequency separation, so you can have a patch of PV optimized for each frequency band, and outright reflect anything below the lowest useful frequency to reduce heat buildup
that sounds rather interesting. How would it be practically, and economically, done?
@@funkybuddha2448 practically? No clue, but the optics, in theory, aren't too complicated. First, recognize that sunlight, while spherical is, at our distance, effectively planer, with all of the rays being parallel, so a lens and it's inverse can concentrate it into a parallel beam, second, run it through a prism to spread out the beam by frequency, onto patches of pv tuned to particular frequencies. Downside: the prism effectively reverses some of the concentration; you would need some sort of sun tracking to maintain beam and prism alignment
Upside, the pv patches can each be single layer with a reflective backing, and can use a variety of technologies
You could probably manage the sun tracking via a pair of internal mirrors, and depending on the usful frequency ranges, handle the concentrator lenses with Fresnel's
The optics alone can probably get up to 90% efficiency, so the overall efficiency is likely dictated by the variety of individual components, their efficiencies within the frequency bands they are exposed to, and the annoyance that the sun isn't actually a point source and has a measurable disk
The other annoyance is the assemblage would likely be bulky, and, considering it hasn't actually been done, the optics may be more expensive than the photovoltaics the effectively replace
Simple answer: metallic window films aka "tinting". More complicated answer: nano-structured materials have been proven in labs to filter specific wavelengths of light and control thermal transmission.
As a mathematician, I'm really skeptical. If you don't move your panel facing the sun, you don't get more surface capturing sunrays. The only purpose of this concept is to get sunrays hitting perpendicularly the cell. A very small improvement ...
I suspect that solar cells can only absorb a few percent of the available rays. I think that increasing the surface area of solar panels without increasing the required footprint might result in better efficiency.
This is a matt ferrell channel... it's fucking nonsense.
I was thinking the same thing. If you have a 1sq meter panel at 20 degree tilt putting concentrators on doesn’t change how much sun energy is hitting that 1sq meter.
@@ecospider5 we are going to the same thing: when you concentrate is the PV the best fit as technology. It absorbs the upper side of the spectrum and the infrared spectrum converts to unnecessary heat which needs to be dissipated. Good discussion: :)
It enhances the energy per chip. Not the energy per roof surface area. Cheap recyclable plastic not silicon wafer and rare earth elements.
AGILE is a classic idea used on sailing vessels in the form of deck prisms. It's amazing how much sunlight is brought belowdecks from a a few square inches of flat glass on deck level. It makes perfect sense that prismatic techniques could be applied to solar panels.
They look beautiful too.
I was thinking the same thing, that agile sounds like a new version of good old deck prisms. There’s a lot to be said for looking at existing time tested technology and asking if it can be applied to new situations.
those deck prisms can’t change the incidence of light that hits them. they would let the exact same amount of light pass through as open holes, but they’d also let the rain in. they might spread out the light a bit or focus it a bit but that’s it. you don’t get a free lunch with light waves.
The first Solar job I designed the electrical system for was CPV. Dual axis trackers and to point exactly at the sun. You are correct, efficiency is extremely important going forward! Shading is a big solar system killer.
Your presentations are so comprehensive, and so data rich and so fast in delivery, my brain blows a fuse at regular speed after about 5 minutes. I have to revert to playback at 0.75 or 0.5...need something in between those settings for optimal, non-barin-fuse-blowing...LOL...thank you!
What would be really cool is if AGILE lenses could be used as a retrofit for existing home solar installations- like getting new prescription glasses for your panels. If they could demonstrate cost/benefit efficiency increases to pay for themselves in under 5 years, I’d buy ‘em!
Very, very unlikely.
#1. The retrofit alone would degrade an older system at least twice as fast - the panels might literally give out before you get your money back on the install/retrofit costs.
#2. Concentrated PV without higher efficiency PV cells (tandem or multi junction cells) means too much solar energy is lost to heat, which in turn causes the panels to degrade faster still.
#3. Concentrators start bigger and focus light on a smaller spot on each PV cell, which means the layout of your non CPV panels isn't going to work very well with it.
Better to just buy the entire thing from scratch once your current PV setup gives out.
If money is burning a hole in your pocket in the interim then get some domestic battery storage units instead which will allow you to get more out of what you already have.
The increases in efficiency from PV and the increases in battery density plus the lowering costs of both for home setups is going to make the next few decades very interesting with the topsy turvy costs of fossil fuel derived power from corporate grid suppliers.
This was a good and interesting video Matt. Myself and others have thought about this idea in the past. My thoughts were equivalent to a magnifying glass over the solar panel. I remember that the problem many DYI people who were trying to get better performance out of their panels was overheating the panels and ruining them in a short time. Surely this new process that is being experimented with has taken that challenge into consideration. It would be interesting to know about how they are dealing with that overheating issue. Thanks for the video Matt.
I too am looking forward to development of this tech and fantasize about the small scale/ personal implications.
I’ve always wondered why panels don’t use cmos senor design with wide lenses over the array to capture non-tangential light.
There _are_ PV cells and panels which use a simple 'magnifying glass' kind of lens over the semiconductor. They have existed from the beginning of PV power. _This thing is not that!_
A simple lens will NOT properly concentrate light that comes in off the central optical axis. So that simple, old-fashioned kind still require solar tracking... the most expensive kind, 2-axis tracking. Even that is NO help when the sky is milky. This Graded Index Non-imaging Light Concentrator does NOT require tracking. It DOES work even when the sky is milky. That is what makes it interesting.
@@SirDargonite This guy is special! Welcome to the SPECIAL K club!
LOL...Special K was my favorite cereal for many years.
Is there a way to capture that heat. Use it with some kind of heat pump?
If you want efficiency for movement, write an algorithm to move the panels instead of using sensors. If you have to have a system that's always active that wastes energy. If you program movement, you could probably move the panels 6 times in the day and it's good enough to be near max efficient.
And this is where my comment about being within 10 degree of the equator comes in. The day lengths are pretty close throughout the year. You can program 6 position changes and then a reset and it's good all year long.
If you're in the ares outside the tropics (latitude) then tilt angle for N. and S. has to change a few times during the year and the day lengths vary more. It could still be programmed so you don't have to use sensors, but now you need a table to reference. Since this is without sensors you don't get a situation of panels chasing the sun.
With a fixed tracking of E. to W., anyone who is electrically inclined could mount panels in a group and with motors and hydraulics could build the entire system. If you've built you're own home, you could even roof mount this like over a garage. In which case, you've provided the necessary strength to the structures to take the weight of the panels. You could probably run about 12 panels this way, and then you'd have to install another 12 panels somewhere else.
This is the build I plan to do.
The sensors are not where the cost comes from. It's the actual structure and motors that move the panels that make it expensive.
I remember this being brought up as a game changer in the 90’s. Not a game changer unless the fixed the issues.
As always the best written, produced, and delivered podcast ever. It answered a question that I have had for 40 years.
... and it is all a LIE.
This is an interesting development in PV technology. I look forward to seeing where this can go, but in conjunction with Solar Panels, we need stability, such as battery or some kind of storage as once the sun is gone, the power is gone. I see that where I live (Victoria, Australia) In the middle of the day on a really sunny day the wholesale price of electricty can sometimes be negative (as in get paid to use power) because so much solar is being generated, but once the sun is gone, the reliance on fossil fuel comes back, with the more expensive price.
We really need to look at storage and solar as being a compulsory pair.
Thanks for the comment. Agree 100% ... energy storage is key.
The intermittency issue is one of the reasons why solar and wind together are the renewable energy sources that get the most research.
As the sun goes down and solar panels become less efficient, wind almost always picks up for a couple of hours which lets wind turbines supply us until bed time.
And of course, this is why almost everyone wants nuclear, tidal, and geothermal energy production to make up 10-20% of electricity production. That would provide an excellent steady backbone to ensure that we don’t constantly have rolling blackouts.
@@SaveMoneySavethePlanet In the modern world, a reliable 24hour power supply is needed. Where I am, the wind usually gets up in what would be the "off peak" times, after bedtime. Unfortunately the evening peak time is very reliant on fossil fuel at the moment here. This is where storage cells of some kind would help. If we could store some of the excess solar from during the day to release it during the peak, we would just about get by without needing fossil or nuclear. Tidal could be interesting to just provide that little top up though :)
@@UndecidedMF A robust interconnected grid is also critical, to move power from where the wind is blowing and the sun is shining to where it's not.
@@EsotericArctos sorry, I got excited and didn’t mean to make it sound like storage isn’t needed at all. Strong storage systems are definitely needed across the board in order to reduce the amount of “just in case” generation that we install
Recently I was looking into solar power and wondered why automated tilting mechanisms are used more for solar panels.
Its good to actually see the installation / efficiency / maintenance costs. Apparently its cheaper just to buy more panels.
Single axis trackers dominate the US utility scale solar installations. Not sure why he downplays them except that his viewer demographics likely skew more to the home installation user and in that case trackers are not often practical.
Even for a home viewer, I'm not sure why there wouldn't be some sort of adjustment for summer vs winter. It doesn't have to be automatic with heavy equipment.
@@remyllebeau77
I've wondered that as well. I suppose some people might get hurt climbing up on their roofs twice a year? No idea.
@@johnborton4522 Hmm, yeah.
@@remyllebeau77 Look at the "Life Uncontained" channel here on TH-cam. They have a manual single axis (elevation) on their off-grid system, ground mounted, that seems to be working quite well for them. I think he adjusts the panels at least 4x a year. And best of all, it's all home built/designed.
In Australia we have a percentage of the solar arrays facing east and west for another reason. While its less optimal at noon it helps meet the dawn and dusk spikes, providing more power at those times than the noon optimized units do. The demand curves in most countries do not peak at noon.
The Itek panels I installed 9 years ago put a row of glass bumps, about 1/8" wide by 1/2" long, on the inside of the glass above each cell to improve collection in the PNW. My main roof is S but the pitch of the roof is 2' in 15'. Great for the summer solstice when the sun arcs just a bit north of me for a few days. My 4.85 kW system [260 W panels] puts out 5.1MWh a year on average. Because of a great state program that treated me like a power company I got production credits for 6 years for buying all system parts made in the state. As of the first of the month it turned 9 and I am in the green. It supplies 1/3 of my power needs annually.
I should be able to update the panels to 320 for the same size panel and get close to 6kWh. Would be nice if it would get me some of the fed incentives and allow to also cover installing batteries. Hard to believe that battery packs are not a separate item for a tax credit. But I will have a fair amount of wiring to set up two charging stations in the carport and possibly a new power panel and just enough batteries with my panels going to Ecoflow's. I am going to give it about 18 months for the tech or the legislation to change before I lock in what I will really do.
I did my first solar tour many years ago and one home was owned by a power company worker. He found old satellite dishes out of use and offered money [$ depending on if the tracker motor and controls worked] and would remove them. Scraped most of the dish and built a frame and welded it. Mounted a simple solar eye to move the panels horizontal [with no light it would reset to the east] and adjusted the tilt angle 4 times per year. They all ran to a shed with lead acid marine batteries and was selling power to his former employer. He had 5 in a field across from his house. The most expensive was $350. Hard to find these days.
7:14 concentrated PV using lenses. 9:30 Stanford AGILE system. 10:17 3D printing potential.
Hello Matt
and thanks for this nice update. The thing that strikes me as just as problematic as the heat issues discussed by the other viewers is the geometric optics issue. Shrinking the superficial area of the cell to try to recover collection effect will quickly prove self defeating unless the commensurate increase in the intrinsic efficiency of ultimate conversion device - your "super solar cells" - grows quickly. Indeed, the Louisville theorem (used in light pipe design for nuclear detectors), suggest you cannot win the game of trading frontal collection area for some sort of concentrator optic - this is why astronomical telescopes must increasingly grow in area (although better CCD sensor DO help with claiming more sensitivity). Sounds, as you suggested, like a niche interest in this.
with respect
DK.Barillari
Great comment and feedback. Thanks.
I had the same thought from the start. In lay terms, what's the point of having less actual PV cells if they still need the same surface area? Sure, the overall cost might come down, but such benefits would be marginal at best. After viewing, the main benefit seems to be less loss of efficiency at suboptimal angles. So the real question seems to be whether that benefit is worth the extra cost in a given setup. Hopefully maturation of the tech will ease such margins.
@@simonmasbaum8399 "...the main benefit seems to be less loss of efficiency at suboptimal angles."
I think that that's the point, not to increase gains, but reduce (energy and economic) losses. The reduction of effective surface area is still a problem though.
Unless I misunderstood, they have increased conversion from around 22% to 40%. I don’t know if that’s due to increased light or the mj cells, or what conversion they would get just using a full module of mj cells.
@@UndecidedMF close this channel down you liar.
Could be a significant innovation for Solar power...still at the early stage of development but definitely looks extremely promising.
We have had our Solar panels for just over a year and have been extremely pleased with the result. Any unused Solar electricity heats our hot water which has saved a small fortune as we used to use heating oil to heat the water...and oil is like liquid gold nowadays..
Another good video Matt.
"Early stage of development" isnt really correct ... because the "science" (the MATH on how to shape the funneling system) has been done and now it is a problem of "optimising the production process to make these things as cheap as possible". Having much smaller photovoltaic cells is one step, because they require to be "perfect/without any flaws" ... and smaller cells make it easier to get those from a batch of raw material. Layering the cells for different wavelengths adds another layer of efficiency on top of it.
The best way would be to have a panel where the top / "light concentration layer" can be replaced in case there is a better version ...
Matt, there was a company back around 2010 that used solar concentrators and built an 8’ x 4’ panel that could generate 8kw. It could have been brilliant but the inventor got greedy and instead of starting small WITH DOMESTIC UNITS, he wanted immediate scale up to 100MW. He went bust. The company was called SolFocus and I wonder if anyone ever picked up the patents?
> 8’ x 4’ panel that could generate 8kw
Something is wrong here. 8' x 4' is about 3.2 m^2, and the total solar energy hitting a 3.2 m^2 area is under 4kW. I don't think anyone has yet produced a solar cell with >50% efficiency, so at best we're looking at 2kW.
@@dosadoodle love a good physics explanation 💪
> 50% with natural light/spectrum.
Individual or narrow spectrum light source and cells and exceed this.
Those numbers are bunk -- that's likely why it went bust. You can't collect that kw from that area because that's way more solar energy than we get from the sun in that area. That would require the panels being more than 100% efficient and we all know how that works -- scam.
@@dosadoodle I’m a little lost.
Your response to something that allegedly concentrates sunlight onto a smaller area is that you wouldn’t get enough sunlight on a small area?…
But that’s the point? The idea as far as I can tell is that you take 10M2 of Sunlight and focus it down on 2m2 of area so that you can have a much smaller more efficient panel, I assume cheap materials would be used to concentrate the light.
Nice to see my ideas are inlined with the Geniuses. I've had an idea of concentrating solar with lenses like this ever since I learned refraction in physics class.
Great post my friend. I think this is an exciting direction... looks promising.
I set my tilt angle to the winter sun angle - overall works really well. More energy when I need it.
Solar trackers are great when you have limited space and desire max efficiency !
And only.when you are out of space, an extra panel is likely cheaper if you count mechanical parts breaking.
@@christianvanderstap6257 These devices, when well made really do not break - although they do require maintenance (like all mechanical devices).
Also with the maturing of Rasberry Pie and Arduino, it is very possible to build your own - which is where I am going at the moment - using a wheelchair motor to turn a shaft and move the whole array on one axis - I have a row of sheds that point north but can not jam too much capacity on them...
@@madpete6438 not worth the complication unless you really have to. Most panels for residential are on roofs.
@@christianvanderstap6257 Exactly my point - I have 2x arrays on my roof and it is full - just need a bit more capacity for when the weather is shitty - and not enough room to do it - hence the solar tracker project in my workshop !
Horses for courses cuz.
I always wondered if you could use magnification to improve solar panels, about time it was looked into.
It's been looked into, and yes it does help but the light intensity breaks the solar cells down faster as they heat up too much, now pair that downside with something that can use the excess heat to heat water and you've got something.
If we are hearing about it now, I can assure you that there has been at least a decade of research to get to this point if not more.
@@a-aron2276 how come the exact astronomically defined amount of light coming from the sun is fine and no more than 10% will ruin them. an increase of 10% would coarsely increase the RON with 10%. even if would decrease the lifespan also with 10% i tend to think that waiting 2 years less to get your (Same) money back still more attractive.
@@ericfleet9602 and it hasn't been produced, so it must be a bullshit concept.
Concentrated solar PV is a concept probably older than you are.
This is especially exciting for off-world applications like the moon and Mars, where other factors than pure materials cost are far more important. Cost per kg to orbit, efficiency, portability (ie: how big of solar panel you can realistically deliver to the surface), and reliability (no moving parts for trackers) are great features!
AGILE reminds me of sailing ship deck gems.
During day light, sunshine on deck shone below deck too via these pyramidal flat topped prisms.
Smart and fuel free.
With fire such a hazard, they improved ship safety and conserved stores of lamp oil for night use.
What I want to know is for the same square footage as a normal solar panel. How much energy is produced because it looks like the lens system blocks what could otherwise be actual photovoltaic space.
One question I had that wasn't addressed is regarding efficiency and heat. Currently I've noticed large differences in production related to the temperature in my own system. Would the AGILE system be more or less sensitive to changes in efficiency related to temperature?
Great video Matt, 2:03 My roof is also facing east/west. And although an East/West roof produces less electricity than a south facing roof, in many states with "Time Of Use" billing (coincidentally, in the UK, it's called Agile Tariffs), facing the bulk of your panels West can have a bigger monetary value than facing them south since you can get double the kWh credits during super peak (2pm-6pm) for every kWh you push on the grid during that time. If for example, California gave better incentives for mounting panels on West facing roofs, they wouldn't have an over abundance of supply at noon, and at the same time, issue Flex Alert warnings during the afternoon. All without the need to implement battery storage to shift the available supply.
Problem is relying on the grid to offset costs. Alot of power companies started to pay 1/4 the amount per kwh that they charge the customer. So if you sold them 20kwh you would only get 5kwh back at night then it would start to cost you money. Alot of people based their solar break even points on the electric company using net metering or buying electricity at the same price they sell it back to you. The more house get solar the less they will keep doing it.
It's not a great video... it's fucking nonsense.
I often wondered if options like light focusing domes and/or curves to just push the Light into a focus, even if the Sun is not at an ideal angle for a flat panel. The light would generally be focused into a finer area. The Agile design definitely sounds like a great method there, and it just needs time to be implemented effectively. That definitely makes an impact towards better production of solar energy. Though storage is still the long term issue.
Sodium batteries r the way to go. They have pros & cons but safety makes them far better for homes (since size isn't a Problem). Total Cost while considering the total life charge cycles (with size & safety also factored in) = money $aver.
They've been doing this on certain types of systems for a very long time. Check out the focused parabolic reflectors that heat some material in a tube at the focus, water will work. Also, go look up heliostats. Now THAT is some focusing, there is one that is HUMONGOUS, many acres worth of mirror. You would be instantaneously fried if you stood at that focal point. And it generates a LOT of watts. I don't remember if they use water and a steam turbine in that one. Might be some other fluid.
Technically the best orientation for maximum power production is North/South, but I have seen it argued that West facing panels do have one significant advantage in that they produce a bit more peak power in the evening when demand peaks and North/South panels sag a bit. This is particularly useful at the moment where storage is possible but non trivial at large scale. If you've got multiple directions of panels you need a more sophisticated inverter setup though to maximise output at any given moment.
I have a mix of monocrystalline and polycrystalline panels. I need to run test but the monocrystalline panels seem to be more sensitive to the sun angle than the polycrystalline panels.
This certainly looks like a great idea. I have to wonder about the maintenance/longevity of the lenses. My experience with optical polymers shows issues with scratching/fogging over time. Would they need to be repolished every year? What about polymer breakdown under the all-day intense sun? Thanks for coverage of this topic.
One fundamental problem with fixed solar panels is that the effective area (i.e. the area perpendicular to the rays of sun which cover the solar panels) will decrease as the sun moves during the day, like you explain well in the beginning of the video. These lenses will not fix this issue and the performance will still decrease a lot when the rays of the sun are not perpendicular as it has no effect at all on the effective area of the incoming sun rays.
8:42 wtf? This is just wrong interpretation of the numbers. Efficiency should always be with respect to the area of the panels, not with respect of the electric power producing area.
Thanks for pointing this out. You can't get 10x - 100x more power out of the same surface area compared to normal PV panels.
Yea when he said that I imediately knew he was off. The benefits of using smaller pv cells like this is they can be made with less crystaline imperfections and more expensive materials as not as much is needed. It should also be pointed out that PV cells can be made more efficient with higher concentrations of light so that for the same area of energy collection more electrisity is generated but it maxes out at around 2x the efficiency, not 10 - 100x.
The AGILE system compensates for angularity by using prismatic lenses to concentrate the sun's rays at a maximum, regardless of the sun's position!
In addition to the argument of energy collection is directly proportional to surface area... the concentration of sunlight will produce more heat and the PV modules will be prone to early degradation.
@@Quickened1 Yes, it does compensate for angularity effect of the rays hitting the solar panel, but the effect is marginal compared to the difference between the effective area of the sun rays and the area of the solar panels, the is just less sun rays hitting the solar panel when the panels are not perpendicular to the sun rays. The latter effect still holds for AGILE.
It would be interesting to see some field trial results with AGILE integrated onto mono-crystalline PV modules. It sounds a promising concept, but I worry that a cooling mechanism will be needed since, with concentrated irradiance, the cell temperature will increase dramatically thus reducing the electrical cell efficiency. With that said, it would be interesting to see if the solar tracking benefits outweigh such thermal losses, and if not whether the cost of integrating a passive cooling circuit would then provide any benefits. I'll definitely be keeping a keen eye out on AGILEs developments!
I'm not an expert, but wouldn't higher efficiency photovoltaic cells produce less heat. Then given that the cels themselves are relatively small and far apart this would allow diffusion of energy into the entire panel.
looking at the graphic, could it be possible to have some sort of heat sink in-between the smaller end of these pyramids? and that heat could be pushed to something to warm your house in the winter 😀👍
Would be interesting to have a solar layer that can collect infrared which could help reduce the heat from infrared light atleast
What do you by AGILE, I thought that had to do with like management practices during development. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm genuinely curious.
@@lukasvandeputte9299 Its not the cells generating the heat its the concentration of sunlight. Even just a mirror will increase output, but then heat losses will negate those pretty quickly. Might work ok in a pretty cold climate.
I wish Agile great luck. Sounds like another promising innovation.
Single axis solar trackers dont need to be expensive or complex.
Just built into the support frame a manual mechanism that lets you change the angle 10-15 degrees. Change it as many times as you consider it necessary, but 4 times a year should be good enough.
I think that Agile would be incredible if it could be retro fitted to existing installations. If I could lay it across my current panels it could increase efficiency and possibly extend their life span.
Oh yeah, I guess you could do that. Since the light bending effect is essentially surface refraction rather than actually relying on bouncing off the walls of the prism, you could sell sheets of this stuff and just cut to fit. It won't increase the life of your panel any, in fact it might decrease the life a bit due to increased heat, but you could reuse the AGILE layer if you wanted to. Just remove the AGILE layer from an old panel, buff it a bit, and glue it onto the new panel. The hardest (and maybe most expensive) part would be finding an optical grade glue with the right refractive index.
Hi Matt, I like your content but find 'new science breakthroughs' often end up in disappointment or not meeting expectations. Have you revisited past videos and maybe taken a retrospective look at how a new technology has actually delivered to date?
I say this as someone who worked in a lab around time graphene was discovered and know how hard it often is implementing new tech that has loads of promise when it comes into contact with reality, entrenched gov systems or even corruption.
The CPV and AGILE will also work well in the marine industry because the solar panels mounted onboard yachts/boats are always moving about with the wave movement and course changes. One thing not mentioned is that these hyperparabolic concentrators and prismatic/Fresnel lenses also have the added benefit to filter out IR light, which will help keep the solar cells cooler with what would otherwise be very hot intensified light. We used similar prisimatic technology back in the 1980's to concentrate for surgical lights to create a shadowless pure white light that did not raise the temperature of the skin or internal organs during surgeries.
Excellent points in angles and adding IR filters. And basically what I was going to say. Thank you!
I was thinking of a solar cooker approach. But if it's too concentrated it will deteriorate the PV panel a lot faster, if not just melt it straight away.
I work in the solar projects industry in Europe and it absolutely makes sense to build tracker systems, most of our projects are tracker in Spain, it is economically advantageous to fixed tilt. And there is absolutely no talk to concentrator PV in the industry... way to expensive haha. Our modules at the moment cost about 0.28 EUR/Wp while no one even produces concentrator PV modules...
Complex production process maybe much more costly than a simple good balance mechanic system in most cases, for couple of watts you can move whole row of panels at once with relatively small motor if the weight is balanced.
I’m an optical engineer who works in the concentrated solar industry. As many have commented here, the #1 limitation of this tech is that the system as a whole will still suffer the same “cosine losses” as the un-tracked panel front will still get the same reduction of total energy as the sun moves . That said, looking at “cost-performance”, there may be some advantages - let’s look at them one at a time.:
COSTS: As a rough frame, while a PV installation may from $1/W~$2/W, the Module (panel itself) only represents ~$0.40/W (let’s say ~40%). Then, of the Module costs, the cell itself (consisting of silicon wafer, metallization, fabrication/energy, production labor/O&M, etc) is roughly $0.18~$0.24/W - or roughly half of the panel cost.
So, even assuming the concentrators are ‘free’, a 3x concentration will reduce wafer costs to ($0.2/3) = ~$0.07/W. Assuming a $1/W installation cost (utility scale, not residential), this would reduce cost to ~$0.93/W. *BUT*, the researchers claim that the optics are ~90% efficient, so we’ll get 10% less power… resulting in ~$1.03/W. Yikes!! That’s not a win (and of course the tech isn’t free!), but…
PERFORMANCE: Two possibile gains here:
First - activation threshold. There may be unseen gains here as the silicon bandgap has a ‘activation energy' (threshold), and on cloudy days may not reach it. Having 2~5x concentration goes a *big* way to ensure turning the semiconductor “on” in low light environments.
BTW, I don’t see thermal issues being a problem here, as this is a very low conc, and I’d bet $100 that the polymer-based optics absorb most of the unusable IR. So, chips may run cooler!
Second - reflection losses. When light hits silicon at an angle, some is lost due to ‘fresnel reflections’ that increase exponentially at higher angles. This concentrator does an interesting job of having those grazing rays hit the cell at more normal incidence. It has a field of view of 2pi steradians… which is huge (a whole hemisphere). This effect will be less when the sun is more direct to panel face, but may add-up at wider angles (and *especially* for the diffuse light of clouds).
SO… could add-up!! But, the devil is in the details - and these are much more complicated on factors such as panel orientation, %-cloudcover/yr, etc…
Could have merit and I believe it’s worth investigating! ;)
I haven’t watched the video yet as am busy on a project, but the PV Concentrating solution is an essential of the future. I explored this some 10 years ago. The advantage here is the use of the SpectraLab 40 watt 40.5% efficient chips (used of the space station) with 700 to 1 solar concentration to a group of devices mounted on high efficiency heat transfer modules. These PV devices are just 15mm square and with max tech mounting will deliver up to 80% energy efficiency where the thermal energy is able to be used. This means that they should be utilized in a domestic or industrial installation. The SpectraLab devices were just $40 at the time we looked at them. Run the numbers and you will see that a 10 Kw PV capacity with up to 10Kw thermal capacity is readily achievable. NB. To heat a 200Ltr water cylinder through 40 degC requires 10Kw Hrs of energy, so if this energy is extractable from the surplus energy of a PV system the recoverable energy more than sufficient for 100% sustainable domestic energy. NB2 non solar periods are covered with domestic refuse converted to syngas powering Liquid Piston 3Kw generators. The only negative of such a system is that it requires a unique mounting system that is best achieved where dwelling roofs have a mansard feature to give sufficient solar access for the 10Kw PV/10Kw thermal system in a solar well in the roof (such a solar well is invisible in the building profile from ground level).
Wow congrats on 1 million subscribers!! Been following your videos for years. Always quality content.
Congrats on a milli subs, well deserved!
I have worked on this topic when working at a University in Cyprus. I have made some tests with some simple PVs and burned them. Be careful when concentrating towards a solar panel with Fresnel lenses.
I see your 26 panels and raise you 14.
My goal when installing solar was to maximise my self-consumption needs. Hence 10 panels face East.
10 panels face North (in the sthn hemisphere). And because of space restrictions, 20 panels face West. In the 4 years they have been up, in total, they have produced over 62 MWh of electricity.
Would love to install battery storage, but the numbers still don't add up in its favour.
Thanks for the video. Another good one as always.
I won a tonne of those in auction (the concentrated PV cells and the lenses), from a company that went out of business 15 years ago. So this isn't really new per se. Probably the techniques for creating the lenses has improved which is why it's being revisited? Regardless of the ability to bend light, the beginning of your video still needs to be computed (optimized incident angle for the region being installed) for maximum year round efficiency. One of your better videos IMO Matt. Thanks for sharing your passion.
When we had solar panels installed, we have hardly any north facing roof so we decided on 10 panels facing east, 13 panels facing west.
In comparing to friends and family, although we generate less peak power across the day, we generate similar total kWh per day but our generation is longer than those we have compared to. At low latitudes in the southern hemisphere (Perth, Western Australia), the sun rises and sets south of east/west. We have found having east/west panels is better for self sufficiency by using power when it is generated.
SUGGESTION: Matt, I'd like to see you do some episodes summarizing the state of each field you study on this channel. For example - - which technologies (energy storage, etc.) do you expect to see by 2024/25; by 2030, etc. Looks like a very exciting future - but talk about where you think we can be by 2040.
I designed and tested this back in Saskatchewan in 2015 for frac water heating
I saw nearly this exact design in a TH-cam video about 6-7 years ago, I actually found this video searching for that video. However the magnifying lens in the other design was actually moving on x&y plane above the cell to adjust for angle.
When I was in grad school, I had a friend whose capstone design project for his batchelor degree had been building a system that determined the sun's position based on GPS and the time of day and then angled solar panels accordingly. I asked him if the increased efficiency was enough to offset the power consumed by all the extra equipment, and he said it wasn't really.
Edit for context: The project was commissioned by the school's paleontology department to boost the efficiency of the solar panels used to power the equipment used at dig sights. The fact that the panels are used in varying locations across North America was the primary driving force behind building a system that's more complicated than the ones described in the video.
6:27 They don't use a tracker per module: in small solar farms usually a single row of modules is connected via two sets of rods: one set of rotating rods adjusts the tilt, while the other set slides to adjust the orientation.
I've seen many of them in action in the fields nearby...
From 1977 - 80 I worked at a company in Rochester, NY called Fresnel Optics. We made plastic micro services lenses for overhead projectors, reflective tape, landing sights for aircraft carriers,
And one that was particularly interesting at the time was 2’ x 3’ acrylic magnifying lenses for large screen TVs. They let me have a few of the rejects and in the full sunshine these things were powerful and mind blowing in terms of concentrating power of the sun. In 30 seconds you could ignite a tennis ball 🎾 into flames 🔥. You could burn holes into asphalt. My boss pulled me into his office one day when We started talking about making assembled arch shaped and mirror coated lenses for solar.
We made lenses for a company called Spectra Optics in California that was in theory, storing energy in tiles using a laser. Never heard more about it.
Think I’ll Google
One thing about PV panel angle that I think isn't looked at enough is what you are optimizing for. Most people and companies optimizie for maximum kWh per year which may not what you want. If you instead have a battery and want the greatest amount of self-sufficiency you have an excess of solar energy in summer but don't have enough in winter. So a higher tilt angle that gives you better efficiency when the sun is low would be beneficial. The same is true if you want to support the shift to renewable energy on a large scale because the bottleneck is always in winter so we should concentrate on maximum yield in winter.
I see you got animations from Array Technologies. Up until this February, I worked at the company that makes all of Array's drive lines (the shafts and universal joints that connect one row of panels to the next so that one motor can adjust the angle of many panels). They've known for years that solar panels are getting so efficient that mechanical angle adjusters are becoming obsolete. With this new technology you're talking about, they might finally close down that line! Don't worry though, they make every single F150 drive line today. I think they'll be in business for a while yet. 😅 Especially if they keep expanding into the electric car markets needs.
The best solution is altitude! I tested the watts per square meter at Boulevard CA, at 3,600 feet elevation and San Diego at near sea lever. You get over 925 watts per square meter at the higher elevation and only 850 at the lower elevation.
I have some ground post solar path lights that have glass domes with focusing dots all through the inside. Works great! Downsize? The heat from full sunlight, even north of the 49th, means that the internal plastic mounts have melted in pretty much all of them. Focusing means heat, heat means lower efficiency and DAMAGE past a certain point.
Double edged sword to be sure.
Spectacular new idea indeed!
Thank you for keeping covering such interesting subjects… with the professionalism and deepen of same
Regards from Mozambique
Matt, have you heard anything about development of partially transparent solar panels? I’m thinking they could be used for (1) combining agriculture with solar, panels would allow some light thru to allow plants to grow; (2) a way to combat the increasing death due to heat of trees in cities - solar panels could form partial sun shields for trees.
I understand “Agile’s” function, but the effective area of any array using this system will be reduced by the ratio of of Agile’s upper/input area and lower/output areas. For example, if the lower “square” adjacent to its designated cell is a 3 cm square and the upper/input aperture is a 4 cm square, the effective area is reduced to 9/ 16ths. This restricts the number of array (and cells) that will fit in a given roof area.
long time listener and first time commentor. Thank you for the great work that you do researching these things for those of us that cannot keep up with the science.
Stop listening to this matt-bullshit.
Cool stuff Man ! Can't wait to see the new stuff come out !!!
Another variable when determining the ideal tilt angle is the amount of electricity needed at different times of the year often more in winter unless you’re in a cooling load dominated climate.
Thank you very much for speaking in a nice manner. That sounds like you actually enjoy what you're talking about. I'll be looking into this brilliant course. Thank you very much and love what you're doing. I'm a look at the older videos too
Best solarpanel video I have seen in 15 years 📝 thank you 🙏
Solar is already good enough. Most of the time just adding more panels to the system is the cheapest option. The real limiting factor is storage and/or moving usage patterns to the daytime. Eg changing fridges to have a greater internal thermal mass and then 'charging' that thermal mass during the daytime would help way more.
My parents live in Macapá, Brazil, a city that is on the equador exactly. The solar panel angle there is basically flat up, but because it rains a lot there people usually install them slightly angled west or east so rain helps keep dust off the panels
You won't magically get more energy out of the same lighted area because you focus it on smaller cells instead. The same area of surface will always receive the same amount of light, no matter if you use flat panels, tracking panels or lenses. It's just about the tradeoff how much surface area you need in solar cells.
However, while this lensed assembly requires considerably less surface area of solar cells than a classic one, you additionally have to consider the extra cost for the lenses and precision assembly, the added weight that requires stronger support, as well as the efficiency loss and reduced longevity due to the heat issue. The classic flat, well ventilated panels already have heat issues as-is. Focusing 100-1000x the amount of light onto a tiny spot means that it will heat up 100-1000x as fast as well - that's in the lower ranges of those mirror tower assemblies that use the heat rather than the actual light to generate power...
We install dual axis trackers in NH and due to to the laws and latitude it’s almost always more worth it than single axis or fixed mount.
I heard about this in 2007 and since then I've been racking my brain to figure out what's the advantage of replacing a square meter of PV cell with a square meter of lens.
Finally we're getting somewhere with solar. This is amazing!
My wife and I are planning on a PV system for our house to offset monthly bills. We can get most of our power made for the majority of the year. I wish I had thought about when we built the house. That being said PV technology has improved quite a bit performance and cost since 2016
Matt, Any idea when this technology will become commercially available?
I have a garage roof which I’d love to cover in solar PV, but it’s sloping exactly in the wrong direction, lowest part facing North. Strikes me Agile would sole this problem for me!
Matt, this is an excellent video. Thank you for your ongoing efforts. I have two thoughts. FIRST, you show a graphic of the sun's movement starting at 2:36. This graphic is technically incorrect because it shows the axis of the sun's motion changing. Yes, the sun moves in an arc about the house. But the axis of that arc is always aligned with the earth's axis. On the equinox, the plane of the arc intersects the house. At noon, the sun passes over the house at a 90 degree angle to the axis of rotation. At winter solstice, that same arc, on the same axis, shifts towards the equator so that at noon the angle to the sun from the axis is 90 degrees minus 22.5 degrees. This arc intersects the horizon towards the equator from east and west. By the summer equinox the arc shifts away from the equator to give a sun angle at noon 22.5 degrees higher than 90 degrees to the axis. That arc intersects the horizon away from the equator from east and west. In essence, the circular path of the sun shifts in an approximately sinusoidal way north and south along the earth's axis. Bringing this back to your video, there is a practical implication related to movable panels. You point out that aiming the panel brings collection improvements but that each axis of motion costs money. If one panel motion axis is aligned with the earth's axis, there is a great benefit to providing timed motion about this axis (at 15 degrees per hour). Even if the panel were fixed in the other axis to be perpendicular to the axis, the greatest sun angle error would be 22.5 degrees. If the panel can be manually adjusted just a few times a year, this error can be reduced, resulting in negligible collection loss. So you get almost everything with only one, simply timed, axis plus a simple manual adjustment a few times a year. SECOND: I believe that energy collected by solar panels is very closely tied to the sun flux intercepted. Losses at low angles are modest, I believe. For this reason, I believe the AGILE device will provide little benefit in terms of sun energy collection. Instead, I believe it may be better to think of AGILE as a solar concentrator that may enable the use of smaller, more efficient (and expensive per unit area) solar cells. Thanks again for your thought-provoking videos!
This is a great innovation. More focusing lenses makes panels more recyclable and requires fewer rare elements due to fewer actual solar cells needed. It may not be the be-all-end-all for solar, but every innovation to the process helps!
An interesting observation about seasonal needs and tracking system orientation is that in heating dominated climates orienting a single access tracker east west so that it points down at the lower winter sun better, provides 30% more electricity in the winter when it’s needed more.
Hi, thanks for the nice video. Try angling the panels 90 degrees towards the sun when there are equinoxes. then you spread the energy by having a slightly higher effect just at the equinoxes. Have a good day.
Yes this is exactly what I am waiting for. Something to boost performance
If I understand this correctly, it's a very similar effect to the Fresnel lenses used by lighthouses to extend their visible range... but instead it's collecting sunlight and focusing it on the solar cell. Very cool... and seems like it should be scalable.
This is great but what is solution for storage of solar generated energy?
Lithium phosphate or sulfate batteries as they can last for about 10 years and are recyclable.
Always been a great source of information and knowledge
That's cool but it seems that the power comparison isn't per square foot of panel area and are instead on PV cell area. If I am correct then the numbers are a bit cooked and wouldn't reflect total panel area. Also that prism seems like a lot of material when you expand it out across a lot of surface area due to the added depth, does it need glass on top of it too? etc. If it turns out to be a better option, that's cool but I would be surprised if it has a cost advantage over standard panels in the future.
Wow Mic's still alive! Must be pumping in the Supplements Hot & Heavy to keep that Vegan Corpselike Body going. 🤣🍔🥓🥓