On Oct 3, 2012, at 1:33 AM, [email protected] wrote: > With normal solar cells, the cell is exposed to the light 100% of the time > that > the light is shining. If the cell "spins away" then it clearly isn't exposed > to > the light, therefore during the time that it is not exposed, it generates no > energy. I wonder what it averages out to if this is taken into account?
Individual PV-cell is operating at 20x efficiency, because the light is concentrated with lenses. However as only minor portion of the cone is in direct sunlight at the time, the total amount of silicon required is only about 75 % less than with conventional flat solar panels. As the structure of the rotating cone and lensing system is far more complex than with flat panels, the cost effectiveness is assumed to be as a whole ca. 50 % better than with flat panels. The idea behind is just brilliant and it is a parade example of out of the box thinking, where traditional flat Earth thinking is replaced by something more three dimensional. The rotating cone design solves quite many problems that are major issues with flat solar panels. The heating problem is solved with effective and economical cooling system. This is perhaps the most important. And when there is less heat, the efficiency and endurance of PV-cells is far better. Actually cooling is so effective that it allows the lens concentration of light. For flat panels direct midday and midsummer sunlight brings too much heating even without extra lensing. The second most important thing is that as it is a cone shaped, it does not require expensive direction systems that follows the sun. If flat panels can follow the sun during the daylight hours, it is quite expensive to create robust enough structures so that storm does not destroy the solar park. Cone shaped solar cells have optimal aerodynamical properties and thus they require little reinforcement for the storms. Third is that the efficiency is better for rotating PV-cells, because there is less heat production. Therefore less cooling is required or lensing factor can be significantly higher. Also as only minor portion of the cells are exposed for the direct sunlight at the time, the longevity of PV-cells is better, because the lifetime of solar cells is directly proportional to the hours that PV-cell is in direct sunlight. Fourth improvement is that cone shaped solar cell can utilise also indirect sunlight. This especially important in cloudy days, when light is abundant but almost all light is indirect. And the fifth improvement is that due to rapid rotation of the cone, AC electricity can be generated without inverter. In small scale solar cells, the cost of inverter is about ￠45 per Wp installed. This is ca. 10-20 percent of the total cost of the solar power. In sum this is just superb concept and for me as huge fan of solar power, it was a love in first sight. Just look the shapes of the cone! I hope that it will come in different colours. ―Jouni
