A different kind of solar power

AI Thread Summary
Current solar cells have a maximum efficiency of about 25%, but an alternative approach suggests using sunlight as a heat source with focused lenses to improve efficiency. By concentrating sunlight onto a smaller area, it may be possible to heat a liquid, such as water, to achieve higher efficiency levels than conventional solar cells. However, challenges include the complexity of creating large lenses, the need for precise orientation, and potential issues with energy yields. Direct solar heating is already implemented in Europe, particularly Germany, but it often requires supplementary heating methods. Innovations like parabolic reflectors and thermionic solar technology may offer solutions, yet tracking difficulties and the efficiency of multijunction cells remain concerns.
Just some guy
Messages
69
Reaction score
1
Well this is fairly simple so I guess there's a flaw in my 'plan' somewhere :p, but hey here goes.

Current solar cells are only about 25% efficient, however instead of using sunlight to directly generate electrical current why not use it as a heat source?

Of course sunlight is normally low grade heat, but why can't giant lens systems be used to focus the sunlight on a smaller area? Lenses are just ground class and they could be pretty crude, and the only energy losses would be from sunlight reflecting off the surface of whatever they're heating. If you heated a fairly volatile liquid with a low reflectivity (um...water with black dye? :p ok maybe something more refined than that) then you would only need to heat up the water to just a bit over boiling point to have a theoretical maximum efficiency of >25% (if your cold reservoir was the sea or something cold like that), and considering how tightly you could focus the sunlight the efficiency could be bumped to well over that of a conventional solar cell, and all that using ground glass and a simple heat engine.

So where's the flaw? why hasn't it been done? would the yeilds be too low to bother with the whole thing? Is making giant lenses harder than I think?

Cheers,
Zac.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Im not sure about the efficiency of these but it sounds very similar to what you are describing.
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=44696
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You can, of course, also use solar to heat water for heat and hot water, with very high efficiencies. And you don't need black water - just black pipes.
 
Just some guy said:
So where's the flaw? why hasn't it been done? would the yeilds be too low to bother with the whole thing? Is making giant lenses harder than I think?
Direct solar heating is currently used in Europe, mostly in Germany. Of course you can't use only solar heating, you need to complete with another kind of heating.

Lenses are big and must be oriented. What you do is use parabolic reflectors in the back of each pipe. Pipe panels are fixed and inclined to be perpendicular to the Sun.

Don't forget to put antifreeze in the water (some have).
 
Sunlight can be concentrated and used with a Stirling engine.
check:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine

There is also something called, I think thermionicsolar. It uses a semiconductor with a low band gap and gets energy from a heat source.

There are some problems with concentrators though mainly due to tracking. Also, with the use of multijunction cells, some people (I think spectrolab and boeing if I remember correctly) have achieved 39% efficiency.

Check out Fresnel lenses for a cheaper method to concentrating light.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top