Optical Concentrator To Make Solar Power Cheaper 141
Al writes "Researchers at a company called Morgan Solar have developed a simple solar concentrator that promises to cut the cost of solar energy. The Light-Guide Solar Optic (LSO) consists of a specially-molded acrylic optic that traps light and guides it toward its center using total internal reflection. At the middle of the concentrator another optic made of glass receives the incoming light, amplifies it and directs it toward a small solar cell at the very center of the device. Unlike other concentrators, the light doesn't leave the optic before striking a solar cell so there's no air gap, and there's no chance of fragile components being knocked out of alignment. This could significantly reduce the cost of manufacturing this type of solar cell."
I object to the word "amplify". (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no "amplification" taking place at all, merely concentration. Those are two VERY different things.
Very original idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Amplifying light with a glass 'optic' would be quite original. Concentrating it yes, but amplifying it?
I would be very impressed if they have actually achieved it.
Re:"Cheaper" Power Cells (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they used to be insanely, ridiculously, incredibly damned expensive. Now they are merely damned expensive. In a decade or so they will be down to expensive. Someday they will be cheap, but the sun may go out first.
Tilting is overrated (Score:4, Insightful)
A flat panel can be pointed at the position of the midday sun, and left stationary would have a reduced aperture to the sun as a result of the angle in the morning and evening. Turning the whole assembly helps. But, if there are many panels, they would have to be spread out or else some will shadow parts of others. Basically, it comes down to capture area. If you have a 10 meter by 10 meter area, there's only so much sun that enters it. In the morning and evening, there is less sun entering that area because of the angle. If you have one giant 10m by 10m panel that in there that gets tilted, its shadow will be outside the area, and you're actually capturing sun that would go outside. If you are have lots of small 100cm x 100cm panels, tilting them doesn't help because of the shadows. Remember, there's less total sunlight to get at an angle. Tilting is only an advantage when you have less than 100% coverage, and are willing to lose sun at midday.
Tilting is also a mechanical thing which means some kind of control mechanism, more exposure to failure, and greater maintenance costs.
An optical structure that would funnel light from any angle over a reasonably wide angle range would be the ideal solution. It would handle the change from morning to midday to evening, and would handle the diffuse light of cloudy weather. That's the thing to work on.
Re:neat idea. What do they do with the heat though (Score:3, Insightful)
Heat water with the waste heat.
When the water tank gets too hot you heat the house with it (or dump the heat outside).
I'd use an oil loop between the collectors and an over-sized water tank.
Plastics make Problems (Score:3, Insightful)
The plastic is the problem. Can't we do it with all glass? If you use a solar furnace you can make it with solar energy. Alternately, if you get enough PV, you can run an electric furnace. Either way, plastic is nasty and sand is everywhere. (Some of the additives in glass are nasty, to be fair. But not all glass is nasty. All plastic is either nasty or has a short life when exposed to UV. Much is nasty AND has a short life.
Another "investor opportunity"? (Score:4, Insightful)
The article, A Cheaper Solar Concentrator [technologyreview.com], referenced in the Slashdot story says, "With a flat bottom and convex, mirrored top, the [Morgan Solar [morgansolar.com]] optic receives the incoming barrage of light at a concentration of about 50 suns and amplifies it to nearly 1,000 suns before bending the light through a 90-degree angle."
The article does not explain how there is a concentration of 50 times before the light reaches the optics. The article is wrong in using the word "amplifies". The correct word would be "concentrates".
To have a 1,000 times concentration, the area of the optics must be 1,000 times larger than the area of the solar cell. That delivers 1,000 times the heat, also.
Morgan Solar's investors page [morgansolar.com] says, "Morgan Solar was incorporated in June 2007 and is currently well funded by a start-up investment from our angel investor and Chairman, Eric Morgan." Apparently the company was funded by the inventor or someone in his family. It says, "Our plans call for securing our next round of investment funding by Q1 2009. If you are a venture capital company or a potential partner-investor interested in exploring investment opportunities with our company, please contact us."
Was a Slashdot editor paid to allow this story? Did Slashdot profit? Was Technology Review paid to run the story? I think that articles about companies that are soliciting investments should have a statement about whether or not someone was paid.