Hi Guys, Ryan here! Thanks for watching, I enjoyed going down this solar lens rabbit hole and was really surprised at how some of them managed to increase solar energy production! Also, make sure to go check the awesome work from my friends at Planet Wild as they restoring our natural world: Deep sea clean-up: www.planetwild.com/ziroth/2 Resurrection of a dying forest: www.planetwild.com/ziroth/3
you should revisit this with vertical aligned dual-face PV panels and rather than a single point Fresnel lens, use the thin bar orientation so the bar is focused into a line that paths with the sun across the PV cells. This gives you the added benefit of both the Fresnel concentration and the cooling of the upright dual face orientation without any moving parts or tracking needed. As well as a vast reduction in the amount of surface cleaning required. And there's another tier of benefit to this if you can surround the panels with a box of mirror walls that are angled out, and tall enough to prevent line of sight between the PV cells and any radiant surface like trees, or walls, etc. There's an effect with a fancy name that escapes me at the moment, but the result of it is cooling with no energy or moving parts. The reflection of heat off of matter helps equalize the heat energy between everything on the ground, but if you prevent those waves of energy from reaching a surface that is open to the sky, that surface only sends heat out, none returns through sharing radiant heat. Long story short, it's free added cooling. This, as you know, means even more energy throughput for the PV cells. The daily output should exceed 200% as compared to normal horizontally aligned PV cells that lose a large amount of energy to heat. This is before the cost of moving panels to face the sun, cleaning those panels, and maintaining all of those moving parts or supplying that labor is even considered. Vertically aligned PV panels under Fresnel concentrators wrapped with inward facing mirrors allowing radiant heat loss results in a system of energy generation that's vastly cheaper per unit of energy than any commercial option. And it can be done at any scale in all environments where the vast majority of people live and work. Where this doesn't work we have diesel. This is what the individual laymen should be doing. No moving parts, best possible mass produced efficiency, no difficult alignment, simplified cleaning and maintenance. It's as plug and play as a solar harvesting system can be, AND it's 200% more energy for the same solar footprint. But I ain't one to gossip, so you ain't heard that from me.
Would be great if you could revisit this video to adjust the audio levels. Sounds terribly distorted. Probably since it's too loud. Use a compressor rather than pulling up gain/volume?
The problem lenses solve is to reduce the amount of solar cell surface, which is good for the budget if cost of cells is the limiting factor. However as costs keep dropping and efficiencies creep upwards, increasingly the limiting factor is surface area, which lenses do not solve. Lenses also introduce their own problems, such as that efficiency with increasing angle of incidence drops far quicker.
Concentrated ev has overheating issues that counter benefits, so you need cooling system on top of lens/mirror. Back when ev panels in general were expensive and high efficiency monocrystalline panels had even more premium price (and big efficiency advantage) there may have been reason to pay for the whole mirror/lens+cooling package. And there were projects that did that with mirrors as you can have mirror shape that does sun tracking for you without need for that ridiculous giant lens. But what you said about panel price making this pointless is 100% spot on. Except it is not something that will happen in future, it's something that already has happened. Panel price has already dropped to fractions what it used to be and still dropping, they're so cheap right now that many places don't even bother to do sun tracking. They just put more panels at fixed angle instead cause its cheaper and less maintenance. So more panels is cheaper that bargain motor from china to adjust ev panel angle... I'd say that's just another startup scam like solar roads or atomic batteries. It just tries to resell idea that was already tried and did not survive economic reality.
Well, the main problem is that you trade immediate money saving for faster solar panel degradation due to heat. And if you do try to solve that, the price will go up again.
@@sznikers I agree with you and the original commenter, however it's really sad that it is that way. Because it somewhat contradicts the reason we want solar power. We want sustainable energy and to be more mindful of the resources we use on earth. But for some reason the main solution for more solar power is to produce more solarpanels which costs alot of rare raw materials aswell as a special silicon which alot of it is produced by burning coal... that's not sustainable. So to try and mine less materials we should explore more options like these lenses and limit the amount of mining needed. And sure it might end up being worse but it is good that we are trying. As for the cost, if we didn't power through despite high solar panel costs we wouldn't be where we are today. So to dismiss a potential solution because of high costs ia plain stupid. Sure I know that's not how the free market works, but those that has the choice should definitely try to support more innovation
Here is the thing about any type of lense as far as I am aware: the solar panel needs to be smaller than the lens, which means less solar panels per area. Because all a lens does is concentrating light from a wider area to a smaller one. So how much more energy can actually be harvested from a lens + solar panel setup, vs a solar panel alone using the same area that the first setup uses?
I think the point is to rather save money by needing less solar panels (lens should be cheaper than a solar panel). But it will still use a similar amount of space.
@@protonneutron9046 That's why we add a cooling jacket and harvest that heat for domestic hot water. It isn't the light that kills the cells, it's the heat.
Absolicon had a parabolic trough with a multijunction cell at the bottom and a copper pipe heating water on the back. It was such a clean design that could be easily scaled to any size. The trough had only a single axis and one regulator could work for essentially any length. It was better than anything I've seen since.
@@rehenaziasmen4603 If you don't know the physics that makes it preposterously stupid, well, it's probably not worth your time, unless you want to change that. It's not deep physics, but there is a lot of really obvious, basic level math (algebra II level). And I'll presume you don't have that, or you'd already have a good idea why this is so stupid an idea. I detail a few obvious facts about solar energy in a top-level response just put out a few minutes ago. Ziroth seems to latch onto any preposterously cockamamie "That's cool!" idea he encounters, with no capacity to actually identify problem areas.
@@rehenaziasmen4603It's insanely inefficient. It's insanely expensive. It's insanely difficult. It's insanely dangerous. The lenses need an insane amount of constant adjustment, maintenance and cleaning. All when they can just use photovoltaic cells.
As far as I know, and it used to definitely be true some years back, it is impossible to focus diffuse light such as light going through a cloud or heavy haze. So the lens approach can be expected to function very well in dry sunny climates such as Arizona and New Mexico but not well in eastern cloudy and hazy states. A regular solar panel not relying on lenses does function reasonably well through haze and somewhat also through thin clouds. Another technical issue that can be solved is that the focal point of the light going through a lens will change location as the sun moves. This means that maintaining the lens focus on the solar panel increases the complexity of the design and hence likely the cost for the product and its maintenance. One never knows what advances can be made these days so never say never! We do need to address these issues.
Love seeing the speculation and inquisitiveness. I've been to hundreds of systems, the reality is cost is tantamount, and all these systems are far more expensive, materials, installation and maintenance, solar trackers fail, and sit there, a few more panels makes up the added wattage from tracking. Concentrated is a nonstarter for all the reasons you mention. the peroskovites are possible, if , if if. The real cost holdout is the battery storage, the inverters ( EG4 600xp ) and Panels have come down enormously, its the batteries and regulations / codes governments along with lack of funding is holding up much , much wider application. Theodore
Commonly, the more temperatures in any machine fluctuate, the less life expectancy you can expect. Since those systems would wobble between hundreds of c° by day and ambient temp by night, some trouble is to be expected. Even normal unconcentrated systems need to be fixed to their lattice keeping expansions and contractions in mind. There are gliding mountings in all of those roof-systems because they too have big temp fluctuations and panels shift on any given day.
cause the light gets too concentrated. But if you think about it its just place another smaller lens between the sphere and the solar panel, making the light scatter a bit. So it won't damage the panel and it will be like its almays mid day for the panel
basically: Concentrated Solar PV only has real benefit if 1) the PV panels are significantly more efficient with intense sunlight, as to offset the inefficiency of lenses. though this is very much doable, and even possible with conventional PV panels. 2) the cost saving of having less panels per square kilometer can offset the cost increase of having lenses, which can only happen if CPV fully matures and adapted. 3) we can somehow make use of the heat from the cooling of the panels without too much cost, such as a temperature sensitive stirling generator or Peltier devices (Thermoelectric semiconductors / Thermocouple) without using too much cost. the hardest of the three to solve is basically #3 but if PV panels mature enough we can completely ignore energy loss from #3 if it can compensate with higher power output per square kilometer with same cost, or similar power output per square kilometer with less cost
I am 100% solar and I love it. I was up one night brainstorming like always and I was trying to figure out hot water from the sun and it dawned on me. I would not even mention this if someone in Europe is already doing it, Dual Solar panels that are more efficient from water cooling and to use the hot water. It makes 100% sense to me.
The saying is 'take it with a pinch of salt' because a pinch of salt makes a large difference to the flavour of a dish whereas a grain of salt would not be noticeable. However, a very interesting treatise on possible alternative energy technology. Thank you.
When panels were expensive. Many companies tried to get into the solar market, trying to use technology to get an upper hand. A big endevour here focused on fapour deposition solar panels ... but after multicrystaline panels got so cheap, nobody wanted to invest countless millions more when there are square killometers of roof space still available to be plastered. I think the best takeway is to optimize setups and get a few percent out of them. Add cooling and maybe some mirrors to catch more ambient or morning/evening sun, and it will be a nice solution for most.
As other have already written: - the solar panel needs to be smaller than the lens, which means less solar panels per area - more expensive solar panels + lens and perhaps more crucial: - solar panels are much easier to clean than the jagged surface of a fernel lens, where dirt and dust will accumulate. Seem like good only in theory. In the real world we need to take into consideration practical things like unit economics, maintenance etc. This is not a great idea imo
Right, maybe a better invention would be mirrors mounted on a motorized stall to send back light on the other side of the house while the sun is on the EAST/WEST side. We have panels placed in an EAST/WEST combination and I can see that the energy moves from one string to the other during a normal day. Having a large mirror in the back of my yard that would send light on the EAST side of the roof while the sun is already on the west side would increase production by at least 60-70% percent as the panels on the EAST no longer get enough light. Same could be applied at sunrise for the panels placed on the WEST side but I don't really want a huge mirror in front of my house lol.
@@alexandruilea915 you can have mirror shape that does sun tracking for you and it has been previously done to focus light on expensive multilayer monocrystal ev cell. All those ideas were abandoned simply because mass manufacturing of simple ev panels dropped the price so low none of that makes sense anymore.
1) there is nothing unusual happening with the climate. 2) there is nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels. Its problems in high-density areas are trivial to fix and already have been fixed. CO2 is not a pollutant. 3) Climate alarmism is a big-lie superstition supported by tax-bribed liars. (See Climate Discussion Nexus for 100s of videos on climate quackery, deception, and realism.) 4) decarbonization is 21st century pyramid building and human sacrifice. 5) there is NO excuse for expensive electricity. Electricity generation is boring. Just burn coal and scrub the smoke in densely populated areas. 6) the only challenge is manufacturing market quantities of cheap gasoline. South Africa has already done this for decades (Sasol), using coal.
The Fresnel lenses in lighthouses need constant cleaning to operate efficiently. Dust, pollen, and deposits from rain are always going to hinder the operation of concentrators, and this will add to the overall upkeep cost when coupled with solar panels that also require occasional cleaning. The inexpensive flat plastic Fresnel lens is the worst choice as a concentrator a its grooves are so fine that it may be near impossible to keep them clean without sandwiching the film in glass and adding to the cost that might just be better spent on additional solar panels.
[Fresnel lenses work totally different than described.] CORRECTION: NOT. THE REST IS ABOUT FRESNEL ZONE PLATES. A Fresnel lens has concentric circles that block the light. It does not work usin a difractive material, rather blocking half of waves essentially leaving the parts where the wave phase make them stronger in the focal point and block where the phases would kill each other. Because of this the Fresnel lenses start with 50% efficiency, but you can use them for non diffractive waves, like X-ray or sound. For sound we did some experiments with cardboards, the lenses were ten feet diameter, and it worked. It was a school project 45 years ago.
First, they are spelled Fresnel, not "Freshnel". Second, the arguments you present don't sound correct, and if anything, sound more like you're describing polarizers than lenses. Maybe trusting your memory from childhood of 40 years ago isn't a good idea.
I think 2023 is a good year for the environment with increased use of solar and other renewable energy sources along with recent breakthroughs in clean energy.
Well, I always thought about index lens focusing light into light guide made from light fiber. In house, it can help remove windows which make energy savings. And in production it could help make focused energy flow to heat up heat storage, which can be heat source for stirling, for example.
Put a stirling generator on the opposite side of the hot solar panel. There will be a temp difference between them and you can even increase that difference. If the panel is made tough enough, maybe being hot won't matter.
I agree, Stirling generator would be great , with them running off the temperature differently they could stay running after the sun is down but the cells cooling down a night
In multilayer solar panels, solar efficiency doesn't increase because of concentration rather it is because of a wider range of energy bandgaps being absorbed from the sunlight. Each layer is designed to absorb a different energy bandgap.
compliments for the interesting video... happy to see the Sant' Ilario solar plant of my home city, Genova.. just let me say that Solar concentration from my Uni started some years before, dated 1964 by Professor Francia Fresnel Mirror (LFC) system Best regards, Marco Fossa
Once i maid some research on solar concentration. There is another type of solar cell based on gallium arcenide that can stand very high temperatures, - opposite to silicon commonly used in solar panels. The problem with concentrators - they are much more expensive than panels to operate and can not compete with cheap prices of solar panels... Solar concentrator is useful when you need extremely high constant temperatures for some scientific research, there is just one very big concentrator like that found somewhere in France, and there are a lot of them that produce heat for commercial steam power generators. Most interesting project of solar miror concentrator i found, was 5 meter in diameter concentator conctructed to heat some poplar reseach station. it actulay was able to heat the water even in polar freezing cold and saved to bring there a lot of fuel...
From a quick check ages ago, I couldn't find any lens that where remotely cost effective. But the "tech ingredients" channel had a great idea of using thin aluminum sheets plated with silver (and I believe anti tarnishing plastic/film). Not that his example appeared remotely permanent (don't let it hail on the thing, nor let wind hit his contraption) put the mirrors and the idea of tracking with the lighter part appears as a good start for a solar system.
In the 6th grade (1978) I did a science fair project on a Solar Water desalination. My solar surfaces had magnifying glasses imbedded to help increase water temp to create steam/vapor to rise and hit the roof surface cooling and rolling down to the fresh water collectors. So I was RIGHT!!!! YEAH!
Connect the panels with quality Steel hinges along their length to form a concertina which are suspended from a single steel pole embedded in a concrete foundation, A manual winch retracts a steel cable attached to the panels elongating the stack of panels vertically. The angle between the panels is therefor adjustable. One panel receives direct sunlight, the panel above receives reflected light from the lower panel. The panels will operate cooler and therefore efficiency will increase. Ideally, one would take advantage of flexible solar panel tech in this situation and be purpose made; double-sided, concertina and installed vertically to face north-south. There are a long list of reasons for vertically mounting panels, e.g. self-cleaning - dust, leaves, space requirements- foot-print.
The main reasons are service life and efficiency due to them operating much cooler, one could expect up to 4% more power output over a day's production and up to 50% longer service life.
Many years ago, I was told about a group of people living on an island. They had A lens, focussed on a heavy, thick chunk of metal, on a large, reinforced water tank. The lens was set up, to track the sun. The intensified heat caused the water to turn to steam, which powered a generator. The water was also plumbed through pipes into the homes, with radiators, for heat and hot water use.
Yeah, that sounds like a story one would need concrete sources for. Possible in theory - but rather improbably as a practical insular engineering solution.
@@invisibilianone6288 Ehm...whut? Do you sincerely think _"somebody on the internet told me something happened somewhere sometime"_ is even vaguely equivalent to "the truth"? Because: The first is what you did here. The second is what I tried to archieve by asking you for a public source. "Truth" means you can show what you claim is real. Claiming something and - the upon being asked to give sources getting pissy or going into vague ad-hominem insinuations? Does not raise the probaility of your claim being true. As I said. Technically what you describe is possible. But like airships, fusion plants or monorails - that doesnt mean its a practicable engineering-solution. If such a system did indeed reliably function somewhere? I´d be highly interested to see how. So please : name the island or the technical system or the builder. If your only "proof" is questioning and making assumptions about my person ....when asked for specifics on the supposed tech you claim .... yeah, well.
@@FischerNilsA I've been looking, for info on this story I was told. The wise old man that told me about the small island was not one to make up stories. This was about 40 years ago, when the story was told to me, so, specific details as to name of island, or any persons residing there are escaping my memory, at this time. Orvin Stanwood, passed on in 2005 If I had paid more attention to his knowledge, when I was young, I would likely be much better off at this point in my life. Gasifier power, was one point of knowledge he and I started discussion on... Who knows how far that may have progressed, if I had kept after the research on it..😶 40years, could have been beneficial, or, it could be still where it's at today. . I'LL KEEP LOOKING for the place Stanwood RIP, was telling me about🎯
1) there is nothing unusual happening with the climate. 2) there is nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels. Its problems in high-density areas are trivial to fix and already have been fixed. CO2 is not a pollutant. 3) Climate alarmism is a big-lie superstition supported by tax-bribed liars. (See Climate Discussion Nexus for 100s of videos on climate quackery, deception, and realism.) 4) decarbonization is 21st century pyramid building and human sacrifice. 5) there is NO excuse for expensive electricity. Electricity generation is boring. Just burn coal and scrub the smoke in densely populated areas. 6) the only challenge is manufacturing market quantities of cheap gasoline. South Africa has already done this for decades (Sasol), using coal.
Very interesting. I work with a United States Government Contractor in the early 1980s that built large concentrating solar generators for research. They used your flat lenses with the small PVC at the bottom of a sealed box. The large assembly rotated on perimeter rails. The election of President Reagan caused the research to be canceled and moved to another company that built the single pier rotating solar generators you exhibit. I do not think we had 50% efficient solar cells in the 1980s though we were also researching PVC fabrication. I started building solar generators in the 1980s and have experienced great performance. Today I generate all my power from a single 100W solar panel.
@@josephpiskac2781 "I think". No you don't. It has nothing to do with ANY potUS. IT IS PHYSICS. Now rent a 4th grade education and a couple hundred points of IQ so you are at least at an average IQ level.
@@protonneutron9046 It's only more expensive when you ignore the externalities of other energy sources. Coal is super cheap, until you start looking at how it poisons the air, soil, and water. If we could add to the price the billions of dollars it costs to recover from the harms, it wouldn't be as cheap. System costs matter because nothing works in isolation.
@@JoeNunyabidness wrong!!!!!! Don't spew crap when you don't have an education. In fact, LIST them with primary sources with the cost accounting or admit insanity and being a liar.
I'm far from being an expert on solar energy but I was thinking about how hot the hood of a car can get in the sun. I've watched videos about using black tubing in a sort of box with a clear cover and letting the sun heat water in the tubes for hot water without electricity. So I'm wondering if Fresnel lenses could raise the temperature high enough convert the water to steam to run a turbine. Would need to use metal pipes and enclose the system so it wouldn't loose part of the steam into the air and waste water. Might could use something I read about years ago. Liquid ammonia I think. Vaporizes at a much lower temperature than water so it wouldn't need to get the pipes as hot. Good work on the video.
People are always looking for a way to over complicate it when there's no need to over complicate it. We in the US have so much desert land that we could produce all the energy we need with solar and we would only use a small fraction of the desert land for regular solar panels. The real problem has never been watts per a square foot of solar panels or not having enough land with direct sunlight. The problem has always been the rotation of the earth. It dark about half the day and light about half the day. Thee either needs to be an efficient and safe way to store the excess energy collected during the day so it can be used at night or on days it's cloudy. We keep coming up with overly complicated ways to store energy. Batteries are not dense enough. Molten salt is overly complicated and relies on the grid to keep from solidifying in the event there's not enough sun. Gravity storage such as huge amounts of water pumped to a higher elevation and then released to a lower elevation can work pretty good. But it too is a super huge endeavor to build and maintain. IMO, a combination of solar, wind, nuclear and fossil fuels are the only practical solution with current technology and the current state of the world's political unity and peace. What would a solution look like? The holy grail is of course direct radiation to energy production where heating water to steam is removed from the equation. Equally, fusion is a solution. But both are technologically outside our abilities at the moment. The other solution is a world electric grid with solar and wind production diversified throughout the world. The darkside of the earth is provided for by the lightside. But of course, although we as humans are capable technologically of that endeavor, we are far too immature as a species to cooperate enough to accomplish it. So, that puts us back to an all in solution on an individual national level until such technologies develope or humanity matures. I personally believe technology is the answer. Imagine if the world got together and offered $10 trillion dollars to the first company that could sustain fusion with 10+% positive energy production. There would be a race like none other to get it done. Imagine unlocking the race to a sustainable solution, driven by the greed of fame and fortune. The minds of the world aiming toward a singular goal. It wouldn't matter if their motivation was greed or the betterment of humanity or the betterment of the world. Regardless of motivation, the end goal is the same.
I saw solar panels combining photovoltaic and solarthermic parts. The solarthermic tubes reduce the heat of the panels, while storing energy in form of heated water.
Ivanpah, which you show, is a ghastly contraption that does have a large steam generator and it is absolutely fabulous at catching birds flying through the lens path and making them explode. Not nice. Fresnel lenses are just great, but note you still need the extra area of the lens to capture the extra solar energy, as you say, so if you do this at scale you need massive lenses and fewer solar panels, but the lenses have to be between the panels and the sun so you need a steerable array which costs money so its all a big waste of time. I wrote this while watching your video so I didn't waste more time than needed. Multi layer solar panels will be available from Longi soon, operating at required efficiency and no extra cost. with no tracking needed. Thanks for playing. Nice try. Thank you.
4m^2 of fresnel lens might make sense on the outside wall of my house, to bring in more winter sunshine through a light pipe for direct heating. Then there's making hot coals in the daytime for the nighttime. If you can get 15kg up to 800 Celsius, might be good. 15*1000*800*1.8 = 6kWh. (1.8J/g latent heat, 3.6MJ per kWh).
@@NavajoNinjaNo, but life requires sources of low entropy to continue its complex functioning. Sunlight is low entropy compared to high entropy thermal chaos.
It needs ultra fast shuttering to allow the panel to cool while receiving high pwered spikes, which as noted leads to higher efficiency in the panel the duty cycle coild split into thirds or fourths, redirecring the concentrated beam to another nearby. The shadow phase of the cycle should be embraced, as it allows the PV's charge to reset to zero, then when reilluminated it must polarize fully, turning a DC PV cell into a high energy impulse PV cell with ceramic capacitor like outputs if it were drawn for a pulse power supply. The benifits will be many, as the cells now naturally cool for 67% or 75% of the wave duty cycle, and the output power is tri-phase or quad-phase impulse current which is literally THE most efficent form of power transmission. More than AC, and more than 'high voltage DC' (signal is square waves arranged in a myan pyramid shape; outpreforms AC -- yet impulse DC is best). Systems of concentrated power behave differently than those not designed for it. An impulse system only transmits energy with very dense flux, compared to AC with much less density of flux over time. A monocystal PV with silvered nano wire or even modified layers of translucent carbon fiber as condutors (to hold the charge beond what the doped monocrystals hold; aka, the something that has to connect to the wire for the grid, its usually normal metal girds on each face)... something like that should contain bursts of intense energy easily if cooled for most of it's duty cycle.
I think the reason the panels can generate _"more"_ energy than the other panels is because the reality is the energy we're getting from the sun is like the tiniest fraction of the energy available, the visible light we see is like (I dont know the numbers this is a guess) probably only somewhere in the region of less than 4% of the total energy the sun dumps onto our planet. So these lenses are just concentrating the energy output, and the panels can take advantage of them. I'm not a scientist, no degrees in anything - But this sort of stuff gives me optimism for a day when 95%+ of our energy needs come from things that dont murder the ecosystems :)
I keep seeing "less solar panel per area" but that doesnt matter - its the area to conversion that matters - not the area of the panel it self. If anything, this is a good thing to have to use less panel surface. The main problem is just heat as to say, even at higher conversion rate, these are still collecting heat or it doesnt have a good way to convert IR light into power before it hits the panel it self. Thats what you need to fight. Some method to convert the unused light into something that we can pull power from before it hits the panel. So, while I think this is the best idea, it still needs more research into how we can use the lens to convert the unused light into something else as well. Either it be moving that heat into water or some how up convert the IR into light. A system that can convert 100% energy will never get hot. As heat is a method of loss. Yet, a system like this doesnt have to hit 100% - it only needs to hit a precent that ground air movement can control (as we have wind). Lenses are a good thing because it should last way longer than the panel it self along with the fact it should be cheaper than the solar panel it self. Thus having to replace only the solar panels should come down in cost while you keep all the other benefits of what the lens array is giving you. This type of system will maybe never see roof top - but for grid power generations this shouldnt be as big of a problem.
modern solar pv cells are 22% to 24% efficient and mass produced concentrator pv will likely be less efficient than laboratory cells. in addition concentrator cells do not collect scattered sunlight, thus cpv will be effectively less than double rather than 3x efficient compared to standard solar cells. then the cpv is also much more expensive as you point out, plus much more finnicky due to need for high precision tracking.
The concentration only works better because of these specific new solar things that operate at higher efficiency when concentrated. I was so confuesed up until you got to that part.
very interesting concept. it seems like itll come down to healthy competition. who will win, traditional solar as it get ever more efficient or novel approaches like this? both are good and it's really a battle of economics and supply chain. fun to think about :)
The better solution would seem to be to focus the lens directly on the liquid medium used to run a generator, thus completely eliminating solar panels, which are fairly inefficient.
There's another aspect to lens concentration being ignored here. You can use lenses to concentrate only the wavelengths that are ideal for the PV cell, and reflect those which are not ideal, and that can radically reduce heat in the cell, helping them to operate much more efficiently without dramatic cooling overhead.
Why don’t they put the excess heat into the ground and then use it through the winter? Yes, more cost but more applications for the same amount of land.
The main drawback to energy production becomes area/space. However the answers currently put forward are complex and costly requiring maintenance and educated personnel.. a return to high volume low tech is what's needed.
3:50 Actually You can pump water through a pipe without using electricity if you attach A windmill. Not to mention the mere process of the windmill Liquid lines would produce more electricity While still providing a cooling effect.
Perhaps if we were to use this type tech towards producing / cleaning our water thru distillation processes and /or by flashing into steam. If we could harness this flash point pressure we could produce not only fresh water but electricity due to expansion rate of water. It could be scalable and stand alone , able to use in polluted waters/ saltwater/ puddles... The by products would be solids able to be processed/sold or added to soil or any number of uses. They could sit on the ocean using nothing. Zero , making fresh water all day. No moving parts. Or big ones next to oil rigs producing fresh water and power using just focused beams of light on a mechanism and casing able to withstand the flashing of water to steam and direct its path. I have thought of this idea for years and have a idea of this mechanism's appearance. I saw it in a dream and it was about two foot long and 8 to 10 inches in diameter running into a bank of pipes or pipe rack. My 24yr background in refractory lends me to think it was one in a series of these mechanisms. It was relativity simple with just a few pipes attaching to this module with could be carried by one person about 60 to 80 lbs. Thanks for letting me speel...... I like the topic ..
If only there was a way to harness the immense energy within the atom.. something like.. a nuclear energy or something like that. Someone should get on that.
I don't meen to throw shade on this subject, but the reality of the mater truly is HOW the PV cells convert light to power. This is all sort of backwards thinking in a way.. If you take 1 solar cell, and throw a dedicated lens on top of it that (in your case is was about 5 times the size of the cell), it is more beneficial in the long run to use more cells. What I meen is there is only so many photons hitting that square inch, meter, or kilometer of the planets surface period. It's all about efficiency over that given space. Adding any form of lens adds more space used. It's not a game of focusing the light.. It's about what the panels do when the light gets to them. That's the real challenge.
As he said, point of the lens is to make better use, of _expensive and hard to produce_ cells. Specifically the cells he spoke of that get _more_ efficient with more concentrated light. So that you get more power out of a given land area than with traditional cells without a lens. The cell he spoke of claimed to be able to reach 45% efficiency when under a lens. Which is far better than the 15-25% efficiency of the typical solar cells currently on the market. So, out of a given area, you will get 2-3x the energy output.
You went larger, the same is true if you go smaller, the lens uses more area, but the panel it self becomes smaller. So you make your panels on a mother glass that can produce 100 cells, that 50 cells per lens area of the same area with another 50 that can go into another lens array panel. So you are doubling the amount of area for double the power output at half the cost per cell for that lens array panel. I mean this is common math here.
What about using a Stirling Engine in conjunction with the Beta Eye? The Stirling Engine already uses heat differences to generate power AND equalizes the temperature between the 2 points over time. While this will not cool a Solar Panel enough, it might be able to use the concentrated solar light from the Beta Eye better since it is already built for more extreme temperatures.
I really like this idea. Stirling engines have come a long way. They are a no-maintenance, direct to electricity choice. Done right, solar panels are not even needed.
@@4IAS4 hmmm there is always some cost. Energy is all around us all the time. Its just a matter of collecting and harvesting it in a economic way.. solor panel produce a lot of heat so....
The best 'normal' single junction PV cells are already at 22+% efficiency. You're using an outdated baseline reference. Yes they were around just 17% efficient ten years or so ago
Not really, commercially available ones are around 15 to 20 percent, but in the lab's, they have up to 50 percent efficiency but that is not something you can buy just yet
@@tom79623 Only multi-junction solar panels reach 50% efficiency and they're too expensive for 'normal' use. You'll find them on satellites for example.
2:55 I think the heating up of the solar panel will be the problem of the efficiency in the end. if you could cool it down it would be way more efficient with a lense. Haven't seen the entire video yet.
"While these are still widely used..." Uh, no. They were never "widely used." In fact, most solar mirror systems have been abandoned due to high costs per kW-hr produced. Kudos with respect to solar concentration. Combined with Vertical Bifacial Solar Panels, which significantly reduce electricity-killing temperature, and high ground albedo, we might just see an improvement (reduction) with respect to total life-cycle costs per kW-hr.
Personally, I want to see the Beta Eye without the solar panel, and instead just use it as a laser beam. }: ) More seriously, specially-shaped mirrors that will redirect the beam from the sphere towards the same location wherever the beam lands on the mirror would remove the need for moving parts, but wouldn't handle the size issue. The multi-focal lens is probably the best bet. Honestly, though, I just don't see solar power being terribly efficient until we figure out how to transport it from orbit. Build the power generator up above the atmosphere, and we're getting much more efficient.
Overheating of most solar cells leads them to become less efficient...thus tracking should not be for max sun exposure but max efficiency...always following the sun will work against you in hot climates. Weird idea..put them underground..always cool there...use light pipes(fiber optics) to bring the light to the panels...that way you can still use the ground on top of them.
Make a type of brick with PZT layering or just synthesize a Piezoelectric Brick & charge it with Fresnel Lens amplified solar beams and you have an effecient energy harvester.
only the fresenius solution seems like it has some actual potential in practice. the any angle of incidence lens idk, probably not really better than a tracker.
I don’t see how it would be more efficient. X amount of light still hits the sphere and light that comes in from the sides is minimal. Directly square footage is square footage regardless of sphere or flat plate. I see it could concentrate light on a more efficient tiny solar panel. So I’d rather see multi layer panels that can take in different wave forms and create more electricity. Hopefully more efficiently.
What about, if Fresnel lens directs sun to small vacuum box with highly absorbing heating element through transparent side. Other inner sides would be covered with announced 40% efficient infrared panels backed with mirrors to catch heat radiation from element?
Maybe instead of glass we can use a sphere full of water so if it starts a fire or starts frying people we can trigger an emergency switch to empty the water?
Hi Guys, Ryan here! Thanks for watching, I enjoyed going down this solar lens rabbit hole and was really surprised at how some of them managed to increase solar energy production! Also, make sure to go check the awesome work from my friends at Planet Wild as they restoring our natural world:
Deep sea clean-up: www.planetwild.com/ziroth/2
Resurrection of a dying forest: www.planetwild.com/ziroth/3
Oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo9ooooooooooo
Mpnr😂😂
you should revisit this with vertical aligned dual-face PV panels and rather than a single point Fresnel lens, use the thin bar orientation so the bar is focused into a line that paths with the sun across the PV cells. This gives you the added benefit of both the Fresnel concentration and the cooling of the upright dual face orientation without any moving parts or tracking needed. As well as a vast reduction in the amount of surface cleaning required.
And there's another tier of benefit to this if you can surround the panels with a box of mirror walls that are angled out, and tall enough to prevent line of sight between the PV cells and any radiant surface like trees, or walls, etc. There's an effect with a fancy name that escapes me at the moment, but the result of it is cooling with no energy or moving parts. The reflection of heat off of matter helps equalize the heat energy between everything on the ground, but if you prevent those waves of energy from reaching a surface that is open to the sky, that surface only sends heat out, none returns through sharing radiant heat.
Long story short, it's free added cooling. This, as you know, means even more energy throughput for the PV cells. The daily output should exceed 200% as compared to normal horizontally aligned PV cells that lose a large amount of energy to heat. This is before the cost of moving panels to face the sun, cleaning those panels, and maintaining all of those moving parts or supplying that labor is even considered.
Vertically aligned PV panels under Fresnel concentrators wrapped with inward facing mirrors allowing radiant heat loss results in a system of energy generation that's vastly cheaper per unit of energy than any commercial option. And it can be done at any scale in all environments where the vast majority of people live and work. Where this doesn't work we have diesel.
This is what the individual laymen should be doing. No moving parts, best possible mass produced efficiency, no difficult alignment, simplified cleaning and maintenance. It's as plug and play as a solar harvesting system can be, AND it's 200% more energy for the same solar footprint.
But I ain't one to gossip, so you ain't heard that from me.
Would be great if you could revisit this video to adjust the audio levels. Sounds terribly distorted. Probably since it's too loud. Use a compressor rather than pulling up gain/volume?
❤
The problem lenses solve is to reduce the amount of solar cell surface, which is good for the budget if cost of cells is the limiting factor. However as costs keep dropping and efficiencies creep upwards, increasingly the limiting factor is surface area, which lenses do not solve. Lenses also introduce their own problems, such as that efficiency with increasing angle of incidence drops far quicker.
Concentrated ev has overheating issues that counter benefits, so you need cooling system on top of lens/mirror. Back when ev panels in general were expensive and high efficiency monocrystalline panels had even more premium price (and big efficiency advantage) there may have been reason to pay for the whole mirror/lens+cooling package. And there were projects that did that with mirrors as you can have mirror shape that does sun tracking for you without need for that ridiculous giant lens.
But what you said about panel price making this pointless is 100% spot on.
Except it is not something that will happen in future, it's something that already has happened.
Panel price has already dropped to fractions what it used to be and still dropping, they're so cheap right now that many places don't even bother to do sun tracking. They just put more panels at fixed angle instead cause its cheaper and less maintenance. So more panels is cheaper that bargain motor from china to adjust ev panel angle...
I'd say that's just another startup scam like solar roads or atomic batteries.
It just tries to resell idea that was already tried and did not survive economic reality.
@@sznikersindeed almost half the cool looking tech ideas in general are done by grifters running scam startups
Well, the main problem is that you trade immediate money saving for faster solar panel degradation due to heat. And if you do try to solve that, the price will go up again.
That why it does not exist. And there is a solar power plant with molten salt en focused mirrors. Porbably works better
@@sznikers I agree with you and the original commenter, however it's really sad that it is that way. Because it somewhat contradicts the reason we want solar power. We want sustainable energy and to be more mindful of the resources we use on earth. But for some reason the main solution for more solar power is to produce more solarpanels which costs alot of rare raw materials aswell as a special silicon which alot of it is produced by burning coal... that's not sustainable. So to try and mine less materials we should explore more options like these lenses and limit the amount of mining needed. And sure it might end up being worse but it is good that we are trying. As for the cost, if we didn't power through despite high solar panel costs we wouldn't be where we are today. So to dismiss a potential solution because of high costs ia plain stupid. Sure I know that's not how the free market works, but those that has the choice should definitely try to support more innovation
Here is the thing about any type of lense as far as I am aware: the solar panel needs to be smaller than the lens, which means less solar panels per area. Because all a lens does is concentrating light from a wider area to a smaller one. So how much more energy can actually be harvested from a lens + solar panel setup, vs a solar panel alone using the same area that the first setup uses?
Zero % more energy. That's the scam for people who lack the ability to use deductive logic.
I think the point is to rather save money by needing less solar panels (lens should be cheaper than a solar panel). But it will still use a similar amount of space.
@@matthewvanhelsdingen543 No net $ saved as the panels will degrade more quickly under magnified sun + cost of magnifiers, mountings, etc.
@@protonneutron9046 That's why we add a cooling jacket and harvest that heat for domestic hot water.
It isn't the light that kills the cells, it's the heat.
@@TimeSurfer206 LMAO!!!!!!!! God, the insanity just keeps pouring out of the brains of the terminally uneducated.
Absolicon had a parabolic trough with a multijunction cell at the bottom and a copper pipe heating water on the back. It was such a clean design that could be easily scaled to any size. The trough had only a single axis and one regulator could work for essentially any length. It was better than anything I've seen since.
I made one of these 4 years ago, and honestly its incredibly hard to stabilise. Even if you manage, all it takes is a heat wave and it goes nuts.
TL;DR: It is not. You're welcome... ;)
Thanks, saved me 9 minutes of listening to this homk
Thanks but i wanna know why
@@rehenaziasmen4603
If you don't know the physics that makes it preposterously stupid, well, it's probably not worth your time, unless you want to change that. It's not deep physics, but there is a lot of really obvious, basic level math (algebra II level). And I'll presume you don't have that, or you'd already have a good idea why this is so stupid an idea.
I detail a few obvious facts about solar energy in a top-level response just put out a few minutes ago.
Ziroth seems to latch onto any preposterously cockamamie "That's cool!" idea he encounters, with no capacity to actually identify problem areas.
@@rehenaziasmen4603It's insanely inefficient. It's insanely expensive. It's insanely difficult. It's insanely dangerous. The lenses need an insane amount of constant adjustment, maintenance and cleaning.
All when they can just use photovoltaic cells.
@@nickbrutanna9973 Belittling people doesnt help.
because the material cost isnt made up for with current solar capacity in solar panels.
3:46 homeboy really knows how yo use those channel locks
It hurt my eyes. That’s how you wreck things.
With liquid cooling, you could even just have a convection loop instead of something pumped.
Yeah like those little boats that are candle powered:)
As far as I know, and it used to definitely be true some years back, it is impossible to focus diffuse light such as light going through a cloud or heavy haze. So the lens approach can be expected to function very well in dry sunny climates such as Arizona and New Mexico but not well in eastern cloudy and hazy states. A regular solar panel not relying on lenses does function reasonably well through haze and somewhat also through thin clouds. Another technical issue that can be solved is that the focal point of the light going through a lens will change location as the sun moves. This means that maintaining the lens focus on the solar panel increases the complexity of the design and hence likely the cost for the product and its maintenance. One never knows what advances can be made these days so never say never! We do need to address these issues.
How is it impossible to focus light going through a cloud ?
And he also talked about the solar tracking system it would need
Love seeing the speculation and inquisitiveness. I've been to hundreds of systems, the reality is cost is tantamount, and all these systems are far more expensive, materials, installation and maintenance, solar trackers fail, and sit there, a few more panels makes up the added wattage from tracking. Concentrated is a nonstarter for all the reasons you mention. the peroskovites are possible, if , if if. The real cost holdout is the battery storage, the inverters ( EG4 600xp ) and Panels have come down enormously, its the batteries and regulations / codes governments along with lack of funding is holding up much , much wider application. Theodore
Thanks for another great video - loved your demo!
What a great channel to discover ! Thanks
How does the lens use affect the usable lifespan of the panel?
Commonly, the more temperatures in any machine fluctuate, the less life expectancy you can expect.
Since those systems would wobble between hundreds of c° by day and ambient temp by night, some trouble is to be expected. Even normal unconcentrated systems need to be fixed to their lattice keeping expansions and contractions in mind.
There are gliding mountings in all of those roof-systems because they too have big temp fluctuations and panels shift on any given day.
cause the light gets too concentrated. But if you think about it its just place another smaller lens between the sphere and the solar panel, making the light scatter a bit. So it won't damage the panel and it will be like its almays mid day for the panel
basically:
Concentrated Solar PV only has real benefit if
1) the PV panels are significantly more efficient with intense sunlight, as to offset the inefficiency of lenses. though this is very much doable, and even possible with conventional PV panels.
2) the cost saving of having less panels per square kilometer can offset the cost increase of having lenses, which can only happen if CPV fully matures and adapted.
3) we can somehow make use of the heat from the cooling of the panels without too much cost, such as a temperature sensitive stirling generator or Peltier devices (Thermoelectric semiconductors / Thermocouple) without using too much cost.
the hardest of the three to solve is basically #3 but if PV panels mature enough we can completely ignore energy loss from #3 if it can compensate with higher power output per square kilometer with same cost, or similar power output per square kilometer with less cost
I am 100% solar and I love it. I was up one night brainstorming like always and I was trying to figure out hot water from the sun and it dawned on me. I would not even mention this if someone in Europe is already doing it, Dual Solar panels that are more efficient from water cooling and to use the hot water. It makes 100% sense to me.
The saying is 'take it with a pinch of salt' because a pinch of salt makes a large difference to the flavour of a dish whereas a grain of salt would not be noticeable.
However, a very interesting treatise on possible alternative energy technology. Thank you.
When panels were expensive. Many companies tried to get into the solar market, trying to use technology to get an upper hand. A big endevour here focused on fapour deposition solar panels ... but after multicrystaline panels got so cheap, nobody wanted to invest countless millions more when there are square killometers of roof space still available to be plastered.
I think the best takeway is to optimize setups and get a few percent out of them. Add cooling and maybe some mirrors to catch more ambient or morning/evening sun, and it will be a nice solution for most.
As other have already written:
- the solar panel needs to be smaller than the lens, which means less solar panels per area
- more expensive solar panels + lens
and perhaps more crucial:
- solar panels are much easier to clean than the jagged surface of a fernel lens, where dirt and dust will accumulate.
Seem like good only in theory. In the real world we need to take into consideration practical things like unit economics, maintenance etc. This is not a great idea imo
Right, maybe a better invention would be mirrors mounted on a motorized stall to send back light on the other side of the house while the sun is on the EAST/WEST side. We have panels placed in an EAST/WEST combination and I can see that the energy moves from one string to the other during a normal day. Having a large mirror in the back of my yard that would send light on the EAST side of the roof while the sun is already on the west side would increase production by at least 60-70% percent as the panels on the EAST no longer get enough light. Same could be applied at sunrise for the panels placed on the WEST side but I don't really want a huge mirror in front of my house lol.
@@alexandruilea915 you can have mirror shape that does sun tracking for you and it has been previously done to focus light on expensive multilayer monocrystal ev cell. All those ideas were abandoned simply because mass manufacturing of simple ev panels dropped the price so low none of that makes sense anymore.
@@sznikers also, focused light means more heat at the same time.
1) there is nothing unusual happening with the climate.
2) there is nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels. Its problems in high-density areas are trivial to fix and already have been fixed. CO2 is not a pollutant.
3) Climate alarmism is a big-lie superstition supported by tax-bribed liars. (See Climate Discussion Nexus for 100s of videos on climate quackery, deception, and realism.)
4) decarbonization is 21st century pyramid building and human sacrifice.
5) there is NO excuse for expensive electricity. Electricity generation is boring. Just burn coal and scrub the smoke in densely populated areas.
6) the only challenge is manufacturing market quantities of cheap gasoline. South Africa has already done this for decades (Sasol), using coal.
Vertical Solar Panels suspended inside Transparent Towers could rotate and track the sun. This system could be installed in urban areas.
That thumbnail honestly just looks like a weapon to roast nearby invaders. 3:07 Exactly my point.
The Fresnel lenses in lighthouses need constant cleaning to operate efficiently. Dust, pollen, and deposits from rain are always going to hinder the operation of concentrators, and this will add to the overall upkeep cost when coupled with solar panels that also require occasional cleaning. The inexpensive flat plastic Fresnel lens is the worst choice as a concentrator a its grooves are so fine that it may be near impossible to keep them clean without sandwiching the film in glass and adding to the cost that might just be better spent on additional solar panels.
Um….we HAVE GPS now, Junior!!!
@@Tryp-j9d err...what does GPS have to do with using Fresnel lenses to concentrate sunlight on solar panels?
@@kachmi LIGHTHOUSES are 100% USELESS now. REGARDLESS of the light’s SOURCE!!
[Fresnel lenses work totally different than described.] CORRECTION: NOT. THE REST IS ABOUT FRESNEL ZONE PLATES. A Fresnel lens has concentric circles that block the light. It does not work usin a difractive material, rather blocking half of waves essentially leaving the parts where the wave phase make them stronger in the focal point and block where the phases would kill each other. Because of this the Fresnel lenses start with 50% efficiency, but you can use them for non diffractive waves, like X-ray or sound. For sound we did some experiments with cardboards, the lenses were ten feet diameter, and it worked. It was a school project 45 years ago.
First, they are spelled Fresnel, not "Freshnel". Second, the arguments you present don't sound correct, and if anything, sound more like you're describing polarizers than lenses. Maybe trusting your memory from childhood of 40 years ago isn't a good idea.
That's zone plates, not fresnel lenses
@@ГеоргийТимофеевский-х9хthanks for the correction.
I think 2023 is a good year for the environment with increased use of solar and other renewable energy sources along with recent breakthroughs in clean energy.
Well, I always thought about index lens focusing light into light guide made from light fiber. In house, it can help remove windows which make energy savings. And in production it could help make focused energy flow to heat up heat storage, which can be heat source for stirling, for example.
Put a stirling generator on the opposite side of the hot solar panel. There will be a temp difference between them and you can even increase that difference. If the panel is made tough enough, maybe being hot won't matter.
I agree, Stirling generator would be great , with them running off the temperature differently they could stay running after the sun is down but the cells cooling down a night
@@dennisbarker5986 Maybe the spinning half of the generator is underground, so there could still be a temp difference. Leave the panel on the surface.
Index lenses would probably work well on boats, you can make cooling loop that gets cooled down by the ocean
Weight and pump system (power loss to pumps and maintenance of pumps and filters)
You could just tie them to the back of the boat and make a large floating raft/platform. Not a bad idea imo
In multilayer solar panels, solar efficiency doesn't increase because of concentration rather it is because of a wider range of energy bandgaps being absorbed from the sunlight. Each layer is designed to absorb a different energy bandgap.
compliments for the interesting video... happy to see the Sant'
Ilario solar plant of my home city, Genova.. just let me say that Solar concentration from my Uni started some years before, dated 1964 by Professor Francia Fresnel Mirror (LFC) system
Best regards, Marco Fossa
This concept was a product for some time, using 1cm high efficiency panels and solar Fresnel lenses. Also PMA and glass solar TIR concentrators.
The issue is storing energy. Energy should always be transforming through a load, not being stored. Storing energy leads to material waste.
Not if you can store in a gravity battery.
@@tiroles Inefficent when it comes to volume per energy stored. Humanity has to move away from the idea of storing energy.
excellent point.
Keep mining coal 🤔💥🫨🫨🫨
@@OKFrax-ys2op lmfao good luck with that
Once i maid some research on solar concentration. There is another type of solar cell based on gallium arcenide that can stand very high temperatures, - opposite to silicon commonly used in solar panels. The problem with concentrators - they are much more expensive than panels to operate and can not compete with cheap prices of solar panels... Solar concentrator is useful when you need extremely high constant temperatures for some scientific research, there is just one very big concentrator like that found somewhere in France, and there are a lot of them that produce heat for commercial steam power generators. Most interesting project of solar miror concentrator i found, was 5 meter in diameter concentator conctructed to heat some poplar reseach station. it actulay was able to heat the water even in polar freezing cold and saved to bring there a lot of fuel...
Keep at it. Always good to see you nosing about in technology
From a quick check ages ago, I couldn't find any lens that where remotely cost effective. But the "tech ingredients" channel had a great idea of using thin aluminum sheets plated with silver (and I believe anti tarnishing plastic/film). Not that his example appeared remotely permanent (don't let it hail on the thing, nor let wind hit his contraption) put the mirrors and the idea of tracking with the lighter part appears as a good start for a solar system.
Lenses with solar panels were used long ago for power generation on satellites, something I learnt at a conference.
In the 6th grade (1978) I did a science fair project on a Solar Water desalination. My solar surfaces had magnifying glasses imbedded to help increase water temp to create steam/vapor to rise and hit the roof surface cooling and rolling down to the fresh water collectors. So I was RIGHT!!!! YEAH!
Connect the panels with quality Steel hinges along their length to form a concertina which are suspended from a single steel pole embedded in a concrete foundation, A manual winch retracts a steel cable attached to the panels elongating the stack of panels vertically. The angle between the panels is therefor adjustable. One panel receives direct sunlight, the panel above receives reflected light from the lower panel. The panels will operate cooler and therefore efficiency will increase.
Ideally, one would take advantage of flexible solar panel tech in this situation and be purpose made; double-sided, concertina and installed vertically to face north-south.
There are a long list of reasons for vertically mounting panels, e.g. self-cleaning - dust, leaves, space requirements- foot-print.
The main reasons are service life and efficiency due to them operating much cooler, one could expect up to 4% more power output over a day's production and up to 50% longer service life.
It's in my opinion that easy efficient tech is a puzzle with rewarding solutions
Many years ago, I was told about a group of people living on an island.
They had A lens, focussed on a heavy, thick chunk of metal, on a large, reinforced water tank.
The lens was set up, to track the sun.
The intensified heat caused the water to turn to steam, which powered a generator.
The water was also plumbed through pipes into the homes, with radiators, for heat and hot water use.
Yeah, that sounds like a story one would need concrete sources for.
Possible in theory - but rather improbably as a practical insular engineering solution.
@@FischerNilsA do you exist simply to deny the possibility of truth?
Nils?
@@invisibilianone6288
Ehm...whut?
Do you sincerely think _"somebody on the internet told me something happened somewhere sometime"_ is even vaguely equivalent to "the truth"?
Because: The first is what you did here.
The second is what I tried to archieve by asking you for a public source.
"Truth" means you can show what you claim is real.
Claiming something and - the upon being asked to give sources getting pissy or going into vague ad-hominem insinuations?
Does not raise the probaility of your claim being true.
As I said. Technically what you describe is possible. But like airships, fusion plants or monorails - that doesnt mean its a practicable engineering-solution.
If such a system did indeed reliably function somewhere?
I´d be highly interested to see how.
So please : name the island or the technical system or the builder.
If your only "proof" is questioning and making assumptions about my person ....when asked for specifics on the supposed tech you claim .... yeah, well.
@@FischerNilsA I've been looking, for info on this story I was told. The wise old man that told me about the small island was not one to make up stories. This was about 40 years ago, when the story was told to me, so, specific details as to name of island, or any persons residing there are escaping my memory, at this time.
Orvin Stanwood, passed on in 2005
If I had paid more attention to his knowledge, when I was young, I would likely be much better off at this point in my life. Gasifier power, was one point of knowledge he and I started discussion on... Who knows how far that may have progressed, if I had kept after the research on it..😶
40years, could have been beneficial, or, it could be still where it's at today.
.
I'LL KEEP LOOKING for the place Stanwood RIP, was telling me about🎯
1) there is nothing unusual happening with the climate.
2) there is nothing wrong with burning fossil fuels. Its problems in high-density areas are trivial to fix and already have been fixed. CO2 is not a pollutant.
3) Climate alarmism is a big-lie superstition supported by tax-bribed liars. (See Climate Discussion Nexus for 100s of videos on climate quackery, deception, and realism.)
4) decarbonization is 21st century pyramid building and human sacrifice.
5) there is NO excuse for expensive electricity. Electricity generation is boring. Just burn coal and scrub the smoke in densely populated areas.
6) the only challenge is manufacturing market quantities of cheap gasoline. South Africa has already done this for decades (Sasol), using coal.
I can't wait for someone to notice the trees and realize that the nature is much smarter than us and copy that model.
Very interesting. I work with a United States Government Contractor in the early 1980s that built large concentrating solar generators for research. They used your flat lenses with the small PVC at the bottom of a sealed box. The large assembly rotated on perimeter rails. The election of President Reagan caused the research to be canceled and moved to another company that built the single pier rotating solar generators you exhibit. I do not think we had 50% efficient solar cells in the 1980s though we were also researching PVC fabrication. I started building solar generators in the 1980s and have experienced great performance. Today I generate all my power from a single 100W solar panel.
actually it was stopped because solar on the surface of the earth is far more expensive as a base load provider than all other techs.
@@protonneutron9046 I think President Reagan's only other tech was oil from Saudi Arabia and the Petro Dollar Economy that comes with it?
@@josephpiskac2781 "I think". No you don't. It has nothing to do with ANY potUS. IT IS PHYSICS. Now rent a 4th grade education and a couple hundred points of IQ so you are at least at an average IQ level.
@@protonneutron9046 It's only more expensive when you ignore the externalities of other energy sources. Coal is super cheap, until you start looking at how it poisons the air, soil, and water. If we could add to the price the billions of dollars it costs to recover from the harms, it wouldn't be as cheap. System costs matter because nothing works in isolation.
@@JoeNunyabidness wrong!!!!!! Don't spew crap when you don't have an education. In fact, LIST them with primary sources with the cost accounting or admit insanity and being a liar.
I'm far from being an expert on solar energy but I was thinking about how hot the hood of a car can get in the sun. I've watched videos about using black tubing in a sort of box with a clear cover and letting the sun heat water in the tubes for hot water without electricity. So I'm wondering if Fresnel lenses could raise the temperature high enough convert the water to steam to run a turbine. Would need to use metal pipes and enclose the system so it wouldn't loose part of the steam into the air and waste water. Might could use something I read about years ago. Liquid ammonia I think. Vaporizes at a much lower temperature than water so it wouldn't need to get the pipes as hot. Good work on the video.
Often wondered about the concepts discussed in this video.
People are always looking for a way to over complicate it when there's no need to over complicate it. We in the US have so much desert land that we could produce all the energy we need with solar and we would only use a small fraction of the desert land for regular solar panels. The real problem has never been watts per a square foot of solar panels or not having enough land with direct sunlight. The problem has always been the rotation of the earth. It dark about half the day and light about half the day. Thee either needs to be an efficient and safe way to store the excess energy collected during the day so it can be used at night or on days it's cloudy.
We keep coming up with overly complicated ways to store energy. Batteries are not dense enough. Molten salt is overly complicated and relies on the grid to keep from solidifying in the event there's not enough sun. Gravity storage such as huge amounts of water pumped to a higher elevation and then released to a lower elevation can work pretty good. But it too is a super huge endeavor to build and maintain. IMO, a combination of solar, wind, nuclear and fossil fuels are the only practical solution with current technology and the current state of the world's political unity and peace.
What would a solution look like? The holy grail is of course direct radiation to energy production where heating water to steam is removed from the equation. Equally, fusion is a solution. But both are technologically outside our abilities at the moment. The other solution is a world electric grid with solar and wind production diversified throughout the world. The darkside of the earth is provided for by the lightside. But of course, although we as humans are capable technologically of that endeavor, we are far too immature as a species to cooperate enough to accomplish it.
So, that puts us back to an all in solution on an individual national level until such technologies develope or humanity matures. I personally believe technology is the answer. Imagine if the world got together and offered $10 trillion dollars to the first company that could sustain fusion with 10+% positive energy production. There would be a race like none other to get it done. Imagine unlocking the race to a sustainable solution, driven by the greed of fame and fortune. The minds of the world aiming toward a singular goal. It wouldn't matter if their motivation was greed or the betterment of humanity or the betterment of the world. Regardless of motivation, the end goal is the same.
I saw solar panels combining photovoltaic and solarthermic parts.
The solarthermic tubes reduce the heat of the panels, while storing energy in form of heated water.
Ivanpah, which you show, is a ghastly contraption that does have a large steam generator and it is absolutely fabulous at catching birds flying through the lens path and making them explode. Not nice. Fresnel lenses are just great, but note you still need the extra area of the lens to capture the extra solar energy, as you say, so if you do this at scale you need massive lenses and fewer solar panels, but the lenses have to be between the panels and the sun so you need a steerable array which costs money so its all a big waste of time. I wrote this while watching your video so I didn't waste more time than needed. Multi layer solar panels will be available from Longi soon, operating at required efficiency and no extra cost. with no tracking needed. Thanks for playing. Nice try. Thank you.
4m^2 of fresnel lens might make sense on the outside wall of my house, to bring in more winter sunshine through a light pipe for direct heating. Then there's making hot coals in the daytime for the nighttime. If you can get 15kg up to 800 Celsius, might be good. 15*1000*800*1.8 = 6kWh. (1.8J/g latent heat, 3.6MJ per kWh).
Lizard: Do we really "need" energy?
lays on a rock and sunbathes...
Which is energy. Heat from the sun.
@@4IAS4 That was the punchline, it was supposed to be a joke. Are you german?
@@4IAS4 the whole universe IS energy. No atom sits around and "does nothing"
@@NavajoNinjaNo, but life requires sources of low entropy to continue its complex functioning. Sunlight is low entropy compared to high entropy thermal chaos.
It needs ultra fast shuttering to allow the panel to cool while receiving high pwered spikes, which as noted leads to higher efficiency in the panel the duty cycle coild split into thirds or fourths, redirecring the concentrated beam to another nearby. The shadow phase of the cycle should be embraced, as it allows the PV's charge to reset to zero, then when reilluminated it must polarize fully, turning a DC PV cell into a high energy impulse PV cell with ceramic capacitor like outputs if it were drawn for a pulse power supply.
The benifits will be many, as the cells now naturally cool for 67% or 75% of the wave duty cycle, and the output power is tri-phase or quad-phase impulse current which is literally THE most efficent form of power transmission. More than AC, and more than 'high voltage DC' (signal is square waves arranged in a myan pyramid shape; outpreforms AC -- yet impulse DC is best).
Systems of concentrated power behave differently than those not designed for it. An impulse system only transmits energy with very dense flux, compared to AC with much less density of flux over time.
A monocystal PV with silvered nano wire or even modified layers of translucent carbon fiber as condutors (to hold the charge beond what the doped monocrystals hold; aka, the something that has to connect to the wire for the grid, its usually normal metal girds on each face)... something like that should contain bursts of intense energy easily if cooled for most of it's duty cycle.
They should try that lens with the slit experiment.
I think the reason the panels can generate _"more"_ energy than the other panels is because the reality is the energy we're getting from the sun is like the tiniest fraction of the energy available, the visible light we see is like (I dont know the numbers this is a guess) probably only somewhere in the region of less than 4% of the total energy the sun dumps onto our planet. So these lenses are just concentrating the energy output, and the panels can take advantage of them.
I'm not a scientist, no degrees in anything - But this sort of stuff gives me optimism for a day when 95%+ of our energy needs come from things that dont murder the ecosystems :)
I keep seeing "less solar panel per area" but that doesnt matter - its the area to conversion that matters - not the area of the panel it self. If anything, this is a good thing to have to use less panel surface. The main problem is just heat as to say, even at higher conversion rate, these are still collecting heat or it doesnt have a good way to convert IR light into power before it hits the panel it self. Thats what you need to fight. Some method to convert the unused light into something that we can pull power from before it hits the panel. So, while I think this is the best idea, it still needs more research into how we can use the lens to convert the unused light into something else as well. Either it be moving that heat into water or some how up convert the IR into light. A system that can convert 100% energy will never get hot. As heat is a method of loss. Yet, a system like this doesnt have to hit 100% - it only needs to hit a precent that ground air movement can control (as we have wind). Lenses are a good thing because it should last way longer than the panel it self along with the fact it should be cheaper than the solar panel it self. Thus having to replace only the solar panels should come down in cost while you keep all the other benefits of what the lens array is giving you. This type of system will maybe never see roof top - but for grid power generations this shouldnt be as big of a problem.
modern solar pv cells are 22% to 24% efficient and mass produced concentrator pv will likely be less efficient than laboratory cells. in addition concentrator cells do not collect scattered sunlight, thus cpv will be effectively less than double rather than 3x efficient compared to standard solar cells. then the cpv is also much more expensive as you point out, plus much more finnicky due to need for high precision tracking.
Beta eye is just an art
Gunna need a strong stick to hold up that much mass. 🤣🇦🇺
The concentration only works better because of these specific new solar things that operate at higher efficiency when concentrated. I was so confuesed up until you got to that part.
You can't fix something that is not broken.
Back to summer school for you 🤔😆
Fraunhofer is not really a company but a research institute. And ISE is simply their solar energy institute
very interesting concept. it seems like itll come down to healthy competition. who will win, traditional solar as it get ever more efficient or novel approaches like this? both are good and it's really a battle of economics and supply chain. fun to think about :)
Try that with semi transparent photovoltaics. They shouldn't heat up as much.
Thanks!
The better solution would seem to be to focus the lens directly on the liquid medium used to run a generator, thus completely eliminating solar panels, which are fairly inefficient.
There's another aspect to lens concentration being ignored here. You can use lenses to concentrate only the wavelengths that are ideal for the PV cell, and reflect those which are not ideal, and that can radically reduce heat in the cell, helping them to operate much more efficiently without dramatic cooling overhead.
Why don’t they put the excess heat into the ground and then use it through the winter? Yes, more cost but more applications for the same amount of land.
The issue is the extra heat applied to the solar panel when using any sort of concentration device.
The main drawback to energy production becomes area/space. However the answers currently put forward are complex and costly requiring maintenance and educated personnel.. a return to high volume low tech is what's needed.
Simply putting mirrors on the back of your panels can increase their efficiency. And weight and cost. But it works.
Esto es en lo que he estado trabajando este mes y por un momento pensé que estaba por hacer un gran descubrimiento, que desilusión 😅
If you don't have the surface area for a lot of panels this makes sense. Like say you only have an apartment balcony or tiny home
3:50 Actually You can pump water through a pipe without using electricity if you attach A windmill.
Not to mention the mere process of the windmill Liquid lines would produce more electricity While still providing a cooling effect.
Archimedes sometime in the 3rd century BC: "1968? Hold my ambrosia"
Perhaps if we were to use this type tech towards producing / cleaning our water thru distillation processes and /or by flashing into steam. If we could harness this flash point pressure we could produce not only fresh water but electricity due to expansion rate of water. It could be scalable and stand alone , able to use in polluted waters/ saltwater/ puddles... The by products would be solids able to be processed/sold or added to soil or any number of uses. They could sit on the ocean using nothing. Zero , making fresh water all day. No moving parts. Or big ones next to oil rigs producing fresh water and power using just focused beams of light on a mechanism and casing able to withstand the flashing of water to steam and direct its path. I have thought of this idea for years and have a idea of this mechanism's appearance. I saw it in a dream and it was about two foot long and 8 to 10 inches in diameter running into a bank of pipes or pipe rack. My 24yr background in refractory lends me to think it was one in a series of these mechanisms. It was relativity simple with just a few pipes attaching to this module with could be carried by one person about 60 to 80 lbs. Thanks for letting me speel...... I like the topic ..
If only there was a way to harness the immense energy within the atom.. something like.. a nuclear energy or something like that. Someone should get on that.
If there was only a way to safely dispose the radioactive waste after that, someone should get on to that.
How about concentrated sunlight with a sand battery. Especially for a single family application.
Brilliant new technologies
Good video again
Area of lens is always bigger but if they add more than the area lost still might be worthwhile especially in latitudes that get less Solar??
As a child, my sister and I would use a lens to focus the sunlight on a leaf to watch it catch fire.
I don't meen to throw shade on this subject, but the reality of the mater truly is HOW the PV cells convert light to power. This is all sort of backwards thinking in a way.. If you take 1 solar cell, and throw a dedicated lens on top of it that (in your case is was about 5 times the size of the cell), it is more beneficial in the long run to use more cells. What I meen is there is only so many photons hitting that square inch, meter, or kilometer of the planets surface period. It's all about efficiency over that given space. Adding any form of lens adds more space used. It's not a game of focusing the light.. It's about what the panels do when the light gets to them. That's the real challenge.
As he said, point of the lens is to make better use, of _expensive and hard to produce_ cells. Specifically the cells he spoke of that get _more_ efficient with more concentrated light.
So that you get more power out of a given land area than with traditional cells without a lens. The cell he spoke of claimed to be able to reach 45% efficiency when under a lens. Which is far better than the 15-25% efficiency of the typical solar cells currently on the market. So, out of a given area, you will get 2-3x the energy output.
You went larger, the same is true if you go smaller, the lens uses more area, but the panel it self becomes smaller. So you make your panels on a mother glass that can produce 100 cells, that 50 cells per lens area of the same area with another 50 that can go into another lens array panel. So you are doubling the amount of area for double the power output at half the cost per cell for that lens array panel. I mean this is common math here.
What about a prism? and solar panels tuned to specific frequency of light?
What about using a Stirling Engine in conjunction with the Beta Eye? The Stirling Engine already uses heat differences to generate power AND equalizes the temperature between the 2 points over time. While this will not cool a Solar Panel enough, it might be able to use the concentrated solar light from the Beta Eye better since it is already built for more extreme temperatures.
HEY! That was my idea!
What about a sterling engine to use the excess heat created. Could that produce electricity effectively?
I really like this idea. Stirling engines have come a long way. They are a no-maintenance, direct to electricity choice. Done right, solar panels are not even needed.
@@4IAS4 hmmm there is always some cost. Energy is all around us all the time. Its just a matter of collecting and harvesting it in a economic way.. solor panel produce a lot of heat so....
@@johnramirez5032 Yep.
The best 'normal' single junction PV cells are already at 22+% efficiency. You're using an outdated baseline reference. Yes they were around just 17% efficient ten years or so ago
Not really, commercially available ones are around 15 to 20 percent, but in the lab's, they have up to 50 percent efficiency but that is not something you can buy just yet
@@tom79623 Only multi-junction solar panels reach 50% efficiency and they're too expensive for 'normal' use. You'll find them on satellites for example.
2:55 I think the heating up of the solar panel will be the problem of the efficiency in the end. if you could cool it down it would be way more efficient with a lense. Haven't seen the entire video yet.
good job bro
"While these are still widely used..." Uh, no. They were never "widely used." In fact, most solar mirror systems have been abandoned due to high costs per kW-hr produced.
Kudos with respect to solar concentration. Combined with Vertical Bifacial Solar Panels, which significantly reduce electricity-killing temperature, and high ground albedo, we might just see an improvement (reduction) with respect to total life-cycle costs per kW-hr.
I feel like a lucid dream gave me this idea once
PV cells can't take to excess heat.
Exactly
Personally, I want to see the Beta Eye without the solar panel, and instead just use it as a laser beam. }: )
More seriously, specially-shaped mirrors that will redirect the beam from the sphere towards the same location wherever the beam lands on the mirror would remove the need for moving parts, but wouldn't handle the size issue. The multi-focal lens is probably the best bet.
Honestly, though, I just don't see solar power being terribly efficient until we figure out how to transport it from orbit. Build the power generator up above the atmosphere, and we're getting much more efficient.
Overheating of most solar cells leads them to become less efficient...thus tracking should not be for max sun exposure but max efficiency...always following the sun will work against you in hot climates. Weird idea..put them underground..always cool there...use light pipes(fiber optics) to bring the light to the panels...that way you can still use the ground on top of them.
We've been concentrating sunlight for solar energy since 1800s
Energy is one thing, but energy per unit cost is paramount. And full environmental gross cost, not after government funding and accounting magic.
You could just put a sterling cycle engine on the back of each panel to harvest the heat.
that indiegogo was a scam. reminds me of solar roadways 😅
Make a type of brick with PZT layering or just synthesize a Piezoelectric Brick & charge it with Fresnel Lens amplified solar beams and you have an effecient energy harvester.
only the fresenius solution seems like it has some actual potential in practice. the any angle of incidence lens idk, probably not really better than a tracker.
I always wondered what a 2 way mirror in front of panel might do. Let’s light in and then any light lost will be reflected to be caught again?
I don’t see how it would be more efficient. X amount of light still hits the sphere and light that comes in from the sides is minimal. Directly square footage is square footage regardless of sphere or flat plate. I see it could concentrate light on a more efficient tiny solar panel. So I’d rather see multi layer panels that can take in different wave forms and create more electricity. Hopefully more efficiently.
What about, if Fresnel lens directs sun to small vacuum box with highly absorbing heating element through transparent side. Other inner sides would be covered with announced 40% efficient infrared panels backed with mirrors to catch heat radiation from element?
Maybe instead of glass we can use a sphere full of water so if it starts a fire or starts frying people we can trigger an emergency switch to empty the water?
1968?! Bro, people been frying ants with magnifying glasses long before that 🤣
I wonder if the sphere could be made of a transparent shell that was then filled with water.
I have tried mirros on solar bulbs, but I have to change positions every one or half an hour to focus back on solar panel.