this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
563 points (97.0% liked)

Technology

73035 readers
3153 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
L4s@hackingne.ws
563
Scientists make game-changing breakthrough that could slash costs of solar panels: 'Has the potential to contribute to the energy transition' (www.thecooldown.com)
submitted 1 week ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/technology@lemmy.world
126 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/24690127

Solar energy experts in Germany are putting sun-catching cells under the magnifying glass with astounding results, according to multiple reports.

The Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems team is perfecting the use of lenses to concentrate sunlight onto solar panels, reducing size and costs while increasing performance, Interesting Engineering and PV Magazine reported.

The "technology has the potential to contribute to the energy transition, facilitating the shift toward more sustainable and renewable energy sources by combining minimal carbon footprint and energy demand with low levelized cost of electricity," the researchers wrote in a study published by the IEEE Journal of Photovoltaics.

The sun-catcher is called a micro-concentrating photovoltaic, or CPV, cell. The lens makes it different from standard solar panels that convert sunlight to energy with average efficiency rates around 20%, per MarketWatch. Fraunhofer's improved CPV cell has an astounding 36% rate in ideal conditions and is made with lower-cost parts. It cuts semiconductor materials "by a factor of 1,300 and reduces module areas by 30% compared to current state-of-the-art CPV systems," per IE.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 25 points 6 days ago (2 children)

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10938951

This is 36% MODULE efficiency with expensive cooling. 30% actual year long efficiency without it. Requires dual axis tracking. Seems heavy as its very tall/deep.

Headline of cost reduction is very unlikely. Especially on a per acre/fairly large area basis. Dual axis tracking requires more spacing than fixed orientation rows, and loses benefits under cloudy conditions. While power at 7am and 5pm is more valuable when competing against high penetration solar, batteries are now more competitive than tracking, and can serve edge of day and night power needs. Tracking solar tends not to be built anymore, due to low cost of panels. The cooling infrastructure is also not as useful as it is on rooftops because the heat capture has useful benefits for homes.

It is also unclear how this has advantage over parabolic mirror.

Agri PV is a real use case, where more free land means more land use, even if most of it gets more shade, except around noon.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Solar panels as fences is what is needed.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Kinda works if you use bifacial panels.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Bifacial panels as a fence provides 3% extra yield but 30% extra revenue

https://www.gridcog.com/blog/solar-fence-vs-ground-mount-solar

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Sure, but if you wanted solar panels to work on both sides of your East/West facing fence, you'd have to buy 100% more panels, so bifacial saves you 70% there. Seems like a good deal. I'm sure you read the "Model Overview" of that article and caught that the monofacial panels were facing the equator, and the bifacial panels were facing East/West...

Edit: bad read on my part, I didn't not understad the full content of the previous message.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I don't think we are arguing. I was just giving you more details.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

My interpretation of your comment was that bifacial solar panels are a useless gimmick which allows companies to charge more for a cheaper product.

Is that correct?

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

No, the opposite. They are superior. Bifacial panels have a 3% additional yield over standard panels. The +10-20% cost premium is covered by the +30% revenue

Even with traditional mountings, Bifacial panels pick up extra light reflected from the ground.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Bad read on my part, sorry for the snark. Carry on.

[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

No problem. Take a closer look a the link, particularly the graphs.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 days ago

It's viable as edge of day high power boost in east/west direction, and simply any extra power that is cheap and easy to install, that adds privacy or keeps the controlled beings inside.

[–] Shanedino@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You are at least completely and utterly wrong about tracking solar not typically being built anymore. Any major solar site uses tracking if you have a couple acres on a corner maybe not but I think you are being a bit too general. Panels are only one of many costs per solar panel installation, its still cost effective overall to increase efficiency.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago

You're right about US. seems half uses tracking. No numbers on China which is 30x larger market. Economics still only make sense at consumer level of $1/watt panel prices, to me, but I guess there are reasons I don't understand.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world 18 points 6 days ago (2 children)

They need changes in laws too. Instead of chewing up open space and farmland I'd rather see more urban areas used like parking lots and industrial sites.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 17 points 6 days ago

Yeah, Don't put the solar farms in meadows, or on mountains. put them on warehouse roofs, over highways, over parking lots, on government buildings, etc etc.

[–] taguebbe@feddit.org 11 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Roughly 50% of germany is used as farmland. On 60% of the farmland crops to feed livestock are grown. On 20% of it crops for energyproduction (biofuel, biogas). If you take for example rapeseeds, used for biodiesel, you would harvest around 50 times as much energy with a pv-plant on the same area. You would need to install pv on 5-6% of the farmland to produce enough electric energy for all of germany for a year. Granted you also can provide the grid for it and enoguh storage.

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 8 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Not only that, but livestock can still graze under panels, on grass that often grows just as well with a little shade.

[–] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Surely the grass would grow better with more son(?)

[–] Jason2357@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Not always. Wide open fields get baked dry mid summer in a lot of local climates.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago

Yup, my grass does best under my trampoline.

[–] tobiah@lemmy.world 21 points 6 days ago (1 children)

"The lens makes it different from standard solar panels that convert sunlight to energy with average efficiency rates around 20%, per MarketWatch. Fraunhofer's improved CPV cell has an astounding 36% rate in ideal conditions"

Why would I want to compare one panel's average efficiency to another panels efficiency in ideal conditions?

[–] eleitl@lemmy.zip 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Marketing. Fresnel lenses are not going to do well with diffuse light.

[–] BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but wouldn't diffuse light be what it's going to be best at? While it'd be worse on a sunny day when there is an optimal single direction for the light to come in?

It's the opposite of a light house fresnel lens - instead of scattering the light source evenly out, it'll capture diffuse incoming rays from random directions better and concentrate it on the photovoltaic cell? However it would be at the cost of being able to capture direct sunlight efficiently as only some of the lens would ever be in the best position to capture the direct rays?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] shaggyb@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago

Banned in North America in 3... 2...

[–] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 7 points 5 days ago

That is Fraunhofer who are the people most responsible for developing MP3

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Oh don't worry, I'm sure the capitalist system will manage to fuck it up somehow.

[–] Rekorse@sh.itjust.works 10 points 6 days ago

"If we allow german solar panels into america it will destroy our good hard working american businesses. Tarriffs on german solar panels of 69%!"

[–] pulsewidth@lemmy.world 12 points 6 days ago (4 children)

Hey it's those guys that invented MP3s.

[–] hakunawazo@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago

It really whips the sun's ass.

[–] rottingleaf@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

Lossy compression of sunlight?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 10 points 6 days ago

I thought this has already been done. Guess there's some nuance to it that is above my understanding of it.

Anyhow, advancements in solar are cool in my book.

[–] Prior_Industry@lemmy.world 6 points 6 days ago

US Government - not on my watch....

[–] Vinstaal0 3 points 5 days ago

The issue here in NL is with the power grid, not the price of the panels. The installing of them is already one of the most expensive parts of getting panels since you need to build scafolding for most houses.

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (3 children)

I have not read the article yet, but I will be doing so after posting this. But from what I understand, concentrated cells via lenses already exist. The problem with them was keeping them cool.

Going to go read the actual article now.

Edit: Well, the article was very sparse on details. From what I understand of the comments, what's really been done here is making cells that can stand the kind of heat that would be focused onto them from the glass.

I want to say I saw a video about this a year ago or so, but it was more solar thermal, where you focus a bunch of mirrors onto a single point high up on a tower, and it's cooled by molten salt. But as I said, that's solar thermal, not solar power electricity.

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 2 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Yeah the problem has always been that solar panels only really like to operate within a very narrow temperature band. It's why you can't just plate the Sahara desert in solar panels. In theory that would generate loads of power but the heat of the desert is way outside of their operating range.

There's been loads of ideas to heat/cool solar panels, the problem up until now has always been to do that without cutting into the panel's efficiency so much that it isn't worth doing.

But there's been videos on YouTube of people cooling solar panels with plasma cooling and phase change materials for a few years now.

[–] Malfeasant@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

the heat of the desert is way outside of their operating range.

I live in the Phoenix area, there are tons of solar installations here. In fact my house has solar, had it when we bought it 10 years ago, and it cuts the power bill in half.

[–] jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I've been thinking about getting solar for a while, how bad is the efficiency loss at -30C to -20C?

[–] oyo@lemmy.zip 2 points 6 days ago

They gain efficiency at lower temps. Cool, clear days are best. At negative 20C you're looking at ~15-20% increase in power output from the panel itself. Look for the "temperature coefficient" on a solar module spec sheet.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] OhVenus_Baby@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 days ago

Just wanted to drop a comment.

I love solar. It's the best form of energy that's attainable by the average person.

[–] Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 6 days ago

Concentrating solar cells have been around for decades, but I suppose the efficiency Fraunhofer achieved here is nothing to sneeze at.

load more comments
view more: next ›