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
 

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.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Nightsoul@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

I feel like this is one of those discoveries thats like, well duh of course it would work that way

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

at this point it doesnt matter. theres no saving us from extinction due to climate change. this serves only for the intermediate period where we can "save" some money on energy day to day, before the inevitable collapse that makes money and savings worthless.

dont get me wrong, if i could afford a house, let alone additional panels and the additional fees that come with installation, maintenance, regulations, licensing, etc. then id be all in, even if it was just to contribute to the dying ideal that there was some semblence of hope for a better future. this is up to the landlords and the upperclass to give a shit about, and most of it is for grandstanding and keeping up with the joneses.

i used to install these for a living during covid. only people in my area who could afford them were multigenerational farmers and eco concious suburbanites. even for the suburbanites living in million+ dollar homes it was a stretch financially, and a hastle due to regulations.

good idea. but a bit late. we are at the point that if someone waved a magic wand tomorrow, and everyone stopped driving cars and pulled a full 180 on coal, oil, and gas, it would still be far too late.

if you can afford the inevitable markup that comes with proffessional installation. be my guest. if you are a poor person wanting to slap some panels on a tiny home, go nuts. just dont expect to save the world by doing so. its fucked. live how you want to while you can. drink, fuck, fight, eat good food, play video games, bed rot and consume to your hearts content.

nothing can save us. not even the "indomitable will of the human spirit" not a god damned thing.

sorry to shit in your salad. but thems the breaks.

[–] anamethatisnt@sopuli.xyz 61 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What are concentrating photovoltaics? One of the ways to increase the output from the photovoltaic systems is to supply concentrated light onto the PV cells. This can be done by using optical light collectors, such as lenses or mirrors. The PV systems that use concentrated light are called concentrating photovoltaics (CPV). The CPV collect light from a larger area and concentrate it to a smaller area solar cell. This is illustrated in Figure 5.1.

Also, from the article - 33.6% efficiency in real-world conditions:

A 60 cell-lens prototype was studied for a year. In "real-world" conditions, CPVs achieved up to 33.6% efficiency. The 36% mark was posted at 167 degrees Fahrenheit. The prototype showed no signs of degradation, according to IE.

[–] BombOmOm@lemmy.world 46 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (8 children)

A lighthouse uses the same lens, just with the light coming from the inside. Since this is old knowledge, what is the drawback? Why isn't this widespread?

My completely uninformed guess:

  • The lens and assembly costs too much compared to just more solar panels

  • The lens/panel combo is so bulky/prone to failure it becomes unreasonable to actually install/use.

[–] brendansimms@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Adding to what Eldest_Malk said: They aren't just putting a new type of lens over standard solar cells, they are also designing/fabricating custom cells to work with the lenses. [I'm not a PV expert, but the fact that the IEEE paper focuses so much on the cells and not just the lenses leads me to believe that the lenses can't just be used with whatever standardized solar cells are on the market]

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rem26_art@fedia.io 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

id guess a lot went into designing a solar cell that could take being heated to 167F without losing efficiency or breaking. I think most common house solar panels have a temperature coefficient listed on their datasheet that measures how much its ability to generate power decreases per every degree above 77F

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] anamethatisnt@sopuli.xyz 17 points 1 week ago

They mention standardisations and cost savings in their paper, as well as solving the heat load per cell problem by decreasing cell size. They also mention that there's been a lot of micro-CPV module designs but that they haven't been scaled up. Some quotes below:

Various researchers and developers have been exploring different micro-CPV module designs [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Most approaches have been tested on small prototypes or minimodules, while fewer have been realized with aperture areas (Aap) above 200 and 800 cm2,[...]

By decreasing the sizes of the primary optics and the solar cells, the heat load per cell is minimized. This reduction allows for sufficient heat spreading via the circuit board, enabling the direct assembly of solar cells onto the circuit board on glass.

At Fraunhofer ISE, we have developed a micro-CPV module concept [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], which is based on parallelized manufacturing processes and commercially available components.

The final module features a panel size of 24” × 18”, which is a standard in the microelectronics industry, facilitating machine adaption without necessitating special adjustments.

[–] Eldest_Malk@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The article states that it’s smaller and cheaper. The reason it’s not widespread is that they just invented it.

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It is interesting that someone just recently thought to use a fresnel lens with photovoltaics when they’ve existed for hundreds of years

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

It isn't that. They have been talking about Fresnel lenses on PV for decades. It's solving the heat issue and the size issue. A Fresnel lens gathers a large area of light and focuses it down, including focusing the heat. Normal PV cells cannot handle that amount of heat.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] callouscomic@lemmy.zip 48 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Wait for something fucking idiotic like:

"U.S. government to implement 5,000% tax on new solar technology...."

[–] match@pawb.social 25 points 1 week ago

"also, revenue from new tax will be used to build new coal mines staffed by concentration camp inmates 1"

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Solar is too woke and Marxist for the current US government.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 44 points 1 week ago

The only thing slowing down the transition from fossil fuels to renewables is the same impediment it has always been: oil money protecting itself.

[–] msprout@lemmy.world 34 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I am not a scientist so please correct me if I am off base, but did it really take them this long to attempt to focus light onto PV cells using a fresnel lens?

My hobby as a 15 year old was buying broken projectors to harvest the fresnel lenses in the lamp on top. They could focus sunlight so powerfully that you could burn shit. I didn't do that, surprisingly. I was like Marge Simpson, I just thought they were neat.

[–] brendansimms@lemmy.world 35 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Adding to what the others wrote, solar cells become less efficient at power conversion (light -> electricity) as the temp of the solar cell materials (semiconductors) increases. So the issues is how to get more photons to the semiconductor without heating it up.

[–] ramjambamalam@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Would a UV filtering lens help? Do solar cells generate more power from certain parts of the light spectrum?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

OK, take that Fresnel lens that you were using to melt pennies and then focus it on a PV cell that is also made of metal. What might be the expected response? The science in this case is making PV cells that can handle the intense heat.

[–] msprout@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That makes sense. If I understood everyone clearly, it's not the idea to use a fresnel that's new here, it's the fact that we just haven't yet had anything capable of withstanding those temperatures and still allowing for the piezoelectric effect to happen.

[–] frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 week ago

IIRC, this sort of thing has been floated before. The issue is that you can't just focus that much light on the solar cell. It'll burn out.

[–] don@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago

Not being any kind of solar energy expert, my initial thought was how the cell’s would hold up under the increased heat, and what technology (if any) they’d be using to monitor/mitigate. The article does briefly mention the cells achieving ~33% @ ~167° F, and does mention (what seems to be tangential) technologies that allow for cells to be nailed down as if they were shingles.

My guess is that it isn’t that they finally using techniques that seem obvious to us, but that they’ve developed supporting tech to mitigate the detrimental effects of using magnification.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.de 28 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Solar panels are already quite cheap. What we need is much cheaper grid forming inverters so we can stop destabilizing the grid with solar.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

If the cost of panels drops significantly, there would be more capital available to spend on inverters, even if they stay at the current prices, still decreasing the cost of deployment. But yes. 😄

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 28 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (6 children)

I'm not sure what to think about the Fraunhofer institute in general. They have made some nice discoveries/inventions in the past, such as audio compression algorithms and such. That is why i hyped them for a bit.

But they really disappointed me with their writings on solar panels in the past few years.

They said that the efficiency of solar panels today is too low to deploy them widely in practice, which is simply not true. They tried pushing Perovskite solar cells for no reason.

I'm not sure what to think about this article's idea. On one hand, adding lenses to solar parks makes them significantly more complicated and therefore expensive to build. Also, if the parks have complicated physical forms, they're more susceptible to wind, and that could damage them.

On the other hand, yes, adding lenses means you need fewer actual solar panels for the same amount of energy harvested.

I'll therefore put it in the category of inconclusive inventions, together with the idea of adding a motor to the solar panels so they can track the sun. That would also make the solar panels more efficient, but also more complicated and more prone to mechanical failure.

[–] ernest314@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 days ago (3 children)

well, adding lenses kinda requires motorizing the panels to track the sun, right? otherwise the "hot spot" is going to move around across the day/year

is there a way to shape the lens to mitigate this?

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

Could have some refraction or hologram thing that bends the light the right way, maybe? Or like a matte glass that equalises the load.

Or why not just use (big) mirrors?

Won't help with heat ofc!

[–] ernest314@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 days ago

Or why not just use (big) mirrors?

I mean, this is a thing with solar concentrators already, haha

and for those the heat is a feature :p

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] simplejack@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Remember gang, stuff like this means 10-15 years before you see it in market.

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 week ago (2 children)

What was the stuff like this of 15 years ago ?

[–] eronth@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Honestly solar panels and electric cars. I know those existed over 15 years ago, but they weren't serious market options until like 5 or so years ago.

[–] UltraMasculine@sopuli.xyz 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

First known electric car was built in 1837. Yes, 1837, not 1937. In 1910's and 1920's there were tens of thousands electric cars in USA and Europe. So electric cars has been here for a long time right now.

First (known) solar panel was built in 1954.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If I had a penny for every time I heard about new advancements about to revolutionise solar panel technology, I'd have glazed the bloody Sahara with them by now.

[–] Blum0108@lemmy.world 53 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Would the cost chart of PV cells look something like this?

[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Even crazier that it's a logarithmic graph.

[–] ftbd@feddit.org 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The scale seems to fit, but what the hell is going on with those tick labels?

[–] rbos@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago

Looks like they wanted 'roundish' numbers.

[–] whyNotSquirrel@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

is it a real thing or an obligatory overestimated result to get grants because the system is fucked?

[–] brendansimms@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (6 children)

I just skimmed the IEEE paper (peer-reviewed, solid journal); The usage of 'slash costs' in the title is entire sensational. The tech gave a SLIGHT increase in efficiency (which is good news - marginal improvements are still very good and can be game-changing if scaled up), but there is no cost/benefit analysis in the paper regarding the additional costs of lenses and whether the increased PV efficiency would offset those costs at scale.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] MaggiWuerze@feddit.org 7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Wouldn't this be negated by the fact, that the same area of roof now has less actual PV cell on it? Since the light gets concentrated on a smaller area?

[–] billwashere@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think the idea is that it’s the same amount of light is being used but the actual expensive part of the solar cell is cheaper and designed to take the increased heat. So the same size “solar unit” on the roof collecting the same amount of light and generating the same amount of energy but cheaper overall. At least that was my take. Correct me if I’m wrong.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›