31–40 of 47 posts
While reading the article, I was wondering why combined PV/water heating conventional panels aren't taking off on rooftop installations. Looks like something that would make a lot of sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tech such as this has been tried on-and-off by various parties since the 80's, with many variations on geometry, working fluid, actuation and tracking. And if all those folks didn't succeed, isn't that more reason to give Airlight a patent? Before some competitor realizes that Airlight has fixed the thing everyone else couldn't, then shamelessly copies them?
Patents should not be linked to commercial success, if that's what you mean by "didn't succeed".
Ack, those circles waste so much space. They should put a in an array of hexagonal reflectors instead.
I take exception to the use of the word 'invention' here because that most likely implies that patents are at stake. Tech such as this has been tried on-and-off by various parties since the 80's, with many variations on geometry, working fluid, actuation and tracking. Parabolic segments are a pretty expensive way to do this because it requires moving the collector around. Much simpler and easier to have a stationary…
Agreed. I saw a demonstration of a unit very similar to the one in the article, that had vacuum-focused thin film reflectors and a sodium-cooled sterling engine. That was in 1997.
With the current rate of technological advance, a ton of stuff that's failed (and even a lot that's succeeded) should be tried again. Frequently some incremental but necessary technological improvement that didn't exist 10 years ago exists now and it might just change the game. Maybe that's happening here?
Perhaps incremental improvement doesn't deserve the word "invention" but it still deserves a look.
I take exception to the use of the word 'invention' here because that most likely implies that patents are at stake. Tech such as this has been tried on-and-off by various parties since the 80's, with many variations on geometry, working fluid, actuation and tracking. Parabolic segments are a pretty expensive way to do this because it requires moving the collector around. Much simpler and easier to have a stationary…
The 'invention' part of this setup is not their mirror configuration, which just looks pretty and possibly is easy for them to build and deploy in spaces where space is a problem. You have to admit that it looks good in that sunflower field. Their footprint looks like it's As it says in the article, the actual interesting part is how they generate the energy, apparently with a GaAs that's cooled with some sort of fut…
Maybe if the mirrors had prisms which would focus the light frequency for solat to the cells and would focus the thermal at another spot, that would be neat. Then could of had reflective panels that absorbed the heat and processed there and only reflected the light for solar convertion.
Now be nice if solar heating systems and panels were combined, could have a lens like tube that would absorb the heat but reflect the light towards a solar panel.
Though for me why solar panels do not have large lenses infron as a form of even plastic lens would or glass would work out cheaper than some panel tech and with that use less panels and use less expensive elements and be cheaper over say plastic/glass used to focus. Well that is something I do ponder.
Still hope it works out and if it don't then they will learn lots. But it is sort of just of taking the Archimedes death ray approach http://web.mit.edu/2.009/www/experiments/deathray/10_Archime...
So as you say it will be down to the conversion of light and thermal at one point. But for me that whilst useful (more so in space perhaps) is for me at least complicating a problem in which other approaches would seem easier to engineer (ie collect heat in the panels).
I take exception to the use of the word 'invention' here because that most likely implies that patents are at stake. Tech such as this has been tried on-and-off by various parties since the 80's, with many variations on geometry, working fluid, actuation and tracking. Parabolic segments are a pretty expensive way to do this because it requires moving the collector around. Much simpler and easier to have a stationary…
> Tech such as this has been tried on-and-off by various parties since the 80's, with many variations on geometry, working fluid, actuation and tracking. And if all those folks didn't succeed, isn't that more reason to give Airlight a patent? Before some competitor realizes that Airlight has fixed the thing everyone else couldn't, then shamelessly copies them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The heating water part is really common here in Germany and not that big of a deal, and not just for new constructions. Basic heat storage/exchange parts often easily fit in existing rooms or even in the space the old heating system took. You only see either solar cells or heat collectors though. Why there are no/not many combined setups, no clue. Maybe the efficiency goes down to much and limits the range of regions…
> Maybe the efficiency goes down to much and limits the range of regions where it is viable? Actually, efficiency for PV would go up (the colder the cell, the higher the efficiency). > Maybe there are regulatory issues with water + power systems so close together (driving up installation and maintenance prices). Maybe, that would be interesting to learn :)
I wonder why they are bothering with gallium-arsenide panels when using a solar thermal setup would be a lot more cost efficient and probably more energy efficient as well. You simply run some kind of coolant through the collector, exchange the heat into water, and run a steam turbine from the resulting steam. You can even collect the water afterwords and condense it to get distilled water. There are many power plant…
Well, you'd end up with something like this: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/~wang30y/csp/ParabolicDish.html GaAs panels have ~40% efficiency. It's not easy/dirt cheap (you need high temperatures, and materials to go with that) to get that much efficiency out of steam turbine (or Stirling engine). For example your typical nuclear power plant would have about 33% thermal efficiency. And with the panels you have less moving…