0
Research Papers

Computational Study of a Fixed Orientation Photovoltaic Compound Parabolic Concentrator

[+] Author and Article Information
William Vance

Mechanical and Materials Engineering,
Wright State University,
Dayton, OH 45435
e-mail: willmv@frontier.com

Michael Gustafson

Baker Group,
Des Moines, IA 50317

Hong Huang, James Menart

Mechanical and Materials Engineering,
Wright State University,
Dayton, OH 45435

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Solar Energy Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF SOLAR ENERGY ENGINEERING: INCLUDING WIND ENERGY AND BUILDING ENERGY CONSERVATION. Manuscript received June 1, 2015; final manuscript received October 24, 2016; published online November 10, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Philippe Blanc.

J. Sol. Energy Eng 139(2), 021002 (Nov 10, 2016) (9 pages) Paper No: SOL-15-1164; doi: 10.1115/1.4035066 History: Received June 01, 2015; Revised October 24, 2016

The computer program called Solar_PVHFC has been modified to model a compound parabolic concentrator (CPC) that uses photovoltaic cells to produce electrical energy. This program was used to study the effects of concentration ratio, truncation height ratio, and photovoltaic cell efficiency on electrical power output and relative levelized cost of energy (LCE) of a fixed CPC photovoltaic device. Comparisons are made to fixed, conventional flat photovoltaic panels. This study indicates that CPCs can reduce the levelized cost of electrical energy produced by high efficiency, high cost photovoltaic cells, but provides no advantages for lower efficiency, lower price photovoltaic cells.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Rabl, A. , 1976, “ Optical and Thermal Properties of Compound Parabolic Concentrators,” Sol. Energy, 18(6), pp. 497–511. [CrossRef]
SunPower Corporation, 2012, “ C7 Tracker,” SunPower Corporation, San Jose, CA, accessed May 20, 2015, http://us.sunpower.com/sites/sunpower/files/media-library/data-sheets/ds-sunpower-c7-tracker-datasheet.pdf
Brown, N. , 2013, “ ‘Lowest-Cost PV Energy on the Market’—Concentrated PV From Cogenra,” Sustainable Enterprises Media, Inc., San Francisco, CA, accessed May 20, 2015, http://cleantechnica.com/2013/11/21/introducing-ultra-cheap-cpv-system/
Dobos, A. , 2013, “ PVWatts Version 1 Technical Reference,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO.
Gustafson, M. , 2013, “ A Computational Approach to Simulating the Performance of a 24-Hour Solar Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Power Plant,” Wright State University, Master's thesis, Dayton, OH.
Liu, B. Y. H. , and Jordon, R. C. , 1963, “ The Long-Term Average Performance of Flat-Plate Solar Energy Collectors,” Sol. Energy, 7(2), pp. 53–74. [CrossRef]
Perez, R. P. , Ineichen, P. , Seals, R. , Michalsky, J. , and Stewart, R. , 1990, “ Modeling Daylight Availability and Irradiance Components From Direct and Global Irradiance,” Sol. Energy, 44(5), pp. 271–289. [CrossRef]
Duffie, J. , and Beckman, W. , 2006, Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2015, “ 1991–2005 Update: Typical Meteorological Year 3,” National Solar Radiation Data Base, Golden, CO, accessed Jan. 23, 2015, http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1991-2005/tmy3/
Townsend, T. U. , 1989, A Method for Estimating the Long-Term Performance of Direct-Coupled Photovoltaic Systems, University of Wisconsin at Madison, Madison, WI.
King, D. , Boyson, W. , and Kratochvill, J. , 2004, “ Photovoltaic Array Performance Model,” Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, Report No. SAND2004-3535.
Welford, W. , and Winston, R. , 1978, The Optics of Nonimaging Concentrators, Academic Press, New York.
Pinazo, J. , Cañada, J. , and Arago, F. , 1992, “ Analysis of the Incident Angle of the Beam Radiation on CPC,” Sol. Energy, 49(3), pp. 175–179. [CrossRef]
Brandemuehl, M. , and Beckman, W. , 1980, “ Transmission of Diffuse Radiation Through CPC and Flat Plate Collector Glazings,” Sol. Energy, 24(5), pp. 511–513. [CrossRef]
McIntire, W. , and Reed, K. , 1981, “ Orientational Relationships for Optically Non-Symmetric Solar Collectors,” Sol. Energy, 31(4), pp. 405–410. [CrossRef]
Greenman, P. , 1980, “ Reduction of Intensity Variations on the Absorbers of Ideal Flux Concentrators,” Appl. Opt., 19(16), pp. 2812–2821. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Astronergy, 2013, “ Datasheet Crystalline PV Module NMC CHSM6610P (BF) Series,” Chint Solar, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China, accessed Jan. 21, 2015, http://www.astronergy.com/attch/product/NMC%20CHSM6610P%20Series%20K5.pdf
Osborne, M. , 2010, “ Manufacturing Cost per Watt at First Solar Falls to US$0.76 Cents: Module Faults Hit Earnings,” PVTech, London, accessed May 21, 2015, www.pv-tech.org/news
Runyon, J. , 2014, “ WTO Tells US to Reconsider Solar Panel Tariffs,” RenewableEnergyWorld.com, Peterborough, NH, accessed May 21, 2015, www.renewableenergyworld.com
SunPower Corporation, 2013, “ E-Series Solar Panels,” SunPower Corporation, San Jose, CA, accessed Jan. 21, 2015, http://us.sunpower.com/sites/sunpower/files/media-library/data-sheets/ds-e20-series-327-residential-solar-panels-datasheet.pdf
Ladelfa, S. , 2014, “ SunPower Module Costs,” YellowLite, Cleveland, OH.
SunPower Corporation, 2013, “ X-Series Solar Panels,” SunPower Corporation, San Jose, CA, accessed Jan. 21, 2015, http://us.sunpower.com/sites/sunpower/files/media-library/data-sheets/ds-x21-series-335-345-residential-solar-panels-datasheet.pdf
Spectrolab, 2008, “ 28.3% Ultra Triple Junction (UTJ) Solar Cells,” Spectrolab, Inc., Sylmar, CA, accessed Jan. 21, 2015, http://www.spectrolab.com/DataSheets/TNJCell/utj3.pdf
Spectrolab, 2009, “ Space Products: Frequently Asked Questions,” Spectrolab, Sylmar, CA, accessed May 21, 2015, http://www.spectrolab.com/faqs-space.htm

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

A schematic of a photovoltaic CPC. The subscript T denotes truncated dimensions [8].

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

A portrayal of how a CPC panel composed of five troughs compares to a conventional flat panel

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

A diagram showing how radiation is decreased from what is incident on the aperture of the CPC within the acceptance angle, ICPC, to what passes through to the absorber, SCPC, and finally, to what is actually absorbed by the photovoltaic cells, Sabs

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Beam radiation is resolved in to the transverse and longitudinal projections (θt and θl) on the CPC aperture

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Electric output per unit area over a year for CPCs and a conventional panel using the Astronergy photovoltaic cells. The CPC geometry varies to incorporate concentration ratios of 2, 5, and 10 and truncation height ratios of 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Electric output per unit area over a year for CPCs and a conventional panel using the SunPower E20 photovoltaic cells. The CPC geometry is varied to incorporate concentration ratios of 2, 5, and 10 and truncation height ratios of 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and1.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Electric output per unit area over a year for CPCs and a conventional panel using the SunPower X21 photovoltaic cells. The CPC geometry is varied to incorporate concentration ratios of 2, 5, and 10 and truncation height ratios of 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and1.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Electric output per unit area over a year for CPCs and a conventional panel using the Spectrolab photovoltaic cells. The CPC geometry is varied to incorporate concentration ratios of 2, 5, and 10 and truncation height ratios of 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

The difference in levelized cost of energy between CPCs and a conventional panel using the Astronergy photovoltaic cells. The CPC geometry is varied to incorporate concentration ratios of 2, 5, and 10 and truncation height ratios of 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

The difference in levelized cost of energy between CPCs and a conventional panel using the SunPower E20 photovoltaic cells. The CPC geometry is varied to incorporate concentration ratios of 2, 5, and 10 and truncation height ratios of 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

The difference in levelized cost of energy between CPCs and a conventional panel using the SunPower X21 photovoltaic cells. The CPC geometry is varied to incorporate concentration ratios of 2, 5, and 10 and truncation height ratios of 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

The difference in levelized cost of energy between CPCs and a conventional panel using the Spectrolab photovoltaic cells. The CPC geometry is varied to incorporate concentration ratios of 2, 5, and 10 and truncation height ratios of 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

LCE for the best configured (lowest LCE) CPCs along with the corresponding conventional panels for each type of photovoltaic cell. The bottom portion of the plot is a zoomed in version of the top plot; notice the different y-axes for LCE.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Electric output per unit area for the best configured (lowest LCE) CPCs along with the corresponding conventional panels for each type of photovoltaic cell

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In