Hi Zeke,
Although "the space requirements for a tracker can actually be higher than 30%
more", it doesn't have to be.
more", it doesn't have to be.
The "current versions" certainly do not need to be on a large pole (http://www.abc.net.au/newinventors/txt/s1487858.htm).
With all due respect, you're comments (intentionally or not) confine the discussion to schemes that actually do take 30% more space (i.e. large, common Gimbal arrangements).
As far as aesthetics are concerned, I agree that people in the US have a strange sense of what looks good on the landscape. As soon as the culture becomes more educated about energy and the environment, I hope that their sense of aesthetics will change too.
Have you ever driven through a large housing development and
notice the number of satellite dishes?
Mike
Zeke Yewdall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, you get get 30% more power from the same PV modules, but the
space requirements for a tracker can actually be higher than for 30%
more fixed PV. Fixed PV can be mounted on a building, often on a
existing surface, thus essentially not taking up any room. A tracker
(at least the current versions) require a large pole and room to turn.
I've found that alot of people are okay with putting modules on their
roof that isn't doing anything else anyway, but fewer want something
in the backyard, or sticking up off the roof. Aesthetics are strange
drivers (I know of one case in which the national park service didn't
want a 2,000 sq foot PV array, because it would destroy the natural
beauty, but apparently the 250 car parking lot and droning diesel
generators didn't...). In higher density urban areas, finding the
required volumes of space in which to mount trackers would be even
harder, whereas every urban area has surfaces which receive sunlight.
On 5/12/06, Michael Redler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
> Concentrators (heliostats) use tracking technology. The only difference is
> the half angle mechanism used in concentrators to reflect the light instead
> of keeping a surface normal to the Sun's rays.
>
> Once tracking technology becomes cost competitive when compared to simply
> adding more PV modules (approx. 30% increase in energy conversion with 2
> axis tracker), the technology will be commonplace and in some places
> inseparable. It's a little early to say for sure, that PV will work better
> with concentrated light but, I sure hope the "writing on the wall" is
> correct.
>
> ...a biased opinion.
>
> US #6,897,423
> Self-powered intermittent moving light tracking device and method
>
> Mike
>
>
> Lugano Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
> hi Logan.
>
> PV modules and solar concentrators are two different technologies and
> unfortunately, their individual energy capture principle is contradicting to
> each other. consequently, they can not be used at same application. PV
> modules need to absorb all the solar radiation so as to generate electricity
> through the module cells where as solar concentrators have to reflect all
> the solar radiation and direct it at a specific location (ie concentrated)
> for the purpose of heating a medium that can latter generate required
> energy. you therefore need to choose one for a specific application.
> however, when it comes to electricity the pv modules are good due to the
> fact that you can size them depending on your requirement starting with one
> module and increasing. concentrators for electricity is a large scale
> project - not so "modular".
>
> Lugano
>
> Logan Vilas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
> Would a standard PV module produce more when used with a Solar Concentrator
> or does it require a special PV module?
>
> Logan Vilas
>
>
> [snip]
_______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org
Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
