--- Michel Jullian wrote: > Would cost more than plain cell wouldn't it?
Much less, supposedly. Here's why (without citations): the cost per unit of surface area of solar cells is many, many times more expensive than the fresnel concentrator (which is relatively cheap). Plus the concentrator provides some degree of protection from damage, in the event of storms. That would not matter much if the solar cell was already maxed-out with normal solar irradiation at zero concentration, when in fact they are very far from being maxed-out, and apparently become more efficient with higher intensity of radiation. Let's take a hypothetical case, using printed cells like Nanosolar, which are probably closer to being maxed-out without concentration, due to being non-crystalline. But if they can tolerate twice the nonfocused concentration, yet cost 10 times more per unit of surface area than the fresnel, then the net cost can be reduced significantly with even a small degree of concentration (2:1). At least that is the basic rationale, as I understand it. Jones > ----- Original Message ----- > If Nanosolar is for real, maybe they should get > together with a Fresnel maker ? > Jones
