Is Spherical Solar Really The Future of Energy? 

Hi Guys, Ryan here! Thanks for watching, I enjoyed going down this solar lens rabbit hole and was really surprised at how some of them managed to increase solar energy production! Also, make sure to go check the awesome work from my friends at Planet Wild as they restoring our natural world: Deep sea clean-up: www.planetwild.com/ziroth/2 Resurrection of a dying forest: www.planetwild.com/ziroth/3

TL;DR: It is not. You're welcome... ;)

The problem lenses solve is to reduce the amount of solar cell surface, which is good for the budget if cost of cells is the limiting factor. However as costs keep dropping and efficiencies creep upwards, increasingly the limiting factor is surface area, which lenses do not solve. Lenses also introduce their own problems, such as that efficiency with increasing angle of incidence drops far quicker.

Here is the thing about any type of lense as far as I am aware: the solar panel needs to be smaller than the lens, which means less solar panels per area. Because all a lens does is concentrating light from a wider area to a smaller one. So how much more energy can actually be harvested from a lens + solar panel setup, vs a solar panel alone using the same area that the first setup uses?

3:46 homeboy really knows how yo use those channel locks

basically: Concentrated Solar PV only has real benefit if 1) the PV panels are significantly more efficient with intense sunlight, as to offset the inefficiency of lenses. though this is very much doable, and even possible with conventional PV panels. 2) the cost saving of having less panels per square kilometer can offset the cost increase of having lenses, which can only happen if CPV fully matures and adapted. 3) we can somehow make use of the heat from the cooling of the panels without too much cost, such as a temperature sensitive stirling generator or Peltier devices (Thermoelectric semiconductors / Thermocouple) without using too much cost. the hardest of the three to solve is basically #3 but if PV panels mature enough we can completely ignore energy loss from #3 if it can compensate with higher power output per square kilometer with same cost, or similar power output per square kilometer with less cost

Absolicon had a parabolic trough with a multijunction cell at the bottom and a copper pipe heating water on the back. It was such a clean design that could be easily scaled to any size. The trough had only a single axis and one regulator could work for essentially any length. It was better than anything I've seen since.

Thanks for another great video - loved your demo!

What a great channel to discover ! Thanks

With liquid cooling, you could even just have a convection loop instead of something pumped.

Keep at it. Always good to see you nosing about in technology

How does the lens use affect the usable lifespan of the panel?

Well, I always thought about index lens focusing light into light guide made from light fiber. In house, it can help remove windows which make energy savings. And in production it could help make focused energy flow to heat up heat storage, which can be heat source for stirling, for example.

As far as I know, and it used to definitely be true some years back, it is impossible to focus diffuse light such as light going through a cloud or heavy haze. So the lens approach can be expected to function very well in dry sunny climates such as Arizona and New Mexico but not well in eastern cloudy and hazy states. A regular solar panel not relying on lenses does function reasonably well through haze and somewhat also through thin clouds. Another technical issue that can be solved is that the focal point of the light going through a lens will change location as the sun moves. This means that maintaining the lens focus on the solar panel increases the complexity of the design and hence likely the cost for the product and its maintenance. One never knows what advances can be made these days so never say never! We do need to address these issues.

As other have already written: - the solar panel needs to be smaller than the lens, which means less solar panels per area - more expensive solar panels + lens and perhaps more crucial: - solar panels are much easier to clean than the jagged surface of a fernel lens, where dirt and dust will accumulate. Seem like good only in theory. In the real world we need to take into consideration practical things like unit economics, maintenance etc. This is not a great idea imo

Love seeing the speculation and inquisitiveness. I've been to hundreds of systems, the reality is cost is tantamount, and all these systems are far more expensive, materials, installation and maintenance, solar trackers fail, and sit there, a few more panels makes up the added wattage from tracking. Concentrated is a nonstarter for all the reasons you mention. the peroskovites are possible, if , if if. The real cost holdout is the battery storage, the inverters ( EG4 600xp ) and Panels have come down enormously, its the batteries and regulations / codes governments along with lack of funding is holding up much , much wider application. Theodore

I'm far from being an expert on solar energy but I was thinking about how hot the hood of a car can get in the sun. I've watched videos about using black tubing in a sort of box with a clear cover and letting the sun heat water in the tubes for hot water without electricity. So I'm wondering if Fresnel lenses could raise the temperature high enough convert the water to steam to run a turbine. Would need to use metal pipes and enclose the system so it wouldn't loose part of the steam into the air and waste water. Might could use something I read about years ago. Liquid ammonia I think. Vaporizes at a much lower temperature than water so it wouldn't need to get the pipes as hot. Good work on the video.

It's in my opinion that easy efficient tech is a puzzle with rewarding solutions

Area of lens is always bigger but if they add more than the area lost still might be worthwhile especially in latitudes that get less Solar??

In multilayer solar panels, solar efficiency doesn't increase because of concentration rather it is because of a wider range of energy bandgaps being absorbed from the sunlight. Each layer is designed to absorb a different energy bandgap.

compliments for the interesting video... happy to see the Sant' Ilario solar plant of my home city, Genova.. just let me say that Solar concentration from my Uni started some years before, dated 1964 by Professor Francia Fresnel Mirror (LFC) system Best regards, Marco Fossa

[Fresnel lenses work totally different than described.] CORRECTION: NOT. THE REST IS ABOUT FRESNEL ZONE PLATES. A Fresnel lens has concentric circles that block the light. It does not work usin a difractive material, rather blocking half of waves essentially leaving the parts where the wave phase make them stronger in the focal point and block where the phases would kill each other. Because of this the Fresnel lenses start with 50% efficiency, but you can use them for non diffractive waves, like X-ray or sound. For sound we did some experiments with cardboards, the lenses were ten feet diameter, and it worked. It was a school project 45 years ago.

modern solar pv cells are 22% to 24% efficient and mass produced concentrator pv will likely be less efficient than laboratory cells. in addition concentrator cells do not collect scattered sunlight, thus cpv will be effectively less than double rather than 3x efficient compared to standard solar cells. then the cpv is also much more expensive as you point out, plus much more finnicky due to need for high precision tracking.

Index lenses would probably work well on boats, you can make cooling loop that gets cooled down by the ocean

When panels were expensive. Many companies tried to get into the solar market, trying to use technology to get an upper hand. A big endevour here focused on fapour deposition solar panels ... but after multicrystaline panels got so cheap, nobody wanted to invest countless millions more when there are square killometers of roof space still available to be plastered. I think the best takeway is to optimize setups and get a few percent out of them. Add cooling and maybe some mirrors to catch more ambient or morning/evening sun, and it will be a nice solution for most.

People are always looking for a way to over complicate it when there's no need to over complicate it. We in the US have so much desert land that we could produce all the energy we need with solar and we would only use a small fraction of the desert land for regular solar panels. The real problem has never been watts per a square foot of solar panels or not having enough land with direct sunlight. The problem has always been the rotation of the earth. It dark about half the day and light about half the day. Thee either needs to be an efficient and safe way to store the excess energy collected during the day so it can be used at night or on days it's cloudy. We keep coming up with overly complicated ways to store energy. Batteries are not dense enough. Molten salt is overly complicated and relies on the grid to keep from solidifying in the event there's not enough sun. Gravity storage such as huge amounts of water pumped to a higher elevation and then released to a lower elevation can work pretty good. But it too is a super huge endeavor to build and maintain. IMO, a combination of solar, wind, nuclear and fossil fuels are the only practical solution with current technology and the current state of the world's political unity and peace. What would a solution look like? The holy grail is of course direct radiation to energy production where heating water to steam is removed from the equation. Equally, fusion is a solution. But both are technologically outside our abilities at the moment. The other solution is a world electric grid with solar and wind production diversified throughout the world. The darkside of the earth is provided for by the lightside. But of course, although we as humans are capable technologically of that endeavor, we are far too immature as a species to cooperate enough to accomplish it. So, that puts us back to an all in solution on an individual national level until such technologies develope or humanity matures. I personally believe technology is the answer. Imagine if the world got together and offered $10 trillion dollars to the first company that could sustain fusion with 10+% positive energy production. There would be a race like none other to get it done. Imagine unlocking the race to a sustainable solution, driven by the greed of fame and fortune. The minds of the world aiming toward a singular goal. It wouldn't matter if their motivation was greed or the betterment of humanity or the betterment of the world. Regardless of motivation, the end goal is the same.

Vertical Solar Panels suspended inside Transparent Towers could rotate and track the sun. This system could be installed in urban areas.

Put a stirling generator on the opposite side of the hot solar panel. There will be a temp difference between them and you can even increase that difference. If the panel is made tough enough, maybe being hot won't matter.

Often wondered about the concepts discussed in this video.

"While these are still widely used..." Uh, no. They were never "widely used." In fact, most solar mirror systems have been abandoned due to high costs per kW-hr produced. Kudos with respect to solar concentration. Combined with Vertical Bifacial Solar Panels, which significantly reduce electricity-killing temperature, and high ground albedo, we might just see an improvement (reduction) with respect to total life-cycle costs per kW-hr.

I think 2023 is a good year for the environment with increased use of solar and other renewable energy sources along with recent breakthroughs in clean energy.

From a quick check ages ago, I couldn't find any lens that where remotely cost effective. But the "tech ingredients" channel had a great idea of using thin aluminum sheets plated with silver (and I believe anti tarnishing plastic/film). Not that his example appeared remotely permanent (don't let it hail on the thing, nor let wind hit his contraption) put the mirrors and the idea of tracking with the lighter part appears as a good start for a solar system.

This concept was a product for some time, using 1cm high efficiency panels and solar Fresnel lenses. Also PMA and glass solar TIR concentrators.

The saying is 'take it with a pinch of salt' because a pinch of salt makes a large difference to the flavour of a dish whereas a grain of salt would not be noticeable. However, a very interesting treatise on possible alternative energy technology. Thank you.

4m^2 of fresnel lens might make sense on the outside wall of my house, to bring in more winter sunshine through a light pipe for direct heating. Then there's making hot coals in the daytime for the nighttime. If you can get 15kg up to 800 Celsius, might be good. 15*1000*800*1.8 = 6kWh. (1.8J/g latent heat, 3.6MJ per kWh).

I am 100% solar and I love it. I was up one night brainstorming like always and I was trying to figure out hot water from the sun and it dawned on me. I would not even mention this if someone in Europe is already doing it, Dual Solar panels that are more efficient from water cooling and to use the hot water. It makes 100% sense to me.

That thumbnail honestly just looks like a weapon to roast nearby invaders. 3:07 Exactly my point.

You can't fix something that is not broken.

The Fresnel lenses in lighthouses need constant cleaning to operate efficiently. Dust, pollen, and deposits from rain are always going to hinder the operation of concentrators, and this will add to the overall upkeep cost when coupled with solar panels that also require occasional cleaning. The inexpensive flat plastic Fresnel lens is the worst choice as a concentrator a its grooves are so fine that it may be near impossible to keep them clean without sandwiching the film in glass and adding to the cost that might just be better spent on additional solar panels.

The best 'normal' single junction PV cells are already at 22+% efficiency. You're using an outdated baseline reference. Yes they were around just 17% efficient ten years or so ago

Connect the panels with quality Steel hinges along their length to form a concertina which are suspended from a single steel pole embedded in a concrete foundation, A manual winch retracts a steel cable attached to the panels elongating the stack of panels vertically. The angle between the panels is therefor adjustable. One panel receives direct sunlight, the panel above receives reflected light from the lower panel. The panels will operate cooler and therefore efficiency will increase. Ideally, one would take advantage of flexible solar panel tech in this situation and be purpose made; double-sided, concertina and installed vertically to face north-south. There are a long list of reasons for vertically mounting panels, e.g. self-cleaning - dust, leaves, space requirements- foot-print.

very interesting concept. it seems like itll come down to healthy competition. who will win, traditional solar as it get ever more efficient or novel approaches like this? both are good and it's really a battle of economics and supply chain. fun to think about :)

I can't wait for someone to notice the trees and realize that the nature is much smarter than us and copy that model.

The issue is storing energy. Energy should always be transforming through a load, not being stored. Storing energy leads to material waste.

I keep seeing "less solar panel per area" but that doesnt matter - its the area to conversion that matters - not the area of the panel it self. If anything, this is a good thing to have to use less panel surface. The main problem is just heat as to say, even at higher conversion rate, these are still collecting heat or it doesnt have a good way to convert IR light into power before it hits the panel it self. Thats what you need to fight. Some method to convert the unused light into something that we can pull power from before it hits the panel. So, while I think this is the best idea, it still needs more research into how we can use the lens to convert the unused light into something else as well. Either it be moving that heat into water or some how up convert the IR into light. A system that can convert 100% energy will never get hot. As heat is a method of loss. Yet, a system like this doesnt have to hit 100% - it only needs to hit a precent that ground air movement can control (as we have wind). Lenses are a good thing because it should last way longer than the panel it self along with the fact it should be cheaper than the solar panel it self. Thus having to replace only the solar panels should come down in cost while you keep all the other benefits of what the lens array is giving you. This type of system will maybe never see roof top - but for grid power generations this shouldnt be as big of a problem.

3:50 Actually You can pump water through a pipe without using electricity if you attach A windmill. Not to mention the mere process of the windmill Liquid lines would produce more electricity While still providing a cooling effect.

I think the reason the panels can generate _"more"_ energy than the other panels is because the reality is the energy we're getting from the sun is like the tiniest fraction of the energy available, the visible light we see is like (I dont know the numbers this is a guess) probably only somewhere in the region of less than 4% of the total energy the sun dumps onto our planet. So these lenses are just concentrating the energy output, and the panels can take advantage of them. I'm not a scientist, no degrees in anything - But this sort of stuff gives me optimism for a day when 95%+ of our energy needs come from things that dont murder the ecosystems :)

It needs ultra fast shuttering to allow the panel to cool while receiving high pwered spikes, which as noted leads to higher efficiency in the panel the duty cycle coild split into thirds or fourths, redirecring the concentrated beam to another nearby. The shadow phase of the cycle should be embraced, as it allows the PV's charge to reset to zero, then when reilluminated it must polarize fully, turning a DC PV cell into a high energy impulse PV cell with ceramic capacitor like outputs if it were drawn for a pulse power supply. The benifits will be many, as the cells now naturally cool for 67% or 75% of the wave duty cycle, and the output power is tri-phase or quad-phase impulse current which is literally THE most efficent form of power transmission. More than AC, and more than 'high voltage DC' (signal is square waves arranged in a myan pyramid shape; outpreforms AC -- yet impulse DC is best). Systems of concentrated power behave differently than those not designed for it. An impulse system only transmits energy with very dense flux, compared to AC with much less density of flux over time. A monocystal PV with silvered nano wire or even modified layers of translucent carbon fiber as condutors (to hold the charge beond what the doped monocrystals hold; aka, the something that has to connect to the wire for the grid, its usually normal metal girds on each face)... something like that should contain bursts of intense energy easily if cooled for most of it's duty cycle.

Archimedes sometime in the 3rd century BC: "1968? Hold my ambrosia"

Is that 45% of the light falling on the solar cell, or 45% of the light falling on the lens, or are those two equal? In other words, how efficient is the lens? It looked like the lens was not sending 100% of the light hitting it, to the solar cell. It looked like there was some loss of light. Also, with those particular solar cells, how efficient are they in the absence of the lens?

I saw solar panels combining photovoltaic and solarthermic parts. The solarthermic tubes reduce the heat of the panels, while storing energy in form of heated water.

Ivanpah, which you show, is a ghastly contraption that does have a large steam generator and it is absolutely fabulous at catching birds flying through the lens path and making them explode. Not nice. Fresnel lenses are just great, but note you still need the extra area of the lens to capture the extra solar energy, as you say, so if you do this at scale you need massive lenses and fewer solar panels, but the lenses have to be between the panels and the sun so you need a steerable array which costs money so its all a big waste of time. I wrote this while watching your video so I didn't waste more time than needed. Multi layer solar panels will be available from Longi soon, operating at required efficiency and no extra cost. with no tracking needed. Thanks for playing. Nice try. Thank you.

Lenses with solar panels were used long ago for power generation on satellites, something I learnt at a conference.

What about using a Stirling Engine in conjunction with the Beta Eye? The Stirling Engine already uses heat differences to generate power AND equalizes the temperature between the 2 points over time. While this will not cool a Solar Panel enough, it might be able to use the concentrated solar light from the Beta Eye better since it is already built for more extreme temperatures.

Very interesting. I work with a United States Government Contractor in the early 1980s that built large concentrating solar generators for research. They used your flat lenses with the small PVC at the bottom of a sealed box. The large assembly rotated on perimeter rails. The election of President Reagan caused the research to be canceled and moved to another company that built the single pier rotating solar generators you exhibit. I do not think we had 50% efficient solar cells in the 1980s though we were also researching PVC fabrication. I started building solar generators in the 1980s and have experienced great performance. Today I generate all my power from a single 100W solar panel.

They should try that lens with the slit experiment.

There's another aspect to lens concentration being ignored here. You can use lenses to concentrate only the wavelengths that are ideal for the PV cell, and reflect those which are not ideal, and that can radically reduce heat in the cell, helping them to operate much more efficiently without dramatic cooling overhead.

I have tried mirros on solar bulbs, but I have to change positions every one or half an hour to focus back on solar panel.

This might be a dumb question but the solar panel plugged into your bread board obviously doesnt turn a generator. So how does it produce electricity?

I always wondered what a 2 way mirror in front of panel might do. Let’s light in and then any light lost will be reflected to be caught again?

Perhaps if we were to use this type tech towards producing / cleaning our water thru distillation processes and /or by flashing into steam. If we could harness this flash point pressure we could produce not only fresh water but electricity due to expansion rate of water. It could be scalable and stand alone , able to use in polluted waters/ saltwater/ puddles... The by products would be solids able to be processed/sold or added to soil or any number of uses. They could sit on the ocean using nothing. Zero , making fresh water all day. No moving parts. Or big ones next to oil rigs producing fresh water and power using just focused beams of light on a mechanism and casing able to withstand the flashing of water to steam and direct its path. I have thought of this idea for years and have a idea of this mechanism's appearance. I saw it in a dream and it was about two foot long and 8 to 10 inches in diameter running into a bank of pipes or pipe rack. My 24yr background in refractory lends me to think it was one in a series of these mechanisms. It was relativity simple with just a few pipes attaching to this module with could be carried by one person about 60 to 80 lbs. Thanks for letting me speel...... I like the topic ..

Overheating of most solar cells leads them to become less efficient...thus tracking should not be for max sun exposure but max efficiency...always following the sun will work against you in hot climates. Weird idea..put them underground..always cool there...use light pipes(fiber optics) to bring the light to the panels...that way you can still use the ground on top of them.

that indiegogo was a scam. reminds me of solar roadways 😅

only the fresenius solution seems like it has some actual potential in practice. the any angle of incidence lens idk, probably not really better than a tracker.

The better solution would seem to be to focus the lens directly on the liquid medium used to run a generator, thus completely eliminating solar panels, which are fairly inefficient.

What about a prism? and solar panels tuned to specific frequency of light?

Lizard: Do we really "need" energy? lays on a rock and sunbathes...

Is the ‘S’ in Fresnel, silent?

2:55 I think the heating up of the solar panel will be the problem of the efficiency in the end. if you could cool it down it would be way more efficient with a lense. Haven't seen the entire video yet.

HEY! That was my idea!

The concentration only works better because of these specific new solar things that operate at higher efficiency when concentrated. I was so confuesed up until you got to that part.

What about, if Fresnel lens directs sun to small vacuum box with highly absorbing heating element through transparent side. Other inner sides would be covered with announced 40% efficient infrared panels backed with mirrors to catch heat radiation from element?

What about a sterling engine to use the excess heat created. Could that produce electricity effectively?

The main drawback to energy production becomes area/space. However the answers currently put forward are complex and costly requiring maintenance and educated personnel.. a return to high volume low tech is what's needed.

As a child, my sister and I would use a lens to focus the sunlight on a leaf to watch it catch fire.

Personally, I want to see the Beta Eye without the solar panel, and instead just use it as a laser beam. }: ) More seriously, specially-shaped mirrors that will redirect the beam from the sphere towards the same location wherever the beam lands on the mirror would remove the need for moving parts, but wouldn't handle the size issue. The multi-focal lens is probably the best bet. Honestly, though, I just don't see solar power being terribly efficient until we figure out how to transport it from orbit. Build the power generator up above the atmosphere, and we're getting much more efficient.

Simply putting mirrors on the back of your panels can increase their efficiency. And weight and cost. But it works.

Just in principle, this seems not that different from using mirrors which have been in use for this purpose for ages? Though I guess the potential of *graded index* lenses is a strong upgrade

I feel like a lucid dream gave me this idea once

Beta eye is just an art

If you don't have the surface area for a lot of panels this makes sense. Like say you only have an apartment balcony or tiny home

Brilliant new technologies Good video again

So, we can boil some water to cooldown things?

The issue is the extra heat applied to the solar panel when using any sort of concentration device.

Energy is one thing, but energy per unit cost is paramount. And full environmental gross cost, not after government funding and accounting magic.

1968?! Bro, people been frying ants with magnifying glasses long before that 🤣

Try that with semi transparent photovoltaics. They shouldn't heat up as much.

We've been concentrating sunlight for solar energy since 1800s

Many years ago, I was told about a group of people living on an island. They had A lens, focussed on a heavy, thick chunk of metal, on a large, reinforced water tank. The lens was set up, to track the sun. The intensified heat caused the water to turn to steam, which powered a generator. The water was also plumbed through pipes into the homes, with radiators, for heat and hot water use.

Could you make a video about Aureus solar from this Philippine student?

Fraunhofer is not really a company but a research institute. And ISE is simply their solar energy institute

Make a type of brick with PZT layering or just synthesize a Piezoelectric Brick & charge it with Fresnel Lens amplified solar beams and you have an effecient energy harvester.

I wonder if the sphere could be made of a transparent shell that was then filled with water.

Someone with the money, experiment with a solar cell with a series of Peltier Junctions stacked underneath (2 or more) that terminate at an aluminum heat sink vane that can have a fan blown over, or over in to a water cooled aluminum heat sink driven by a small fountain pump. See how much extra electricity can be produced from the heat boost of a Fresnel Driven Solar Cell. Please let me know how it works with the Peltier stack wired in series and in parallel. Thanks!

Why not use a green filter to reject heat like leaves do.

Esto es en lo que he estado trabajando este mes y por un momento pensé que estaba por hacer un gran descubrimiento, que desilusión 😅

Maybe instead of glass we can use a sphere full of water so if it starts a fire or starts frying people we can trigger an emergency switch to empty the water?

You could just put a sterling cycle engine on the back of each panel to harvest the heat.

How about concentrated sunlight with a sand battery. Especially for a single family application.

Why don’t they put the excess heat into the ground and then use it through the winter? Yes, more cost but more applications for the same amount of land.