N A S A C O N T R A C T O R R E P O R T

0 0 00
N
I

w
U

ANALYSIS OF GaAs A N D Si SOLAR ENERGYHYBRID SYSTEMS

J o h z H. Heinbockel and A . S. Roberts, Jr.
Prepared by

OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY

RESEARCH FOUNDATION

Norfolk, Va. 2 3 5 0 8
for LangleyResearch

Cetzter

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS SPACE AND ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, D. C.

MARCH 1977

~~

TECH LIBRARY KAFB, N M

0062351
1. Report No.

2. Government Accession No.

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

NASA CR-2800
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

ANALYSIS OF G a A s AND S i SOLAR E E G NR Y

HYBRID SYSTEMS
7. Authar(s) John H. Heinbockeland A.S. Roberts, Jr. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address O l d Dominion University Research Foundation

Harch 1977
6. Performing Organization Code
8. Performing Organization Report No.

10. Work Unit No.

11. Contract or Grant No.

Norfolk, VA

23508

NAS1-11707-86
13. Type of Report and Period Covered

2. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

National Aeronautics andSpace Administration Washington, DC 20546

5. Supplementary Notes

Contractor

Report

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

Langley technical monitor: Final report.

6. Abstract

E. J. Conway

Various s i l i c o n h y b r i d systems are modeled and compared with a G a l l u Arsenidehybridsystem. i m The hybridsystems modeled produce elect r i c power and a l s o thermal power which can be used f o r h e a t i n g o r a i r conditioning.Variousperformanceindices are defined andused t o compare t h e systemperformance: capital c o s t per electric power out; c a p i t a l c o s t per t o t a l power out; capital c o s t per electric power plus mechanical power; annual cost per annual electric energy; and annual cost per annual electric energyplusannualmechanical work. These performance indices indicate that concentrator hybrid systems can be c o s t e f f e c t i v e when compared with present day energy costs. Realistic cost and e f f i c i e n c i e s of G a s and S i are respectively $35,000/m2 f o r 15% e f f i c i e n t solar c e l l s and $1000/m2 for 10%e f f i c i e n t s o l a r cells. Limiting values for annual costs are 10.3 O/kv7h and6.8 O/kv7h for S i and G a A s respectively. Results demonstrate that for a givenflow r a t e there i s an optimal operating condition for maximum photovoltaic outputassociatedwithconcentratorsystems. Also concentratorhybrid systems produce a d i s t i n c t c o s t advantage over f l a t plate hybrid systems

7. Koy Words (Solocted by Authar(s))

18. Distribution Statement

Gallium Arsenide, Silicon, solar, concentrators,systems,efficiency, energy,photovoltaic, models

9. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

- Unlimited
22. Price*

Subject Category 44
20. Securir/ Classif. (of this page)

21.

No. of Pages

Unclassified

Unclassified

90

$4.75

For d e by the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161

PREFACE This Basic period. updated work was performed are during thought the to summer fall of 1975. and be valid during this

data and conclusions with improved

The system analysis contained in this report can be performance cost and information.

J.H.

Heinbockel

A.S. Roberts, Jr.

August 1976

iii

I'
CONTENTS

Page

.......................... SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF SYMBOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . MODELS FOR GaAs AND Si EFFICIENCIES . . . . . . . . . . LinearModel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................... Nonlinear Model
PREFACE

ii
1

2
4

5 5
6

........... Analysis and Assumptions for Systems I and I1 . . . . Analysis and Assumptions for Systems I11 andIV . . . Analysis and Assumptions for System V . . . . . . . . 4 . ANNUAL PERFORMANCE MODELS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . DISCUSSIONS OF MODELS. ASSUMPTIONS. AND RESULTS . . . . 7 . COST PROJECTIONS FOR GaAs SOLAR CELLS FOR .............. TERRESTRIAL APPLICATIONS
3

HYBRID SYSTEM MODELS AND ANALYSIS

8
9

13 14 18 21 23

25 29
30 31 33

...................... ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8. CONCLUSIONS FIGURES APPENDIX A

.........................
.Computer Program for Comparison Systems of
I 11.111.IV. .

.............
Annual Energy

62

APPENDIX B .Computer Program for of Systems 111. IV REFERENCES

............. ........................

Production 75 82

LIST OF TABLES Table Page A p p r o x i m a tc o s tsr l a rh o t o v o l t a i c e fo o p system

1
2

.................... S o l a r / p h o t o v o l t mia r p e n e t r a t i o n a c k t .....

LIST . OF FIGURES

31
32

Fiaure

1
2

A solaenergy ybrid ystem r h s

..........

33 34 35 36 37
39

G a A s s o l a r c e l l p e r f o r m a n c ec u r v e sf r o m

reference 1

3
4

S solar i

.................. cell characteristics rom eference f r 2 .

5

G a A s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c sf r o mP r o g r e s sR e p o r t

c i t e d on page

...............
3

5
6

8 9
10

1 1
12

13
14

15
16

........ S i and G a A s Comparisonofmodelsfor efficiency ................. S o l ac o l l e c t o rf oh y b r i s y s t e m s r s r d ...... Summary o f q u a t i o n s e s c r i b i n g y s t e m e d s I . . . . Summary of e q u a t i o n d e s c r i b i n g y s t e m s s I1 . . . Summary o f e q u a t i o n s d e s c r i b i n g s y s t e m s I11 and IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of e q u a t i o n s e s c r i b i n g y s t e m d s V . . . . PI vs . concentration ............. P2 v s . concentration ............. P, v s . c o n c e n t r a t i o n ............. E l e c t r i c o u t p u t v s . c o n c e n t r a t i o nf o r Si . . . . E l e c t r i c o u t p u t vs . c o n c e n t r a t i o nf o r GaAs . . .
Si p e r f o r m a n cfe o m f e r e n c e r re
vi

40 41
42

43
44

45
46
47

48 49

Figure

Page

17

18
19
20

21
22

23
24

25
26

........ Energy istributionor ystem d f s I11 . . . . . . . f s IV . . . C o n c e n t r a t i o n vs. t e m p e r a t u r e o r y s t e m C o n c e n t r a t i o n st e m p e r a t u r e o r y s t e m v . f s 1 1 . . 1 Summary o f e q u a t i o n s f o r a n n u a l o u t p u t f r o m IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . systems P e r f o r m a n c ei n d e x P, v s . c o n c e n t r a t i o n f o r v a r i o u s f l o w rate parameters K . . . . . . . . P, vs. P 5 f o rv a r i o u s flow rate parameters K . . Annualenergyoutputpersquare meter o f aperture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . meter of Annualenergyoutputpersquare a p e r t u r e vs. c o n c e n t r a t i o n ..........
Energy istribution or ystem d f s
IV
1 1 1 ,

50 51 52 53 54 55

56
57

58
59
60

S o l a r c e l l c o s t v s . min P 4 for c o n c e n t r a t o r costs a linear unction f of c o n c e n t r a t i o n S o l a r c e l l c o s t vs. min P, o r c o n c e n t r a t o r c o s t s a constant . Extrapolatedolar s

. .

27 28

. ..........,.. cell cost . . . . . . . . . .

61

vii

ANALYSIS OF GaAs

ANDSi SOLAR BY

ENERGY

HYBRID

SYSTEMS

JohnH.

Heinbockell and A.S. Roberts, Jr.2

SUMMARY Various silicon hybrid systems are modeled and compared with a Gallium Arsenide hybrid system. The hybrid systems modeled produce electric power and also thermal power which can be used for heating or air conditioning. Various performance indices are defined and are used to compare the system performance. The performance indices are: capital cost per electric power out; capital cost per total power capital out; cost per electric power plus mechanical power; annual cost per annual electric energy; and annual cost per annual electric energy plus annual mechanical work. These performance indices indicate that concentrator hybrid systems can be cost effective when compared with present day energy costs. Realistic costs and efficiences of GaAs Si are respectand ively $35,000/m2 for 15% efficient solar cells and $1000/m2 for 10% efficient solar cells. The performance indices show that limiting values for annual costs are 10.3 $/kwh and 6.8 $/kwh for Si and GaAs respectively. Results demonstrate that for a given flow rate there an optimal operating condition for is maximum photovoltaic output associated with concentrator systems. Also concentrator hybrid systems produce a distinct cost advantage over flat plate hybrid systems.
-

Professor, Departmentof Mathematical and Computing Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia 23508. Professor of Engineering and Associate Dean, School of Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia 23508.

LIST OF SYMBOLS silicon gallium maximum arsenide power

efficiency of solar cell reference reference slope efficiency temperature

coefficient
OC

temperature temperature

OK

solar intensity [w/m2] short circuit current density [amp/cm2] open circuit voltage [Volts] fill factor scale factors

constants (i = 1, 2, 3 , 4 , 5 ) electric output area [w/m2 1 per square system meter of

absorber

energy absorbed by of absorber [w/m2]

per square to

meter convection

loss terms per unit area due and radiation losses [w/m2]

incident solar flux density [w/m2] energy removed by coolant [w/m21 temperature (OK) of plate or cell temperature (OK) of cooling fluid heat loss coefficient [w/m2
TAI RK
OK]

ambient temperature (OK)

= = =

emissivity Stephan-Boltzmann constant

mass f l o w r a t e [ k g / h r l
s p e c i f i ch e a to ff l u i d

= = =

Aabs

area o f b s o r b i n g u r f a c e a s
e f f i c i e n c y of f l a t p l a t e c o l l e c t o r
i = 1, 2, 3 ,
4,

pi
A

5 performance ndices i

aP

a p e r t u r e area

'TH

2
Aabs
/

Aa

t h e o r e t i c ac o n c e n t r a t i o n a t i o l r
r n \

QwoRK
Q~~

.5

"

IFK

TCK
=

,)

q= a liig y u h th QTHERMAL t h e r m ae n e r g y l

low q u a l i t y h e r m a l n e r g y t e
i C

K
111

= =
= =

Aab u n i t s

e f f e c t i v eh e r m ac o n d u c t a n c e e r t l p area oa b s o r b e r f

e f f i c i e n c yo fa b s o r p t i o n month year of
(1 t o 1 2 )

n
QELEC ( n )

e l e c t r i c o u t p u tf o rn t h o fa b s o r b e r
t h e r m a lo u t p u tf o rn t h o fa b s o r b e r

month p e r u n i t area month p e r u n i t area

QWORK ( n

=
= =

work o u t p u t f o r n t h month p e r u n i t a r e a of a b s o r b e r a v e r a g es o l a rf l u xd e n s i t yf o rn t h i n t e r e s t rate maintenanceost c number o f e a r s y minimum v a l u eo fp e r f o r m a n c ei n d e x

4

month

m nl minP

= =

1 .
A

INTRODUCTION

typical solar energy hybrid system is illustrated in figure 1 . The system is a hybrid system in that solar energy can be converted to (a) electrical energy by utilizing photovoltaic devices and (b) thermal energy which in turn can be used for heating or air conditioning. In this report, various types solar collectors will be of analyzed so that electric and thermal energy outputs received from the collectors can be compared. The photovoltaic devices considered for the conversion of solar energy to electric energy will be limited to silicon -(Si) and gallium arsenide (GaAs) solar cells. The system comparisons will incorporate both energy output comparisons andcost comparisons. The cost comparisons are based upon current costs and projected costs for Si and GaAs solar cells. Comparisons are obtained by defining various system performance indices such capital costs per unit power as out and annual costs per annual energy out.

In section 2, mathematical models are constructed to simulate of the conversion efficiencies both Si and GaAs photo cells under a variety of temperature and light flux conditions. These models 3 are in turn utilized in sections and 4 where various collector systems are modeled and compared under nominal and annual solar insolation simulations. The results of the system comparisons are presented graphically and can be found in these later section Section 3 is limited to system comparisons under nominal solar 4 insolations and section deals only with annual solar insolation system performance. The results of the system performance on an annual basis 5 are in turn utilized in sectionto illustrate various design considerations necessaryto meet specific power requirements. Section 6 discusses the various assumptions that have been made throughout the study and section 7 presents a rationale for future cost projections Si and GaAs solar Cells. Section of 8 presents the conclusions f the study. o
4

The various graphs presented in this reportobtained were from the computer programs presentedAppendices A and by in B, utilizing the appropriate conditions the programs. in 2 . MODELS FOR GaAs AND Si EFFICIENCIES Linear Model

1, Figures 2, 3 , and 5 are taken from references 2, and 3 , and depict the behavior of GaAs Si solar cells under a wide variety and of temperatures and light flux intensities. Figure comes from 4 H. Hoval and J . M . Woodall, "Optimizationof Solar Cells for Air Mass Zero Operation and a Study Solar Cellsat High Temperatures," of which is a quarterly progress report for the period June 1974 to October 1974, NASA contract NAS1-12812. This report not a is readily available reference. If one assumes that the maximum E, power out is directly proportional to the solar intensity then one can write
=

'a mx

a (T) E [mw]

where a(T) is temperature dependent proportionality constant, which in general decreases with temperature. From the definition of solar cell efficiency
q 3 = efficiency = power

outE power in

'a mx a(T) (cell area) cell area efficiency depends upon temp-

one can conclude that the solar cell erature only. Thus, it is assumed that

where is reference efficiency at reference r ' and B is proportionality constant.

temperature Tr

For Si, B is chosen as .0041, this value of B. gives a zero efficiency when T - Tr = 243.9' C. For GaAs, B is chosen as .0024, T which gives a zero efficiency when Tr = 416.66O C (reference for

... .

..

the above coefficients "On Heat Rejection from Terrestrial Solar is Cell Arrays with Sunlight Concentration" L.W. Florschuetz of the by Mech. Engn. Dept., Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. This paper was receivedin a private correspondence with the authorisand not yet readily available). Nonlinear Model

The assumed solar cell efficiencyn 3 was modeled to conform with the experimental data from reference (fig. 3b). The modeled 2 efficiency decreases with increasing light intensity. It should be noted that cell design will determine the actual behavior of the efficiency. In several GaAs cells, efficiency has been observed 4, to increase with increasing light istensity (refs.5, and 6). For the purposes this study, the more conservative assumption of of decreasing efficiency with intensity was utilized in the effort to simulate worst characteristics of mass produced cells. The following formulas were used to model the efficiencyr13 of Si and GaAs solar cells and were derived on the basis of all 2, parametric data taken from various sources (refs. 3 , 4 , 5 , 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).

where

ISC voc FF E
T

= =
=

short circuit current density [amp/cm21, open circuit voltage [Volts], fill factor, solar flux density [w/m21, and temperature ("C).

= =

The following empirical relations were used in the nonlinear model for efficiency.

GaAs voc (E,T) = VOCOG

7.361(10'3)E'357

2.45(10'3)T

Isc(E,T) = ISCOG, (.148E*363 + .388)T FFG(E,T) = FIFOG

1.9223

- .162

1.1~10-3)~

Si

ISC

(E,T) = 1ScOs (Ao + AIT

A2T2

+ A3T3 + A4T4

+ A5T5) E/10

FFS(E,T) = FFG(E,T) The above equations through 5 and the Isc(E,T) quantities VOCO, ISCO, FIFO the above equations can T = 25" C, E = 1000 w/m2: GaAs voc
= 1.0;

(4)

were derived to fit the data from figures 2 for Si was taken from reference 3 . The are scaling parameters in order that satisfy the following reference conditions at

FFG = .85;

ISC

'rE 0

Si Voc = .60; FFs

=

.85;

'E r ISC - 1 0 -

where qr = efficiency at reference conditions. The constants Ai for Si are: A0 = .914727 A1 = .108713(10-2) 695706 (10 - 5 ) A2 = A3 = .226603(10-7) A4 = .17109 (lo-') A5 = -.144039(10-11)

-.

Comparison of the linear and nonlinear solar cell efficiency 6 of models are illustrated in figure for a variety solar flux intensities using a reference efficiency15%. of

the

(1) and (2) will be utilized to represent The models depicted by solar cell efficiency the following sections. in
3.

HYBRID SYSTEM MODELS AND ANALYSIS

A hybrid system can be visualized in figure A hybrid 1 .

system can produce electrical power and heating or air condition Actually a hybrid system produces electric power by photovoltaic conversion of the incoming solar flux density and also thermal power by absorption of that light flux density which is not converted to electrical power. The thermal power can then be utilized in heating or air conditioning. Figure 1 illustrates a system that could be used an ammonia-water absorption for cooling system. Various systems for the absorption the solar flux of are considered in this report. The various systems are illustrated in figure 7 and can be summarized follows: as System I: Two flat collectors,one for the collection of solar flux to be converted into thermal power and the other having silicon (maintained 25' C ) for the production of at electrical power. System 11: A single flat placed silicon solar cells. It of the silicon cells is the the silicon efficiency is a plate collector upon which is is assumed that the temperature same as that of the flat plate function of this temperature.

and

System 111: A concentrator system having GaAs solar cells with efficiency as a function of temperature. The temperature can be controlled by a fluid passing through the absorber. System IV: A concentrator system havingSi solar cells with efficiency as a function of temperature. The temperature can be controlled a fluid passing through the absorber. by

"

I
System V: A concentrator system with solar cells and a flat no plate collector with silicon solar cells. The Concentrator system is is for thermal power production and the flat plate collector assumed maintained at 25O C for the production of electrical power. Analysis and Assumptions for Systems and I1 I
7, In system I, illustrated in figure it is assumed that 84% of the incident solar flux is absorbed by the flat plate collectors. The electric power output per unit area of absorber is

where QIN = .841N [w/m2] and

'13

is cell efficiency.

The energy loss from the collector is

It is assumed that the thermal energy obtained from flat 1 plate is the energy remaining after losses are accounted for. energy An balance produces QIN or

QLoss

QTHERMAL

= o

where IN TCK
= incident

solar flux (assumed to 500 w/m2) be of flat plate [OK]

[OK]

= temperature

T~~~~ = ambient temperature E = emissivity = .04

= Stephan-Boltzmann constant = 5.6697(10'8)w/m2 = mass flow rate [kg/hr]

k4

m
C

= =

specific heat of fluid

[kj/kg "C]

T~~

temperature of fluid entering collector [OK] of absorbing surface [m2]

Aabs

= area

The cost of the flat plate collectors is assumed linear function of the thermal efficiency q 2 where
q2 =

to

be

efficiency of collector=

Q~~~~~

IN

and the cost is given by cost of collector = 400 q 2 + 10 [$/m21

This

corresponds

to

current

day

costs

which

range

between $53.82/m2

($5/ft2) and $645.90/m2 ($60/ft2) for flat plate collectors. The silicon solar cell costs are analyzed in section 7 and are taken as $1000/m2 for 10% efficient cellsand the cost of maintaining cell temperatures at 2 ' C is assumed to have the 5 minimal value of $56/m2. This gives a total cost for the flat plate 2 of $1056/m2.

System I 1 is illustrated in figure7. Assuming that 84% of the incident flux energy is absorbed by the solar cells an energ balance on system I1 gives

or

IilC

(TCK

Aabs

TFK)

10

where
= =
=

IN

incident flux density[w/m2] ( 5 0 0 w/m2) heat loss coefficient [w/m2 OK]

( 5 0 0 w/m2 OK)

hl TCK
E

temperature of cells temperature of flat plate [OK] = emissivity ( . 0 4 ) Stephan-Boltzmann constant = 5.6697(10e8) w/m2k4

= =

TAIRK = ambient temperature [OK] m = mass flow rate of fluid

= =

specific

heat

of

fluid

Aabs

area of absorber

It is known that the second of thermodynamics givesan law expression for the maximum thermal efficiency heat engine, of a
m
L~~ which is the Carnot efficiency, qc = I - TCK

where TFK is fluid temperature and TCK is cell temperature. Here it is assumed that the fluid will enter collector at a temperature TCK. This assumption T~~ and exit from collector at a temperature is consistent with the fact that typical large power plants have overall efficiencies of 0 to 60% of the Carnot efficiency (ref. 11). 5 Actually most solar heat engines go through a Rankine which is approximately 5 0 % the efficiency of a Carnot cycle. Define
/

cycle

QwoRK = .5 ( 1

-)
r

FK TCK

QTHERMAL

as the high quality thermal energy that can be extracted via turbine fromthe thermal energy received the solar collector. by In order to compare the various systems in figure 7, various performance indicesare definedwhich will characterize the various forms of energy obtainable from a hybrid system.

11

For both are defined:

systems and I1 the following performance indices I

CAPITAL COST PI = PEAK (ELEC MECH) +

POWER

CAPITAL COST P2 = TOTAL POWER OUT

+ - (COST FP1 )Aabs (COST FP, + COST CELL)Aabs

+

(QELEC

QTHERMAL)Aabs

COST P3 = CAPITALPOWER ELEC

QELEC ' Aabs

where
=

Aa QELEC

bs

area of absorber Em2]

= q3(.84)IN

QTHERMAL = K(TCK

TFK) I

K = 2 = flow Aabs [kw/m2 "C]

rate

parameter

QWORK

is the fraction thermal energy which is of converted to mechanical work assuming a Rankine cycle whichis modeled as 50% of a Carnot cycle efficiency. 12

The same cost figures are used in system I1 as those presented for system I. Systems I and I1 are summarized in figures and 9. 8 Analysis and-Assumptionsfor SystemsI11 and I V

Systems I11 and I V are concentrator systems having.GaAs and Si solar cells respectively and are illustrated in figure 7. The following assumptions model these systems. Let A
=

and

notations absorber

are area

used of

to

describe

and

aP
=

aperture area,

Aabs

receiver,

Aa 2

theoretical concentration ratio, As = surface area

It is assumed that

CTH Aabs of receiver.

I11

and I V the
Q

various

energy

2 . Then for both systems Aabs terms per unit area of absorber
=

S -=

are:

= nlINCTH

IN

where n l be where

optical efficiency of conto centrator (assumed .7) solar cell efficiency

QELEC

n3Q1

n3

AC

QTHERMAL

(TCK

TFK) = K ( T CK

where the I and 11. An

notation the is

sameas that employed to model systems

energy

balance the on

concentrator

systems

produces

I N

QELEC

QLOSSES

QTHE-L

13

.."_.

_.

and t h ep e r f o r m a n c ei n d i c e s

Pi

i = l , 2, 3

become

P, =

CAPITAL COST PEAK(ELEC + MECH) POWER

(COST C.0N.)Aa
QELEC

+
+

(CO.ST CELL) Aabs

QWORK

Aabs

Aabs

(COST CON)

QELEC

+
+

(COST CELL)
n

L~~

QWORK

CAPITAL COST P2 = TOTAL POWER

(COST CON)

(COST CELL)
n

L~~

(COST CON)
CAPITAL COST P3 = ELEC P W R O E
L

Q~~~~

"

The c e l l c o s t s a r e t a k e n a s $35,000/m2 f o r 1 5 % e f f i c i e n t

s o l a r c e l l s and $1000/m2 f o r 10% e f f i c i e n t S i c e l l s . costs a r e assumed t o have a c o n s t a n tv a l u eo f

s t r u c t u r a ls u p p o r t sf o r t r a t o rc o s t so f $156/m2.

c o s to ft h ec o n c e n t r a t o ri n c l u d e st w o - d i m e n s i o n a lt r a c k i n ga n d wind l o a d sa n dh i g hc o n c e n t r a t i o n s . when onecomparesaverageconcen1 2 , 13, nd a

It

i s a veryconservativevalue

$34/m2 f r o mr e f e r e n c e s
10.

I11 and I V a r e summarized i n f i g u r e

A n a l y s i sa n dA s s u m p t i o n sf o rS y s t e m System V i s i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e c e n t r a t o rs y s t e mf o rt h e r m a le n e r g ya n d s y s t e mf o r

a separate flat plate e l e c t r i c a l e n e r g y( m o d e l e dt h e same a s i n s y s t e m I ) .

same a s s u m p t i o n s a n d n o t a t i o n s d e f i n e d p r e v i o u s l y ,

U s i n gt h e

thevariousenergy
14

terms a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s y s t e m

QELEC

-THQTHERMAL
+
TH

(COST CELL)

cT H
I

GaAs

Concentrator T h i sh i g h

14.

Systems

7 a n dc o n s i s t so f

a con-

V are:

QELEC = n 3 ( = 8 4 ) I N

q 3 = solar cell efficiency

(16)

It i s assumed t h a t t h e s i l i c o n s o l a r c e l l s w i l l o p e r a t e a t maximum efficiencyandthattheenergybalanceontheconcentratorsystem is:

= Q

QTHERMAL

IN

A g a i n ,t h ef o l l o w i n gp e r f o r m a n c ei n d i c e s

are defined:

P, =

CAP1 TAL COST PEAK (ELEC & MECH) POWER

(COST C O N ) A a QELEC

(COST CELL QWORK

+

COST F P ) A a

AaP

Aabs

(COST CON)

(COST CELL

COST F P )

QELEC

+ -QWORK
TH

15

P2 =

CAPITAL COST - (COST CON) TOTAL P W R O E

(COST CELL

+ COST FP)

QELEC

QTHEFUUL 'TH

Pg =

CAPITAL COST ELEC POWER

- (COST CON)

(COST CELL QELEC

COST F P ) = CONSTANT

A summary of t h e e q u a t i o n s d e s c r i b i n g s y s t e m

V are i l l u s t r a t e d

infigure

11.

Systems I , 11, 111, I V , and V were compared f o r a s o l a r f l u xd e n s i t yo f flow rates.

IN = 500 w/m2

a t v a r i o u sc o n c e n t r a t i o n sa n d
i s p r e s e n t e di nA p p e n d i x
A are A.

The computer program used

The r e s u l t s o f t h e c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m i n A p p e n d i x i l l u s t r a t e di nf i g u r e s thenonlinear
1 2 , 13, and 14.

T h e s er e s u l t su t i l i z e a r e f o r a nominal

model for s o l a r c e l l e f f i c i e n c i e s a s a f u n c t i o n

o fi n t e n s i t ya n dt e m p e r a t u r e .R e s u l t s i n t e n s i t y of 5 0 0 w/m2. I nf i g u r e s
1 2 , 1 3 ,a n d

1 4 s y s t e m s I and I1 h a v et h eh i g h e s t
A l l t h r e ep e r f o r m a n c ei n d i c e s

c a p i t a lc o s tp e re n e r g yo u t p u t .

show c a p i t a l cost i nt h en e i g h b o r h o o do f

$10,00O/kw.

System V
$3000 t o

h a st h en e x th i g h e s tc a p i t a lc o s t s - - r a n g i n gb e t w e e n
$ 9 0 0 0 p e r kw o fe n e r g yp r o d u c e d .T h es y s t e m sw i t ht h e

lowest

c o s t s are t h ec o n c e n t r a t o rs y s t e m sw i t h ( s y s t e m s I11 and I V ) .

G a A s and S i s o l a r c e l l s

C a p i t a lc o s t sf o rt h e s es y s t e m sd e p e n d

upon c o n c e n t r a t i o n a n d o p e r a t i n g t e m p e r a t u r e s a n d r a n g e b e t w e e n
$ 9 0 0 and $ 2 , 0 0 0 p e r k o fe n e r g yp r o d u c e d .T h i s w

is slightly
$700/kw a n d

a b o v ec a p i t a lc o s t s( i n s t a l l a t i o nc o s t s ) e n e r g yf r o mf o s s i lf u e l sw h i c h installed.
K J ($2.60

of n u c l e a re n e r g y

which i s c u r r e n t l y r u n n i n g i n t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d o f
Gas t u r b i n ee n e r g yi n s t a l l e d

costs $550 t o $ 6 0 0 p e r kw costs a r e around $135/kw. i s $2.46 p e r m i l l i o n is expensive.

However, f u e l cost f o r t h i s t y p e o f e n e r g y permillion

BTU) o fe n e r g yp r o d u c e dw h i c h

16

Nuclearfuelcosts a r e o n l y 1 4 C p e r m i l l i o n K J (15C p e r m i l l i o n BTU) o fe n e r g yp r o d u c e d . The above f i g u r e s are d a t ao b t a i n e d f r o m a p e r s o n a lc o m m u n i c a t i o nw i t h C.F. Miller o f t h e F e d e r a l Power Commiss i o n ,W a s h i n g t o n ,
DC 2 0 4 2 6 .

I nc o n t r a s ts o l a re n e r g yh a s , n of u e l

costs a n d d e p e n d s o n l y u p o n w e a t h e r c o n d i t i o n s i n d i g e n o u s t o t h e area where it i s t o b e u t i l i z e d .

F i g u r e s1 5a n d 1 6 i l l u s t r a t e s o l a r c e l l e l e c t r i c o u t p u t as a functionofconcentrationforvariousvaluesoftheflow rate parameter
a t a fixed Aabs f l o w r a t e t h e e l e c t r i c power o u t p u t i n c r e a s e s w i t h c o n c e n t r a t i o n
IilC K = 3. T h e s ec u r v e si l l u s t r a t et h a t

u p ' t o a pointwherethetemperatureofthe c e l l c a n nQ l o n g e r a t a low v a l u e by t h e c o o l i n g f l u i d . F o r t h e b em a i n t a i n e d h i g h e rt e m p e r a t u r e s a t t h eh i g h e rc o n c e n t r a t i o n st h ee f f i c i e n c y of t h e s o l a r c e l l w i l l b e g i n t o r a p i d l y d r o p o f f a n d t h e electric o u t p u t w i l l go t oz e r o . The maximum power p o i n t s f o r t h e GaAs and S i s o l a r c e l l s o c c u ra p p r o x i m a t e l y a t t e m p e r a t u r e s of 2 4 5 O C and160
C respectivelyforanincidentfluxdensity

of 5 0 0 w/m2

assuming a 70% o p t i c a l e f f i c i e n c y The t r i a n g u l a r g r a p h s o f f i g u r e s

of t h e c o n c e n t r a t o r .
17 and18illustratethe
I11 and

p e r c e n te n e r g yd i s t r i b u t i o nf o rt h ec o n c e n t r a t o rs y s t e m s IV. I n these f i g u r e s
-

QLT - QTHERMAL

QWORK

where QLT r e p r e s e n t st h e low q u a l i t y h e r m a l n e r g y e m a i n i n g t e r a Rankinecycletoextractuseful afterfluidhasundergone from t h e h i g h t e m p e r a t u r e f l u i d .

A t eachpointofthetriangulargraphsthe

work

a t e s w i l l add t o 1 0 0 .
Q E p CI

sum o f t h e o r d i n The o r d i n a t e s n c r e a s e r o m i f a to A for

to

f o r Q,,RK

and from

to

f o r QLT.

A t low c o n c e n t r a t i o n s t h e r e

i s m o s t l y e l e c t r i c e n e r g ya n d

low q u a l i t y t h e r m a l e n e r g y p r o d u c e d

by t h e c o n c e n t r a t o r s y s t e m s .

A s t h ec o n c e n t r a t i o ni n c r e a s e s ,t h et e m p e r a t u r e

u s e f u l work t h a t c a n b e o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e f l u i d

rises a n d t h e by a turbine

17

w i l l increase; however,. as t h e temperature i n c r e a s e s , t h e output i s driven t o zero.

F i g u r e s 1 9 and 2 0 i l l u s t r a t e t e m p e r a t u r e f o r v a r i o u s c e n t r a t i o n s of s y s t e m s I11 and I V .
4.
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE MODELS

electric

con-

The a n a l y s i s of s y s t e m s I , 11, 1 1 I V , and V h a s i n d i c a t e d 1 , thattheconcentratorsystems

I11 and I V have t h e l o w e s t c a p i t a l

c o s t .F o rt h i sr e a s o nt h ef o l l o w i n gs e c t i o n s t h ea n n u a le n e r g yp r o d u c t i o no fs y s t e m s

w i l l investigate I11 and I V .

F o rt h i sp u r p o s e ,a v e r a g ey e a r l yi n s o l a t i o nd a t af r o mt h e

( r e f . 1 5 ) .T h e s e 2 1 andrepresentdata averagevalues are i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e forthesimulation of t w o - d i m e n s i o n a l t r a c k i n g c o n c e n t r a t o r s .

southwest nited U
S t a t e s h a sb e e ns e l e c t e d
Let

I N ( n )d e n o t et h ea v e r a g ei n t e n s i t yf o rt h en t h becomes

month.

Then t h ee n e r g yb a l a n c e( 1 3 )

I f o n ea s s u m e st h a tt h es o l a re f f i c i e n c y

n3

is a linear
as

f u n c t i o no ft e m p e r a t u r et h e n( 2 3 )c a nb ew r i t t e n

'TH iterationtodeterminethetemperature

For a f i x e d c o n c e n t r a t i o n

one an olve c s
TCK

( 2 4 ) by

I fi n s t e a dt h en o n l i n e a r t h e n( 2 3 )c a nb ew r i t t e n

model f o r e f f i c i e n c y

(2) is used,

as

18

where E = qlIN(n)CTH. Again, for a fixed concentration ' T H one can solve.2 5 ) by iterative techniques and determine the ( temperature TCK

n3,

For either the linear or nonlinear model corresponding to each month n, we have

for

efficiency,

QTHERMAL(n) = K(TCK

QELEC (n)

( 2 4 ) DAYM(n)

where DAYM(n) represents the number of days in the nth month. Then the annual output from the concentrator system is
I

the

capitalcost of the

CAPITAL COST = (COST C0N)A + (COST CELL)Aabs aP

12

concentrator

system

is

given

by

19

where (COST CON) represents the concentrator costs with twodimensional tracking. The concentrator cost is modeled in two different ways. The first representationis

and

the

second

model
=

is 34

(COST CON)

ILL - TH + 1000

which

is

linear

function

of

concentration.

The capital costs are amortized over a twenty-year at period an 8% interest withan assumed maintenancecost of 2 % per year. The annual cost can thus be represented as: i

ANNUAL

COST=
1

where

n l = 20,

i = .08,

and m

= .02.

Two additional annual performance indices are defined. These are ANNUAL COST ANNUAL ELEC (34) ANNUAL COST Pg = ANNUAL WORK

Pq =

WORK obtained where ANNUAL ELEC is obtained from (29), ANNUAL from (29) and ANNUAL COST is obtained from (33). The equations I11 for annual comparison of systems and IV are summarized in figure 21.

The computer program for the comparison of systems I11 and IV, for annual performance, is given in Appendix Graphical results B.

20

[l

+ il

-n 1

-1

(CAPITAL COST) (33)

are illustrated in figures 22 through 27. For these figures silicon costs were $1000/m2 at 10% efficiency and gallium arsenide costs were $35,000/m2 15% efficiency. at Figulre 22 illustrates performance index P 4 vs. concentration for various values of the flow parameter K. rate Observe that there is a minimum value of ANNUAL COST/ANNUAL ELEC for each value the flow rate parameter. Figure 23 illustrates of performance index P 4 vs. performance index P 5 for various values of the flow rate parameter K. In this figure, note that there is a distinct minimum valueANNUAL COST/ANNUAL ELEC of for various K values. As the concentration is further increased the value of P 5 decreases but under the penalty of increasing electric costs. Stated differently, the increased concentration raises average cell temperature and reduces electric output. The performance index P 5 is not a representative performance index of true costs the additional cost of converting as a high temperature fluid usable work has not been added to to the capital costs. Approximate additional cost for converting this energy is $333/kw for a high temperature fluid. [One possible model for this additional cost would 333/(TCK - TFK) be where TCK is temperature of cells and TFK is fluid temperature leaving heat engine.] Figures 24 and 25 depict annual energy outputs from the concentrator systems I11 and IV. Figures 26 and 27 illustrate solar cell cost .vs. minimum value of P 4 for various flow rate parameter values of K. Listed alongside these curves are approximate concentrations where minimum values are obtained. 5.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

A hybrid system used in conjunction with conventional heating and air conditioning equipment must be designed to carry a certain percentage of the daily load requirement. The following are calculations to give a first estimate for cost and sizing of a hybrid system supply energy to a residential house. to

21

The f o l l o w i n g a s s u m p t i o n s

w i l l be made:
= 69.9(103.)

1.

Heatingequirements: r
= (25 BTU/hr

kwh/yr
(1500 f t 2 )

f t 2 )( 2 6 5d a y s / y e a r )

2.

A i r conditioning equirements: r
= (25 BTU/hr

= 26.4(103)

kwh/yr

f t 2 ) (100 days/year) (1500 f t 2 )

= 8(103) kwh/yr

3.
4.

E l e c t r i c a l power demand: Area house: of C o so f t

GaAs:
=

= 139 m2 = (1500 f t 2 )

5.

$35000/m2
4 0 0 , onecan

A t a concentrationratioof

e n e r g yv a l u e sp e rs q u a r e f r o mf i g .2 5 )

meter o f a p e r t u r e

assume t h e f o l l o w i n g area ( v a l u e s t a k e n

ANNUAL Q , = 300 kwh/m2 y r ,, ,

= 1 7 0 0 kwh/m2 y r

ANNUAL QTHEML

assume t o t a l h e r m a l o a d t l load is
Let

is

6 9 . 9 ( 1 0 3 ) kwh/yr

and t o t a l e l e c t r i c

(26.4
A

8 ) ( l o 3 ) = 3 4 . 4 ( 1 0 3 ) kwh/yr.

d e n o ta p e r t u r e e area and aP ( p h o t o c e l la r e a ) . Then t o meet t h et h e r m a l require

1 7 0 0 kwh/m2 y r
A
= 69.9(103)

d e n o t ea b s o r b e ra r e a Aab demand one would

aP

kwh/yr

or
A
= 41.12

aP

m2 = ( 4 4 2 f t 2 )

22

is the aperture area required to meet this demand. This aperture area would supply the following electrical power

QELEC

300 kwh/m2 yr

41.12 m2 = 12.34 kwh/yr

which is 35.8% of electrical energy requirements. The required solar cell (absorber) area necessary is Aa &=

Aab

-1028 m2 = 1.106 ft2

The approximate table 1.

cost such of

system can be

divided

as in

The costof such a system depends upon of which could be major costs the system. There no reliable data on concentrator costs and cost figures as representing lower and upper cost, an average cost would $8738.47. be

concentrator costs is currently if one takes the bounds for system

Of course thisis only a rough estimate of system cost. There will be economic variations with respect to geographic location and weather conditions. It is envisioned that such systems will be in widespread use in commercial and industrial applications within the next 25 years.
6.

DISCUSSION OF MODELS, ASSUMPTIONS, AND RESULTS

The models constructedin this report are for steady-state operating conditions of the systems under investigation. The models represent average operating conditions of the various systems anddo not consider transient responses. The concentrating devices are assumed to give uniform solar iC K = represents an effective uniform Aabs

cell illumination and

23

area o f b s o r b e r V a l u e s f a . o K between . 0 1 and .1 r e p r e s e n tp a s s i v ec o o l i n gs u c h as wind c o o l i n g .I n comK between .1 and 1 0 r e p r e s e n ta c t i v ec o o l i n g p a r i s o n ,v a l u e so f mass f l o w rates. I nt h er e p o r t K i s t h eh e a t removed with igh h area p e r u n i t o f a b s o r b e r ( c e l l ) area p e r u n i t f r o mt h ea b s o r b e r temperaturedifferencebetweencoolantinletandoutlettemperatures. V i a a secondaryloopthisheat i s a v a i l a b l e t o d r i v e a v a p o re n g i n e a t anassumed 5 0 % C a r n o t e f f i c i e n c y o p e r a t i n g b e t w e e n some temperat u r e limits. Heat e x c h a n g e rl o s s e sa r ei g n o r e d .
thermal onductance er nit c p u There i s a w i d e s p e c t r u m o f c o s t s i n t h e s o l a r f i e l d f o r f l a t p l a t e a n dc o n c e n t r a t o rc o l l e c t o r s .T h e r e costsforsolar The c o s t v a l u e s u s e d i n thisstudy

i s a l s o a w i d es p e c t r u mo f

cell devicesutilizingsiliconandgalliumarsenide.

were c h o s e n as c o n s e r v a t i v e v a l u e s u n d e rt h ea s s u m p t i o nt h a tt h ec o s t s of $1000/m2 f o r 1 0 % e f f i c i e n t S i and $35000/m2 f o r 1 5 % e f f i c i e n t G a A s s o l a r c e l l s t o g e t h e r w i t h c o n c e n t r a t o rc o s t sa r eg r e a t e rt h a n" o t h e r "s u b s y s t e mc o s t s .T h i s assumpt i o n i s v a l i df o rc o n c e n t r a t o rc o s t sb e t w e e n $30/m2 and $150/m2 and c o n c e n t r a t i o n sr a n g i n gb e t w e e n 230 and 1 2 0 0 f o r GaAs systemsand c o n c e n t r a t i o n sb e t w e e n 6 and 30 f o r S i s y s t e m s .

i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e on 2-D s u n t r a c k i n g c o n c e n t r a t o r d e v i c e s concentratorcostsforfull t h i s studytheconcentratorcosts were and s o t h r o u g h o u tm o s to f assumed c o n s t a n t ( $ 1 5 6 / m 2 ) ( r e f s . 12, 1 3 , 1 4 , 1 6 , 17, 18, 2 2 , 23, 24, 25). I nf i g u r e 2 6 , t h ec o n c e n t r a t o rc o s t was assumed t ov a r y (34.0 + 0 . 1 2 2 C T H ) $ / m 2 . l i n e a r l yw i t hc o n c e n t r a t i o n
There i s n o t a g r e a td e a lo fi n f o r m a t i o n

The a n n u a l e n e r g y p r o d u c e d b y t h e c o n c e n t r a t o r s y s t e m s d i v i d e di n t o

was

e l e c t r i c a l e n e r g y ,h i g hq u a l i t yt h e r m a le n e r g y ,a n d
The h i g hq u a l i t yt h e r m a le n e r g y was t h a te n e r g y

low q u a l i t y h e a t . enginewithanassumed of e l e c t r i c a l e n e r g y

that can be extracted from

a high temperature fluid via a vapor 5 0 % C a r n o te f f i c i e n c y . The a n n u a lv a l u e s

(Q WORK) are The c o s tm o d e l sd on o tc o n s i d e rt h e

a n dh i g hq u a l i t yt h e r m a le n e r g y

i l l u s t r a t e d i n f i g u r e 25. work.

additionalcostofconvertingthehighqualityenergytouseful
A more d e t a i l e d c o s t a n a l y s i s

w o u l db en e c e s s a r yf o rs u c h

a comparison.

24

There are some differences the literatureas to how solar in cells behave under high concentrations solar fluxenergy. In of this report it was assumed that solar cell efficiences decreased with increased illumination. Some investigators report that the opposite is true--that is, solar cell efficiencies increase with increased illumination (refs. 4 , 5, 6). The solar cell design will determine the actual behavior efficiency. If cell effiof ciencies increase with increased illumination, then the results of this study can be taken to represent very conservative estimates as to how the various systems perform and the cost estimates given in the figures of results must lowered. Another area whereno be data, is available is lifetime performance solar cells under high of flux densities.
'

Concentrators with high concentration ratios 100 to 10,000 19). The technology have been developed for the space program (ref. exists for constructing high concentration systems but little data is available on costs for such concentrators.
7.

COST PROJECTIONS FOR GaAs SOLAR CELLS FOR TERRESTRIAL APPLICATIONS

The hybrid system performance and economic analysis has been undertaken with uncertain component cost information, but no apologies are necessary. The intent was to find the limits of performance and to establish comparisons between GaAs and Si solar cell hybrid systems. It was realized from the outset that solar cell costs-especially for Gal-xAlxAs-GaAs cells--would be pivotal, and system performance results are reported over parameter domains where this assumption remains valid. The cells of interest, grown by the liquid-phase epitaxy process, are currently "hand-made" for experimental purposes; though requiring little material per wafer, their cost is understandably high because the labor (skilled labor) of intensiveness of the processing. Cost reductions must ultimately be predicated on market development for photovoltaic devices and mass production techniques. Even while costs remain high for GaAs heterojunction cells, the there are compelling advantages relative to Si cells which notivate
25

continued basic research and stimulate system feasibility studies D.A. Among other researchers, Stevenson the proposal report, in Stevenson, "ThinFilm Gallium Arsenide for Low Cost Photovoltaic No. Solar Energy Conversion," Report CMR-P-73-17, Centerfor Materials Research, Stanford University, Stanford, 1973 (not readily CA, available), has pointedout these advantages: 1. The bandgap is a better match to the solar spectrum, therefore better efficiencies can be obtained.
2.

cells

The bandgap is direct, therefore considerably thinner can be used to absorb the solar energy.

3 . The bandgap is greater, therefore (a) the power output with increasing temperature is greater, and (b) the output voltage is greater. The minority carrier .lifetimes and diffusion lengths are less....
4.

Stevenson also argues convincingly concerning the natural abundances of the prime materials, gallium and arsenic. Materials are availablefor large quantities of thin to 100 pm) (5 GaAs cell's: there is needed only the stimulus to reduce the labor-intensive current manufacturing processes. It will be the intent the remaining portion of this of section to describe the current cost basis used in this report for Si cells and for'GaAs heterojunction cells. Also a scenario is outlined depicting a plausible cost reduction projection for G a A s cells based on an expanding market for photovoltaic electric power generation.

In 1975, a few materials laboratories would quote a price for small quantities of experimental heterojunction GaAs cells, and the number was in the neighborhood of $800,000/m2, a staggeri figure to face for the photovoltaic/thermal power system designer Prominent researchers in the field were pragmatically unintereste in predicting where current costs might go should a market devel A numberof people in the solid-state electronic device industry were asked if they wo.uld be willing to extrapolate their experience withLED and solid-state laser developments over to GaAs
26

solar cell production, and estimate a de-escalating cost curve with growing demand--most were not willing to do this, including H. Kressel of RCA Laboratories and M.B. Panish of Bell Laboratories (ref. 30). The reason given was basic dissimilarity of the devices. However, it was learned that two different producers of LED devices were employing epitaxial structures. They were currently growing an epitaxial layer on a GaAs substrate, dicing-up the wafers, and providing electrical contacts at a cost of about $3.50/cm2 ($23/in.2). This yields a "current" cost estimate for GaAs cells equivalent to $35,000/m2 assuming the technology extrapolates to solar cell production in large numbers. Although it has no impact on "current" cell costs, the continuous cell growth processes which are being studied (ref. 26), must inevitably contribute to diminishing GaAs solar cell costs. Solar cell array manufacturing costs (exclusive of substrate and encapsulation costs) for "current" Si cells for terrestrial application are variously quoted in recent literature: $2000/m2 (refs. 27 and 15); $1250/m2 (ref. 28). For the sake of this study, of $1000/m2 is used (personal communication with however, a value Gilbert H. Walker of NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23665), based on the knowledge that Solarex Corporation Rockville, of M D is producing commercially small Si cell arrays at a cost of $lO/peak watt. For a 10% efficient cell this is equivalent to the $1000/m2 cost value which is used in the analysis. scenario is outlined here demonstrating how GaAs cell costs might ultimately reach a competitive level; the scenario is based on the work of Wolf (ref. 28) and Baum (ref. 29) combining an electric'power market penetration projection with the past cost history of Si solar cells. Wolf sees the rising costsconventional of sources of power and growing public awareness as setting the stage for rapid power generation market penetration by photovoltaic sys-terns. Significant prototype application envisioned to commence is around 1980 providing electric (and thermal) power for buildings, residential and commercial. From figure 3 in the paper by Wolf 2 (ref. 28), table is constructed showing anticipated annual electric energy from photovoltaic units buildings. These on
A

27

values are converted to average kilowatts for a and then to year "peak" kilowatts installed capacity by assuming a plant capacity or factor of50%. Wolf has argued the plausibility this 1eve.l of penetration of over the next to 60 years. Although the numbers appear large 50 of they represent a small percentageprojected United States total energy consumption in the given years. For later reference attention is called to the value for installed or ''peak" kilowatts for the year 1990, a point in time representing the starting date rapid commercial addition photovoltaic equipment. of

for

Although GaAs solar cell fabricators have been reluctant to predict future cell costs, VARIAN of California has released cell fabrication "experience" factors which gauge costs of epitaxially of grown cells as a function peak photovoltaic kilowatts installed; this is based their work with GaAs cells under sunlight concenon tration (unpublished data fromR.L. Bell VARIAN Co., Palo Alto, CA). a lo6 kw peak Based on the VARIAN projections market growth to installed will be required achieve a 100-fold decrease in current to GaAs cell costs. This kilowatt level coincides with the 1990 year according to the projections Wolf. of Historically the unit cost production falls off exponenof tially with rapid market penetration (refs. 27 and 29). If the Si solar cell costs Baum (ref. 29) are plotted along with the of "current" cost figure $lO/watt (the Solarex Corporation cost of derived assuming a 10% cell and a one-sun value 1 kw/m2), a of semi-logarithmic slope of -.23 yr-l is found. This curve is shown in figure 2 8 . For GaAs heterojunction cells the "current" cost is $35,000/m2. If the numberis modified assuming a 15% efficient kw/m2, a dimensional conversion yields cell and a one-sun value 1 of a current cost $233/watt, compatible with the data for Si solar of cells. Extrapolating from this cost using the slope of -.23 yr-l, a value is derived in figure 28 for the point in time where the GaAs cell cost will have dropped factor of 100 as suggested by a by VARIAN. Fortuitously, this date is 1995, coinciding approximately with the date of significant market penetration (1990) suggested by Wolf and being consistent with the level of installed 28

kilowatts necessary to stimulate by VARIAN.

cell

production indicated as

In terminating this section the of conclusions are offered:

reportthe following

1. With significant prototype testing commencing by 1980, installed (peak) photovoltaic capacity could reach kw by lo6 1990 (Wolf, ref. 28). 2. A 100-fold cost reduction for GaAs cells is feasible as the market achieves o 6 kw installed (VARIAN). l If silicon cell cost reductions observed from 1958 to 1975 are used as a gauge and the same semi-log slope (-.23 yr-l) is applied ko "current" GaAs cell costs, a 100-fold reduction is predicted to 6 occur by 1995 concurrent with Wolf's market projectionsl o tokw installed.
3.

4. Convergence of Si and GaAs cell costs are indeterminate 20 at this time looking ahead to 40 years. Convergence may be possible, however, because GaAs cells (a) require less material per unit cell area and can display higher efficiencies rela(b) tive to Si cells, especially under the desirable condi.tion of sunlight concentration.

8.

CONCLUSIONS

Current costs and efficiencies for GaAs and solar cells are: Si $35,000/m2 for 15% efficient G a A s cells and $1000/m2 for 10% efficient Si cells, both efficiencies AM1. at Limiting values for annual energy costs from GaAs and Si concentrator systems have the following range values: a GaAs of concentrator system ranges between and 6.8C per 2C kwh and a Si concentrator system ranges between 2.5C and 1 1 C per kwh. The ranges in annual energy costs reflect the different assumptions on concentrator costs which include full two-dimensional tracking. For a given flow rate, there an optimal operating condition is of Si for maximum photovoltaic output both GaAs and hybrid systems. This can be seenby examining figures and 16. 15 29

The high concentration hybrid systems offer a distinct cost advantage over flat plate hybrid systems because the concentration increases solar flux density and decreases the solar cell area. Solar hybrid systems for the heating and cooling of buildings seem to be economically competitive with existing energy sourcss. Additional cost studies should be undertaken to calculate "total system costs" as this study did not figure in costs of cooling equipment, hot water storage for heating, or turbine energy conversion costs. As the cost of solar cells decreases, optimum system performance from Si and GaAs hybrid systems can be achieved at lower concentrations. For Si cell costs of $50/m2 (NSF goal) and GaAs a can factor of2 0 more expensive, optimal Si performance be achieved at concentrations around 10 while optimal GaAs performance can be achieved at concentrations of around 100. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was sponsored contract NAS1-11707-86. by NASA Langley Research Center under

The authors wish to express their thanksE.to Conway, G. Walker, and C. Byvik of NASA Langley Research Center for their of comments and suggestions during the course this study. The authors also wish to thank Maxine Lippman for the Ms. technical typing of this report and Marilyn Bost f o r the Ms. preparation of the many figures.

30

Table 1.

Approximate cost for solar photovoltaic system.

1.

GaAs solar cell cost:

1028) (35000)(. 2 . Concentrator cost with tracking:

( $34/m2)

= $

3598.00

(41.12 m2)

lower

bound

1398.08

or

m2) upper bound ($156/m2) (41.12

3 . Battery storage cost: (COST/kwh) (l/EFFIC) OPERATION) (HRS
H R S ) (.lo28

(6414.72)

(Aab)

(PEAK

FLUX

OUTPUT) =

($40/kwh) (3 (1/.65) 4 . Conversion cost: (COST kw) (PEAK

m2) (8 kw/m2)

151.83

FLUX

OUTPUT) = (Aab) 82.24

($lOO/kw) (8 kw/m2) 5.

(.lo28 m2)

Hot water storage costs:

($. 2642/litre)

(3785

litres) ($l/gal) =

(1000

gal) TOTAL COST

1000.00
$ 6230.15 ($11,246.79)

Table 2 .

Solar/photovoltaic market penetration.

Year 1990 2000

2010

Electric Kilowatt-hours per year

5.0

Average Kilowatts
5.7

Installed Kilowatts 1.1 6.0 2.2 4.0 6.4

8.0

2020 2030 2040

2.6 1.0 1.8 2.8

3.5

x x x x x x

109 10l1 1.012 10l2 10l2 1012

x 105
X

x 106
107 x 108 x lo8 x lo8
X

3.0

1.1 2.0 3.2 4.0

x x
x

io7 108 108 lo8 lo8

lo8

32

PHOTOVOLTAIC ELECTRIC

4 I
I

CONDENSER

EVAPORATOR COOLING

STORAGE

GENERATOR
I

STRONG SOLUTION

4
1
QA

AMMONIA-WATER MIXTURE

HEATING

Figure 1 .
W

A s o l a r energy h y b r i d system.

p mw/cm2

90
80

150

70 60
50
40

E, 8-10 3W/m2

100

30 20 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 E,8*103W/m2 Optimum power P as function of light flux. Cell A-IO = A/cm2, cell B-IO = lo-* A/cm2; the dashed curves are calculat&d.

50

102 102

5 6 ~ 1 0 ~ W/m2

Fig. 2.

0 Fig. 3 . u,v Fill factor E ( a ) and volt ampere characteristic (b) of the cells or different high light flux levels.

UocGaAs

1.4

2.2 1.3 2.1

2.0 1.0
5 10 15 2 0 25 30
35 40 4 5 50 55

1.2 E, W/m2

Fig. 6.

Curves of open circuit voltage

EGaAs

UocGaAs UocSi

and fill factor

Si

ratios versus light flu'x.

Figure 2.

GaAs

solar cell.performance curves from reference 1.

34

'n.

t
3000

mV
2000

* I

2500 1500
2000

1000

1500

1000
500
"

- - - " - - - "
I

L
I

" "

50

100
tb#
OC

150

25

50

75 100 125
t b , oc

150 175

Pig. 2.

Relationship between Un.l and Fig. 3 . optimal power .(with index a) for silicon PB and temperature, E = var: 1) 940; 2) 5 6 0 0 ; 3 ) 12000; 4 ) 18500; 5) 24000 w m-2

Relationship between Is-c for silicon PB and temperature for = var (same E symbols as in Fig. 2)

1
0

50 150

100 tb' OC

F i g . 5.

Efficiency of silicon PB as function of temperature forE = var (designat i o n s the same as in Fig. 2).

Figure 3.

Si solar cell characteristics from reference 2.

35

12

1.1

I
32

11

1 .o

10
0

0.9

28

Lx

3 0

>

9
LL LL

0.8

24

L 2
cz
V
H

I -

0.7

20

Lx

0.6

16

6
50

100

150

200

250

300

TEMPERATURE, "C
Figure 3.

A1 x As-GaAs solar parameters cell as a function of temperature u s i n g a Zenon l i g h t sourceas a solarsimulator. Device e f f i c i encies were c a l i b r a t e d w i t h the s o l a r simul a t o r a t JPL.

Figure 4.

GaAs characteristics from Progress Report cited on page 5.

36

oO lo L

900

N/P SILICON 2 x 2 x 0.046 em (18mils) THICK HELIOTEK TI-AB-SOLDER

M)o-

700

500-

4w300

I0 5

100

I
I

1
I

I
I

I.

E
Z w

c 3
Y

11 0 0

IO k
IOoo
9w '800

SOLAR CELL

- N/P -

SILKON 2 x 2 x 0 0 6 cm (I8 mils) THKK .4 CENTRALAB Ti-Ag-SOLDER

700

" I W '
/

-120

-100

-60 -40 -20

600500400300 200

I
SOLAR INTENSIN, mw/cm2

IO

25

50

100140

250

550 850

SOLAR INTENSITY,

mWArn2

Fig. 3 Shortcircuit current output as a function of . intensity and cell temperature

Fig. 4. Open-circuit voltage output as a function of

Intensity and cell temperature

Figure 5a.

Si performance from reference 3.

37

STANDARD DEVIATION

TEMP.,

STD. DEV., % TEMP., at 5 mW/cm2 Y

21.0 "

at

STD. DEV., % TEMP., fTD. DEV.. k 140 mW/cm2 r at850 mW/cm2 3.7 2.6 2.2 I.9 1.9

60
80
,

5.6
'

300

-20

-120 -60

! - N/P; SILICON

21.0 18.9 12.7 14.0

0
20 140 40 60

100 120 160

I .7

6.2 7.0 7.7 8.5 9.6

2 X 2x0.046cm(18mils) THICK

Ti-b-X)LDER HELIOTEK, SAMPLE

SIZE I5

10 n-cm SOLAR CELL STANDARD DEVIATION

31 .O 26.9 23.3 m.5

20 40 60

3.2 5.7 2.4

120 160

6.5 7.2 7.8 9.1

2.6 10.5

N/P SILICON 2 X 2 X O . 0 4 6 cm (18 mils) THICK Ti-AS-SOLDER CENTRALAB, SAMPLE SIZE 15

200

400

800

IC

SOLARINTENSITY, mW/cm'

Fig. 5. Maximum power output as a function of

intensity and cell temperature

F i g u r e 5b.
38

S i p e r f o r m a n c e from reference 3 .

I
0
50

1
100

I
1 50

I
200

I
2 50

I
300

I
3 50

TEMP "C
E = SOLAR INTENSITY [W/m2J Figure 6 . Comparison of models for Si and GaAs efficiency.
39

SYSTEM I FLAT PLATE COLLECTOR (THERMAL POWER) SEPARATE FLAT PLATE COLLECTOR ( S i ) (ELECTRIC .POWER)

SYSTEM I 1 FLAT PLATE COLLECTOR WITHSILICON

SYSTEM I11 CONCENTRATOR WITH GaAs

I SYSTEMV
CONCENTRATOR WITH S i

SYSTEM

CONCENTRATOR FOR THERMAL POWER FLAT PLATE COLLECTOR WITH S i FOR ELECTRIC POWER

Figure 7.

S o l a rc o l l e c t o r s

for hybrid systems.

40

SYSTEM I FLAT PLATE FLATPLATE COLLECTOR FOR THERMAL ENERGY COLLECTOR ( S I L I C O N SOLAR CELLS) FOR ELECTRICAL ENERGY

QIN = .841N

WLm2

QLOSSES~

W/m2

EU(TE~

TiIRK)

QELEC = n3Q1 N

ENERGY BALANCE (SILICON PLATE)

Q I ~

QELEC

QLOSSES

= o

ENERGY BALANCE FOR THERMAL ENERGY

Q I

QLOSSES

QTHERMAL

= o

QTHERMAL = *841N

h,(TCK
$/in2

- TAIRK) 02 =

TiIRK) =

6 C

abs (TCK

- TFK)
N

COST CON

= 40002

+ 10

EFFICIENCY OF COLLECTOR = QTHERMAL

QI
COST FLAT PLATE PLUS SILICON

$1000. + 56.

Figure 8.

Summary of equations describing system I.

QLOSS

~ ~ ( T c KT~Id

41

SYSTEM I 1 FLAT PLATE COLLECTOR THERMAL FOR ENERGY HAVING SILICON WITH EFFICIENCY OF SILICON AS OF FCN TEMPERATURE

QLOSSES qf
J

QTHERMAL

CAPITAL COST = PEAK(ELEC + MECH)POWER

Fpl )Aabs

+ (COST FP,
O 5

+ COST CELL)Aabs
THERMAL
Aabs

p2

CAPITAL. COST TOTAL POWER OUT

(COST FP1)Aabs + (COST FP2

+

(ELEC

QTHERMAL)Aabs

P, =

CAPITAL COST ELEC POWER

(COST FP1 )Aabs + (COST FP2 + COST CELL)Aabs ELEC Aabs

Figure 9.
42

Summary of equations describing system 11.

ELEC Aabs

T~~ TC (1 - -)K

+ COST CELL)Aabs

I1 I

SYSTEMS I11 AND I V

GaAs SOLAR CELLS

IV

- S I L I C O N SOLAR CELLS
= APERTURE AREA = ABSORBER AREA

AaP

*abs
As
QLOSSES

OF RECEIVER

= SURFACE AREA OF RECEIVER

A
=

ap=
Aabs

THEORETICAL CONCENTRATION RATIO

1
QTHERMAL

A s= 2
*a bs

q~~~~

ENERGY BALANCE
Q I ~

QELEC

- QLOSSES - QTHERMAL
P

QTHERMAL =

abs (TCK

PERFORMANCE INDEX

P, =

CAPITAL COST PEAK(ELEC + MECH)POWER QELEC

(COST CON)A,
+

+ (COST CELL) (Aabs T~~ (1 - 5) . QTHERMAL

Aabs

Aabs

*5

COST CON

+ COST CELL
TH

COST CON + P ,
=
r
+

COST CELL CTH

QELEC

QTHERMAL COST CELL

p

CAPITAL COST P3 = ELEC POWER

COST CON +

L~~

QELEC

Figure 10.

Summary of equations describing systems I11 and IV.

43

SYSTEM V CONCENTRATOR FOR THERMAL ENERGY AND SEPARATE FLAT PLATE COLLECTOR FOR ELECTRIC ENERGY WITHSILICON SOLAR CELLS QIN.

QLOSSES

QTHERMAL

ENERGY BALANCE

QTHERMAL

COST CON = $1 00 + ~ 1 8 0 . QIN

QLOSSES

COST FLAT PLATE

+ SILICON

$1056/m2

PERFORMANCE INDEX

p1

(COST C0N)A + (COST CELL + COST FP)Aap CAPITAL COST -" PEAK(ELEC + MECH)POWER T~~ QELEC i = & , ) Q ~ ~ ~ A~ b s ~ a~

(1 -

- COST CON + COST CELL + COST FP

P ,

CAPITAL COST - COST CON + COST CELL + COST FP TOTAL POWER QTHERMAL QELEC cTH
+

P3 =

CAPITAL COST - COST CON + COST CELL ELEC POWER QELEC

Figure 11.

Summary of equations describing system V.

44

COST FP = CONSTANT

105

IN *

500 W/m2,

ql = .7,

hl = 15 W/m2

OC

104

.1
1

I,

r
/
100

SYSTEM I SYSTEM I1

103

SYSTEM I V SYSTEM I11 NUCLEAR FOSSIL 1975 COSTS

144 1O ~ K J

GAS TURBINE

$2.50
1 0 6 ~ ~

1 x 102 0

200

300

400

500

600

700

CONCENTRATION

F i g u r e 12.

P1 Vs. concentration.

45

" C

5OoC

60C

SYSTEM I V

1 x 102
0
100

200

300

400

500

600

700

CONCENTRATION

F i g u r e 13.

P 2 vs. concentration.

46

105

SYSTEM I
. .

SYSTEM I 1

SYSTEM V

1 x 104

L l

60C
SYSTEM I V
II

SYSTEM 111

103

300

400

500

600

700

CONCENTRATION

F i g u r e 14.

P 3 vs. concentration.

47

100,

c-

S i 10%

EFF,

hl = .015

KW -, m2 "C

IN

= 500 W/m2

ol

.7,

TF

60.

10.so-

1 ., o -

11

.Ol
I
10

I 100

1000

CONCENTRATION

F i g u r e 15.

E l e c t r i c o u t p u t vs. c o n c e n t r a t i o n for Si.

48

100

GaAs, 15% EFF,

hl

= .015

KW -,
m2

I N = 500 W/rn2,

"C

rll =

.7,

TF = 60.

10

1 .o

.1

1
Figure 16.

10 CONCENTRATION

100

1 000

Electric output vs. concentration f o r GaAs

49

C
Si

10% EFF

A/

1
b Figure 17.

\
C

Q LT

Energy distribution for system IV.

Figure 18.

Energy distribution for system 111.

10% s i 1000

I N = 500 W/m2

. 9
.5

.25
.1
.06
.03 .01 =

K = FLOW RATE PARAMETER

10

' 0

50

100 150

200 250

300

TEMP ("C)

Figure 19.

Concentration vs. temperature f o r system IV.

15% G a A s 10,000

IN

= 500 W/m2

1000

.9
.5

.25

.1
I -

z
W

100

.06 .03 .01 = K = FLOW RATE

0
V

PARAMETER

10

50

100 150

200 250

300 350

400 450

TEMP ("C)

F i g u r e 20.

C o n c e n t r a t i o n vs.

t e m p e r a t u r e f o r s y s t e m 111.

53

ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION

I N ( n ) = AVG. INTENSITY

FOR n t h MONTH

(I +

Performance Index
i = .08;

= 20

F i g u r e 21.
54

ANNUAL COST =

('

i)n

iln

4 = P, years;

CAP ITA L COST COST =(CON

) (Asp)

COST (CELL

(Aabs)

m]

CAP I TAL COST

)
Performance Index

= ANNUAL ELEC

ANNUAL COST

5 =

P5

- ANNUAL COST - ANNUAL WORK

m = maintenance c o s t = .02

Summary o fe q u a t i o n s o u t p u tf r o ms y s t e m s

for annual
111, I V .

100.

-------

NONLINEAR EFFICIENCY LINEAR EFFICIENCY

10.

Ga As

= .01
I

/
/
II

I
I

.Y

.1 ,/
0

.1

.9

.01

10

100

1000

CONCENTRATION
F i g u r e 22. Performance index P 4 VS. concentration K. forvariousflowrateparameters
55

10

FLOW PARAMETER RATE

K
*?

= .01
I

.1

-GaAs $35, 000/m2

$1 ,000/m2

II

.1

I
.Ol

I
.1

1 .o

I
10.0

F i g u r e 23.

P 4 vs. P 5 for v a r i o u s f l o w r a t e p a r a m e t e r s

K.

10,000

1000

15% EFF

100

K = .75 \

10

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

ANNUAL QWORK

I""-]
rn2

PER SQ-M OF APERTURE

yr

Figure 24.

Annual energy output per square meter o f aperture.

57

10,000

ANNUAL ELECTRIC THERMAL PLUS ENERGY

K = 3

1000

100
K = .75, G a A s

ANNUAL ELECTRIC ENERGY

100

1000

10,000

CORCENTRATION

F i g u r e 25.

A n n u a le n e r g yo u t p u tp e rs q u a r e of a p e r t u r e v s . c o n c e n t r a t i o n .

meter

58

100,000

K= 2

10,000

1000

'

90

100

NONLINEAR MODEL LINEAR MODEL

10

1 .01

"

.02

.03 .04 .05 [$/KWH]

.06

.07

.08

.09

.10 .ll .12 .13 .14 .15

ANNUAL COST P 4 = MINIMUM ANNUAL ELEC

F i g u r e 26.

Solar c e l l cost vs. min PI, f o r concent r a t o r costs a l i n e a r f u n c t i o n o f concentration.

59

100,000 -

GaAs

15% EFF

LINEAR,
1000

CONCENTRATION
7 w 350m )

675

K = .

/
/ /

/
AbNONLINEAR

0-

I I #Y

$50/m2

3-

325 200

90

I I
I

110
90

K = .75
40

70

50
I

I L
.04

I
.05 .06

I
.07

I
4

I
=

~~

I
.15 .16

l
.17

1
.18

.08 .09

.10 . l l

.12

.13 . I 4

ANNUAL COST ANNUAL ELEC

[A]

60

600

100

50

<
w3
1

I I -

10

SLOPES

= - . 2 3 yrl

1965

1955
YEAR

F i g u r e 28.

E x t r a p o l a t e ds o l a r

c e l l cost.

61

APPENDIX A COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR COMPARISON SYSTEMS I, 11, 111, IV, V OF

62

~I .

" "

"

XFFIC

LN3GXB.fOR FORTRAN V.4(2116)

. ,

/K1

15-.SEP-75

9:85

PAGE 1

..._.

...

-. . . . . . . . .

SUBROUTINE 00a01

EFFIC~VOCOG.ISC~G.FIFJC.YOCOS.ISCOS.FIPOS~

SUBPROGRAMS C4LLED

CHhR
. "

....... ......

SCALARS AND ARRAYS [ *VOCOS *EFfS

"*"

NO EXPL IClT

DEFlNI I T I O N
3
24 32

1
7. 22

."

. ........ . -.
2 ISCOG *'FlFOS 2I3 C G S -........ *I
18
"

*J

" 2 " NOT REFERENCED 1 4 12

*wocs
* F I L1 1 LS

*EFFG ISCOS

.sn00a
' . JSC8 3S

*FIFOG
*VOCG
. . .

25

*E A *FILLG

5 13

26

*YOCOG .SUOBI 27 *TEMP

h 21

31

. FEUPORARIES
.EF'f16 0 7 EFFIC
Q,

" .

. I YO ERRORS 'DETECTED -1.

"_

- -. . . . . . . . . . . .

'

CHAR

'

LN'JGXB.FOR

-___

FORTR4N V.4(%21@) . . .

/K1

15-Sf?-75

9:@5

PAGE 1

'

... .. SUBPROGRAMS CALLED

SCALARS . A N D ARRAYS [

'I_$.:-.

t40-

E X P L I C I TD E F I N I T I O N

"%"

NnT

REFERENCE0

. YAXSI

L N . J GF 3 R F S H ; r l LR.THA

V.4t215r)

/KI

15-SF:P-75

9:P5

PAGE 1

*FILL

1sc

4 11

ONTYO

GN1CXB.FOR

FORTRAN V . 4 ( 2 1 0 )

/KI

15-SEP-75 9:85

PAGE 1

'7

oirwo
80857 8085R ma59 00160 00B6l 08162
RRa63

LN~GXR.FOR

FORTRAN W.4(215))

/KT

1 5 - S :E P - 7 5 9 n5

PAGE 1-1

. .~ .

le4

F3=(CFPtCFPSII/9ELFC RI~.E.~3,.~~~).'~C,RATE,O~~C:H~,I~T~TAL,POE,PTH.Fl,QllAL,QT~T.PE.P'C. 2F2,EFF . F 3 FORMAT~1X,F5.l.1X.F1U.4.1X,l.PI.31M.J.lX.EI~.3.1X.@PF5.2.1X.F5.7.1X. 2F~~1~,..~P~.1.~.3,1_X,.E1@.3,1X.RPF5.2.1X.F5.2,1X.1PEl~.3.lX,c1PF5.2. 31X.Flu1.2)

CONTINUE

58

"

_.

..

SUBPROCR4MS CALLED CHIR M&XSI

'

F
.''f!....hO.

S C I L A R S ' .AND I\RRAY_S-.[ *CFPSI

1

E X P L I C I TD E F I N I T I O N %IL .FClflPli.I 1 M 3 IMP *QTOTAL 23 *3 31 .. t FC F P *RR@ 37 *TIMAX 45 ITAIRK 5 3

"%"

NOT REFERENCED I

*ARE4

*POE
*IK *EFMAX

*TK

.SBBB0 3 5 *TEMP 43 *TC 51

'

*PT CPrH 2 7 + o H E H M

14 21

IrQTOT...

2* F I F O 7 15

3
*FF *TFK *TAIRC *V(JCO
1 11 2 16

*EN *Hi *OELT

1J
25
33

22

*FZ

.!P.

. .

24 32
49 46 54

ISCO
*OELEC IN *I
*AAA

*FFF *QUAL *TF * ~ r 4 2 ISC

*ETA3M

5 1 3
2c1 36
-34

36

*RAPE'

"_*PL

44 52

*voc
*EPS

41 . 7 $

42
5M

55

*C1 *SIC.YA

56

9:u5

PP.CE 1 - 1

3
11

*PQE *E

lh
74

*DELT

4 12 17

32

4u
46

54

*TK 25 .SUR01 3 3 41 *c2 *I 47 *EPS 55

m a u "

2ETA,lJEMP,.AREA) FHLS SIJBHOUPINE WORKS O N SYSTEM 5

'

FIVE

L N J G KF OF O R A N S. RTR
" .

V.4(21Rl
.

/KI

15-SEP-75

9:05

PASF 1 - 1

- .. -. ..- .- .. -

%IL
*H1 P; I M P *O'COTBL

*J .sc3Glc3n

*rc

I R A PE

*POE *'JlJ4L *TF *TK PISC TN *CrW

5
13 17 35

4M 4h
s4

*l)l)l

*SlCM4

MlllN.

,J b I , F P S .

VOCOG, I S C I K . F i F O G . H l , T F . E T A 1 ,

~ ~ S . V U C U S , I ~ C ~ S , F I F ~ ~ , H I , . T F~ A I , E

1
V

PRVAG=AREA

SC0,FIFO SC06.FIPOG.Hl.TF.ETAI.

APPENDIX B COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR ANNUAL ENERGY PRODUCTION OF SYSTEMS 111, I V

75

. _.
00001

... .. .. - ....... IUBROUTINC BLOCK1 aee01 DIMENSION XK(8) . 0 0 0 3 . . .___..COMMON C ~ ~ , C O N , C E L L l r . C E L L 2 ~ N ~ X I ~ X ~ ~ E T .A l ~.X K ~ T ~ 0

~

" "

233
100
" .

_.

_"

I U B P P O C P l ) r . L - C A L L C D _ _ ~ _ ~ -~
PERrCR SCALARE
AND

..........................

...

. -

......................

__. . . . . .
,.

... ... ...

"_

___ A R R A Y 8 r I*" O EXPLICIT DLrINITION N

" "

. ". .

".

"S" NOT REFERENCED 1

-"_

-~

"

"

00001 Be002 e~e01 00BC4

00005

amc7

eeeeb

."

..

ae001
00009

00010
0001 1

.... ...

-...........

"

-......

- . . . . . . . . .

"

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

-- -

. -

SUSPPOGEAWI CALLED

-~,. All,
.-.

."

.. .

................

"

" " -

ICiLAFi'AtJD ARRAXI t

NO'CXPLICIT DCFINITIOII

' t n NOT REFERENCED 1

__

................

. . _-

_1

.... ...

_. ...

03

19122
-. .

" " "

"

..

- 90027. 00021 00029

ICK*TC*l?Jo
GO TO 4
5

. .

........

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

-.

... --..........

......................

CONTINUE

lUIPPOGPAY6 CALLED

. . . . . . . .

REFERENCES
1.

Kagan, M.B. and Lyubachevskaya, T.L.: Investigation of Photoelectric Characteristics Gallium Arsenide Solar of Cells Over a Wide RangeLight Flux Variation. of Geliotekhnika, vol. 7, no. 2, 1971, pp. 12-21. Savchenko, I.G. and Tamizhevskii, B.V.: Influence of Temperature on Electric Parametersof Si and GaAs Photoconverters Under Increased High-Energy Illumination. Geliotekhnika, vol. 5, no. 3, 1969, pp. 23-30.

2.

3.

Patterson, R.E. and Yasiri, R.K.: Parametric Performance Characteristics and Treatment Temperature Coefficients of of Silicon Solar Cells for Space.Application. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, May 1973, NASA 32-1582. TR Davis, R. and Knight, J.R.: Operation of GaAs Solar Cells at High Solar Flux Density. Solar Energy, vol. 17, 1975, p. 145. James, L.W. and Moon, R.L.: GaAs Concentrator Solar Cell. 1, Applied Physics Letters, May 1975.

4.

5.

6. Woodall, J.M. and Hovel, H.J.: High Efficiency Gal -xAlx-As-GaAs Solar Cells. Applied Physics Letters, vol. 21, no. 8, October 1972. 7. Dorokhina, T.P., Zaytseva, A.K., Kagan, M.B., Polisan, A.A., and Kholen, B.A.: High Voltage Photo Converters Using Gallium Arsenide. Geliotekhnika, vol. 9, no. 2, 1973, pp. 6-8.

8.

Kagan, M.B., Landsman, A.P., Lyubachevskaya, T.L., and Kholev, B.A.: High Efficiency Gallium Arsenide Solar Cells and Possible Improvements. Geliotekhnika, vol. 3, no. 2, 1967, pp. 10-19. Picciano, Wayne T.: Determination of the Solar Cell Equation Parameters, Including Series Resistance from Empirical Data. Energy Conversion, vol. 9, 1969, pp. 1-6. Wysocki, J.J. and Rappaport, P.: Effect of Temperature on Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conversion. Journal Applied of Physics, vol. 31, no. 3, March 1960.

9.

10.

82

1-

Van Wylen, G.J.:

Thermodynamics. John Wiley Corp., 1959.

2.

Oman, H. and Bishop, C.J.: A Look at Solar Power for Seattle. Eighth International Energy Commission Engineering Conference Proceedings, Universityof Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,PA, August 13-16, 1973. Pope, R.B., Schimmel, W.P., Jr., Lee, D.O., McCulloch', W.H., and Bader, B.E.: A Combination of Solar Energy and the Total Energy Concept The Solar Community. Eighth Internati.onal Energy Commission Engineering Conference Proceedings, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,PA, August 13-16, 1973.

3.

?.

Easton, C.R., Hallet, R.W., Jr., Gromik, S., and Gervis, R.L.: Evolution of Central Solar Tower Power Plant. Ninth Intersociety Energy Conversion Engineering Conference Proceedings, San Francisco, CA, August 26-30, 1974. Backus, C.E.: Terrestrial Photovoltaic Power Systems with Sunlight Concentration. Annual Progress Report: NSF/RANN/ SE/GI-41894/PR/74/4, Arizona State University, January31, 1975.

, Duff, W. S. , Tameiro, G. F. , and Lof G.0.G. : Parametric Performance and Cost Models for Solar Concentrators. Solar Energy, V O ~ .17, 1975, pp. 47-58.
f .

Duffie, J.A. and Beckman, W.A.: John Wiley & Sons, 1974.

Solar Energy Thermal Processes.

3.

Evans, D.L. and Florschuetz, L.W.: Cost Studies on Terrestrial Photovoltaic Power Systems with Sunlight Concentration. Presented at the 1975 International Solar Energy Congress and Exposition, International Solar Energy Society, July 28August 1, 1975. Heath, A.R. and Maxwell, P.T.: Solar Collector Development. Astronautics and Aerospace Engineering, May 1963, pp. 58-61. Lee, D.O., Schimmel, W.P., Jr., and Abbin, J.P., Jr.: Sizing of 'Focused Collector Fields with Specific Collector Tube Inlet Temperature. SLA-745288.

3.

3.

83

21.

Liu, B.Y.H. and Jordan, R.C.: Performance and Evaluationof Concentrating Solar Collectors for Power Generation. Journal of Engineering for Power, January 1965, pp. 1-7. Rodichev, B.Y. and Tarnizhevskii, B.V.: Characteristics of Concentrators in Solar PowerPlant Using Photoconverters. Geliotekhnika, vol. 5, no. 2, 1969, pp. 9-15.

22.

23.

PB-223-536, Proceedings of the Solar Heating and Cooling f Buildings Workshop. Washington, DC, March 21-23, 1973. ATD Report 66-138. Direct Energy Conversion in USSR-Soviet Solar Concentrators. November 30, 1966. Pini, V.M. and Costello, F.A.: Domestic Solar Energy Systems for Delaware. Report No. NSF/RANN/SE/Gl34872/TR73/9, PB-228-039, May 1973. Berkowitz, J.B.: Feasibility Investigations of Growing and Characterizing Gallium Arsenide Crystals in Ribbon Form. NSF/FWNN/SE/GI43093/PR/75/2. Semi-annual Progress Report Arthor D. Little, Inc., July 1975.

24.

25.

26.

27.

Barton, G.V.: A Preliminary Analysis of Combined Solar Photo voltaic-thermal Systems for Terrestrial Applications. Sandia Laboratories, ReportNo. SAND 74-0398, January 1975. Wolf, Martin: Cost Goals for Silicon Solar Arrays for Large Scale Terrestrial Applications - Update 1974. Energy Conversion, vol. 14, 1975, pp. 49-60. Baum, V.A.: The Conversion of Solar Energy Into Electricity. Solar Energy, vol. 7, no. 4, 1963. Semiconductors: Epitaxial Growth 188, May 16, 1975, pp. 720-721. of Laser Diodes. Science,

28.

29.

30.

84

NASA-Langley,

1977

CR-2800