Solar Enerey, Vol 19. pp. 255-262. Pergamon Press 1977.

Printed in Great Britain

COST STUDIES ON TERRESTRIAL

PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER SYSTEMS WITH
SUNLIGHT CONCENTRATIONt:I:

D. L. EvANs and L. W. FLORSCHUETZ

Mechanical Engineering Faculty, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85281, U.S.A.

(Received 15 September 1975)

Abstract--A systems simulation program for comparing the energy costs associated with various alternative
concentrating photovoltaic solar systems to energy costs expected with flat arrays is described. The application to
linear focus and point focus concentrators is presented in a parameterized way. The results show that concen-
tration offers a distinct cost advantage at high cell costs. However, they also show that concentration has the
potential for being a viable alternative to the flat unconcentrated arrays for cell costs as low as $50/ma. Also, for a
given concentrator cost, cell cost and cell cooling effectiveness, there exists an optimum effective aperture area to
cell area ratio. For reasonable projected cell costs, this optimum ratio is below 30 for passively cooled devices and
below 60 for actively cooled systems.

INTRODUCTION SYSTEMS SIMULATION

The purpose of the work being reported on here is to A schematic of the simulation program is shown in
define the role of sunlight concentration in reducing the Fig. I. The three main computational tasks performed
cost of electrical energy generated by terrestrial pho- are (1) calculation of cell irradiation, (2) calculation of
tovoltaic systems. The work parallels the current effort solar cell temperature, efficiency and electrical output
to reduce the cost of solar cells in that it explores an and (3) calculation of cell output energy fixed costs. For
alternative to the deployment of large areas of cells in a given effective aperture area to cell area ratio (i.e.
fiat unconcentrated arrays. Concentrating devices would concentration ratio) this series of calculations is done on
decrease the amount of cell area required in converting an hour-by-hour basis over a prescribed period of time
the sunlight intercepted by a given area, thereby offering (usually 1 yr). The insolation/weather data tapes
a potential for cost reduction. However, savings in cell available from the Aerospace Corporation[l] are used as
cost would have to be sufficient to pay for the increased the source 0t environmental data in order to add realism.
cost of collection and tracking. Also, unless adequate A more detailed description of the three major tasks is
cooling is provided for, elevated cell temperatures would given in the following sections,
result in reduced cell efficiency. Thus, the choice of
optimum systems is not straightforward; many tradeoffs Collector]tracking
are possible. The sole purpose of the collector/tracking subroutine
This paper discusses a quasi-steady state system is to calculate cell irradiation. Therefore, each solar
simulation algorithm that has been developed to aid in tracking and collecting scheme (e.g. fiat array, I-D
the study of this problem. For alternative photovoltaic tracking system, 2-D tracking device) must have a unique
systems, this algorithm calculates the electrical energy subroutine. Detailed ray tracing is not conducted since
produced over a year's time and the associated energy the studies are of a preliminary nature and cell analysis is
fixed cost. For a given site, these results are calculated as done simply on the assumption that cell illumination is
a function of cell cost, other fixed costs, collector/track- uniform.
ing technique, aperture to cell area ratio, and cooling Although several collector]tracking schemes have been
system effectiveness, ! modelled, only the fiat array, the linear focus trough and
Discussed here are the initial cost and performance the 2-D tracked device are discussed here. All of these
results for (a) an east-west oriented "linear focus" de- make use of the solar azimuth, altitude and irradiation
vice tracked north-south, (b) a 2-D tracked "point focus" (total radiation and/or direct normal radiation) available
device, and, for comparison purposes, (c) an unconcen- on the data tapes.
trated fixed array facing south with a tilt angle from the Flat array. Reference data against which concentrator
horizontal equal to the local latitude, system energy costs can be compared are based on a fiat
unconcentrated array facing south and tilted at an angle
from the horizontal equal to the local latitude. Diffuse
tPresented at the I.S.E.S. International Solar Energy Congress radiation on a horizontal surface is obtained by subtract-
and Exposition, Los Angeles, California (28 July-1 Aug. 1975). ing the direct contribution from the total radiation on a
~Work supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation,
RANN, Grant GI-41894 and the U.S. Energy Research and horizontal surface. Direct radiation on the tilted flat array
Development Administration, Contract E(11-I)-2590. is computed from the direct normal radiation and the

255
256 D.L. EVANSand L. W. FLORSCHUETZ
I INSOLATION/ SOLAR I COLLECTOR
WEATHER TAPES DATA • I SUBROUTINE
(DEPENDSON
TYPEOFTRACKING)
[CELL
WEATHER IRRADIATION
SOLAR CELL
DATA
I I
CELL COOLING/
CHARACTERISTICS ~ I CONVERSION
AND TYPE OF SUBROUTINE
COOLING
I CELL
LAND COSTS
COSTS
"OTHER" COSTS
IELECTR'CAL
OUTPUT
_1 "FIXED C O S T "
"7 CALCULATION
I
I
Fig. 1. Schematic of simulation program,
cosine of the angle between the normal to the array and a
line to the Sun. Ground reflected radiation (ground
reflectivity of 0.2 assumed) and diffuse radiation on the
tilted array are then added to the direct contribution to
yield total radiation,
When the arrays are spaced closely in the north-south
direction, shading of one array by another will result in
degraded morning or evening performance during winter
months. Shading of the direct radiation will result when
angle EWVf (see Fig. 2) becomes less than angle 0. The
amount of direct radiation reaching the array will be
decreased by the ratio of (PI- SHD)IPf where PI is the
area packing factor (aperture area of array/area of land)
and SHD is the shaded height on the array. For close
packing, the diffuse radiation reaching the array will also
decrease but this effect has not been incorporated into
the programs. Note that this shading model assumes that
electrical series connections between the cells are made
horizontally. If they were made vertically, substantially
decreased performance would result, since some cells in
a series would be shaded while others were not.
East-west linear focus concentrators. East-west
oriented linear focus reflective concentrators (e.g.
troughs) with north-south tracking must be positioned
such that the normal to the aperture area makes an angle
with the horizontal that is equal to the EWV altitude at
each time during the day. The calculations that are
presented here assume that only direct radiation is col-
lected. It is also assumed that the solar image at noon
just fills the absorber. In the morning and afternoon the
absorber is overfiUed due to beam spreading caused by
the finite size of the Sun (0.25 ° half-angle), and the long
distance a photon must travel from reflector to absorber.
Fig. 2. Shading schematic for direct radiation on flat arrays
(EWV is the east-west vertical altitude defined by Tabor[2]).
tEWV--East-West Vertical altitude is defined in Ref.[2].
Also, end effects are encountered since during the mOT-
ning and afternoon not all of the absorber area is it-
radiated for finite trough lengths.
Shading, as in the case of direct radiation on a flat
array, again occurs when angle EWV (see Fig. 3)
becomes less than O, where O is the arcsine of the area
packing factor, PI. The radiation reaching the absorber is
decreased by the ratio of sin (EWIOIPf compared to the
unshaded case.
Absorber irradiation is obtained by multiplying the
normal incidence data by the cosine of the angle between
the normal to the aperture and a line to the Sun and
accounting for beam spreading, end losses, reflection
losses, shading losses, and aperture to absorber area
ratio.
2-D Tracked point focus devices. Two-dimensional
tracking devices would always be oriented with the
aperture normal to the Sun. The energy falling on their
aperture is thus simply the normal incidence data which
is available on the insolation tapes. Cell irradiation is
calculated from this data by multiplying by the effective
aperture to absorber area and by the assumed reflectivity
(or transmittance for refracting optics). Collector shading
is more complicated for this type of device than for the
devices described previously. For simplicity, it has been
assumed that the aperture is unshaded for solar altitudes
greater than 23° . For altitudes less than this value, the
usable aperture area is decreased linearly with the sine of
the altitude. This gives undiminished collection for ap-
proximately 6 hr per day at winter solstice and more than
10 hr per day at summer solstice, depending on latitude.
Conversionto electricity/cell cooling
Once the cell irradiation has been determined, the
corresponding electrical output is easily calculated if the
cell efficiency is known. However, since cell efficiency
decreases with cell operating temperature adequate
cooling must be provided to maintain reasonable
eliiciencies, especially at higher concentration levels.
Cooling system effectiveness must be specified in order
to predict cell temperatures, and in turn, cell efficiencies.
Both passive and active cooling schemes may be con-
sidered as alternatives.
For the present purpose, the cooling system is
modeled so that its effectiveness can be specified by a
|
J
x~/" l 1 =]
Fig. 3. Shading schematic for direct radiation on east-west
oriented linear focus concentrators tracked north-south (EWV is
the east-west vertical altitude defined by Tabor[2]).
 Cost studies on terrestrial photovoltaic power systems
single parameter, an effective thermal conductance for
the system. Consistent with the collector models used
here, in which the cell irradiation has already been
assumed uniform, it is also assumed that the heat re-
jection rate is uniform over the absorber. It is further
assumed that the cooling rate is proportional to the
temperature difference between cell and ambient air for
passive cooling, or between cell and coolant inlet tern-
perature for active cooling. Thus, the effective thermal
conductance, K~, is defined by
Q = K~A,,(Tc - To)
where Q is the heat rejection rate and Aa is the absorber
area. Note that K~ is defined per unit absorber area. For
passive cooling To is the ambient air temperature while
the cell temperature, To, will be essentially uniform. For
active cooling, To represents the coolant inlet tern-
perature. As the coolant flows past the heat transfer
surface, its temperature, along with the local cell tern-
perature, will rise. For these cases Tc represents the cell
temperature averaged over the absorber surface, and K~
may be calculated from
K~ 1
-K = KAo
1 + 2rh----~
where rh and c are the mass flow rate and specific heat
of the coolant fluid, respectively. K is the local thermal
conductance for heat transfer across the local tern-
perature difference between cell and coolant. Equation
(1) combined with eqn (2), with T~ interpreted as the
mean cell temperature, is valid for uniform heat rejection
and uniform K over the absorber area. An additional
condition is that the coolant temperature rise along its
flow path be linear. This is an excellent approximation
for coolant flow along a constant cross-sectional area
duct such as might be used for active cooling of cells in
conjunction with trough-type concentrator systems.
Results for other arrangements can also be estimated in
this way, but will not be as accurate as for the duct flow,
since the temperature rise along the coolant flow path
adjacent to the surface will not always be linear even
with uniform heat rejection and uniform K.
Cell efficiency, '1, defined as the ratio of the electrical
output of the cell to the cell, irradiation, is assumed to
decrease linearly with cell temperature according to
,7 = ~r[l -/3,.(To - Tr)]
where r/~ is the cell efficiency evaluated at the reference
temperature Tr, and ~, is the fractional decrease of cell
efficiency per unit temperature increase,
Equations (1) and (3) may be combined with an energy
balance on the absorber and the definition of cell
efficiency, resulting in
_ aqsflr_ a ~T -
p K~ ~,~, o T~)
1 /3~
q, rl~(AJAo) Ke
257
Equation (4) gives the electrical power output per unit
absorber area, P, as a function of cell irradiation, q~, and
ambient or coolant inlet temperature, To. a is the solar
absorptance of the absorber surface, and was taken as
0.8 for all results presented in this paper. Ac[Aa is the
fraction of the absorber area covered by cells. Values
used are indicated in the results section which follows.
This equation was used to calculate hourly values of
electrical output, using as input the hourly values of cell
irradiation from the collector/tracking subroutines and
the hour-by-hour record of ambient temperature at the
(1) site in question from the insolation/weather data tapes.
Yearly values of electrical output were then calculated
simply by summing these results.
The cell characteristics as represented by 7/, and/L, at
the reference temperature Tr, appear as parameters in
eqn (4). All results presented in this paper were corn-
puted for silicon cells having a reference efficiency of 15
per cent at 25°C. Since, for silicon cells, the efficiency
approaches zero as the temperature approaches 270°C,
one has/3r = 0.0041°C -t. A reference efficiency of 15 per
cent is reasonable since it is expected that conventionally
processed silicon cells can be designed for operation at
irradiations over 100 suns at efficiencies comparable to
(2) current production space cells/3].
The effective thermal conductance appearing in eqn (4)
was assigned various constant values over ranges re-
presentative of what might be achieved with passive
cooling using aluminum heat sinks with extended sur-
faces (fins), and also using water cooling, with the
coolant flowing thru channels or passages arranged on
the back of the absorber. In addition, simulations were
performed for the limiting case of Ke = 0% with To taken
as the ambient temperature at the site in question. Fur-
ther discussion relating to cell cooling, including values
of the effective thermal conductance as defined here
appears in Ref.[4].
For flat unconcentrated arrays passive cooling was
assumed with values for KE of 0.01, 0.03 and
0.1 kW/m2.°C utilized. The first two values span the
range of what could be reasonably expected in practice
under normal conditions with typical wind speeds. The
higher value would be an extreme situation approached
for small arrays with some extended surfaces and above-
average wind conditions.
For linear strip absorber geometries appropriate for
passively cooled linear focusing reflecting concentrators,
values of K~ = 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3 kW/m2.°C were assigned.
(3) The lower value is representative for planar fins with an
absorber width of about 20 cm subject to an average
wind speed of about 2 m/s, or for a smaller width of
about 5 cm in calm air. The higher value could be
achieved with a planar finned narrow absorber (~- 5 cm),
subject to a wind speed of about 2 m/s, or with wider
absorbers using pin fins or segmented planar fins. It may
be noted that with refractive concentrators, heat sink
areas as large as the aperture area could be used resul-
ting in much higher effective thermal conductances for
passive cooling. However, with reflective concentrators,
(4) extension of heat sink surfaces beyond the edge of the
absorber causes undesirable shading of the concentrator
258 D.L. EVANSand L. W. FLORSCHUETZ
surface, restricting the area over which extended sur-
faces may be added,
For passive cooling with 2-D tracked devices a some-
what higher range of K~'s was used (0.2-
0.6 kW/m2. °C) than for the linear focus devices, since
the absorber geometries involved might make the use of
pin fins more feasible,
Higher values of K~ can, of course, be achieved with
water cooling. For example, a 5 × 1.25 cm rectangular
cross section flow channel having the cells mounted on
one of the 5 cm surfaces, operated with a 0.65 kg/s mass
flow rate (1 m/s flow velocity) results in a local K of
about 3 kW/m2. °C including allowance for thermal
resistance of the adhesive bond between cell and chan-
nee If the coolant passage length is about 10 m, the
corresponding value of KE is about 2 kW/m2. °C which
allows for the temperature rise of the coolant along the
flow path. For all active cooling cases it was assumed
that final heat rejection would be to ambient air via a
natural draft heat exchanger. Therefore, a temperature
difference of 25°C~between coolant inlet temperature and
ambient dry bulb temperature was allowed for in the
system simulations in which active water cooling was
assumed. The only auxilliary power requirement would
then be the relatively small amount for circulation of the
water coolant.
System cost model
If one desires to know how much a certain photovol-
taic system will cost to build, accurate data must be
available regarding the effect on costs of production
volume, method of manufacturing, raw materials, labor
and transportation. However, little firm information of
this type is available. This is perhaps evidenced by the
wide spectrum of cost figures (e.g. dollars/m2) that are
currently being quoted in the solar energy field.
In view of these uncertainties involved in any costing
exercise, and in view of the goals of the present study, it
is perhaps more appropriate to seek out a parameterized
cost comparison technique. Such a technique should be
able to demonstrate when, if ever, economic con-
siderations would justify certain concentrating systems
over other systems. In effect, such an approach should
allow one to determine how much one could afford to
pay for certain system improvements whether these
improvements be for tracking, concentrating, heat re-
moval, etc. When such information is available, actual
cost projections begin to take on important meaning,
Such a parameterized study can be developed starting
with the "so-called" levelized fixed charge method used
to calculate busbar energy cost by utility companies. The
busbar fixed charges under this method are calculated
according to the formula
C = ($/kW,)(fcr) (5)
(8760) (CI)
where C is the fixed cost [in dollars per kWh (electrical)],
fcr is the fixed charge rate (covers depreciation, cost of
money, insurance, taxes), CI is the plant capacity factor
and $/kW, is the capital cost per rated output. To this
fixed charge would be added the fuel, operation, and
maintenance costs. The former cost would be nonexis-
tent for solar systems, but the latter two would cover
cleaning, repair, etc. It is assumed here that the operation
and maintenance costs would be similar for any par-
ticular photovoltaic system, whether it involves concen-
trators or not. Thus only the fixed charge costs will be
used in the comparison method used here. This assump-
tion of similar operation and maintenance costs is not
strictly true. Tracking systems would require more
maintenance than fixed arrays as well as, perhaps, reset-
ting each night for operation the following day. On the
other hand, for a given output, similar areas would have
to be cleaned for all types of collectors, assuming that
cleaning would be necessary.
AC to DC conversion costs and storage costs are also
assumed to be independent of the photovoltaic system
and are not considered. C defined by eqn (5) will thus be
referred to as the "Cell Output Fixed Cost."
Since the plant capacity factor involves the ratio of the
projected plant output over a prescribed time (usually
1 yr)totherateoutputoverthesameperiod,theratedoutput
cancels out of eqn (5). If both numerator and denominator
are divided by a unit area, this becomes
($/m2)(fcr)
C - kWhe/yr • m" (6)
The unit area introduced into the equation is taken to
be a unit of aperture area for the collecting system, so
that capital costs are expressed as dollars per aperture
area ($/m2). The term, kWhe/yr' m2, is the amount of
electrical energy generated per year per unit of aperture
area.
The capital costs are divided into three parts: cell
costs, land costs, and other costs (supports, concen-
trators, tracking, transportation, cooling system, etc.)
Thus
$/m2=_X+ y Z
A, +~ (7)
where X is cell cost per unit area of cell (assumed to
include cell interconnection, encapsulation and mounting
on rigid backing plates), Ar is the ratio of aperture area
to cell area, Z is land cost per unit area of land, P~ is the
packing factor or land utilization factor, and Y would be
other capital costs per aperture area.
Equation (6) then becomes
C = (X+ ~_Z'~
\-~ Y + el~ (fcr)/E (8)
where E is the electrical energy generated per year per
aperture area.
I~SULTS
In the results that are presented here, three different
silicon solar cell costs, X, are considered: $2000/m2,
 Cost studies on terrestrial photovoltaic power systems 259

$200/m 2 and $50/m 2. These span the range of cell costs energy costs would be approximately 21 per cent higher
from that for present-day silicon cells ($20/peak W)I due to the decreased solar irradiation.
down to the U.S. solar energy program goal COT- Table 2 lists results for nominal 10 and 15 per cent
responding to $0.50/peak W2 In all cases land costs (Z) cells operating in Albuquerque, assuming a Y of $15/m 2.
are taken as $1/m2. Also, a fixed charge rate (fcr) of 18 As with any fixed solar collector, energy collection
per cent, which is common but far from universal in the distribution over the year can be tailored by changing the
utility industry, has been assumed, orientation or tilt. For example, horizontal arrays may
These results, with one noted exception, are for a solar yield 15-20 per cent more energy during the summer
cell efficiency of 15 per cent at 25°C. To very good months than arrays tilted at the local latitude, but would
accuracy the results, in terms of energy fixed costs, can collect 10-15 per cent less energy over the year due to
be extrapolated to other efficiencies (also at 25°C) by poor winter performance.
multiplying by (15/r/) where n is the desired efficiency in The costs shown in Table 2 are most likely on the low
per cent. side. Blockage of diffuse radiation due to close spacing
The insolation/weather data used are those for AI- of the collectors has not been included but would reduce
buquerque for the year 1962, although some comparisons the energy collected and increase the energy costs. In
are made with Omaha data. actual operation, KE may average somewhat less than
Fixed array. Table 1 gives cell electrical output per 0.03 kW/m 2. °C, again reducing the energy collected and
unit of aperture area for fixed flat arrays tilted at the increasing the cost.
local latitude. It is assumed that 85 per cent of the E W linear focus concentrators. Figure 4 shows the
absorber area is covered by cells with the remaining 15 cost results for an east-west oriented linear focus
per cent used for cell interconnection. A packing factor, concentrator which tracks the north-south motion of the
Jot, of 0.6 has also been used. Sun. The values of K~ are representative of passive
Average daily cell conversion efficiencies for A1- cooling. A packing factor of 0.35, a reflectivity of 0.85
buquerque data for 1962 typically ranged from 16 per and, for end loss calculations, a concentrator length (in
cent in winter to 13 in summer (K~ = 0.03 kW/m 2. °C the east-west direction) to focal length ratio of 15 have
assumed). Typical daylight dry bulb temperatures ranged
from 0 to about 12°C in winter to 15-34°C in summer. Table 2. Projected energy costs for fixed arrayf
Realistic cell output fixed costs can be calculated from (Albuquerque, NM, 1%2)
eqn (8) using the energy output results of Table 1 for
K~ = 0.03 kW/m 2. C. The result (in cents per kWh (elec- Cell cost, X 10% (@25°C)cells 15%(@25°C)cells
trical), ~b/kWhE is ($/m2) (¢/kWho) (¢/kWho)
2000 150 108
C = 0.89(0.85X + Y + 1.67)/r/ (9) 200 17 11
50 5.1 3.4
20 3.0 2.0
where X and Y are to be expressed in dollars per square
meter and "0 is the assumed cell efficiency (in per cent) at 1Based on 304 kWh/m2. yr from Table 1 for KE =
25°C. Although this result is for Albuquerque, it is typical 0.03 kW/m2. °C.
of other high-insolation areas of the southwestern U.S.
such as Inyokern, Tucson, Phoenix and El Paso. For le '\\/ \ ' ~/ ' ,"
Omaha, which has the lowest insolation of any of the ceu_ /\\ "~ ~ " /
COST \ \ \ KE=0.1 /
twenty locations~ available on the Aerospace data tapes, 14 x = \ \ \ kW/m2.*C /
*2ooo V~\ /
/ m2\,\~, //
Table l. Outputfromflxedarrayt ~ 12 N~\'\\
~X ...~.
(Albuquerque, NM, 1962) ~- . /, -/-

KE Energy Av. efficiency ~ lO

\,o.3.. J
(kW/m:. °C) (KWho/m2. yr) over year o ':':'\ ~ !
P, 8 X= ~'~"~- ~ -'
0.0l 239 11.2% x
~ '2Oo/m2
0.03 304 14.1% ~- e "' o . ~
0.I 326 15.2% ~ ~," . . . .

f15 per cent efficient t @ 25°C) silic°n cells with ~ 4 $ 5 ~ 2 ~ . . . . . t

85 per cent absorber coverage,packingfactor of 0.6with o
shading of direct radiation only. ~'
LO 2
u ALBUOUEROUE 1962 -

, i
fNominal 10 per cent efficiencyassumed.
:~Albuquerque, Inyokern, Yuma, Edwards AFB, Riverside, EFFECTIVE APERTURE TO CELL AREA RATIO
Tucson, Salt Lake, Phoenix, Ely (Nevada), Grand Junction, Fig. 4. Cost calculations for EW linear focus concentrators
Omaha, Fort Worth, Dodge City, Midland (Texas), El Paso, Los tracked NS with passive cooling: cells; 15 per cent @ 25°C"
Angeles Civic Center, Los Angeles Airport, San Diego, Santa other costs, Y = $45lm2;land costs, Z = $1lm2;reflectivity= 0.85;
Maria, Fresno. AJAo = l.
260 D.L. EVANSand L. W. FLORSCHUETZ

been assumed. Also full cell coverage of the absorber 16

(i.e. Ao/Ac = 1) has been used. The value of Y of $45/m 2 ALBUQUERQUE 1962
of aperture area used in Fig. 4 is in line with the
14
estimates of Ref. [5] of $47/m 2 for 2.0 m wide parabolic
troughs. It is, however, considerably below the estimates 7~
of Ref.[6] of $100/m 2 for - 3 m wide parabolic troughs. ~ 12
Figure 5, which shows Y as a parameter, demonstrates ~.
the effect of collector costs on energy cost
(KE = 0"2 kW/m2" °C assumed)"
The distinct cost minima exhibited by the curves in
v
~
8
10
~ k~'
2~~ KE= 1. kW/m2.*C-x
"~
' L L

Figs. 4 and 5 are the result of competing phenomena. At ~ 8

small aperture to cell area ratios, concentration lowers x \
the total capital costs in eqn (6) by lowering the cell-cost " 6 ~ ~.~
contribution. At higher aperture to cell area ratios ~ I ~ .~
increased cell operating temperatures result in eflicien- ~ 4 =
cies that are low enough to more than offset any savings 0
in capital c o s t . . j - J
Figure 6 demonstrates simulated active cooling per- utd 2
formance using y = $45/m 2 and K~'s that are represen-
tative of water cooling, o
2-D Tracked point-locus devices. Figures 7 and 8 show ) 20 40 60 80 100 120
results for 2-D tracked point-focus devices that would be EFFECTIVE APERTURE TO CELL AREA RATIO
representative of passive cell cooling operation. A Fig. 6. Cost calculations for EW linear focus concentrators
reflectivity for reflective concentrators (or transmittance tracked NS with active cooling: cells, 15% @ 25°C; other costs,
for refractive optics) of 0.85 and full cell coverage of the Y = $45/m~; land costs, Z = $1/m:; reflectivity = 0.85; AJAo = I.
Curves for finite KE assume inlet coolant temp. 25°C above
absorber have been assumed. The value for Y of $60/m 2 ambient dry bulb. Infinite Ks curve assumes cell temperature is
used in Fig. 7 is close to the estimates made in Ref. [5] of same as ambient dry bulb.
$54/m 2 for 7.5 m dia. aperture paraboloids and $52/m 2 for
modular 3 m dia. aperture paraboloids. The estimates of
16I~ELL" I I I I I I
Ref.[6] of $124/m 2 are again considerably higher. I~)ST~/ ALBUQUERQUE 1962 [
The present results are applicable to other point-focus 141~2OOO~\
ix = ~ , /
devices such as the circular Fresnel reflectors and cir- % |/m2 \~,\ |
cular transmitting Fresnel lenses as long as reflectivity ~ ~[| \~,'X~" ~!
(or transmittance) differences are accounted for (energy ~2 ,
fixed costs vary nearly linearly with reflectivity for a 1OL \~\"-K==O.2_~kT~m_~2'[~
/

2
1E X=$ ~\\ \ ~
/\\\ \ . \ -"..-*... _l--J
1OO
i
/
U
t= ,:%0.4
-"~...., /

/\~\\ OX~'
60 "~ "i~.~ - l- e 200/m 2 " ~"~"""~-~"
.
-r 12 \'\ D 4 X = ~ ~ -

lO ' ~ 2
u'~ " 100 ~k~, " C I I I I I
o
° 8 //_ 10 20 30 40 ~0 60
E3 ~ 8Q~--""X~ ~ ~ "- EFFECTIVE APERTURE TO CELL AREA RATIO

w
X
~ \ ~ _ Fig. 7. Cost calculations for 2-D tracked point focus concen-
6 ~ ~ y trators with passive cooling: cells, 15 per cent @ 25°C; other
costs, Y=$60/m2; land costs, Z=$1/m% reflectivity=0.85;
D ~ ~ AJA~ = 1.
a_ 40
O
, ~ ~ given Y. In this regard, the estimates of Ref. [5] of $44lm ~
._1 2
"'
t.)
for circular Fresnel reflectors and, of $50/m 2 for circular
~ I ' O T H E R " C O S T S f Y=$O/m2 Fresnel lens concentrators are very interesting. As men-
I
10 2oI 30I 40I a
50 60 tioned previously, refractive optics offer potential for use
of wider heat rejection surfaces with passive cooling.
EFFECTIVE APERTURE TO CELL AREA RATIO The distinct cost minima displayed in Figs. 7 and 8 are
Fig. 5. Cost calculations for EW linear focus concentrators
tracked NS with passive cooling: cells, 15 per cent @ 25°C; land a result of the same competing phenomena described
cost, Z = $1/m2; reflectivity = 0.85; AJA~ = l; K~ = 0.2 above in regard to Figs. 4 and 5. Simulated active cooling
kW/m:. °C. performance is shown in Fig. 9 using a Y of $60/m 2 and
 Cost studies on terrestrial photovoltaicpower systems 261

le above $501m2, concentrating photovoltaic solar energy

,12<~//lt!~!~\iA/BUQUERQdE 19£ 2 converters offer a definite cost advantage. FOrmayCellcosts
1412m2 in the vicinity of $501m2, concentration offer a
viable alternative to flat unconcentrated arrays made
it'd12 W\\\~ ' ~ " OT HE"
///"" R COSTS with 15 per cent nominal efficiency cells. This will
/ \\\ ', ', \ ~ Y = S 1 2 0 I m z
/ W' \ \ -~----~_ depend on better definition of concentrator costs, fiat
array installation costs, etc. Compared to 10 per cent
E t ~£~. " . ~ nominal efficiency flat arrays, concentration using 15 per
8 8 cent, $50/m~ cells, may be competitive at flat array cell
8 / (
× ~ ~ costs of $20/m2 ($0.20/peak W).
~ 61× ] ~ ~ The data presented also show that concentration using
~8o . $200/m2 cells result in energy costs that are less than
4L~f 6o - --- $0.01/kWh, above that produced using $50[m2 cells. It is
3 rl...4 o ~ interesting to note that concentration with $2001m2,
d 2r ]--__Z9_2o _ nominal 15 per cent cells may well be competitive,
I ~ m 2 depending on ultimate collector costs, with flat arrays using
C~) 1OI 21(3 31(3 40 5OI 6o $50/m2, nominal 10 per cent efficient cells.
EFFECTIVE APERTURE TO CELL AREA RATIO
The energy cost behavior for the linear focus devices
and the 2-D tracked devices are very similar (e.g. corn-
Fig. 8. Cost calculations for 2-D tracked point focus concen- pare Figs. 4-7, Figs. 5-8 and Figs. 6-9). In particular,
trators with passive cooling; cells, 15 per cent @ 25°C; land
costs, Z=$1/m2; reflectivity=0.85; A¢IA,= 1; K~ Figs. 4 and 7 show that, for passive cooling, as the
0.4 kW/m~. C. contribution of the cell cost is reduced by concentration,
the fixed energy costs pass through distinct minima as
~e described previously. The aperture to cell area ratios
C_CELL
x~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1962
ALBUQUERQUE corresponding to these cost minima increase as the
~4 - " cooling effectiveness increases. Also, as cell costs be-
% !l~tm2 come lower, or other costs become higher, the optimum
12 aperture to cell area ratios decrease.
Figures 6 and 9 show that even with active cooling, the
lC potential for cost reduction is limited to the low aperture
to cell area ranges ( ~ 20-80) unless cell costs remain
8 itxl ~ KEiZ~°C--~ high. At high aperture to cell area ratios (~50 for
~_ X-< $200/m2) energy costs begin to increase again be-
ri ~'~-:'~_.: -~-- cause of decreases in electrical energy output. This latter
/m "
I~ ~ _~-~-... - - - - ~ , ~ _ _ ~ _ L _ T behavior could be compensated for by increasing coolant
4 ~ flow rates, increasing the heat transfer area or lowering
d ~O/--
O ~sS°/m40
' ~KE.=C
-C-' . . . . . - coolant inlet
additional expense.
temperatures, all of which would require
If forced draft heat exchangers were used in place of
80 120 160 200 the natural draft type assumed here, coolant inlet tom-
EFFECTIVE APERTURE TO CELL AREA RATIO peratures would be closer to the ambient dry bulb. For
Fig. 9. Cost calculations for 2-D tracked point focus concen- example, calculations for a coolant inlet temperature 5°C
trators with active cooling: cells, 15 per cent @ 25°C; other above ambient show that gross electrical energy output
costs, Y =$60/m~; land costs, Z=$1/m~; reflectivity= 0.85; increases by about 8 per cent over the year. However,
AJA~ = 1. Curves for finite K~ assume inlet coolant temp. 25°C some energy would be required for running fans so that
above ambient dry bulb. Infinite K~ curve assumes cell tom- the net output would not be affected by the same
perature is same as ambient dry bulb.
amount.
Wet cooling, simulated by assuming the inlet coolant
KE's that would characterize the use of water as a temperature was 5°C above the ambient wet bulb tern-
coolant, perature, showed a gross electrical output increase of 12
per cent over that for natural draft dry cooling. Again,
DISCUSSIONOFRESULTS not all of this would show up as an increase in the net
In comparing energy costs for the fiat unconcentrated plant output, due to increased energy consumption
array, the linear focus concentrator and the 2-D tracked within the system. It should be pointed out that the wet
device, the values used for the capital costs, Y (see eqn cooling alternative is not always a viable one, since high
7) should be kept in mind. These are $15, $45 and $60 per insolation locations are most often arid or semi-arid in
ms of aperture area, respectively. Mention has already climate.
been made of the wide variation in estimated costs; true A comparison between the linear focus devices and 2-D
costs will only emerge when actual production begins, tracked devices shows that the 2-D tracked concentrators
The data presented in Figs. 4, 6, 7 and 9 compared to yield slightly smaller energy costs. The higher capital cost
the flat array results of Table 2 show that, for cell costs per unit aperture area for this latter device is more than

SEVol.19~No 3--D
262 D.L. EVANSand L. W. FLORSCHUETZ

compensated for by the increased energy collected and
converted due to the additional degree of freedom in
tracking,
The potential cost advantages available in devising
lower cost ways of constructing concentrators is shown
in Figs. 5 and 8. Much work is being devoted to this
problem at high concentrations in the national solar
thermal program. The results of the current study pin-
point the need for similar work at lower concentration
ratios.
For small cell costs, the low optimum aperture to cell
area ratios indicated by this study mean that reflector
surface accuracy and tracking accuracy will not be as
critical in photovoltaic converters as they are in solar
thermal conversion. Also, the need for highly specular
reflectors is not as great. All of these conclusions should
lead to some reduction in capital costs of the concen-
trators although the amount is very uncertain at this
time.
Although the data are calculated from Albuquerque
insolation data, the general comparison between flat ar-
rays and concentrators holds true for any area of high
direct insolation (low cloud cover). However, the corn-
parisons lead to similar conclusions for Omaha which
has the lowest insolation of the locations for which data
is readily available. This would imply they have wider
applicability than what might be first thought. Areas that
must rely essentially on diffuse radiation are going to find
solar energy a very expensive source of energy.
l~l~NC~
1. Available from the Aerospace Corporation Civil Program
Division,El Segundo, California, U.S.
2. H. Tabor, Stationary mirror systems for solar collectors, Solar
Energy 2 (3--4), 27-33 (1958).
3. Terrestrial Photovoltaic Power Systems with Sunlight
Concentration,Rep. NSF/RANNlSE/GI-41894/PR[74/4. U.S.
National Science Foundation, Washington D.C. (1975).
4. L. Florschuetz, On heat rejection from terrestrial solar cell
arrays with sunlight concentration. Eleventh IEEE Photovol-
taic Specialists Con[. Phoenix, Arizona (1975).
5. Solar Thermal Electric Power Systems, Final Report, Rep.
NSF/RANN/SEIGI-37815/FR/7413. U.S. National Science
Foundation,Washington,D.C. (1974).
6. J. Powell, et al., Dynamic Conversion o[ Solar GeneratedHeat
to Electricity. Rep. NASA CR-134724, U.S. National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C.
(1974).

Resumen--Se describen sistemas de programas de simulaci6n para comparar los costos de energfa asociados a varias
alternativas de sistemas fotovoltaicos solares con concentraci6n frente a los esperados en disposiciones planas. Se
presenta en forma param6trica la aplicaci6n de focos lineales o puntuales. Los resultados muestran que la
concentraci6n ofrece ventajas indudables para altos costos de c61ulas. Sin embargo, los mismos tambi6n muestran que
para costos tan baits de c61ulascomo U$S 50/m2, potencialmente la concentraci6n es una alternativa viable frente alas
disposiciones planas sin concentraci6n. Ademfis,para costos dados de concentrador y c61ulay determinada efectividad
de enfriamiento, existe una relaci6n 6ptima entre las fireas de apertura efectiva y de c61ula. Para costos de c61ulas
razonablemente proyectados esta relaci6n 6prima estfi por debajo de 30 si el enfriamiento es pasivo y debajo de 60 si
son sistemas activamente enfriados.

R~um6--On d6crit un programme de simulation des syst~mes pour comparer les coots d'6nergie associ6s ~ divers
syst~mes solaires photovoltai'ques avec concentration, aux coots d'6nergie escompt6s avec des dispositifs plans.
L'application aux concentrateurs ~ foyer lin6aire et ~tfoyer ponctuel est pr6sent6e d'une mani~re param6trique. Les
r6sultats montrent que la concentration offre un avantage de prix distinct lorsque les coots des cellules sont 61ev6s.
Toutefois, ils montrent aussi que la concentration est potentiellement une alternative viable aux 6tendues planes non
concentr6es jusqu'h des prix de cellules aussi basque 50 $/m2. De plus, pour un prix de concentrateur donn6, un prix de
cellule, et une efficacit6de refroidissement de cellule, il existe un rapport optimum de la surface d'ouverture effective
la surface de la cellule. Pour des prix de cellules raisonnablement envisag6s, ce rapport optimum est inf6rieur fi 30 pour
des syst~mes refroidis naturellement, et inf6rieur 5. 60 pour des syst/~mes refroidis activement.