3 ms·
It's 6 liters per square meter of solar membrane. They increased it 25x with a Fresnel lens. From the paper: > For NEMD experiments with solar concentration,
by LeifCarrotson 9y ago
It's 6 liters per square meter of solar membrane. They increased it 25x with a Fresnel lens. From the paper:
> For NEMD experiments with solar concentration, a 25.4 × 25.4 cm Fresnel lens was used to concentrate sunlight on the membrane surface by a factor of 25. The unconcentrated and concentrated solar intensities at the NESMD module surface were 0.7 and 17.5 kW·m−2, respectively.
A facility of 500x500 m^2 would probably still be feasible.
The link is to the university news department, the actual paper is here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/14/1701835114.full http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/14/1701835114.full
or here in PDF format:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/14/1701835114.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/06/14/1701835114.full...
- Retric 9y agoYou can only concentrate sunlight for a fraction of the time. The good news is water is easy to store for long periods, the bad news is utilization is very low. Sierra Suntower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_SunTower https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sierra_SunTower is kind of a worst case senario but they got about 100 hours per year of operation.
- jacquesm 9y ago1620 MWh of output over several years? They'd be better off using the fuel used to construct it directly. Amazing that that particular project got so much praise before the numbers were in. I've played around with solar concentrators in the early 00's and realized very quickly that it wasn't worth my time due to all kinds of practical constraints, I always wondered why the companies and organizations that build these things don't do a scale model first. That way at least you get some real world data to plug into your spreadsheet before spending big $.