5 ms·
Amazingly, the results from the structures they’ve tested show power output ranging from double to more than 20 times that of fixed flat panels with the same ba
by wtvanhest 15y ago
Amazingly, the results from the structures they’ve tested show power output ranging from double to more than 20 times that of fixed flat panels with the same base area.
Lets say the current design takes up 1 cubic meter. (I can't tell from the photo).
Lets say you have a 10,000 square meter roof, 100x100 meters.
Does this mean you can put 10,000 of them up there or a number far lower since they need space in between them to let the light in?
The article isn't clear whether an arrangement of 20 of them is more efficient then the space required, but it does hit at it when it says:
Then, to confirm their model’s predictions, they built and tested three different arrangements of solar cells on the roof of an MIT laboratory building for several weeks.
- DanBC 15y agoMore testing and simulation is needed. > So far, the team has modeled individual 3-D modules. A next step is to study a collection of such towers, accounting for the shadows that one tower would cast on others at different times of day. In general, 3-D shapes could have a big advantage in any location where space is limited, such as flat-rooftop installations or in urban environments, they say. Such shapes could also be used in larger-scale applications, such as solar farms, once shading effects between towers are carefully minimized.
- wtvanhest 15y agoI have no idea how I missed that. But it is the most crucial part of the article. The equivalent would be putting a solar panel upright and saying it gets more energ per SM than one laying flat. Seems pretty obvious.