50% more power from solar by arranging panels like a Natural Tree! - experiment

I think that more scientific papers need Dr Seuss in the bibliography.

It's not an interesting idea.
It's an interesting idea.
It's an interesting idea.
It's two interesting ideas.
It's three interesting ideas.
...

 

Why don't we just build a geodesic dome. Each facet would be a solar panel.
While a Science Project scaled model might be practical, I cannot see a 70' unit in the front yard. The city and neighbors might have a few things to say about it also!
People whine enough about a bank of flat panels, they are gonna freak at a Solar Oak Tree!

 

Sorry, but without even reading it, my reaction, from having worked through this for my house, is .. nonsense. And that's the nice version. You cannot increase the output of an array of fixed-in-place solar panels, beyond optimizing them vertically and horizontally per know formulae.

OK, looked at it.

What the article actually says is this, emphasis mine:

"The design generated up to 50% more power than the model of a traditional solar installation during periods of low sunlight"

Sure, that's possible.

What's not possible is increasing the efficiency of a solar array, in total, by 50%, by strategically orienting individual panels.

In fact, to the contrary, as the price of panels has fallen precipitately in recent years, sun-tracking arrays have fallen completely out-of-fashion. Nobody even others to set up arrays that track the movement of the sun, because the cost of the sun-tracking mechanism is more than the value of the additional KWH captured.

 

The research paper suggest that a static orientation
of solar array panels can achieve the similar electrical
generation outputs as dynamically sun-tracking arrays
at a fraction of the cost. Mind you this static orientation
looks rather odd but it should work. The advantage of
a static/fixed orientation over dynamically sun tracking
arrays is not only initial cost but reliablity and
on going maintance cost. The proposed spiral design
looks like the PV panels overlap so that there is
more PV panels per square foot of sunlight. Its
not something one could put on one's roof without
the local zoning ordinance people coming to tar
and feather you but it might work on a solar array
farm.

 

The Secret of the Fibonacci Sequence in Trees

This is a great start for a 7th grader, but it is not university- or commercial-level work. I learned some stuff about trees, but nothing that wasn't already known about solar power for improving my existing mini PV system, or an upgraded grid-tied system, or to orient collectors for a desired solar hot water system for winter in my climate zone.

Comment #1: Volts are not a measurement of power or energy;
Comment #2: In PV systems, volts are not even a good proxy for power or energy;
Comment #3: When PV cells of different orientations or lighting conditions are connected in series, the relationship between volts and power/energy gets even more disconnected.

 

It was pretty obviously bogus, but it was worse than I thought. Fuzzy1 listed some of the major problems. This guy was more thorough.

Blog Debunks 13-Year-Old Scientist's Solar Power Breakthrough - Technology - The Atlantic Wire

 

An overlapped cell is a shaded cell.

A shaded cell is less useful than a piece of copper wire.

"Finger-pointing: It's not the seventh grader's fault, it's the media's fault. The blog does not blame the seventh grader for imperfect science, but actually the news media for blowing up this story and putting a 13-year-old into the spotlight for an impressively ambitious but unfortunately incorrect claim. It ends with this open question: "How did this confused science project became international news?""

Let me reiterate that I also don't blame the 7th grader. He is off to a great start, and did much better than anything I or my classmates did at that age. But his adult mentors failed him. And those who turned this into 'news' are not useful as science or engineering journalists.

 

I fully agree. His initial observation and attempt to extrapolate it to solar cells took much more than all but a very small percentage of 7th graders are capable of.

 

I'm going to give the kid credit. 7th grade, hiking, contemplating the Fibonacci sequence, then trying a real world application?

When I was in 7th grade, I spent long hours trying to figure out how to get enough money to go to the movies, and or the courage to call the cute girl in class.

I suppose I could bother to attack the applied science of a 13 year old 7th grader...but I think I'd rather applaud the attempt.

 

My understanding of why trees use the system they do for leaves:
1) photosynthesis still works in shaded conditions, unlike PV cells. With the lack of an effective aiming system, somewhat random aiming will provide consistent output, if not maximum output.
2) having leaves and branches angled different ways at different heights allows the wind to affect them differently, so gusts will cause branches to sway independently and reduces the chance they'll all be pushed at the same time, which can cause the tree to break.
3) predation and injury can cause loss of a leaf, so using many smaller leaves has an advantage over few big ones. Also helps with breaking up the wind.

 

It turns out with some further reading, that there are issues with the methodology. It seems that he was measuring open circuit voltage, not real power output.

Icarus

 

It's too bad he didn't have mentor with a decent grasp of science on his project.

As far as the kids conclusions go though, I see more scientifically off base things believed by adults on PC and in general life all the time.

 

I don't understand the problem. The kid seems to come up with an organic arrangement. I'm not sure about the measurement, but it seems like if you arrange more panels in the same footprint at different patterns it should be able to capture more light in suboptimal conditions than a fixed array.

The idea that these panels will collect more light at optimal times as the same area panels just doesn't make sense.

 

I do have some direct measurement experience in this field, and still have hopes of parlaying it into actual products.

What is the goal?
(1) to capture / intercept the most light?
(2) to maximize instantaneous power in a fringe condition?
(3) to maximize total energy harvest over a longer period?
(4) to maximize V(oc)*T over some period?
(5) something else?
You seem to focus on #1 or #2. My goal is #3. This experiment focused on #4, not realizing that is not equivalent to #3.

The experiment's series connection causes the shaded cells to cripple the output of the whole system, wasting most of the capacity of the illuminated cells. The open circuit measurement is a very nonlinear proxy for power output. If all the cells are under identical conditions, and sufficient performance detail is available, this can still be translated into an estimate of real power. But when the cells are oriented differently, some shaded while others illuminated, the series connection makes this impossible.

If solar cells become cheaper than the footprint on which they are mounted, then it may pay to find ways to stuff additional cells into that footprint in different orientations to capture additional light from other directions. But those cells will not be connected in series. And for normal outdoor use, that day is a very long way off.

Applaud and encourage the student, whose creativity, imagination, and ambition are putting him on track to go far and make real contributions in the near future.

Shoot the adult messengers who mistook an attempted seventh grade science project for actual energy science news.

 

Any arrangement that gives you more solar power under sub-optimal conditions will give you less solar power under optimal conditions. That's just the nature of the beast.

 

Everybody is feeling really desperate right now and grasping for anything that promises an instant solution. When really, what we need is a protracted period of hard work.

 

Bummer the Washington post link died.