> 10% more power by adding these fancy bits of optics to a set of solar cells would cost far more than (getting the same improvement by) installing 10% more optics-free solar cells
Surely if you're comparing against fixed solar panels, then it would be more than 10%? For tracked solar panels, costlier installation and maintenance would be traded off with efficiency of the prismatic optics and degradation of materials. Economies of scale might favor the optics if it's cheap enough to manufacture (less components, cheap materials etc.)
If the new optics give X% more power, they compete against "just buy X% more solar panels". (My original "(say)", in front of the "10%", was meant to indicate that the number was arbitrary.)
> Economies of scale might favor the optics if it's cheap enough...
- Quite true. But note that the article describes the inventor of the new optical system as "assistant professor in astronautics and spacecraft engineering". That certainly suggests cost-insensitive, performance-critical applications - such as cubesats.
You're probably right. Given they seem to be using glass, I'd say it's both too heavy for space (?), and too costly for earth. I guess I'm hoping they take this technique to cheaper easier materials so I can slap this on top of a van and get decent power in a variety of different conditions.
Surely if you're comparing against fixed solar panels, then it would be more than 10%? For tracked solar panels, costlier installation and maintenance would be traded off with efficiency of the prismatic optics and degradation of materials. Economies of scale might favor the optics if it's cheap enough to manufacture (less components, cheap materials etc.)