Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:49:22.563Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Solar surfaces: A bad idea or tomorrow’s mainstream application?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2019

Sarah Kurtz Open the ORCID record for Sarah Kurtz [Opens in a new window]
Sarah Kurtz*
Affiliation:
Materials Science and Engineering Department, University of California Merced, Merced, California 95340, USA
*
a)Address all correspondence to Sarah Kurtz at skurtz@ucmerced.edu
Get access

Abstract

Solar cells can be built directly into the things around us, but they generally aren’t. Is it a missed opportunity?

In the early days of photovoltaic (PV) research, a mainstream opinion envisioned the future of PV as building-integrated and that utility-scale installations would be anomalies. As an example, in 1994, PowerLight introduced a solar roofing tile system, touting it as saving money (avoiding the cost of installing a conventional roof) while integrating PV into an attractive roof. However, today, utility-scale PV accounts for more than half of the world’s PV installations, and building-integrated PV (BIPV) is a niche market (with most rooftop systems being “building-applied” rather than “building-integrated”). This motivates the question: “Was integrating PV into the desired product a bad idea or is it an idea whose time has not yet come?” Many things have changed since the 1990s including microinverters and other power electronics, PV with lower temperature coefficients, and demonstration of PV as an accepted technology so that it is not such a risk to builders, potentially giving a fresh opportunity. In this article, we explore the potential value of integrating PV into surfaces and the challenges to achieving that value.

Keywords

photovoltaicdeviceseconomics
Type
Perspective
Information
MRS Energy & Sustainability , Volume 6 , 2019 , E8
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Dinwoodie, T.L. and Shugar, D.S.: Optimizing roof-integrated photovoltaics: A case study of the PowerGuard roofing tile. In Proceedings of 1994 IEEE 1st World Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion—WCPEC (A Joint Conference of PVSC, PVSEC and PSEC), Vol. 1 (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 1994); pp. 1004–1007.Google Scholar
Reese, M.O., Glynn, S., Kempe, M.D., McGott, D.L., Dabney, M.S., Barnes, T.M., Booth, S., Feldman, D., and Haegel, N.M.: Increasing markets and decreasing package weight for high-specific-power photovoltaics. Nat. Energy 3(11), 1002 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renewables 2017 Global Status Report (2017). Available at: http://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/17-8399_GSR_2017_Full_Report_0621_Opt.pdf (accessed March 15, 2019).Google Scholar
Kurtz, S., Wohlgemuth, J., Hacke, P., Bosco, N., Kempe, M., and Smith, R.: The challenge to move from “one size fits all (2011) to PV modules the customer needs”. Available at: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/52672.pdf (accessed March 15, 2019).Google Scholar
Ballif, C., Perret-Aebi, L-E., Lufkin, S., and Rey, E.: Integrated thinking for photovoltaics in buildings. Nat. Energy 3, 438–442 (2018).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochvil, J.A., Boyson, W.E., and King, D.L.S.: Photovoltaic Array Performance Model. United States. doi: 10.2172/919131. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/919131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deceglie, M.G., Jordan, D.C., Nag, A., Shinn, A., and Deline, C.: Fleet-Scale energy-yield degradation analysis applied to hundreds of residential and nonresidential photovoltaic systems. IEEE J. Photovoltaics 9(2), 476–482 (2019).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverman, T.J., Deceglie, M.G., Marion, B., Cowley, S., Kayes, B., and Kurtz, S.: Outdoor performance of a thin-film gallium-arsenide photovoltaic module. In 39th Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC) (IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, 2013); pp. 0103–0108.Google Scholar
Fu, R., Feldman, D., and Margolis, R.: U.S. Solar Photovoltaic System Cost Benchmark: Q1 2018. Technical Report, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, 2018. NREL/TP-6A20-72399. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72399.pdf.Google Scholar
Table 1-12: U.S. Sales or Deliveries of New Aircraft, Vehicles, Vessels, and Other Conveyances (2019). Available at: https://www.bts.gov/content/us-sales-or-deliveries-new-aircraft-vehicles-vessels-and-other-conveyances (accessed March 16, 2019).Google Scholar
New Privately-Owned Housing Units Completed (2019). Available at: https://www.census.gov/construction/nrc/index.html (accessed March 16, 2019).Google Scholar
King, C.: State of the Industry Report (2013). Available at: https://www.roofingcontractor.com/articles/89280-state-of-the-industry-report (accessed March 16, 2019).Google Scholar
Although chamber temperatures for testing PV modules peak at 85 °C, added current injection increases local heating above 85 °C during routine testing of PV modules, more accurately reflecting the higher temperatures commonly seen in the field.Google Scholar