NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Opportunities and Challenges 

for Development of a Mature 

Concentrating Photovoltaic 

Power Industry

Sarah Kurtz

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5200-43208

Revised June 2012
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, Colorado 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Opportunities and Challenges 

for Development of a Mature 

Concentrating Photovoltaic 

Power Industry 

Sarah Kurtz

Prepared under Task No. PVA7.4401

Technical Report

NREL/TP-5200-43208

Revised June 2012
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors 

expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx

Cover Photos: (left to right) PIX 16416, PIX 17423, PIX 16560, PIX 17613, PIX 17436, PIX 17721

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste.
1

Opportunities and Challenges for Development of a Mature 

Concentrating Photovoltaic Power Industry

Introductory Note

This report attempts to summarize the status of the concentrating photovoltaic (CPV) industry and to 

identify problems that may be encountered as the industry matures, with the ultimate goal of increasing 

the growth rate of the CPV industry. This report strives to guide industry investments as well as to help 

set research agendas for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and other R&D 

organizations.

Recent progress in the CPV industry is impressive, and has recently drawn more attention from the 

mainstream PV community. Specific examples are summarized in the report. If you have suggestions 

about this report, especially to update the tables to show your company’s latest installations or add your 

company’s name, please e-mail Sarah.Kurtz@nrel.gov.

____________________________________________________________________________

Executive Summary of Recent Changes to the CPV Industry

The high-concentration PV industry has made great strides in the last year, including:

• After installing MW-size fields in 2010, led by an Amonix 30-MW (AC) field in Colorado, 

the CPV industry installed more than 40 MW in 2011 and may exceed 100 MW in 2012, 

despite the oversupply of the PV market.

• A 43.5% cell (GaInP/GaAs/GaInNAs(Sb)) from Solar Junction is the current world record 

with inverted metamorphic cells close behind with 42.6% and 42.4% from NREL and 

Emcore, respectively. Semprius has announced a 33.9% efficiency for a module made 

with Solar Junction’s cells.

• A new trend in the industry toward standardization could reduce costs: while the main 

CPV companies have carefully engineered proprietary products, companies servicing 

the supply chain are beginning to offer off-the-shelf optics and testing equipment. This 

sort of standardization is known to reduce the time and cost of bringing a new product to 

market, potentially helping the industry to be more competitive if prices are reduced for 

all companies. However, a key feature of the CPV industry is the wide variety of designs 

being pursued by the various companies. The companies must continue to innovate 

even while some parts of the supply chain become standardized. 

• Dozens of companies are still working on developing products or participating in the 

supply chain despite the ongoing industry-wide shakeout. There is a small increase in 

the fraction of the community exploring reflective approaches.

Si-based CPV approaches are also making significant strides:

• Solaria, SunPower, Skyline, and others could show dramatic growth in coming years.

• Dozens of companies are working on developing products or participating in the supply 

chain.
2

The Promise of CPV

Today’s photovoltaic (PV) industry is growing into significance, now providing ~2% of the 

electricity in Spain and Germany. The character of the industry is changing with dramatic 

reduction in silicon module costs in 2011 and signs of saturation of growth of some markets. 

Reduced enthusiasm for large incentives is slowly shifting the primary market away from 

countries like Germany and Spain. In some cases, the low module costs are enabling markets 

that are cost effective (because of lots of sunshine and relatively high conventional electricity 

prices) without incentives. While the module oversupply is causing a painful shakeout among 

manufacturers, the associated shift of the market to non-incentivized markets may be helpful in 

the long run for CPV companies because of a tendency to shift the market toward sunny 

locations where CPV systems perform their best. Additionally, as module costs drop to the point 

where balance of system costs have become more important, some segments of the market are 

beginning to place a higher value on efficiency. This is challenging the thin-film companies to at 

least match the efficiency of similarly priced silicon modules or further reduce their prices. The 

allure of demonstrated CPV module efficiency > 30% with the possibility of reaching 40% 

module efficiency is successfully enticing investment into CPV companies and interest from 

potentially long-term customers, though at a far reduced rate than previously. Also, the relatively 

low capital investment needed for a CPV factory makes investment in CPV manufacturing a 

lower risk than for some other types of PV; the capital investment risk for CPV tends to be 

distributed between the cell, lens, tracker, and other suppliers and is reduced overall because 

these investments may be diverted to other products.

CPV approaches vary widely according to the type of cells used, the concentration ratio, type of 

optics (refractive or reflective), and the geometry. For this report, we have chosen to treat the 

types of systems in two parts as described in Table 1. Part I discusses CPV using multijunction 

(GaAs-based) concentrator cells, which, because of their high cost, require concentration ratios 

higher than ~400X. Part II discusses medium-concentration systems (typically 10X–20X, but 

with some as low as 2X) that require silicon or other types of concentrator cells; a wide range of 

approaches is included. Table 1 includes a description of Part III, but this discussion has been 

discontinued because interest in this approach has decreased. Appendix A summarizes a cost 

evaluation of all technologies.

Table 1. Description of Classes of CPV Treated in Parts I–III of This Report

Part Class of CPV Typical Concentration Ratio Type of Converter

I High-concentration, MJ cells >400X Multijunction

II Medium-concentration, cells ~3X–100X Silicon or other cells

III Enhanced concentration, 

modules <3X Silicon modules

The value of CPV within the PV R&D and investment portfolio can be summarized as:

• Lower capital investment because of the reduced use of semiconductor material 

compared with flat-plate silicon; this reduces risk for the investor and allows more rapid 

adjustment of plans based on changing markets.

• High energy yield (kWh/installed kW) associated with the use of tracking and small 

temperature coefficients; in areas with high direct-normal irradiance, this can be a 

significant effect, providing lower cost of electricity even for products with higher 

$/W cost. If shading is minimized, the output may also provide a better match to the load 

profile than fixed PV.
3

• Higher efficiency, allowing smaller module area; in some cases, CPV requires less than 

half the module area to deliver the same power (note that this may not translate to 

higher energy for a given field if the systems are widely spaced to reduce shading).

• Lower product costs are being demonstrated because of a reduced use of 

semiconductor material and because of a potentially steeper learning curve.

• Potential for reduced installation costs because of the high efficiency of modules.

• Qualitatively different approach that complements low-efficiency approaches and 

contributes to a strong technology portfolio for solar; just as there is a battery for every 

application, CPV may provide a different solution that is especially useful for (for 

example) applications that are hot and sunny.

• Low environmental impact for pedestal-mounted systems.

CPV joins flat-plate PV in providing these benefits:

• Renewable electricity source with a cost that already competes with conventional 

electricity sources in some locations

• Modular: can be installed in sizes ranging from kilowatts to multiple megawatts

• Production profile that is fairly predictable and is a relatively good match to the load 

profile

• Low maintenance

• Low water use

• Can be installed with minimal environmental impact, sometimes in configurations that 

allow dual use of the land

• Low carbon intensity and energy payback that can be less than a year.

[1]

These will be discussed in greater detail throughout this report.
4

Part I. High-Concentration CPV Using High-Efficiency, Multijunction

Solar Cells

Concentrator cells have achieved increasingly impressive efficiencies, inspiring interest in the 

high-efficiency, high-concentration CPV (HCPV) approach. There are currently seven 

multijunction cell architectures with reported efficiencies in the 40% range (Table 2). The exact 

structures could be further differentiated within each of these architectures. The current record 

efficiency is 43.5% by Solar Junction[2]

. This cell uses a dilute nitride alloy for the lowest junction

and is grown by molecular beam epitaxy. NREL[3]and Emcore[4] have demonstrated inverted 

metamorphic, 3-junction cells with efficiencies of 42.6% and 42.4%, respectively. Spire achieved 

42.3% [5] efficiency with a bi-facial approach (GaInP/GaAs on the front and GaInAs on the back 

of a GaAs wafer). Other structures and measured efficiencies[6-10]

are tabulated in Table 2. A 

historical summary of champion cell efficiencies is shown in Fig. 1. Multijunction concentrator 

cells have achieved much higher efficiencies than any other approach. This is not surprising for 

two reasons: (1) the highest theoretical efficiencies may be achieved if multiple semiconductor 

materials (with a range of bandgaps) are chosen to match the spectral distribution of the sun, 

and (2) the compound semiconductors used in these cells are mostly direct-gap materials and 

can be grown with near-perfect quality in mass production. The multijunction approach has been 

described extensively in the literature.[6-8,11-20]

Table 2. Summary of Champion Efficiencies for Multijunction Cells

Cell Architecture Champion 

Efficiency* Company Comments

Dilute nitride

43.5%

(NREL)

(>43% @ 400–

1000 suns)

Solar Junction

The exact structure has not been 

published, probably GaInP-GaAs

dilute nitride, all lattice matched

GaInP/Ga(In)As/GaInAs[3,4]

42.6% @ 327 

suns (NREL)

(40.9% @ 1093 

suns)

NREL

Inverted metamorphic 42.4% @ 325 

suns (NREL)

(41% @ 1000 

suns)

Emcore

GaInP-GaAs-waferGaInAs[5]

42.3% @ 406 

suns

(NREL)

Spire

Requires epi growth lattice matched 

on front and mismatched on back of 

GaAs wafer

GaInP-Ga(In)As-Ge[6] 41.6% @ 364 

suns

(NREL)

Spectrolab Commercially available; lattice 

matched

GaInP-GaInAs-Ge[7]

41.1% @ 454 

suns

(Fraunhofer 

ISE)

Fraunhofer ISE Mismatched; similar to design sold by 

Spectrolab

GaInP-GaInAsQD-Ge[10] ~40% Cyrium Uses quantum dots in middle 

junction

GaInP-GaInAsQW-Ge ~40% Quantasol/JDSU Uses quantum wells in middle 

junction

*Efficiencies were measured at the indicated accredited test laboratory.
5

Figure 1. Historical summary of champion cell efficiencies for various PV technologies. The highest 

efficiencies have been achieved for multijunction solar cells; these efficiencies are still increasing each 

year. Multijunction cell efficiencies have the potential to approach 50% in the coming years.

When compared with solar thermal approaches, CPV provides a qualitatively different 

approach, typically with lower water usage and greater flexibility in size of installation, but with 

greater sensitivity to cloud transients and without storage. The tracking used for CPV also 

implies relatively higher electricity production per installed kilowatt, compared with fixed flat 

plate (see below).

Ten years ago, there was little commercial interest in CPV for the following reasons:

• The PV market was dominated by rooftop applications, whereas most CPV products are 

better suited to solar fields.

• The champion concentrator cell was only ~35% efficient, compared with ~43% today.

• The total size of the industry was less than one-tenth of what it is today, making nearterm, high-volume CPV deployment unlikely (i.e., CPV achieves ultralow cost only when 

the volume of manufacturing is large).

In the last 10 years, the solar industry has grown exponentially, doubling about every two years, 

and the CPV industry has grown rapidly, with dozens of companies developing new products. 

Cumulative investment in CPV is >$1 billion. Solar fields, which often use tracked systems, are 

becoming more common, providing a potentially huge market for CPV products. With the overall 

PV market growing in the gigawatt range, CPV has an opportunity to enter the market with 

production of tens or hundreds of megawatts per year. This is significant because CPV is 

unlikely to achieve low costs when manufacturing at less than tens of megawatts per year. Ten 

years ago, it would have been difficult for companies to have confidence that they could find 

markets for the needed volume. The growth of the market, and especially growth of the market 
6

segment that uses trackers, is an important contributor to the increased interest in CPV. The 

potential for CPV industry growth has been widely discussed in recent years.[13-15,21]

 

The most important current advantage of the CPV approach may be the reduced need for 

capital investment (scalability). The growth of the silicon PV industry has been challenged by 

the need for capital investment, especially in silicon purification facilities. By reducing the 

amount of semiconductor material, the capital investment need is also reduced. Although no 

CPV companies have demonstrated it, the relative ease of scale-up of CPV is logical and could 

be a significant advantage in a rapidly growing market. Suncore, Soitec, Amonix, and SolFocus

are now positioned to begin a ramp up in production, enabling the needed reduction in cost.

Some cost analyses have predicted that using lenses or mirrors to concentrate the light on small 

cells can lead to low costs for solar electricity.[14,15] These studies imply that there is a potential 

for cost-effective implementation of CPV systems even in locations such as Boston, 

Massachusetts.[15] The cost assumptions published in references [14,15] are out of date, but the 

fundamental conclusion that CPV has the potential for lower costs still stands.

1 The uncertainty 

in the cost estimates is greater than the difference between the estimated costs, implying that it 

is too early to predict which technologies will achieve the lowest costs for each application. In a 

reexamination of his earlier cost analysis (presented as the opening talk at CPV6), Richard 

Swanson projected that the HCPV, thin-film PV, and low-concentration PV (LCPV) approaches 

all have similar costs (within the uncertainty of the analysis). Maintaining a portfolio of 

technologies increases society’s chance of identifying the best options; CPV represents a 

qualitatively different approach from both silicon and thin-film PV and has a credible path to 

playing an important role in PV markets, especially in sunny locations. Demonstration that a 

low-cost structure can be achieved will require development of a reliable CPV product, followed 

by large-scale deployment. The CPV industry has made dramatic progress toward this in the 

last five years.

Installations of the first megawatts of products are often subsidized by venture capital. However, 

when production passes 10 MW (or 100 MW for the best-funded companies), the selling price 

and actual cost must quickly converge. In 2008, a number of CPV companies installed ~1 MW. 

Because of the global economic recession, 2009 was a slow year for the CPV industry, but 

2010 showed a dramatic surge in growth with a number of 1-MW systems installed. Amonix 

completed a 30-MW field near Alamosa, Colorado, around the end of 2011 and has already 

observed > 32 MW generated from the plant. Concentrix was purchased by Soitec and is 

planning to install 150 MW for San Diego Gas & Electric by 2015, constructing a 200-MW/y

manufacturing facility in the San Diego, California area. Suncore has announced plans to build a 

1-GW/y factory over the coming years and is already operating the first 200-MW/y line.

SolFocus is starting 450 MW of projects in Baja. As the installation volume increases, the cost 

of CPV products will become increasingly clear. Once these baseline costs are established, 

some have predicted that the learning curve for CPV costs will be steeper than for flat-plate 

costs.

CPV, like all PV technologies, is most cost effective for sunny regions with clear skies. The 

benefit of clear skies is most obvious for CPV systems, because they use the direct beam and 

do not effectively capture diffuse light. This solar resource is often referred to as direct-normal 

irradiance (DNI). Although the diffuse light is not effectively captured by CPV, DNI resources are 

greater than resources available to fixed flat-plate panels in some environments because of the 

 1 The energy payback of some CPV systems has also been studied.[1] Peharz G and Dimroth F, "Energy Payback 

Time of the High-concentration PV System FLATCON," Prog. Photovolt. 13, 627-734 (2005).
7

value of tracking; the resource available to flat-plate PV increases if the flat-plate modules are 

tracked to follow the sun. Large flat-plate PV systems today are often mounted on one-axis 

trackers. Figure 2 shows the ratio of DNI to global irradiance on a one-axis tracked surface.

Figure 2. Ratio of DNI to global irradiance on a one-axis-tracked surface (no tilt) as a function of the 

average daily irradiance. Source of data: http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/old_data/nsrdb/1961-

1990/redbook/sum2/state.html

Current Status of the CPV Industry

The year 2011 may have been a turning point for the CPV industry as Amonix completed the 

first >10-MW field, and the manufacturing capacity of the CPV industry began to grow in the 

hundreds of MW/y range for the first time.

Table 3 provides a list of more than four dozen CPV companies pursuing designs with 

multijunction cells. Although many of these companies are just getting started, others have had 

prototypes on sun for multiple years and are ramping up production. Two key trends are seen in 

2011: a number of acquisitions, and increased involvement in China. Consistent with the rest of 

the PV industry in 2012, we can expect a reduction in the number of solvent companies. Past 

history of the growth of the CPV industry has been documented in previous versions of this 

report and by PHOTON International articles.

[22,23]

Table 3. Summary of Multijunction HCPV Companies

(This information changes rapidly. Companies described in gray appear to have moved away from this 

approach, but should not be discounted completely.)

Company Type of 

System Location On Sun in 2009*

Installed 

in 2010*

Installed 

in 2011*

Estimated

in 2012*

Manufact.

Capacity*

Abengoa Solar Lens, 

pedestal Madrid, Spain 400 kW

Alitec Lens, 

pedestal

Navacchio, 

Italy
8

Company Type of 

System Location On Sun in 2009*

Installed 

in 2010*

Installed 

in 2011*

Estimated

in 2012*

Manufact.

Capacity*

American CPV Orange, CA, 

USA

Amonix Lens, 

pedestal

Torrance, CA, 

USA

+240 kW 

(MJ)

~14 MW 

(Si)

3 MW 40 MW 30 MW ~100 MW/y

Angelantoni 

Industrie Lens Italy

Arima 

Ecoenergy

Lens, 

pedestal

Taipei, 

Taiwan 330 kW 100 kW 7 MW/y

Becar-Beghelli Reflective Italy prototypes

Beijing 

Enterprises 

Holding

Company 

Lens, 

pedestal China 1 MW

Boeing 

(recently sold 

to SES)

Mirror, 

Pedestal

Seal Beach, 

CA, USA

BSQ Solar Spain

CBF 

Engineering

Refractive. 

Pivot and 

roll

Vicentino, 

Italy

Chengdu Zsun Lens, 

pedestal

Chengdu, 

Sichuan, 

China

Circadian Solar Coventry, UK

CompSolar 

(Compound 

Solar 

Technology 

Co.)

Refractive 

& reflective 

designs

Hsinchu 

Science Park, 

Taiwan

32 kW 30 MW/y

Concentracion 

Solar La 

Mancha

Lens, 

pedestal

Ciudad Real, 

Spain 11 MW/y

Concentrating 

Solar Systems

Bangalow, 

Australia

Concentrating 

Technologies

Small 

mirror, 

pedestal

Alabama

Concentrix 

Solar (see

Soitec)

Cool Earth 

Solar

Inflated 

mirrors

Livermore, 

CA, USA

Daido Steel Lens, 

pedestal

Nagoya, 

Japan 30 kW 100 kW

Delta 

Electronics

Lens, 

pedestal Taiwan >2 MW/y

Edtek

Mirror, 

pedestal, 

hybrid

Kent, WA, 

USA

EMCORE Lens, tilt & 

roll

Albuquerque, 

NM, USA

1 MW,

original 

design

See 

Suncore 10 MW/y

ENEA

Lens, Si 

cells, 

pedestal

Portici, Italy
9

Company Type of 

System Location On Sun in 2009*

Installed 

in 2010*

Installed 

in 2011*

Estimated

in 2012*

Manufact.

Capacity*

Energy 

Innovations

Lens, each 

module 

tracked

Pasadena, 

CA, USA 13 kW 300 kW ~ 20 MW/y

Enfocus 

Engineering

Lens, flat 

pivot

Sunnyvale, 

CA, USA

Entech Lens, 

pedestal

Keller, TX, 

USA

ESSYSTEM

Lens, 

pedestal 

(Green & 

Gold)

Gwangju-city, 

Korea

ETH Zurich

Reflective 

trough; 

refractive 

secondary

Zurich, 

Switzerland

EverPhoton Lens, 

pedestal

Taipei, 

Taiwan

Green and 

Gold Energy

Lens, 

pedestal

South 

Australia 150 MW/y**

GreenVolts Lens, tilt & 

roll

San 

Francisco, 

CA, USA

3.5 MW 5 MW

Guascor Foton

(now Foton 

HC)

Lens, 

pedestal

Ortuella, 

Spain

12 MW 

(Si-based,

Amonix)

100 kW 

MJ 15 MW/y

Heliocentric Reflective 

dish

Helios Solar 

CPV

Lens 

(Green & 

Gold)

Denver, CO, 

USA

Heliotrop Lens, 

pedestal France

small 

module 

prototype 

in 2009

30 kW 

planned 1 MW/y

Huanyin 

Electronic

Jiangsu, 

China

IBM Lens Armonk, NY

IDHelio

Lens, 

hybrid PVthermalAlbi, France

Isofoton Lens, 

pedestal

Malaga, 

Spain

400 kW 

Puertollano 30 kW 7 MW 10 MW/y

Jiangsu White 

Rabbit Lens Jiangsu, China

Menova 

Energy

Fresnel 

reflector

Markham, 

ON, Canada

Morgan Solar

Lateral 

photon 

collection

Toronto, ON, 

Canada 8 MW/y

MST Lens, 

pedestal

Rehovot, 

Israel 50 kW Setting up manufacturing

On-sun 

systems

Lens, novel 

tracking

Herefordshire, 

UK

OPEL 

International

Lens, 

pedestal

Shelton, CT, 

USA ~400 kW 0.3 MW 3 MW/y

Pirelli Labs Lens, 

pedestal Milan, Italy 7 kW

Pyron Solar Lens, 

carousel

San Diego, 

CA, USA 20 kW 100 kW
10

Company Type of 

System Location On Sun in 2009*

Installed 

in 2010*

Installed 

in 2011*

Estimated

in 2012*

Manufact.

Capacity*

Rehnu Dish Tucson, AZ 0.5 kW 20 kW

Renovalia Madrid, Spain 300 kW

SahajSolar Lens Gujarat, India

Scaled Solar Dish

San 

Francisco, 

CA, USA

Semprius Microlens Durham, NC, 

USA

small 

systems 5 kW 20 kW

Shanghai 

Solaryouth Lens Shanghai, China 2.6 MW

Shap Reflective Rome, Italy

Sharp Lens, 

pedestal Japan

Soitec

(previously 

Concentrix)

Lens, 

pedestal

Freiburg, 

Germany 600 kW 150 kW 1.5 MW 20 MW

Developing 

200 MW/y, to 

be completed 

2013

Sol3g Lens, 

pedestal

Cerdanyola, 

Spain 12 MW/y

Solar Systems

Dish, 

pedestal; 

developing 

central 

receiver 

(heliostat)

Victoria, 

Australia 1.3 MW 5 MW/y

SolarTech Lens, 

pedestal

Phoenix, AZ, 

USA

Solar*Tec AG Lens, 

pedestal

Munich, 

Germany

SolarTron 

Energy 

Systems

Small dish Nova Scotia, 

Canada

Solergy Glass lens Piedmont, CA 100 kW

SolFocus

Small 

mirror, 

pedestal

Mountain 

View, CA, 

USA

500 kW 2.5 MW 4 MW 10 MW 50 MW/y

Soliant Energy

(purchased by 

EMCORE)

Lens, flat 

pivot

Pasadena, 

CA, USA 100 kW

Soltec 

Energias 

Renovables

Reflective Spain

Spirox Lens, 

pedestal 

Hsinchu, 

Taiwan 6.5 kW

Square 

Engineering

Lens, side 

support Pune, India

Sun Synchrony Miniaturized 

reflectors

Alameda, CA, 

USA

Suncore 

Photovoltaic 

Technology

(Sanan 

Optoelectronics 

& EMCORE)

Lens, 

pedestal Fujian, China 3 MW 2 MW 50 MW 200 MW/y 

SunCycle Rotating 

lens/mirror

Eindhoven, 

Netherlands 0.5 kW

Plan product 

launch in 

2011

Sunfish Central 

receiver

Denbighshire, 

UK
11

Company Type of 

System Location On Sun in 2009*

Installed 

in 2010*

Installed 

in 2011*

Estimated

in 2012*

Manufact.

Capacity*

SUNRGI Lens Hollywood, 

CA, USA

Suntrix Lens Shanghai, 

China 60 kW 250 kW 

Xtreme 

Energetics

Two 

designs: 

central 

station and 

rooftop

Livermore, 

CA, USA

Zenith Solar Dish, hybrid Nes Tziona, 

Israel 70 kW 250 kW hybrid

ZettaSun

Lens, 

internal 

tracking

Boulder, CO

Zytech Solar Reflective Zaragoza, 

Spain

Totals

14 MW (Si) 

5.5 MW 

(MJ)

10 MW ~50 MW ~ 100 MW

*Based mostly on public presentations or website announcements/press releases. Note that some companies refrain 

from posting information about their deployments, so the lack of a number may not mean that they have made no 

installations.

**Includes capacity of Green and Gold Energy technology through ES System, Energies AC Gava, Square 

Engineering, Solar Ace, and Zolar Distributors.

Most PV technologies have required years of development before showing success on a large 

scale. First Solar’s rapid expansion was based on years of development work. As the CPV 

companies transition from the prototyping phase of development to scaling up manufacturing, 

they will encounter familiar problems. The following discussion reflects the concerns that have 

been raised by industry participants during discussions related to this study. 

Prototype Development

CPV companies are exploring a wide range of CPV approaches. Each has done its own 

assessment of which designs will give the best performance, lowest cost, and longest reliability.

The range of types of designs continues to expand. Primary considerations include:

• Performance: Optical efficiency, cell cooling, and performance losses associated with 

manufacturing imperfections, soiling, tracking errors, flexing in the wind, thermal 

expansion/contraction, or wind stow.

• Cost: Use of inexpensive components, ease/automation of assembly.

• Reliability: Degradation of optics, poor performance of tracker or other loss of alignment, 

loss of adhesion or breakdown of bonds between cell and the optics and heat sink, etc.

Prototype Testing

After designing and assembling the prototypes, the most immediate need of many of the 

companies is testing. Testing needs may be broken into two parts: the first quantifies the 

performance and identifies opportunities for improving performance; the second assures that 

the performance is stable, preferably over decades of use. The initially measured performance 

is usually lower than is hoped for. Identification of the cause of the performance loss can be 

complicated. 
12

Some of the types of diagnostics include:

• Low short-circuit current

- Optical losses (may be caused by soiling of optics, condensation within the module, 

imperfect optical interfaces, manufacturing imperfections, misalignment)

- Mismatch of multijunction cell design with observed spectrum. This can be 

complicated to diagnose because it may vary with time of day and cell alignment. It is 

best diagnosed with a single lens-cell assembly by monitoring the fill factor 

throughout a sunny day.[24]

- Misalignment of cell with optics or poorly designed optics so that some of the light 

misses the cell, or misalignment of tracker.

• Low open-circuit voltage

- Poor heat-sink design can be detected quickly by measuring the heat-sink 

temperature

- Poor thermal contact between cell and heat sink.

• Low fill factor for string of cells

- This can result from inconsistencies in the alignment or from inconsistent component 

quality. The acceptance angle (measured at the maximum power point) of a singlelens cell assembly should be similar to that of a string of cells. If the acceptance 

angle for the string is larger, or if the operating temperature of the cells is not the 

same for all cells, there may be some variation in the alignment. A quick way to 

identify variations is to look for bypass diodes that are activated, and especially to 

see if different bypass diodes are activated as the alignment is changed or the 

spectrum varied.

- Variability of the optical transmission or the solar cell performance may also cause 

lower fill factors. Again, looking for the activated bypass diodes will help to identify 

the problematic lenses or cells.

- If the fill factor is low because of a series-resistance problem, this can quickly be 

distinguished from the above problems. Poor electrical connections, inappropriate 

cell design, or non-uniform illumination of the cells are common causes.

The above list is not meant to be an exhaustive guide to identifying causes of poor performance, 

but gives a sense of the many ways that the performance can be compromised. 

There is concern that failures in the field for even a single company could discredit the entire 

CPV industry. Sharing observations of failures can facilitate early detection of failures, reducing 

the probability of premature deployment, but companies are often reluctant to do so. In 2008, 

the Accelerated Aging Workshop, which was sponsored and organized by the U.S. Department 

of Energy (DOE) and the national laboratories, included a breakout session for the CPV industry

(see p. 46). It was suggested that the national laboratories should place the highest priority on 

the cells, bonding, and packaging, although a myriad of other concerns were also expressed.[25]

The Photovoltaic Module Reliability Workshops in Feb. 2010, Feb. 2011, and Feb. 2012 also 

included break-out sessions on CPV that discussed spectral issues, quantitative predictions 

using the weather to predict lifetime of the cell attachment, revisions of the thermal cycling 

qualification test, etc.
13

Standards

Some testing standards are available, but the standards for CPV are behind those for flat-plate 

PV. Table 4 summarizes a few of the key IEC standards for PV and tabulates those that have 

CPV versions. Clearly, the CPV industry and customers must work together to establish CPV 

versions of the standards to form the foundation for the emerging CPV industry.

Table 4. Summary of Standards

Silicon PV Standard Corresponding CPV Standard

IEC 60904 – Photovoltaic devices. 

Part 1: Measurement of photovoltaic currentvoltage characteristics.

Part 2: Requirements for reference solar devices.

Part 3: Measurement principles for terrestrial 

photovoltaic (PV) solar devices with reference 

spectral irradiance data.

Part 5: Determination of the equivalent cell 

temperature (ECT) of photovoltaic (PV) devices by 

the open-circuit voltage method.

Part 7: Computation of spectral mismatch error 

introduced in the testing of a photovoltaic device.

Part 8: Measurement of spectral response of a 

photovoltaic (PV) device.

Part 9: Solar simulator performance requirements.

Part 10: Methods of linearity measurement.

Each of these building blocks is being 

addressed as the more complex 

standards are developed (see below).

IEC 61215 – Crystalline silicon terrestrial PV 

modules. Design qualification and type approval.

IEC 62108 – CPV modules and 

assemblies. Design qualification and type 

approval.

IEC 61853 – Photovoltaic (PV) module 

performance testing and energy rating. Part 1: 

Irradiance and temperature performance 

measurements and power rating (Committee draft 

is approved).

Draft under development: IEC 62670.

Power rating for CPV. In addition, 

technical specifications for an acceptance 

test and for use of an average 

performance ratio to define an energy 

rating.

IEC 61730 – PV module safety qualification Draft under development: IEC 62688

UL 1703 – Flat-plate photovoltaic modules and 

panels

Draft under development: UL 8703 –

Concentrator photovoltaic modules and 

assemblies; STP formed in late 2009.

Manufacturing Scale-Up and Retesting

After reliable prototypes have been demonstrated, companies must automate the manufacturing 

and then retest the reliability to ensure that subtle changes in the design do not negatively 

impact reliability. Some of the companies have planned for high-volume manufacturing from the 

start, but all companies must include this step in their development plans at some stage.

The details of high-volume manufacturing will be key toward cost reduction. Automated 

manufacturing of complete systems under a single roof will take substantial effort to set up, but 

may show significant advantages in the long run. Most companies have found that preassembly 

can greatly reduce installation costs.
14

Some recent advances include:

• In early 2012, Amonix completed a 30-MW (AC) field in Alamosa, Colorado.

• Suncore is now operating a 200-MW/y manufacturing plant in Huainan, China.

• Soitec broke ground on a 200-MW/y manufacturing plant in San Diego, California.

Performance (Power) Rating

A power rating is traditionally used as a nameplate rating and is useful for sizing of inverters and 

other system parts as well as for verification of system delivery under some contracts. The IEC 

Technical Committee 82 Working Group 7 has defined:

Standard Concentrator Test Conditions:

• 1000 W/m2 irradiance

• 25°C cell temperature

Standard Concentrator Operating Conditions

• 900 W/m2 direct-normal irradiance

• 20°C ambient temperature.

Efforts are underway to define the procedure for measuring the power rating and also for an 

energy rating standard.

The National Solar Radiation Data Base and other solar resource data that include the direct 

resource usually include the circumsolar resource, which most HCPV systems cannot use. The 

importance of this effect has not been quantified, although anecdotal information implies that it 

can be significant in locations with pollution or other sources of haze that cause small-angle 

scattering. 

Cell Supply

A significant number of companies have demonstrated the capability for epitaxial (single-crystal) 

growth of multijunction cells. They are summarized in Table 5. 

Table 5. Summary of Companies with Capability for Epitaxial Growth of Multijunction Cells

Company 

Name/Web Link Location Comment

Arima Taipei, Taiwan Reported achieving >40% cells.

Azur Space (RWE) Heilbronn, Germany Commercial product ~40%; champion 41.2%.

[26]

CESI Milano, Italy Datasheet reports 38% efficiency.

Compound Solar 

Technology

Hsinchu Science Park, 

Taiwan

Website shows I-V curve with 33.4% efficiency.

Cyrium Ottawa, Canada Datasheet describes typical >39% cells.

EMCORE Albuquerque, NM, 

USA

Datasheet describes typical 39% cells and 

receivers at ~500 suns. 

Epistar Hsinchu, Taiwan Multijunction cells are in development.

IQE Cardiff, Wales, UK Has purchased stake in Solar Junction (see below).

JDSU Milpitas, CA, USA Has purchased Quantasol (see below)

Microlink Devices Niles, IL, USA Multijunction cells removed from substrate in 

development

Quantasol Kingston upon 

Thames, Surrey, UK

Multijunction cells with quantum wells, claim ~40%; 

Purchased by JDSU.

RFMD Greensboro, NC, USA Multijunction cells in development
15

Company 

Name/Web Link Location Comment

Sharp Japan

Has demonstrated high efficiencies, but has not 

indicated plans for commercialization outside of 

supplying cells for its own CPV systems.

Solar Junction San Jose, CA, USA

Announced 43.5%, confirmed by NREL and 

Fraunhofer ISE. Setting up manufacturing under 

IQE

Spectrolab Sylmar, CA, USA Is selling 40% product. Shipped ~35 MW in 2009, 

and ~100 MW in 2010 (@500X).

Spire (Bandwidth) Boston, MA, USA Announced 42.3% efficiency, NREL confirmed; 

Sold to Masimo Semiconductor

VPEC Pingjen City, Taiwan Multijunction cells in development

Recent developments in the cell industry:

• Solar Junction set a record efficiency of 43.5% in 2011 and reports shipping 42%-

efficient cells in 2012.

• A primary trend in 2011 and 2012 is toward acquisitions, reducing the total number of 

cell companies.

• At CPV8 (April 2012), NREL and Emcore announced 42.6% and 42.4% efficiencies, 

respectively, for the inverted metamorphic cell.

A quick review of the companies in Table 5 implies that the supply of cells could be expanded 

quickly. The entry of large companies such as JDSU could bring the experience of the larger 

industry for making cheaper cells. Essentially all of the companies in Table 5 can fabricate cells 

with efficiencies greater than 30%; some have demonstrated efficiencies approaching or 

exceeding 40%. Although all of the companies on this list have some capability for growing 

multijunction cells, not all of them have demonstrated a capability for high-yield manufacturing.

The most immediate concern about the concentrator cells expressed by CPV representatives is 

whether the reliability testing is adequate. 

The injection of forward-bias current during thermal cycling is observed to damage some cells. 

Two studies presented at CPV-7 concluded that the cause of the damage could not be linked to 

defects in the cells, and that the cell failures appear to be caused by voids under the busbars 

leading to thermal runaway in the cells.[27]

The current cell production capacity exceeds the CPV installation rate but that gap narrowed 

with the increased manufacturing volume in 2011 and 2012. Expansion of the manufacturing 

volumes should allow reduction in cost because of economies of scale. 

Cell Efficiencies

Cell efficiencies have been increasing at a rate of about 0.5% to 1% per year in recent years. 

See Table 2 and Fig. 1 for summaries of champion efficiencies. Efficiencies are expected to 

continue to increase toward 45%–50%. The high cell efficiencies allow the optics to be more 

productive, so most companies desire cells with the highest efficiencies.

Substrate Supply

The manufacture of multijunction space cells in the last decade has been based primarily on 

germanium wafers supplied by a single company: Umicore (Brussels, Belgium). Now, multiple 
16

companies are developing a germanium wafer capability, including AXT (Fremont, California); 

Sylarus (St. George, Utah); and PBT (Zurich, Switzerland). Umicore has completed a plant in 

Quapaw, Oklahoma, to help service this growing market. In addition, some approaches (such as 

Semprius’ use of Solar Junction cells or the inverted method[20] of fabricating the multijunction 

cells) make possible reuse of the wafers avoiding the need for large quantities of substrates and 

the flexibility to use either Ge or GaAs substrates. Although it is possible that the industry could 

be so successful as to create a shortage of wafers, this is not currently on the horizon.

Germanium (Ge) metal is obtained principally as a by-product of zinc refining or coal-burning 

(recovered from the fly ash). In 2007, Ge suppliers produced about 100 metric tons, most of it in 

the form of germanium tetrachloride (GeCl4) and germanium dioxide (GeO2).[28] Canada and 

China are the world's largest Ge sources, each supplying more than one-third of world 

production. Mining companies indicate there is a 50-year known reserve at today's consumption 

rate, and that this reserve does not include vast new reserves available in Africa (especially the 

Democratic Republic of Congo). The major Ge consumers in 2007 were fiber optics (35%), 

infrared optics (30%), PET catalysts (15%), and electronics and solar applications (15%).[28]

Wafer-industry experts tell us there is sufficient Ge to support a CPV installation rate of 

~4 GW/yr. Industry experts also point out that a significant Ge consumer, PET plastics, is 

moving aggressively to replace Ge with lower-cost catalysts, and at least two Chinese PET 

manufacturers have reported using a titanium-based solution.[29] It is significant that the PET 

catalyst percentage of the Ge market has declined from 31% in 2005 to 15% in 2007.[30] As 

worldwide Ge production increases and PET demand diminishes, the experts contend that there 

will be ample Ge available to support even the most optimistic terrestrial III-V CPV market 

scenarios through 2030 and beyond. Although these numbers are several years old, recent 

studies reach similar conclusions[31]

.

Optics

The primary concerns expressed about the optics are related to the reliability. Yellowing or 

pitting of plastic lenses, the need for washing, etc., are all concerns. Some companies are using 

glass lenses to avoid the abrasion expected for plastic lenses. The availability of optics has not 

been a concern. The recent development of off-the-shelf, high-quality optical components could 

change the way companies approach CPV product development.

Most optical designs include both primary and secondary optics to increase tracking and 

alignment tolerance, although some companies have chosen to avoid the cost of an optical 

secondary by carefully maintaining alignment quality and sacrificing a few percent in 

performance under some circumstances.

For the primary optic, the majority of companies have chosen to use lenses rather than mirrors. 

In general, the direct-transmission approach simplifies the optical design and facilitates passive 

cooling, reducing design and maintenance complexity. Historically, companies have favored the 

use of acrylic in the lenses, with injection molding providing a cost benefit at the highest 

volumes (embossing provides a cost benefit at lower volumes). There is also strong interest in 

using glass to reduce abrasion and increase lifetime. Currently, there is increased discussion of 

the use of silicone-on-glass lenses, which provide the benefit of excellent durability with ease of 

manufacture, but require some special design to avoid loss of alignment at lower 

temperatures.

[32,33]

All-glass lenses are more difficult to manufacture. Additional (beyond 

abrasion and ease of manufacture) considerations include: quality of manufacture, retention of 

alignment at all temperatures and humidities, chromatic aberrations (which may be avoided to 
17

some extent by using total internal reflection), absorption losses, adhesion (for silicone-on-glass 

lenses), and sensitivity to UV-induced degradation.

The fraction of companies using reflective designs is relatively small, but reflective designs can 

have the potential to be lower in cost if they use low-cost reflectors, and the relative number of 

companies exploring reflective designs has increased in the last couple of years. If the control of 

the shape of the mirror is near perfect, reflective designs reach higher concentrations than some 

refractive designs because of the avoidance of chromatic aberrations. Thermal management 

designs associated with reflective optics are more likely to use active cooling. (Active cooling 

has the disadvantage of added maintenance and parasitic power consumption, but may have 

the advantage of being able to keep the cells cooler than passive designs on hot days.) 

Creativity can help to reduce shading losses associated with placement of the cooling systems.

The secondary optics are sometimes exposed to ~100 W/cm2 intensities, implying that any 

absorption can cause large increases in temperature (in some cases vaporizing polymeric 

materials). Even if the secondary optic is 100% transparent, it may run hot because of being 

attached to the cell, which may operate 40°C or more above ambient temperature. The 

secondary optics must be able to withstand both high temperatures and the potential stress 

from differential expansion if the temperature is non-uniform. If the secondary optic becomes 

soiled, the associated heating can lead to catastrophic failure. The secondary should also be 

designed to maintain the highest possible optical efficiency, even when the system is misaligned 

for some reason. Reflective secondaries that redirect off-target light may have no impact on the 

optical efficiency as long as the system alignment is maintained. Refractive secondaries 

typically cause a reduction in optical efficiency by a few percent, but usually increase the energy 

production enough to justify their use if their cost is acceptable. The expected UV stress on 

secondaries is especially problematic for designs using reflective primary optics. Most lenses

are engineered to absorb UV strongly, preventing these harmful rays from reaching the optical

secondaries and cells. 

Trackers

Trackers require periodic maintenance, and glitches in performance or outright mechanical 

failure can decrease performance and increase maintenance costs substantially. The Institute of 

Concentration Photovoltaics (ISFOC) reports that trackers account for >50% of observed 

problems in the field.

[34]

Some companies expressed the desire for standardization and the associated reduced cost. As 

flat-plate companies have increased their use of trackers, the number of companies supplying 

trackers has also increased. The IEC technical committee 82, working group 7 is working to 

specify the attributes of a tracker, how to measure these, and how to detect design problems.

Trackers are also in demand for flat-plate and solar-thermal applications. In recent years, there 

is evidence that the community’s investment in trackers is improving performance and reducing 

costs. An interesting trend is a small movement toward smaller trackers, which leverage designs 

for concentrating solar thermal heliostats. An example is Energy Innovations’ 29% module that 

is designed for mounting on small trackers, leveraging heliostat experience from eSolar, a sister 

company.

Power Electronics

As DC-DC converters have become cheaper, more efficient, and with excellent reliability (e.g.,

DC-DC converters are used in laptops to convert the varying battery voltage to the voltage 
18

needed to run the computer), interest has grown in using them for PV modules. For CPV, there 

is special benefit to using them for two reasons. (1) It can be a challenge to create a dish with 

uniform irradiation on a central receiver; use of DC-DC converters could allow the image on the 

central receiver to be non-uniform without substantial loss of performance. (2) Whereas tracked 

flat-plate systems can use back tracking to avoid shading early and late in the day, HCPV

systems must be 2-axis tracked and, thus, must experience shading when the sun is low in the 

sky. Use of DC-DC converters could avoid dramatic losses associated with this shading, so 

could enable a field with more closely spaced CPV pedestals.

Cell Bonding and Encapsulation

The bonds between the cell and heat sink and between the cell and the optics (or air) can be 

problematic. Many of the companies report degradation of these bonds during stress testing and 

have had to study multiple designs. One study reported subjecting five encapsulant materials to 

the equivalent of 20 years of UV exposure, and found only one that did not degrade.[35] Optical 

coatings may, for example, darken over time or trap moisture and accelerate degradation. A 

wormlike bubble has been found at the interface between the cell and the secondary optics. The 

cell suppliers and system integrators need to work together to understand potential issues here, 

but concerns over competition and protecting proprietary processes inhibit the necessary 

disclosure and cooperation. 

Weathering from sunlight is well known; when the sunlight is concentrated 1000 times, or even 

higher locally, the associated weathering problems can be severe, although much of the UV 

light may be absorbed by the optics before reaching a sensitive component.

[36] Accelerated 

testing of the effect of concentrated light is especially challenging, though some companies 

have been developing the tools to do this testing[37]

.

Cell Assembly/Receiver Fabrication

The solar cells must be attached to a heat sink and electrical connections completed. In most 

cases, the resulting piece is called a receiver or cell assembly. Most of the cell companies have 

developed a couple of standard concentrator cell assembly/receiver designs. Ideally, cell 

assemblies can be tailored to match each CPV optical design. For each design, the assembly 

equipment must be automated and the final product carefully tested. 

The expertise needed to create these cell assemblies is fairly well established in the LED 

industry, which represents a business opportunity for such companies. It is not yet clear whether 

it is better for the cell mounting to be done by the cell companies or another company in the 

supply chain.

Enclosure Design

The system enclosure must be designed to avoid dirt burning onto the optics and moisture 

condensation that can either obscure the optics or “fry” the cells. Although this appears to be a 

mundane problem, it is quite challenging. If the enclosure is sealed, atmospheric pressure 

variations can cause the optics to deform like a balloon. If the enclosure does not breathe well, 

the optics may act as insulation, causing the cells to run hotter. 

The companies are experimenting with many approaches to this, including desiccant and active 

ventilation. One interesting approach is to use material that blocks transmission of liquid water, 

but allows water vapor to be transported, such as the membranes made by Gore.
19

All parts of the enclosure, including the attachments for the optics and the cells, must be robust 

enough to survive transportation, installation, and wind. 

Material Availability Limits

Projections of material availability are always complicated by the potential development of new 

mining techniques driven by increased demand. Nevertheless, raw material costs have been 

rising lately. Here, we reference a study by Feltrin and Freundlich (Fig. 4).[38] Their use of 200X 

as the concentrating factor is conservative compared with what most companies are currently 

pursuing (500X–1200X). The first bar implies a fairly severe limitation regarding the availability 

of Ge, based on U.S. supplies. Compared with the first bar, the second bar implies 60 times 

higher availability, this time limited by Ga availability. The third bar in Fig. 4, labeled “EPI Liftoff,” is relevant to Semprius’ printing approach coupled with Solar Junction cells or with the 

inverted metamorphic approach[20] with availability of indium as the limiting factor, allowing four 

times higher production than indicated by the second bar. More studies of this sort are needed 

to gain confidence in the conclusions, but these data imply that material availability will not 

prevent the success of CPV.

Figure 4. Material availability study from Ref.[38]

(A. 

Feltrin and A. Freundlich, "Material Challenges for 

Terawatt Level Deployment of Photovoltaics," 

Conference Record of the 2006 IEEE 4th World 

Conference on Photovoltaic Energy Conversion, ©2006 

IEEE, Reproduced with permission.) The dotted box 

includes the supplies they estimated would be available 

worldwide.

Summary

The use of concentrated sunlight on very small, but highly efficient (~40%) solar cells has the 

potential to provide cost-effective, large-scale, solar-electricity generation, especially in sunny 

locations. More than a dozen companies have learned to fabricate multijunction concentrator 

cells, positioning themselves to respond to the growing demand for these cells. Dozens of

companies are developing concentrator photovoltaic systems, and several have already 

deployed >1 MW in the field. This industry is showing signs of being poised for substantial 

growth in the next years as the world embraces solar energy. 
20

Part II. Medium-Concentration Approaches Using Silicon or Other 

Cells

The silicon PV industry has grown dramatically in recent years. The industry is working hard to 

cut costs for every step of the manufacturing and installation processes. Significant effort has 

focused on thinning the silicon wafers in order to reduce the usage of silicon material. A 

complementary approach is to reduce the area of silicon needed by using optics to redirect the 

light toward smaller cells. This provides the possibility of much more dramatic reduction in the 

use of silicon and also allows the possibility of decreased cost for the non-silicon costs 

associated with the cells. (The non-silicon costs can be half of the total cell cost and may 

actually increase rather than decrease as the silicon cell is thinned). High-efficiency, singlejunction GaAs cells made in an inexpensive way could also be attractive. Alta Devices’ recent 

achievement of 29% one-sun efficiency makes these cells quite attractive. 

The use of silicon, instead of III-V multijunction, cells leverages the huge investment already 

made in the silicon supply chain. Although the silicon cells must be able to handle the higher 

currents, most of the elements of the supply chain are unchanged. This reduces both the 

development time and cost for new products. 

Perhaps the more significant advantage of using the medium-concentration approach is the 

divorce it brings from the silicon supply chain. In an uncertain, and risk-averse, investment 

climate, investors are likely to choose approaches that reduce the required capital expenditure 

and, especially, a capital expenditure that must be made for growth predicted far into the future. 

The scalability of products depending primarily on glass, metal, and plastic (instead of cells) 

may enable growth of a silicon-based CPV industry.

Some investors see a medium-concentration, silicon-based product as less risky than HCPV. 

Using familiar cells and low-accuracy trackers may be perceived as more “bankable” than the 

high-efficiency, disruptive approach described in Part I. Higher risk translates directly to a need 

to demonstrate a lower cost in order to interest the investors. 

Although the primary semiconductor cost reduction is achieved with even a small concentration 

of light, a medium concentration allows use of slightly more expensive, but more efficient, cells. 

Just as efficiency can be leveraging for HCPV, the higher efficiency can be important for siliconbased CPV.

The possibility of increased performance must be balanced with the loss of solar resource that 

comes from a reduced use of diffuse light. The maximum acceptance angle is a function of the 

concentration and the index of refraction of the medium.[39] Specifically, for a linear 

concentration ratio, C, and index of refraction, n, the theoretical maximum acceptance angle, θ, 

can be found from 

C=n/(sin θ).

For point-focus systems, this concentration may be achieved in both dimensions, implying the 

square of the above concentration may be reached. For fixed systems, a small acceptance 

angle can dramatically reduce the available resource. For 2-axis tracked systems, and low 

concentration ratios, the reduction in the available resource may be less than 10%. The 

maximum acceptance angle that can be achieved theoretically is plotted as a function of the 

concentration ratio in Fig. 5. Most Si-based CPV systems are able to use the circumsolar solar 

resource (light that is outside of the direct beam, but within a couple of degrees of the direct 
21

beam). The circumsolar resource varies strongly with location, and can be significant in some 

locations.

Figure 5. The theoretical maximum for the acceptance angle (red curves; left axis) that can be achieved 

as a function of linear concentration and the fraction of diffuse light that can be collected theoretically 

(green curves, right axis) assuming that the diffuse light is isotropic.

Tracking 

If a tracker is cost effective for flat-plate modules, chances are that it can also be cost effective 

for concentrator modules. Thus, the increased use of trackers for flat-plate applications may 

pave the way for concentrator systems.

A contradictory viewpoint is that trackers will not be used in the future because PV costs are or 

will be low enough that it may no longer be cost effective to use a tracker. Thus, we conclude 

that low-cost trackers are likely to be key to the success of low-concentration systems. There is 

strong evidence that tracker cost is decreasing.

The tracker accuracy requirement for low-concentration systems may be relaxed (compared 

with those for high-concentration systems), potentially reducing cost, increasing reliability, and 

increasing energy production.

Current Status – Companies Involved

In terms of the number of companies and total investment, the development of mediumconcentration systems currently lags that of high-concentration systems. But the approach has 

attracted significant interest in recent years as silicon PV companies look for creative ways to 

continue to reduce cost. 

More than a decade ago, BP Solar developed a linear-focus, medium-concentration system 

using Si cells. Working with the Instituto de Energia Solar within the EUCLIDES project, BP 

Solar used a reflective trough, first demonstrating a single unit and then scaling up to 480 kW 

with multiple troughs.[40] Today’s companies may learn from the EUCLIDES experience, which 

suffered from inadequate design testing before scale-up.
22

The number of companies working on medium-concentration designs has increased 

significantly in recent years, as shown in Table 6 and elsewhere.

[22] The range of approaches 

extends from the types of systems just described to designs that can function much like flat 

plate, including holographic and luminescent concentrators. Although in the early developmental 

stages, many of these companies are making good progress and are receiving substantial 

public recognition. A number of other companies are not listed in Table 6 at their request.

Solaria has certified its low-concentration design to UL1703 and IEC61215. The company

estimates that it can achieve a cost that is 40% lower than conventional silicon.

Table 6. Summary of Companies Developing Low- or Medium-Concentration PV Products 

Using Silicon or Other Cells

(This information changes rapidly. Companies described in gray appear to have moved away from this 

approach, but should not be discounted completely.)

Company Type of 

System Location

On 

Sun 

in 

2009*

Installed 

in 2010*

Installed 

in 2011*

Estimated 

for 2012 Capacity

*

Aavid 

Thermalloy

Refractive, 

10X Concord, NH

All Optronics 15X Tucson, AZ

Anhui 

Yingtian

Renewable 

Energy

Reflective Anhui, China >50 

kW

Absolicon 

Solar 

Concentrator

Reflective 

trough, Si 

cells, thermal 

hybrid

Harnosand, 

Sweden

9 small 

systems 

are 

documented on 

website 

(since 

2006)

Banyan 

Energy

Flat-plate 

10X, total 

internal 

reflection, Si 

cells

Berkeley, CA

Cogenra 

Solar

Reflective, 

hybrid PVthermal

Mountain 

View, CA

50–100 

kW

Covalent 

Solar

Luminescent, 

multiple types 

of cells

Boston, MA, 

USA

CPower

Reflective, 

25X–30X 

(point focus), 

Si cells

Ferrara, Italy 9 kW

Entech

Linear 

Fresnel lens, 

Si cells; 

hybrid PVthermal

Fort Worth, 

TX, USA
23

Company Type of 

System Location

On 

Sun 

in 

2009*

Installed 

in 2010*

Installed 

in 2011*

Estimated 

for 2012 Capacity

*

Greenfield 

Solar

Reflective, 

edgeilluminated Si 

cells (not 

systems)

Cleveland, 

OH, USA

HyperSolar Optical 

coating

Hackensack, 

NJ, USA

IDHelio

Lens, 20X, 

hybrid PVthermalAlbi, France 1 kW

KD Solar Co. Holographic 

3X

Kyunggi-Do, 

Korea

Maxxun Luminescent Eindhoven, 

Netherlands

MegaWatt 

Solar

Reflective, 

linear, 20X, 

pedestal

Hillsborough, 

NC, USA

35 

kW

Netcrystal Non-tracking, 

Si cells

San 

Francisco, 

CA, USA

Optoi Reflective, Si 

cells Trento, Italy

Optony Thin-film cells

Silicon 

Valley, CA, 

USA

Pacific Solar 

Tech

Domeshaped lens, 

Si cells

Fremont, CA, 

USA

Pirelli Labs 

(CIFE) Static Milan, Italy

Prism Solar 

Technologies

Holographic, 

Si cells

Lake Katrine, 

NY, USA

Pythagoras 

Solar

Building

integrated

Hakfar 

Hayarok, 

Israel

QD Soleil Luminescent Palo Alto, CA

Silicon CPV

Fresnel (point 

focus, 120X) 

Si cells

Essex, UK

Skyline Solar Reflective, 

14X, Si cells

Mountain 

View, CA, 

USA

24 

kW 83 kW ? 700 kW

100 

MW/y by 

end of 

2011

Solaria

2X–3X, small 

strips of Si 

cells

Fremont, CA, 

USA

20 

kW 1.2 MW >10 MW 40 MW/y

Solaris 

Synergy

15X linear 

reflective, Si 

cells floating 

on water

Jerusalem, 

Israel 1 kW 
24

Company Type of 

System Location

On 

Sun 

in 

2009*

Installed 

in 2010*

Installed 

in 2011*

Estimated 

for 2012 Capacity

*

Solbeam

Tracking 

optics in flat 

configuration

Laguna 

Niguel, CA, 

USA

Stellaris

Static, 3X 

“seethrough,” Si 

cells

North 

Billerica, MA, 

USA

SV (Silicon 

Valley) Solar 

Flat-plate 

dimensions

Sunnyvale, 

CA, USA 2 MW/y

Sunengy

Fresnel (point 

focus), Si 

cells in water

Sydney, 

Australia

SunPower Reflective, 

7X, Si cells San Jose, CA ~24 kW

Sunseeker 

Energy Lens Schindellegi, Switzerland

Thales 

Research

Static, 

reflective

Severna 

Park, MD, 

USA

Transform 

Solar

Low X, Sliver 

cells

Boise, Idaho, 

USA

Whitfield 

Solar

Fresnel lens, 

~40X, Si cells Reading, UK 9 kW

Zytech Solar

Reflective, Si 

modules; 4X–

150X

Zaragoza, 

Spain

Totals ~150 

kW ~150 kW ~ 1 MW

*Based on public presentations or website announcements/press releases. Note that some companies refrain from 

posting information about their deployments, so the lack of a number may not mean they have made zero

installations.

Cell Supply

Historically, a key challenge of the medium-concentration approach has been obtaining a 

consistent supply of solar cells that function well under the desired concentration. The primary 

difference between standard, one-sun solar cells and concentrator cells is the need for a 

reduced series resistance. In addition, the cells may need to be fabricated in different 

geometries and may benefit from improved thermal contact with a heat sink. As with the highconcentration approach, there is typically a benefit to purchasing higher-efficiency cells. Buriedgroove-contact cells and back-point-contact cells have been of special interest for mediumconcentration applications in the past. 

Current market conditions provide a surplus of one-sun cells and associated opportunities for 

finding concentrator cells. The following paragraph is retained for its utility despite the current 

lack of difficulty in identifying silicon concentrator cells.

SunPower offered off-the-shelf silicon concentrator cells at one time, and now has the capability 

to make high-efficiency silicon cells appropriate for use anywhere between one and 250 suns. 

However, SunPower has chosen a vertically integrated business model and is no longer 
25

interested in selling silicon cells (either one-sun or concentrator). NaREC 

(Alex.Cole@NaREC.co.uk) has expressed an interest and willingness in making custom silicon 

concentrator cells. Alta Devices has set a record efficiency with a GaAs cell at one sun, 

providing a new opportunity. 

The medium-concentration approaches face many of the same challenges as prototype and 

tracker development and testing, as well as the need for development of appropriate standards. 

These are discussed in Part I and are not repeated here.

Novel Approaches

Luminescent concentrators have attracted substantial attention in recent years, proposing that 

light be absorbed and then reemitted within a sheet of glass or other material that acts as a 

waveguide. The glass (wave guide) directs the reemitted light to the edges, where it is 

converted to electricity by a concentrator cell. Two fundamental processes can lead to an 

enhancement of brightness. The first is dependent on the index of the material; a higher index of 

refraction can lead to a small enhancement. A more dramatic enhancement is achieved if a 

luminescent material absorbs high-energy light and reemits it at a lower energy. To understand 

how this works, consider a material in glass that absorbs light and luminesces at the same 

wavelength. If the luminescent-material is put into the glass at a concentration allowing light to 

be absorbed during one pass through the glass, then light reemitted for lateral transmission will 

be reabsorbed within a distance that is similar to the thickness of the glass. The light may be 

absorbed and reemitted many times before reaching the edge of the glass. Each time the light is 

reemitted, there is a chance that it will escape from the glass, and, because the direction is 

randomized with each reemission, the probability of this light reaching the edge of the glass is 

small, resulting in no increase in concentration.

Next, in contrast, consider a material that absorbs a high-energy photon and luminesces a lowenergy photon. If the absorption coefficients of the two photons differ dramatically, then it is 

possible to choose a concentration of luminescent material that absorbs the high-energy light in 

one pass, but allows the low-energy light to travel long distances within the glass before being 

reabsorbed. In this case, very high concentrations can be achieved, theoretically. This limits the 

ability of a luminescent concentrator to concentrate light with energy close to the reemission 

energy. Although a luminescent concentrator provides an elegant way to concentrate light, it 

relies on identification of stable materials with the appropriate luminescent properties. So far, 

this approach has not been successful at achieving the needed performance, but new 

nanomaterials could lead to breakthroughs in this area.

Summary

The use of optical concentration to reduce the amount of silicon needed per watt in solar 

systems has the potential to provide cost-effective, large-scale, solar-electricity generation that 

is less sensitive to market volatility. Almost two dozen companies are publicly developing 

products. The reduced need for silicon and associated capital expenditures could allow these 

companies to grow at a rate that significantly exceeds that of the rest of the industry.
26

Part III. Silicon Modules with Enhanced Concentration 

In 2007 and 2008, when silicon modules were in short supply, many companies devised 

creative methods for making their silicon modules generate more electricity. Specifically, adding

mirrors to enhance the irradiance on the modules was commonly used. Interest in this approach 

has decreased since then, so this report no longer tracks these companies, but we note that 

interest could easily resume if a new shortage develops.

Acknowledgments

We extend our sincere gratitude to the many individuals who have contributed to this report over 

the years. Special thanks go to Richard Swanson, Bob Conner, Doug Rose, Matt Evans, Geoff 

Kinsey, Greg Peisert, Jerry Olson, Bob Cart, Brad Hines, Jeff Gordon, Craig Cornelius, Lori 

Greene, Gianfranco Sorasio, Susan Moon, Carl Bingham, Dan Friedman, and Ed Cahill. This 

work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC36-

08GO28308 with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

References

[1] Peharz G and Dimroth F, "Energy Payback Time of the High-concentration PV System 

FLATCON," Prog. Photovolt. 13, 627-734 (2005).

[2] Sabnis V, Yuen H, and Wiemer M, "High-Efficiency Multijunction Solar Cells Employing Dilute 

Nitrides," CPV8, Toledo, Spain, 2012 (AIP).

[3] Geisz JF, Duda A, France RM, Friedman DJ, Garcia I, Olavarria W, Olson J, Steiner MA, 

Ward JS, and Young M, "Optimization of 3-junction inverted metamorphic solar cells for 

high-temperature and high-concentration operation," CPV8, Toledo, Spain, 2012 (AIP).

[4] Aiken D, Dons E, Miller N, Newman F, Patel P, and Sharps P, "Commercial concentrator cell 

results and record IMM solar cell efficiency," CPV8, Toledo, Spain, 2012 (AIP).

[5] Wojtczuk S, Chiu P, Zhang X, Pulver D, Harris C, and Siskavich B, "42% 500X Bi-Facial 

Growth Concentrator Cells," CPV-7, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2011, (AIP). 

[6] King RR, Boca A, Hong W, Liu X-Q, Bhusari D, Larrabee D, Edmondson KM, Law DC, Fetzer 

CM, Mesropian S, and Karam NH, "Band-gap-engineered architectures for highefficiency multijunction concentrator solar cells," 24th European Photovoltaic Solar 

Energy Conference and Exhibition, Hamburg, Germany, 2009.

[7] Guter W, Schöne J, Philipps SP, Steiner M, Siefer G, Wekkeli A, Welser E, Oliva E, Bett AW, 

and Dimroth F, "Current-matched triple-junction solar cell reaching 41.1% conversion 

efficiency under concentrated sunlight " Appl. Phys. Lett. 94, 223504 (2009).

[8] King RR, Law DC, Edmondson KM, Fetzer CM, Kinsey GS, Yoon H, Sherif RA, and Karam 

NH, "40% efficient metamorphic GaInP/GaInAs/Ge multijunction solar cells," Appl. Phys. 

Lett. 90, 183516 (2007).

[9] Geisz JF, Friedman DJ, Ward JS, Duda A, Olavarria WJ, Moriarty TE, Kiehl JT, Romero MJ, 

Norman AG, and Jones KM, "40.8% Efficient Inverted Triple-junction Solar Cell with Two 

Independently Metamorphic Junctions," Appl. Phys. Lett. 93, 123505 (2008).

[10] Wheeldon J, Walker A, Valdivia C, Chow S, Theriault O, Beal R, Yandt M, Masson D, Riel B, 

McMeekin D, Puetz N, Wallace S, Aimex V, Ares R, Hall T, Fafard S, and Hinzer K, 

"Efficiency Measurement and SImulations of GaInP/InGaAs/Ge Quantum Dot Enhanced 

Solar Cells at up to 1000-Suns Under Flash and Continuous Concentration," CPV-7, Las 

Vegas, NV, USA, 2011, (AIP). 

[11] Geisz JF, Kurtz SR, Wanlass MW, Ward JS, Duda A, Friedman DJ, Olson JM, McMahon 

WE, Moriarty TE, Kiehl JT, Romero MJ, Norman AG, and Jones KM, "Inverted 

GaInP/(In)GaAs/InGaAs triple-junction solar cells with low-stress metamorphic bottom 
27

junctions," Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, San 

Diego, CA, 2008 (IEEE).

[12] Olson JM, Friedman DJ, and Kurtz S, in Handbook of Photovoltaic Science and Engineering, 

edited by A. Luque and S. Hegedus (John Wiley and Sons, West Sussex, England, 

2003), p. 359-412.

[13] Bosi M and Pelosi C, "The Potential of III-V Semiconductors as Terrestrial Photovoltaic 

Devices," Progress in Photovoltaics 15, 51-68 (2007).

[14] Luque A, Sala G, and Luque-Heredia I, "Photovoltaic Concentration at the Onset of its 

Commercial Deployment," Progress in Photovoltaics 14, 413-428 (2006).

[15] Swanson RM, "The Promise of Concentrators," Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 8, 93-111 (2000).

[16] Hering G, "X marks the spot," PHOTON International April, 123 (2007).

[17] Baur C, AW B, and F D, "Triple-junction III-V based concentrator solar cells: Perspectives 

and challenges," Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 129, 258-265 (2007).

[18] Hering G, "Vertically integrated at 520 suns," PHOTON International March, 86-87 (2008).

[19] in Concentrator Photovoltaics, edited by A. Luque and V. Andreev (Springer Series, 2007).

[20] Geisz JF, Kurtz SR, Wanlass MW, Ward JS, Duda A, Friedman DJ, Olson JM, McMahon 

WE, Moriarty T, and Kiehl J, "High-efficiency GaInP/GaAs/InGaAs triple-junction solar 

cells grown inverted with a metamorphic bottom junction," Appl. Phys. Lett. 91, 023502 

(2007).

[21] Vol. 2011 (2011).

[22] Hering G, "Dawn of 500 suns," PHOTON International 2008, 146 (2008).

[23] Hering G, "Staying focused," PHOTON International 2009, 130 (2009).

[24] McMahon WE, Emery K, Friedman DJ, Ottoson L, Young M, Ward JS, Kramer C, Duda A, 

and Kurtz S, "Fill Factor as a Probe of Current-Matching for GaInP2/GaAs Tandem Cells 

in a Concentrator System during Outdoor Operation," Progress in Photovoltaics: 

Research and Applications 16, 213-224 (2008).

[25] "http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/accelerated_aging_report_2008.pdf" [26] Guter W, Kern R, Kostler W, Kubera T, Lockenhoff R, Meusel M, Shirnow M, and Strobl G, 

"III-V Multijunction Solar Cells - New Lattice-Matched Products and Development of 

Upright Metamorphic 3J Cells," CPV-7, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2011, AIP, p. 

[27] Araki K, Al Taher O, Nagai H, Hebert P, and Valles J, "Are Electro-Luminescence Defects in 

Concentrator III-V Cells Responsible to Thermal Runaway and Sudden Death?," CPV-7, 

Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2011, AIP. 

[28] http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/germanium/mcs-2008-germa.pdf, USGS 

Mineral Commodities Summary, January (2008).

[29] http://www.foodproductiondaily.com/news/ng.asp?id=72474-wellman-pet-carbonated, 

"Titanium PET bottles take the pressure," (2006).

[30] http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/germanium/germamcs06.pdf, (2006).

[31] Depuydt B, Bergman E, Khorenko V, Leutz R, Melia J, and Hoflich A, "Scalability of CPV 

towards multi-gigawatt deployment," CPV8, Toledo, Spain, 2012 (AIP).

[32] Askins S, Victoria M, Herraro R, Dominguez C, Anton I, and Sala G, "Effects of Temperature 

on Hybrid Lens Performance," CPV-7, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2011, AIP. 

[33] Hornung T, Neubauer M, Gombert A, and Nitz P, "Fresnel Lens Concentrator with Improved 

Thermal Behavior," CPV-7, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2011, AIP. 

[34] Rubio F, Martinez M, Sanchez D, Aranda R, and Banda P, "Two years operating CPV plants: 

Analysis and results at ISFOC," CPV-7, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2011, AIP. 

[35] Araki K, Uozumi H, Kondo M, Takamoto T, Agui T, Kaneiwa M, Egami T, Hiramatsu M, 

Miyazaki Y, Kemmoku Y, Akisawa A, Lee HS, EkinsDaukes NJ, and Yamaguchi M, 

"Development of a new 550X concentrator module with 3J cells - performance and 

reliability," Proceedings of the 31st IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, Orlando, 

Florida, 2005 (IEEE), p. 631-634.
28

[36] Miller D, Kempe M, Kennedy C, and Kurtz S, "Analysis of transmitted optical spectrum 

enabling accelerated testing of multijunction concentrating photovoltaic designs," Optical 

Engineering 50, 13003-13001-13017 (2011).

[37] Lamarche P, "The custom HALT environmental chamber," CPV8, Toledo, Spain, 2012 (AIP).

[38] Feltrin A and Freundlich A, "Material Challenges for Terawatt Level Deployment of 

Photovoltaics," (2006).

[39] Welford WT and Winston R, "The Optics of Nonimaging Concentrators: Light and Solar 

Energy," Academic Press (1978).

[40] Arboiro JC, Sala G, Molina JI, Hernando L, and Camblor E, "The EUCLIDES concentrator: a 

lightweight 84 m long structure for sub-degree tracking," 2nd World Conf. on 

Photovoltaic Energy Conversion, Vienna, 1998 (IEEE), p. 2229-2232.
29

Appendix A. Cost Evaluations

When pursuing any new technology, it is essential to evaluate whether it will be cost 

competitive. However, it is also essential to recognize that cost estimates can have substantial 

uncertainty, and that placing emphasis on small cost differences could lead to unwise decisions 

in the long run. The cost of electricity from PV systems depends on the location and mounting 

details; the strongest cost driver is the cost of the money used to create the initial installation. 

In 2000, Swanson published a comprehensive study comparing the expected costs of electricity 

for multiple PV technologies (Fig. 6 and Table 8).[15] In April 2010, Swanson revisited this study 

in his plenary presentation at the CPV-6 conference. He noted that many of the projections 

made in 2000 were accurate within 10% or 20% of what is found today. However, the arearelated balance-of-system costs dropped more than projected for fixed mounting [projected to 

be $88/m2 (2010 $); in 2010 estimated to be $57/m2

] and 1-axis mounting [projected to be 

$113/m2 (2010 $); in 2010 estimated to be $80/m2

]. The costs of 2-axis trackers did not come 

down as much as projected, perhaps because this segment of the market has not grown as 

robustly as the others.

Inverter costs also dropped more than projected (projected to be 38 cents/W; in 2010 estimated 

to be 30 cents/W). Swanson’s conclusion (presented in April 2010) is that HCPV (multijunction 

III-V), LCPV (silicon), and thin-film (CdTe) approaches are in a dead heat. Adjusting to current

dollars, he reported that the relative costs of HCPV, LCPV, thin films, and crystalline silicon 

were projected to be 0.86, 1.35, 1.18, and 1.33, but are now found to be 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, and 1.13, 

respectively. He noted that the crystalline silicon costs dropped more than projected because of 

unexpectedly rapid market growth. SunPower’s high-efficiency, low-cost silicon cells have 

reduced the cost of the low-concentration approach, explaining much of the increased interest in 

this approach documented in Part II of this report. The HCPV approach has not yet increased in 

volume adequately to define its cost, so the uncertainty in this analysis is emphasized. Learning 

from Swanson’s comparison of 10-year-old predictions to today’s reality, we may expect that the 

uncertainty in the relative projections can be as much as 50%. It will be interesting to see how 

these costs evolve in the next ten years!
30

Figure A3 (from Ref.[15], color modified). For medium-sized plants in Boston, the GaAs dish surprisingly maintains its 

lead, despite the lower direct normal solar resources. (In other words, a dish based on 35%-efficient cells is 

something of the ultimate technology.) The thin-film approach is a close second place. (R.M. Swanson, "The Promise 

of Concentrators," Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 8, 93111, ©2000 John Wiley & Sons Limited. Reproduced with 

permission.)

Figure 6. Cost of electricity calculated for a set of technologies as presented in Ref.

[15]
31

Table 8. Cost Assumptions Used to Calculate the Cost of Electricity 

Presented in Figure 6

Table A1 (in Ref. [15]). Detailed assumptions for medium-sized PV plants. (R.M. Swanson, "The Promise of 

Concentrators," Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl. 8, 93111, ©2000 John Wiley & Sons Limited. Reproduced with 

permission.)

MEDIUM PLANTALBUQUERQUEGaAs 

Dish

GaAs

2-Axis 

Fresnel

Si Dish 2-axis 

static

Si

2-Axis 

Fresnel

Thin 

Film

Static 

Conc

Central 

Rec.

Albedo 

FFP

2-axis 

FP

Si 1-

Axis 

Fresnel

1-axis 

FP

FFP

Desert 

(Albuquerque)

KWhr/

m2/day

6.566 6.566 6.566 8.624 6.566 6.336 6.336 5.025 6.336 8.624 6.08 7.41 6.336

Diffuse (Boston) KWhr/

m2/day

3.626 3.626 3.626 5.782 3.626 4.554 4.554 2.775 4.554 5.782 3.42 4.94 4.554

Albedo factor 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.3 1 1 1 1

BOS Area (low) $/m2 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70

BOS Area (high) $/m2 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140

BOS Power (low) $/W 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

BOS Power (high) $/W 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Tracking (low) $/m2 35 35 35 35 35 0 0 35 0 35 20 20 0

Tracking (high) $/m2 67 67 67 67 67 0 0 67 0 67 40 40 0

Module (low) $/m2 90 115 90 115 115 75 85 30 85 75 90 75 75

Module (high) $/m2 160 230 160 230 230 150 160 60 165 150 160 150 150

Cell (low) $/m2 30000 30000 15000 300 15000 0 300 20000 200 200 5000 200 200

Cell (high) $/m2 10000

0

100000 20000 1000 20000 30 1000 25000 400 400 15000 400 400

Cell Efficiency 

(high)

0.3325 0.35 0.26 0.21 0.27 0.12 0.21 0.26 0.2 0.2 0.24 0.2 0.2

Cell Efficiency 

(low)

0.285 0.3 0.23 0.17 0.24 0.08 0.17 0.23 0.15 0.15 0.2 0.15 0.15

Operating Temp. 65 65 65 60 65 55 60 65 60 55 65 55 55

deta/dteta 2.20E031.90E032.20E033.30E

-03

2.20E032.00E

-03

3.30E

-03

2.20E033.30E033.30E

-03

2.40E033.30E

-03

3.30E

-03

Concentration 1000 1000 400 4 400 1 4 400 1 1 50 1 1

Module 

Transmission

0.85 0.85 0.85 0.9 0.85 0.95 0.9 0.85 0.95 0.95 0.9 0.95 0.95

BOS eff 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.9 0.85 0.9 0.9 0.85 0.9 0.9 0.85 0.9 0.9

Conc premium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

O&M cost (low) ¢/KWhr 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.2

O&M cost (high) ¢/KWhr 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.8 0.8 2.0 0.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.8

Cost-diff low ¢/KWhr 12.8 13.2 15.8 13.7 16.6 13.2 13.4 17.1 15.4 16.5 19.9 18.6 18.5

Cost-diff high ¢/KWhr 30.0 31.8 32.4 37.5 35.4 41.1 37.7 34.9 39.6 42.7 52.2 48.0 48.2

Cost-Desert low ¢/KWhr 7.4 7.7 9.1 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 11.1 11.3 11.5 12.6 13.4

Cost-Desert high ¢/KWhr 17.5 18.4 18.8 25.8 20.4 29.7 27.3 20.2 28.7 29.3 30.3 32.7 34.9

Cost-low $/W 1.59 1.64 1.99 2.71 2.10 2.16 2.19 1.66 3.18 3.32 2.38 3.20 3.05

Cost-high $/W 3.70 3.94 4.02 7.49 4.42 6.69 6.14 3.33 8.18 8.58 6.27 8.30 7.89