Learning curve analysis of concentrated photovoltaic systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Price declines and volume growth of concentrated photovoltaic (CPV) systems are analysed using the learning curve methodology and compared with other forms of solar electricity generation. Logarithmic regression analysis determines a learning rate of 18% for CPV systems with 90% confidence of that rate being between 14 and 22%, which is higher than the learning rates of other solar generation systems (11% for CSP and 12 to 14% for PV). Current CPV system prices are competitive with PV and CSP, which, when combined with the higher learning rate, indicates that CPV is likely to further improve its marketability. A target price of 1 $/W in 2020 could be achieved with a compound growth rate of 67% for the total deployed volume between 2014 and 2020, which would realize a cumulative deployed volume of 7900 MW. Other projections of deployment volumes from commercial sources are converted using the learning rate into future price scenarios, resulting in predicted prices in the range of 1.1 to 1.3 $/W in 2020. © 2014 The Authors.Progress in Photovoltaics: Research and Applicationspublished by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".