Economic analysis of a novel design of microtracked concentrating photovoltaic modules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A new design for microtracked concentrating photovoltaics (mCPVs) published by one of us in Nature Energy has the same form factor as PV. This paper analyzes the cost below which it would compete with PV in behind‐the‐meter applications for commercial electricity customers in four cities in southern United States, assuming that the only significant differences between mCPV and PV are mCPV's higher efficiency and mCPV's inability to utilize sunlight that is either diffuse or has a high angle of incidence. The analysis first optimizes PV and mCPV microgrids and then selects the battery capacity that maximizes the internal rate of return (IRR) and selects a target mCPV installed cost for which the optimal mCPV IRR matches the optimal PV IRR. The result for projects starting in 2020 is $1.2/W in Lancaster, CA and Las Vegas, cities with similar ratios of direct to total irradiance. Modesto, CA and Kansas City have target mCPV installed costs of $1.07/W and $0.94/W, respectively. The electricity tariff and battery costs impact both PV and mCPV and have a minimal effect on the mCPV cost at which the two technologies compete. mCPV occupies 33.2% less area per watt than PV reducing some components of installed cost. In 2020, target mCPV module costs are $0.33/W in Lancaster and Las Vegas, $0.25/W in Modesto, and $0.17/W in Kansas City. These target costs decline by on average 9.6% per year for projects starting 2021–2025, similar to the 9.3% rate of decline in projected PV module costs over this period.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".