Numerical Assessment of the Thermal Efficiency of a Concentrated Photovoltaic/Thermal (CPV/T) Hybrid System Using Air as Heat Transfer Fluid
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a thermal model of a hybrid photovoltaic/thermal concentration system. Starting from the thermal balance of the model, the equation is solved and simulated with a MATLAB code, considering air as the cooling fluid. This enabled us to evaluate some of the parameters influencing the electrical and thermal performance of this device. The results showed that the temperature, thermal efficiency and electrical efficiency delivered depend on the air mass flow rate. The electrical and thermal efficiencies for different values of air mass flow are encouraging, and demonstrate the benefits of cooling photovoltaic cells. The results show that thermal efficiency decreases air flow rate greater than 0.7 kg/s, whatever the value of the light concentration used. The thermal efficiency of the solar cell increases as the light concentration increases, whatever the air flow rate used. For a concentration equal to 30 sun, the thermal efficiency is 0.16 with an air flow rate equal to 0.005 kg/s; the thermal efficiency increases to 0.19 with an air flow rate equal to 0.1 kg/s at the same concentration. An interesting and useful finding was that the proposed numerical model allows the determination of the electrical as well as thermal efficiency of the hybrid CPV/T with air flow as cooling fluid.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".