DESIGN OF IRREGULAR SHAPED PHOTOVOLTAIC

COLLECTORS
MEIE 4701/4702

Technical Design Report

Design of Irregular Shaped Photovoltaic Collectors

Draft 3

Design Advisor: Prof. Kowalski

Design Team
Katherine Donahue, Alexander Jason
Elizabeth Murphy, Patrick Roos

November 1, 2016

Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering

College of Engineering, Northeastern University
Boston, MA 02115

Page 1 of 36

DESIGN OF IRREGULAR SHAPED PHOTOVALTAIC

COLLECTORS

Design Team
Katherine Donahue, Alexander Jason
Elizabeth Murphy, Patrick Roos
Design Advisor
Gregory Kowalski

Photovoltaic cells are designed to collect energy from the sun and convert it to usable electricity.
The technology has undeniable benefits but many homeowners decide against employing it due
to structural incompatibility and unfavorable appearance. The present study describes the
development of a photovoltaic system that would allow for flexible solar cells to be mounted to
non-planar surfaces. This system utilizes existing solar technology and uses a mounting bracket
to yield a versatile and sleek appearance. This design aims to be as non-invasive and easy to
install as possible. In order to test these designs, there will be a model turret fabricated to scale to
test a standard silicon PV as the control against OPV panels. The test data to be derived are the
panels efficiencies and the total sunlight collected. Upon the completion of the design, aesthetics
will be quantified in the form of a survey.

Page 2 of 36

Table of Contents
1

Introduction.........................................................................................................................................5
1.1 Problem Statement.............................................................................................................................5
1.2 Goals..................................................................................................................................................5
1.3 Specifications....................................................................................................................................6

Background Research..........................................................................................................................6
2.1

Current State...............................................................................................................................6

2.2

Solar Concentrators..................................................................................................................10

2.3

Solar Cell Technologies............................................................................................................11

2.3.1

Crystalline Silicon Cells.......................................................................................................12

2.3.2

Thin-Film Photovoltaics.......................................................................................................13

2.3.3

Amorphous Silicon (a-Si).....................................................................................................14

2.3.4

Cadmium Telluride (CdTe)...................................................................................................16

2.3.5

Copper-Indium-Gallium-Selenide (CIGS)...........................................................................17

2.3.6

Dye-Sensitive Solar Cells (DSSC).......................................................................................18

2.3.7

Perovskites...........................................................................................................................18

2.3.8

Colloidal Quantum Dot Photovoltaics..................................................................................18

Initial Concepts..................................................................................................................................19

Final Design......................................................................................................................................20
4.1

Overview..................................................................................................................................20

4.2

Solar Technology Selection......................................................................................................21

4.3

Mounting & Housing Design...................................................................................................23

4.3.1
5

Testing Procedure.................................................................................................................26

Intellectual Property..........................................................................................................................30
5.1

Description of Problem.............................................................................................................30

5.2

Proof of Concept......................................................................................................................31

5.3

Progress to Date.......................................................................................................................31

5.4

Individual Contributions...........................................................................................................31

5.5

Future Work..............................................................................................................................32

Project Management..........................................................................................................................33

References.........................................................................................................................................33

Page 3 of 36

List of Figures
Figure 1: Example House with Turret..........................................................................................................5
Figure 2: Energy Consumption[1].................................................................................................................7
Figure 3: Cost Reduction[2]..........................................................................................................................8
Figure 4: Solar City Cost Targets[2]..............................................................................................................8
Figure 5: Solar Energy System Cost Breakdown [2]......................................................................................9
Figure 6: Deployment and Module Prices[3].................................................................................................9
Figure 7: Solar Collector Patent[6]..............................................................................................................10
Figure 8: Cross Section of Fresnel Lens[5]..................................................................................................11
Figure 9: Cross Section of a Panel[7]..........................................................................................................11
Figure 10: PV Model Breakdown[4]...........................................................................................................13
Figure 11: Organic Photovoltaic Cell Structure[9]......................................................................................14
Figure 12: Output Loss in Percent per Year...............................................................................................15
Figure 13: Review of energy payback time for various PV systems [22]......................................................15
Figure 14: Review of GHG Emissions[22]...................................................................................................16
Figure 15: Projected CIGS Production Cost[27]..........................................................................................17
Figure 16: Modeled OPV Sample..............................................................................................................23
Figure 17: Top View of Housing Design...................................................................................................24
Figure 18: Bottom Housing.......................................................................................................................24
Figure 19: Top Housing Model..................................................................................................................24
Figure 20: Housing with OPV...................................................................................................................25
Figure 21: Quick Mount PV 'Shingle Mount'............................................................................................26
Figure 22: Day Numbers for First Day of Each Month..............................................................................27
Figure 23: Dimensions for Flat Roof.........................................................................................................28
Figure 24: Flat Roof..................................................................................................................................29
Figure 25: Dimensions for Turret..............................................................................................................29
Figure 26: Turret Roof...............................................................................................................................30
Figure 27: Project Management Gantt Chart.............................................................................................33

List of Tables
Table 1- NREL Solar Technology Range of Efficiencies...........................................................................12
Table 2- Defining the Criteria....................................................................................................................20
Table 3- Decision Matrix...........................................................................................................................20
Table 4- Solar Technology Criteria............................................................................................................21
Table 5- Solar Technology Design Matrix.................................................................................................22
Table 6- Results of Panel Tilt Angle Calculation.......................................................................................28

Page 4 of 36

Introduction

1.1 Problem Statement

There are many products currently on the market for the residential collection of solar energy that vary in
size, material, cost, and efficiency. The benefits of these products are undeniable but many homeowners
with irregularly shaped roofs decide against utilizing this technology due to their unfavorable appearance
and structural incompatibility. The current standard for residential photovoltaic collectors is a 1m x 1m
blue, rigid panel - a stark contrast to the aesthetic of such roofs. Additionally, depending on the structure
of the roof, the installation process may not be feasible. This project will create a functional deliverable
that will allow for the adaptation of solar collectors to non-planar surfaces thus creating a versatile option
for solar energy collection. It will be designed for solar collector installation onto turrets, gables, etc. This
will require a mounting framework that is both pliable and durable to allow for a form-fitting connection
to any slope, providing a cost-effective solar energy option for non-planar roof shapes that will not disrupt
the aesthetics of the original architecture.

Figure 1: Example House with Turret

1.2 Goals
The overall goal for this project is to design a solar collection system for non-planar surfaces. In doing so,
the team will ensure that the aesthetic of the roofline will not be disrupted. The aim is to create such a
system and test it on a scale model roof for a Queen Anne style house. This house style has been selected
because of the inclusion of turrets and gables.

Page 5 of 36

1.3 Specifications
The following design specifications have been identified for the creation of this solar collection system:
Aesthetics, adaptability, competitive cost, durability, resistance to dynamic environments, ease of
installation, and compatibility with existing solar technology. The design must aesthetically conform to an
irregularly shaped roofline, specifically one for a Queen Ann style home. It will refrain from disrupting
the look of the home. The design will be adaptable such that it can be implemented on non-planar
surfaces of varying slopes and sizes. The design will be priced competitively such that the homeowner
may break even within a reasonable amount of time. This must consider the cost of the mounting system
accounting for material and manufacturing costs. It will also then consider the overall efficiency in terms
of the cost per watt. The design will be durable to ensure that the mounting system and cell encasing is
long lasting and can withstand extreme conditions. This will include heat, snow, radiation, etc. It will also
consider general deterioration over time. It must account for the dissipation and resistance of heat and
consider the impact of precipitation and extreme temperatures. Finally, the final product should be easy to
install and work seamlessly with existing solar technology.

2
2.1

Background Research
Current State

There is currently a need among homeowners to add solar energy to their homes. Research on modern
energy sources shows a quickly growing need to move away from oil-based energy and toward renewable
energy, and solar energy is one of the most widely available and beneficial renewable sources for
homeowners. In Figure 2 below, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) describes some of
the foreseeable benefits of increasing solar power usage, including significant reductions in pollution,
water consumption, and greenhouse gasses produced by oil-based energy sources. To achieve these
benefits, NREL predicts that solar power will supply 14% of the U.S. electricity demand by 2030 and
27% by 2050. [1]

Page 6 of 36

Figure 2: Energy Consumption[1]

Despite an 86% decrease in the cost of natural gas in the past years, the cost of electricity around the U.S.
has increased by about 20% on average in the same time period. [2] Massachusetts in particular has some
of the highest costs for electricity in the country, and has only seen those prices go up by 5.5% in past
years. As electricity costs continue to rise, solar energy will provide an increasingly attractive alternative
to grid power.
The costs of solar energy systems have seen continuous reduction, and are expected to decline further in
the future. One forecast from Deutsche Bank expects a 40% cost reduction of overall solar systems in the
next 4 years. [1] One can look to Germany to see the cost reduction that has happened there as a model to
show how the costs may evolve in the U.S., as shown below in Figure 3.

Page 7 of 36

Figure 3: Cost Reduction[2]

While infrastructural differences between Germany and the U.S. exist, Germany is still a developed
economy and proves that it is possible for the costs to lower by a significant amount in a short time. In the
U.S., the company SolarCity has a target cost per Watt of $2.50 for 2017 and have made significant
improvements over the past two years. [2] Figure 4 below shows the development of SolarCitys solar energy
system costs over the past four years.

Figure 4: Solar City Cost Targets[2]

The installation category in Figure 4 refers to the equipment prices and the cost to install the
equipment; the sales category refers to the cost to market the company; and the G&A category refers

Page 8 of 36

to general and administrative costs. Figure 5 below shows a more in-depth breakdown of the past and
predicted changes in cost of a solar energy system between 2014 and 2017.

Figure 5: Solar Energy System Cost Breakdown [2]

Overall costs are projected to decrease by about 40% by 2017, with improved technology and
manufacturing techniques resulting in a 33% cost reduction for solar panels specifically. Installation costs
are only projected to experience a 31% reduction, the smallest change of all solar energy system cost
categories. [2] As such, installation techniques have the greatest potential for improvement and should be a
focus of solar energy system development.
Figure 6 below shows that over the past eight years as solar energy system cost has steadily decreased, the
number of solar energy systems installed in the U.S. has proportionally increased. As the cost of solar
energy systems decreases further, it is expected that the number of systems installed on homes will
increase.

Figure 6: Deployment and Module Prices[3]

Page 9 of 36

2.2

Solar Concentrators

The solar concentrator cell uses the suns light and focuses it on a much smaller point. There are two main
applications of this principle. The first, commonly referred to as solar-thermal power, generates power
through using sunlight to heat a fluid. The heated fluid can expand in a turbine to generate electricity. The
second uses composite materials to focus light into the middle of the panel where it is converted to
electricity by a small Photovoltaic (PV) cell.
Light guided concentrator technology use a light-guided solar panel to trap light inside a transparent panel
and focus it on a single, small and thin PV cell. This allows the panel to not be very deep and instead look
like a traditional solar panel. This system ensures that as little PV technology as possible is used, thus
reducing the cost of the system. The use of composite materials reduces bulk and further reduces costs. A
solar panel using a Silicon (Si) PV cell can typically get to an efficiency of about 27.6%, which is above
the 25% maximum for a traditional non-concentrator Si cell. These technologies also use a Fresnel lens to
correct the angles of the incoming solar radiation as shown by Figure 7, Figure 8, and Figure 9 below.

Figure 7: Solar Collector Patent[6]

Page 10 of 36

Figure 8: Cross Section of Fresnel Lens[5]

Figure 9: Cross Section of a Panel[7]

The images above show a cross-section of the panel that would rotate around the center to form a full
circle for the panel. There would be numerous of these circles that all collect solar energy. This particular
design guides the light towards the center in a way that reduces bulk and therefore system costs. This
technology has its downsides. This technology needs direct sunlight and clear days in order to reach the
necessary efficiencies in order to make the technology worth it. It requires a great deal of two-axis
tracking of the sun, which again can be complex and expensive. With these downfalls, this technology is
typically used in large-scale applications and not in residential areas.

2.3

Solar Cell Technologies

The NREL Best Research-Cell Efficiencies graph was the starting point for determining which
technologies could potentially be implemented in the solar design. The graph details existing solar
technology and corresponding lab recorded efficiencies. It also gives a time line from 1975 to today
showing the growth in efficiency over time. Table 1 below presents a summary of the technologies listed
and their current associated range of efficiency.
Solar Technology
Multijunction & Single Junction
Cells
Crystalline Si Cells
Thin-Film Technologies
Page 11 of 36

Lab Recorded Efficiency

27.5-46.0%
21.2-27.6%
13.6-23.3%

Emerging PV

10.6-22.1%

Table 1- NREL Solar Technology Range of Efficiencies

The Single and Mutlijunction sells are the superior technology with the highest rated efficiency. However,
this technology is used for NASA space level projects and falls outside of the scope of use for residential
application. Crystalline Si Cells have been on the market for a long time and what is currently most
commonly used for residential application. The NREL graph shows little increase with the technology
efficiency over time which indicates the technology maturity. The more interesting technologies are the
Thin Film which includes CIGS and Emerging PV specifically focusing on OPVs. CIGS have been
around for a while and the graph shows a small slope increase for their efficiency however in the past few
years it has made improvements and has risen to its current efficiency of 25.6%. The emerging
technologies have been making huge advancements in efficiency in the past few years. OPVs increased
to upwards of 11.5% in 5 years. This promise in development and improvement make a strong argument
for use in a new residential application.
This does not include the cost of each, which is a significant factor, but is a very useful tool for finding
and selecting a type of solar paneling. The thin-film and emerging technologies section were explored in
particular over the course of this project.

2.3.1

Crystalline Silicon Cells

These cells use silicon as their primary material. This is because of silicons properties as a semiconductor, with some properties of the conductor metals and some of those from electric insulators. As
the radiation from the sun comes down and hits these Si atoms, it translates its energy into knocking out
the electrons on the outer shell of the atom. Because there is an electrical imbalance in the cell, with one
layer being charged positively and one negatively, there is an electric field that herds the free electrons
into an electric current.

Figure 10: PV Model Breakdown[4]

Page 12 of 36

The type of system seen in Figure 10, is the most commonly used in residential areas and especially so on
roofs. These types of PV cells do not lose efficiency when they are scaled down and thus they are used
very widely in smaller applications. Silicon can be manufactured into non-toxic, efficient, and extremely
reliable solar cells. They are also classified as either single-crystalline or multi-crystalline, with the
difference mostly coming in how they are manufactured. The single-crystal design, which has about 35%
of the silicon market. The crystalline Si wafer has an indirect bandgap, therefore most Si wafers need to
be thick and brittle which limits its module flexibility while increasing capital costs. This is also part of
the reason why there are no thin-film technologies based on this technology currently on the market
today.

2.3.2

Thin-Film Photovoltaics

Organic photovoltaics (OPV) use polymeric and molecular absorbers to convert solar energy into
electrical power. This developing technology stems from carbon plastics, nanostructures and dyes that can
be compressed into thin strips of solar collecting material. [1] The cell structure can be seen in Figure 11
below.

Figure 11: Organic Photovoltaic Cell Structure[9]

The benefits to this cell structure as seen in Figure 11 above are flexibility, light weight, and use of
inexpensive earth-abundant elements compared to inorganic materials. [9] The roll-to-roll print
manufacturing process allows the material to be manipulated into different shapes and colors, and is also
far less expensive than other manufacturing processes. These appealing properties have caused a rise in
research and development of wider applications such as solar fabrics and building integrated systems.
Solar farms can also be installed and uninstalled at a much faster rate than any other panel-based PV
technology [33].
The biggest barriers to mainstream OPV use are its relatively low efficiency and lifetime compared to
inorganic PV materials. Although developments over the past 10 years have significantly increased
efficiency from 3% to 11%, further improvements must be made to make the technology commercially
competitive. [10] To improve cell performance and lifetime, NREL has been focusing on using transparent
conducting oxides to develop better contact materials and device architectures. [11]
Page 13 of 36

The technology does have a significant advantage when put into a lifecycle analysis. It has an energy payback time range from 0.2-4 years [33]. That means that the energy that went into creating the panel will get
paid back by the energy produced by the cell within that time range. OPVs have the greatest potential of
the examined technologies in this category.

2.3.3

Amorphous Silicon (a-Si)

One of the main benefits of a-Si is that they do not use expensive materials. Because the technology is so
thin, the panels use about 1% of the Si of a traditional crystalline Si panel and the substrates can be made
out of other, less expensive materials. This results in a lower cost for the technology. However, making
this product flexible and thin has resulted in a material that has a very low efficiency at about 8.1% on a
module. [20] That efficiency is much lower than the other mature thin-film technologies (CdTe at 14.4%
and CIGS at 14.5% for modules). While the efficiency is similar to other developing technologies, this
technology is very mature, meaning it has very little room for growth. The cost/watt estimate is about
$0.69. The area required for 1kWp is also about 13-20 m 2. [19]
This technology does in fact experience light-induced degradation. [17] The output loss in percent per year
is about 0.87%. [18]

Figure 12: Output Loss in Percent per Year

The a-Si has an energy payback time between 1.8 years to 3.5 years. Energy payback time is the time it
takes for the technology to pay back the energy it took to make the cell. The a-Si cells also have a
greenhouse gas emission rate from 18-50 gCO2/kWh. [22]

Page 14 of 36

Figure 13: Review of energy payback time for various PV systems[22]

Figure 14: Review of GHG Emissions[22]

A-Si is a lightweight and flexible material. For the most part, it does not come in different colors or
shapes beyond the typical dark blue color in rectangular form. The only thing that this product has that
improves its aesthetics over traditional crystalline Si cells is that it is flexible and tight to the roof. This
product is also lightweight and has a silicon layer thickness of only 100 nm, allowing this technology to
easily integrate into the existing structure without any more difficulty than other thin-film technology.
While a-Si is still being sold and is currently available, it is a technology that is losing its place in the
marketplace. The declining costs of the crystalline Si cells has been putting many businesses that sell
these cells out of business. ECD (Energy Conversion Devices) had to file for bankruptcy in 2012 after
being the worlds largest supplier of a-Si panels [24] and Sharp, another a-Si maker, also stopped selling the
solar cells.

Page 15 of 36

2.3.4

Cadmium Telluride (CdTe)

In 2013, First Solar announced that it had achieved a cost per watt of $0.59. [16] Additionally, it had a
modular efficiency of 14.4%. [20] The area required to produce 1 kWp ranges from 9-11 m2. [19] Due to the
degradation of light, CdTe shows subsequent output loss seen in Figure 12 is 0.4% per year.
Though Cadmium is a toxic material, it is a by-product of zinc. Because the Cd waste from the Zn
refining process would normally be lost to the environment and all of the Cd needed for the solar cells
could come from this process (solar cells only take up 0.6% of total Cd use), using Cd in these solar
panels would actually be beneficial for the environment. [23] The estimated energy payback time for CdTe
is 0.75-2.1 years and the greenhouse gas emission rate is from 14-35 g CO2/kWh (see Figure 14). [22]
The CdTe cell is very thin but not typically flexible. When it is on a flexible substrate, the color and shape
cannot be changed. It is a viable option for the teams needs but flexible CdTe solar cells are not widely
available on the market. Currently, First Solar is the sole major manufacturer of these cells and they are
limited to rigid solar cells due to their implantation on largescale solar farms.

2.3.5

Copper-Indium-Gallium-Selenide (CIGS)

CIGS are the most efficient out of the thin filmed solar technologies. The highest lab efficiency was
recorded at 20.5%[24] and according to MioSole their flexible panels efficiency is upwards of 16.5%, [25]
comparable products on the market have recorded similar efficiencies. These efficiencies are high for thin
film and are competitive with current commonly used rigid technologies.
Depending on the company the CIGS thin film can vary in pricing. MiaSole charges $1.75/watt which is
high in the realm of current solar products on the market today. However, looking ahead it is predicted
that CIGS technology can get us to the fabled land of a sustainable $0.40/watt. [26] As seen in Figure 15
below, the future trajectory of pricing will continue on a downward trend which makes CIGS a promising,
competitive consumer product.

Page 16 of 36

Figure 15: Projected CIGS Production Cost[27]

The cost of the materials is the current driver for pricing. This is because Copper-Indium-GalliumSelenide are rare elements that are difficult to manufacture into panels. According to Eterbright, a
company that makes rigid CIGS panels, it will be a long time before CIGS can be mass-produced. There
are still problems with the manufacturing process because CIGS [are] more sensitive to humidity
indeed more challenging to develop anti-humidity CIGS thin film modules. [28] These issues tend to occur
for rigid panel CIGS and there are similar issues for the roll-to-roll manufacturing of the flexible thin
films. The positive aspect to manufacturing CIGS is that they can be used in many different
manufacturing techniques such as sputtering, evaporation, electrochemical deposition, nanoparticle
printing and ion-beam deposition. [26] This variability has caused a flux in research and development for
optimizing the manufacturing process. For example, to solve the humidity problem NREL scientists are
adding protective coatings to help eliminate the moisture exposure. [29] New companies are introducing
thin filmed flexible CIGS that include newer processes of manufacturing, that are not perfect, but have
higher potential for success.
These promising outlooks are why CIGS are a good candidate for the adaptable collectors. The material is
accessible today with companies selling modules for consumer use. They are versatile and can be offered
in a variety of sizes but not shapes or color. The longevity is shorter than crystalline silicon panels
however long enough to be beneficial to the end user. Depending on the manufacturer the cost/watt can be
high but are predicted to drastically decrease over time as manufacturing process continually improve.

Page 17 of 36

2.3.6

Dye-Sensitive Solar Cells (DSSC)

Little is currently known about Dye-Sensitive Solar Cells in terms of specification. These are a new,
advanced class of solar cell which harness a technology most similar to artificial photosynthesis due to
the way it mimics natures absorption of energy from light. The ultimate goal for this technology is to
allow for the conversion of both artificial and natural light to usable energy. [34] Therefore, electricity
would be able to produced inside as well as outside.
DSSCs have reached lab-tested efficiencies of over 10% and the projected cost is thought to be lower than
current conventional devices. [35] This technology was determined to be in the feasibility stage due to its
limited commercial availability thus removing it from the scope of this project. It has strong potential
going forward for a versatile and low-cost method of energy collection.

2.3.7

Perovskites

Perovskites are a wide-ranging class of materials that uses organic molecules made of carbon and
hydrogen bonds with metals (lead) and a halogen (chlorine) in a three-dimensional crystal lattice. They
are an extremely versatile option because the liquid solutions can be deposited as lightweight, thin films
on any surface. [36]
The current lab efficiency is above 20%, which has doubled within the past two years. [36] Perovskites are
recognized for their rapid growth when compared to other technologies. [37] Perovskites are still in the
feasibility stage but it is projected that they will feature low costs and lifespans comparable to those of
pure organic devices. They currently have fewer fuel emissions than silicon photovoltaics but the use of
lead, although small, is not ideal. The current obstacle for this technology is overcoming the
manufacturing limitations, which cannot currently compete with standard silicon photovoltaics. [37] This
technology is very promising for the industry but has limited commercial availability thus removing it
from the scope of the project.

2.3.8

Colloidal Quantum Dot Photovoltaics

Quantum dot photovoltaics currently have a lab-tested efficiency of around 9%, although the peak
possible efficiency is theorized at 45%. In addition, the nature of the material allows for harnessing
infrared radiation as well as visible wavelengths to generate electricity. While the material is not yet close
to achieving this performance, its rate of improvement has far exceeded that of other common
photovoltaic materials. [30]
The production of colloidal quantum dots involves the use of semiconducting materials such as cadmium
selenide, cadmium telluride, and lead sulfide. These materials are toxic in the environment, reducing
opportunities for recycling; moreover, the small scale of the particles used may compound the threat of
toxicity in any affected organisms. [31]
Quantum dot photovoltaic material is not currently available in any commercial form, removing it from
the scope of this project. However, given its strong potential as a low-cost and high-efficiency material,
future developments on this project might adapt to accommodate quantum dot photovoltaics as the solar
energy generating material of choice.
Page 18 of 36

Initial Concepts

The team explored three major solutions: standalone photovoltaic devices, implementation of mirrors and
concentrators, and flexible photovoltaic system. The team envisioned a standalone photovoltaic device in
the form of a solar tree. This would be a moveable device that would ideally be placed in a front yard. The
branches and leaves would be made up of solar panels while the trunk would provide the device with
stability and structure. The benefits to this idea were that it would not impact the roofline at all and could
be easily moved to the most optimal spot on the property. It would also be notably durable because the
design would include rigid panels rather than flexible. The main downsides would be market relevance
and efficiency. The team defined market relevance as being purposeful and filling a need. The patent
research conducted showed that there are many existing products on the market that meet this need. For
efficiency, the standalone option would be significantly constrained by size thus decreasing its potential
efficiency.
Another option explored was to implement mirrors and concentrators into an existing solar collection
setup. The mirrors and concentrators would theoretically yield greater amounts of solar energy. The main
benefit to this concept would be market relevance because a system of this kind does not yet exist. The
problem is that these mirrors or concentrators require direct sunlight to function properly. This problem is
particularly relevant in New England its due to its typical weather patterns. This takes away from the
efficiency of the system significantly. This idea would also not meet the projects standards for aesthetics
or adaptability.
The final option explored was a flexible photovoltaic system. This was envisioned as a system that would
utilize flexible panels and a mounting bracket that could be bent into two axes. This would allow it to be
used in the optimal spot on the roof whether that was a flat surface or a turret or gable. The benefits to this
option were aesthetics, adaptability, and market relevance. For aesthetics, this design has the potential to
be form-fitting thus creating a sleeker look. Utilizing flexible panels will be more visually appealing than
the standard rigid panels. For adaptability, the pliable mounting system would be able to bend to fit the
shape of the most ideal spot on the roof allowing for versatile implementation. Ideally, for market
relevance, this system would fill a void that has not yet been filled. The main negative would be the
systems durability because flexible panels are less durable than rigid panels.
The team used these criteria in Table 2 to form the decision matrix in Table 3 below. The best option was
determined to be the Flexible Photovoltaic system due to its significantly superior score. The team felt
confident that this was the best option and would yield a deliverable that would best fit the scope of the
project and the determined criteria.

Page 19 of 36

Table 2- Defining the Criteria

Criteria

Wt.

Aesthetics

8.0

Efficiency

6.0

Adaptability

7.0

Feasibility

4.0

Durability

2.0

Market Relevance

10.0

105.0

93.0

136.0

Weighted Scores

4.1

Flexible
Photovoltaic
System

Standalone

Decision Factors

Mirrors &
Concentrators

Table 3- Decision Matrix

Final Design
Overview

The final flexible panel design will provide a shapeable housing for OPV cells that can conform to nonplanar roof geometries. This versatility will be achieved using flexible and durable materials for the panel
frame, and a structure that will allow for compatibility with standard mounting procedures. Additionally,
the panel housing will be designed for full integration with an existing PV electrical system.
Page 20 of 36

4.2

Solar Technology Selection

Table 4- Solar Technology Criteria

An

Criteria

Definition

Cost/watt

Cost of PV systemversuswattsproduced bythe PV system

Efficiency

Wattsgenerated per wattsof incident radiation on afixed area

Longevity

Lifespan under normal operatingconditions

Environmental
Impact

Impact of manufacturingprocess(toxicityof materials, energycost of production process, etc)

Versatilityof style

Availabilityof flexible and lightweight options, range of colorsand shapes

Aesthetics

Qualityof colorsand shapesto fit specific house needs(to be verified bysurvey)

Integration

Light weight of system, integrabilitywith house electrical systemand existingPVs, ease of installation

Availability

How easilycan the material be purchased currently

MassProducible

Doesthe material have amass-production processin place

Tech Maturity

Potential for future development

Durability

Resistance to wind/snow loads, extreme temperature, and moisture

Page 21 of 36

Criteria

Small-Si

OPV

Q-dots

CIGS

A-si

CdTe

DecisionFactors

Perovskite

Table 5- Solar Technology Design Matrix

Wt.

Cost/watt

6.0

Efficiency

5.0

Longevity

3.0

Environmental Impact

4.0

4.5

Versatilityof style

8.0

Aesthetics

9.0

Integration

7.0

Availability

10.0

MassProducible

1.0

Tech Maturity

2.0

WeightedScores

163.0

169.0

195.0

151.0

174.0

215.0

134.0

Based from the criteria in Table 4 above and the weighted decisions in , OPV and CIGS are the clear
winners for thin-film photovoltaic technology. Not only do they provide flexibility as compared with
standard monocrystalline silicon photovoltaics but they are readily available market technologies, that are
still maturing and developing. In order to achieve a range of overall panel shapes, the panel will contain
an array of modular OPV or CIG cells rather than one large sheet of photovoltaic material; as such, OPV
and CIGS cells were chosen for their thin film potential and accessibility, and range of shaping
Page 22 of 36

possibilities. The manufacturer Solarte currently offers custom OPV solutions according to consumers
own designs for shape and color both key considerations given the importance of the overall aesthetic
appeal of the complete panel. [13] An outside resource, Don Parent, has been generous enough to donate
four sample OPV panels that were created by Konarka about five years ago. Although these panels are out
dated, they save the project money in not buying new OPVs which ranged in the thousands of dollars.
They also still allow for testing the functionality of the new housing prototype. The team decided to use
OPVs in the final design rather than CIGs due to their availability.

4.3

Mounting & Housing Design

The mounting process is being designed with several constraints in mind. The team is constrained by the
OPV that is available on hand as seen in Figure 16. The system must be strong enough to hold the OPVs
in place while withstanding the force from wind, snow, etc. It must also ensure that the entire electrical
system is waterproof to prevent any loss in power from the system. Additionally, the design must stay true
to the original specifications of being aesthetically pleasing as well as easy to install.

Figure 16: Modeled OPV Sample

Figure 16 above, is a simplified depiction of the sample OPVs that are used for the solar collector design.
A piece is being designed to connect directly to the positive and negative terminals, called the electrical
connection. This member will securely fasten to each terminal to provide protection and a port into the
general OPV housing.

Page 23 of 36

Figure 17: Top View of Housing Design

Figure 18: Bottom Housing

After the electrical connection is secured on the OPV terminals, the combination of the OPV and
electrical connection can be placed within the bottom member of the housing as seen in Figure 17 and
Figure 18 above.

Figure 19: Top Housing Model

Page 24 of 36

The top housing member can be placed securing to the bottom member and OPV in place by screwing
into the two outside holes. The stamping teeth pointed to in Figure 19 will press down on the plastic
board of the OPV further securing it in place. Note that the darker black color indicates areas where
rubber will be used to provide more friction to help stabilize the OPV.

Figure 20: Housing with OPV

Quick Mount PV has designed a shingle mount which can be seen in Figure 21 below. This will be used
as the support for the OPV housing. It is drilled into the studs of the house and then the bottom housing
piece will be placed on top and secured.

Page 25 of 36

Figure 21: Quick Mount PV 'Shingle Mount'

Instead of securing the L bracket as shown in Figure 21 above, the bottom housing will sit between the
base and the washer.
The key features of the bottom housing are that it provides protection of the OPV and it has areas
designated to tie in electrical connections. The OPV panels have positive and negative connections at two
of the four corners. An electrical device will the attached to those terminals called the electrical
connection. This piece is designed to ensure an electrical joining from the panel to the outside electrical
connections. It will also provide protection and assembly to the OPV housing.

4.3.1

Testing Procedure

To predict the performance of the Si panel, multiple tools will be used. Professor Kowalski has provided
an Excel document which predicts solar incident radiation based on location, tilt angle, date and collector
azimuth angle. This document can be modified to reflect the panel being tested on Centennial
Quadrangle. There are also online calculators such as the PV Watts calculator which is similar in that is
predicts system output based on location and the solar systems specifications. These baseline calculations
will be used to compare the Si specification performance based on how it actually performs when tested.
A similar method will be used to predict the output performance of the OPV samples.
In order to measure actual performance, both panels will be tested in direct sunlight on flat roof and turret
models, the specifics of which are discussed below. The tested panel will be mounted on a model roof
during peak sunlight hours between 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. Because no power storage system is
available, periodic voltage and current readings will be taken at 15-minute intervals to generate a rough
plot of power output. This information will then be normalized by incident solar radiation and compared
to the power estimates from the solar calculations.
The team decided that certain data would be better acquired through simulation rather than real time
testing. This decision is based on both the accelerated timeline at hand and the accuracy of such
Page 26 of 36

programs. The simulations to be completed are stress/strain analysis, wind flow, and PV Module testing.
After completing thorough research, three programs seemed most ideal for these purposes. For
stress/strain analysis, Solidworks Finite Element Analysis is a dependable resource and can take forces,
pressures, temperatures, and contact between components into consideration. This is particularly
appealing because our housing design is modeled in Solidworks and this program could serve as a next
step rather than a separate task. Next, the team seeks to ensure the durability of the system by simulating
wind flows based on average New England weather patterns. Autodesk has an additional component,
Flow Design, that can take wind into consideration and quantify its effects. Finally, in order to test the
functionality of the system, the team must ensure that the solar panels are connected properly. This can be
done using Simulink, a component to be used with Matlab.
Two scaled model roofs will be constructed to test functionality of the panels along with ease of
installation. The first is half of a turret, which can be seen in Figure 25 below. The second modeled roof is
flat and can be seen in Figure 23 and Figure 24 below. These two different roofs will allow for testing on
the common flat roof with a close to ideal angle and the more complex turret with a steeper angle.
Parameters that are fixed: Azimuth angle will be 180 degrees to face the fixtures due south. The tilt angle
of the modeled roofs was determined from theories and equations provided by Renewable and Efficient
Electric Power Systems. [38]
The experiment will take place between November and December, from table 4.1 the day number n will
range from 305-335 days.

Figure 22: Day Numbers for First Day of Each Month

The solar declination can be determined from equation 1 below,

=23.45 sin

(n81 ))
( 360
365

Eq. 1

Boston has a latitude, L=42.36 and the altitude angle can be determined from equation 2 below,

N =90L+
After finding the altitude angle, the tilt angle of the panel can be determined using equation 3 below,

Page 27 of 36

Eq. 2

Tilt =90 N

Eq. 3

The results,
Month (day n)
November (n=305)
December (n=335)

Tilt Angle (from horizontal)

32.27
64.46

Table 6- Results of Panel Tilt Angle Calculation

Based from the calculations in Table 6 above and restrictions of doors and construction space, the tilt
angle for the flat roof was selected as 42 to be within more of an optimal range and the turret was
selected as 60 to reach the outer limits of the optimal range.

Figure 23: Dimensions for Flat Roof

Page 28 of 36

Figure 24: Flat Roof

Figure 25: Dimensions for Turret

Page 29 of 36

Figure 26: Turret Roof

While most large panels are roof-mounted by drilling supports into the existing roof structure, some
lightweight panels are mounted directly onto the roof exterior. For example, SoloPower Systems mounts
its flexible solar panel modules using adhesives, reducing installation costs. [15] Given its costeffectiveness and low aesthetic impact, this adhesive approach is very attractive; however, flush-mounted
panels require additional heat-dissipation through panel housing materials that otherwise provided to
rack-mounted panels through airflow. The final mounting procedure, for this reason, must be determined
through testing on a scaled roof model.
The Si panel involves drilling into the stud supports, lifting the 50 lbs panel onto the roof and attaching to
the supports. It requires having power tools on the roof at all times and heavy lifting. The new design for
the mounting system of OPVs would eliminate heavy lifting and decrease time spent on the roof with
power tools. The procedure would start with drilling the stud supports along with the bottom piece of the
housing into the roof. On the ground the electrical terminals would be clipped onto the OPV panel. These
could then be easily carried onto the roof and snapped into the bottom piece of housing. After the OPVs
are snapped in place within the bottom piece of housing, the top member of the housing block would snap
down on top of the

5
5.1

Intellectual Property
Description of Problem

This project will create a functional deliverable that will allow for the adaptation of solar collectors to
non-planar surfaces thus creating a versatile option for solar energy collection. It will be designed for
solar collector installation onto turrets, gables, etc. This will require a mounting framework that is both
pliable and durable to allow for a form-fitting connection to any slope, providing a cost-effective solar
energy option for non-planar roof shapes that will not disrupt the aesthetics of the original architecture.

Page 30 of 36

5.2

Proof of Concept

The goal of the project is to create an adaptable housing for OPV material that can be mass produced.
This housing will allow the solar collection system to conform to non-planar roof geometries, such as
conical turrets, while leaving the overall architectural aesthetic of the roof line intact. To achieve these
goals, a prototype housing will be 3D-printed and mounted on a model turret. The performance of the
OPV material will be tested alongside a traditional silicon panel; while the expected efficiency of the
OPV material is less than the silicon panel, the team expects that the aesthetic advantages and ease of
installation will make it a competitive alternative.

5.3

Progress to Date

The team has acquired a representative OPV sample and a traditional silicon panel for development and
testing. Using the OPV sample, the team has developed a lightweight housing, which includes an
electrical connection and a means to connect multiple modules into a larger system. This housing is
composed of six simple pieces, with ease of manufacturing, assembly, and installation in mind.
A testing fixture comprising a model turret and planar roof has been designed, and construction is pending
delivery of parts. The expected solar radiation for the testing location and time has been estimated based
on historical data for New England in November. A testing procedure has also been finalized.

5.4

Individual Contributions

Katherine Donahue:
Kate has contributed research in solar incident radiation, reviewed housing design and architectures,
along with model simulation programs. She has spent time learning about potential solar technologies,
with a bulk of the research in CIGS and OPVs. She has also been active in brainstorming potential
solutions for housing and has assisted in converting the designs into a model, along with modeling the test
stands. She has taken on the role as the point of contact for outside resources and vendors. Kate continues
to organize and outline future steps for the project.
Alexander Jason:
Alex has performed research into the background information such as the current state of solar power,
silicon, amorphous silicon, CdTe PVs, solar thermal power, light-guide panels, and thin-film solar
technology. He has also been active in creating the decision matrix and ranking the systems. Alex
contributed heavily to the design and modeling.
Elizabeth Murphy:
Elizabeth has contributed research in photovoltaics, existing flexible panels, and possible mounting
options. She has been active in creating and utilizing both decision matrices. Elizabeth contributed
research to possible mounting solutions and simulation software to be utilized going forward. She has
taken responsibility as writing lead by editing and structuring final reports.
Page 31 of 36

Patrick Roos:
Patrick has performed research into photovoltaic mounting systems, and their adaptability to OPV
systems. He has also helped develop the model turret for photovoltaic performance testing. He has
initiated contact with photovoltaic installation contractors in order to learn more about installation
requirements and potential issues with both silicon panel and OPV installation.

5.5

Future Work

The housing design will be printed and evaluated for functionality and ease of assembly. A mounting
procedure will be developed to suit the constraints of the roof in question and the requirements of the
OPV system. The overall OPV system will be tested against a traditional silicon panel in Centennial
Quadrangle for a performance and versatility comparison.

Page 32 of 36

Project Management

Figure 27: Project Management Gantt Chart

The team has a dense task list but feels they are on track to finish on their anticipated completion date of
November 28, 2016. The overarching task order will progress from building testing mount to testing to
analyzing data and testing aesthetics.

Page 33 of 36

References

1.
Wiser, R. et al., The Environmental and Public Health Benefits of Achieving High Penetrations
of Solar Energy in the United States. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-6A20-65628.
Golden, CO. 2016.
2.
Shah, Vishal. "Crossing the Chasm." Deutsche Bank (2015): n. pag. F.I.T.T. for Investors.
Deutsche Bank Markets Research, 27 Feb. 2015. Web. 01 Aug. 2016.
3.
Wiser, Ryan, Trieu Mai, Dev Millstein, Jordan Macknick, Alberta Carpenter, Stuart Cohen,
Wesley Cole, Bethany Frew, and Garvin Heath. "On the Path to SunShot. The Environmental and Public
Health Benefits of Achieving High Solar Penetrations in the United States." (2016): n. pag. The
Environmental and Public Health Benefits of Achieving High Penetrations of Solar Energy in the United
States. NREL, 2016. Web. 14 Aug. 2016.
4.
Schmalensee, Richard et all., "The Future of Solar Energy." (2015): n. pag. The Future of Solar
Energy. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2015. Web. 01 Aug. 2016. <http://energy.mit.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2015/05/MITEI-The-Future-of-Solar-Energy.pdf>.
5.
2016.

"Fresnel Lens." Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2007. Web. 15 Aug.

6.

Morgan, J. P. Light-guide solar panel and method of fabrication thereof. US7991261 B2. 2011.

7.

"About Sun Simba." Morgan Solar. Morgan Solar, June 2016. Web. 15 Aug. 2016.

8.
"Press Releases 2014." New World Record for Solar Cell Efficiency at 46%. Fraunhofer ISE, 1
Dec. 2014. Web. 15 Aug. 2016.
9.
Energy.gov Organic Photovoltaics Research, http://energy.gov/eere/sunshot/organicphotovoltaics-research, Last accessed August 14, 2016.
10.
IEEE Spectrum Solar-Cell Squabble, http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/solarcellsquabble, Last accessed August 14, 2016.
11.
NREL Photovoltaic Research, http://www.nrel.gov/pv/advanced_concepts.html, Last accessed
August 14, 2016.
12.
NREL Encapsulation Advancements Extend Life of Thin-Film PV,
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47564.pdf, Last accessed August 14, 2016.
13.
Solarte, Organic Photovoltaic Solutions, http://solarte.de/en/#welcome, Last accessed August
14, 2016.

Page 34 of 36

14.
SCHOTT North America, Ultra-Thin Flexible Glass: SCHOTT Advanced Optics,
http://www.us.schott.com/advanced_optics/english/products/wafers-and-thin-glass/glass-wafer-andsubstrates/ultra-thin-glass/index.html, Last accessed August 14, 2016.
15.
2016.

SoloPower Systems, Technology, http://solopower.com/technology/, Last accessed August 14,

16.
Ayre, James. "First Solar Reports Largest Quarterly Decline In CdTe Module Cost Per-Watt Since
2007." CleanTechnica. Solar Love, 06 Nov. 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2016.
17.
Hamelmann, F. U., J. Weicht A., and G. Behrens. "Light-Induced Degradation of Thin Film
Silicon Solar Cells." INERA Conference 2015: Light in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology 682 (2016): n.
pag. Iop Publisher, 2015. Web. 26 Sept. 2016.
18.
Maehlum, Mathias Aarre. "The Real Lifespan of Solar Panels - Energy Informative." Energy
Informative. N.p., 7 May 2014. Web. 26 Sept. 2016.
19.
Maehlum, Mathias Aarre. "Solar Cell Comparison Chart Mono-, Polycrystalline and Thin Film
- Energy Informative." Energy Informative. N.p., 27 Sept. 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2016.
20.
Maehlum, Matthias Aarre. "Best Thin Film Solar Panels Amorphous, Cadmium Telluride or
CIGS? - Energy Informative." Energy Informative. N.p., 6 Apr. 2015. Web. 26 Sept. 2016.
21.
Morrison, N. A. "Roll-to-Roll Processing for Flexible Display Applications." Applied Materials
Web Coating GmbH (n.d.): n. pag. The Association Of International Metallizers, Coaters And Laminators.
Web.
22.
Peng, Jinqing, and Hongxing Yang. "Review on Life Cycle Assessment of Energy Payback and
Greenhouse Gas Emission of Solar Photovoltaic Systems." Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 19 (2013): 255-74. Science Direct. Web. 26 Sept. 2016.
23.
Raugei, Marco, and Vasilis Fthenakis. "Cadmium Flows and Emissions from CdTe PV: Future
Expectations." Energy Policy 38.9 (2010): 5223-228.Science Direct. Web. 26 Sept. 2016.
24.
Wesoff, Eric. "The End Arrives for ECD Solar." Green Technology. N.p., 14 Feb. 2012. Web. 26
Sept. 2016.
25.

Photovoltaics Report Fraunhoffer Institute for Solar Energy Systems, ISE June 6, 2016

26.

MiaSole Brochure: Products and Solutions (2016), MiaSole [Online] http://miasole.com/products/

27.
CIGS Solar Cells, Simplified (2014), Frank Andorka [Online]
http://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2014/01/cigs-solar-cells-simplified/
28.
White Paper for CIGS Thin-Film Solar Cell Technology (2015), The Zentrum fr Sonnenenergieund Wasserstoff-Forschung Baden-Wrttemberg [Online] http://cigs-pv.net/
29.
Technology/Products (2016), eterbright [Online] http://www.eterbright.tw/indexa811.html?
page_id=3347
Page 35 of 36

30.
NREL Encapsulation Advancements Extend Life of Thin-Film PV,
www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47564.pdf, Last accessed August 14, 2016.
31.
2016.

Chandler, David L. Improving a new breed of solar cells MIT News. 27 May 2014. 26 Sept.

32.
engl, Hatice, and Thomas Theis L. "An Environmental Impact Assessment of Quantum Dot
Photovoltaics (QDPV) from Raw Material Acquisition through Use." Journal of Cleaner Production 19.1
(2011): 21-31. Web. 26 Sept. 2016.
33.
Krebs, Frederik C., Nieves Espinosa, Markus Hosel, Roar Sondergaard R., and Mikkel Jorgensen.
"25th Anniversary Article: Rise to Power OPV-Based Solar Parks." Wiley, 8 Oct. 2013. Web. 27 Sept.
2016.
34.
C. GCell, "Dye sensitized solar cells | DSSC," in GCell, G24, 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://gcell.com/dye-sensitized-solar-cells. Accessed: Sep. 17, 2016.
35.
M. Grtzel, "Dye-sensitized solar cells," Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology C:
Photochemistry Reviews, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 145153, Oct. 2003. [Online]. Available:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389556703000261. Accessed: Sep. 20, 2016.36.
36.
J. Carbeck, "Perovskite solar cells Supercharge electricity production," in Scientific American,
Scientific American, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/perovskitesolar-cells-supercharge-electricity-production/. Accessed: Sep. 17, 2016.
37.
"Perovskites and Perovskite solar cells: An introduction," in Oscilla, Ossila, 2015. [Online].
Available: https://www.ossila.com/pages/perovskites-and-perovskite-solar-cells-an-introduction.
Accessed: Sep. 17, 2016.
38.
2016

Masters, Gilber M. Renewable and Efficient Electric Power Systems Wiley. June 2013. 9 Sept

Page 36 of 36