Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 94 (2018) 835–852

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Concentrated photovoltaic: A review of thermal aspects, challenges and T

opportunities
⁎
Ahmed Hasana, , Jawad Sarwarb, Ali Hasan Shaha
a
Department of Architectural Engineering, College of Engineering, United Arab Emirates University, P.O. Box 15551, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates
b
Sustainable Energy Research Laboratory (SERL), Mechanical Engineering Program, Texas A & M University at Qatar, PO Box 23874, Doha, Qatar

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Photovoltaics (PVs) are promising sustainable energy generators, yet the higher initial cost of PV systems
Concentrated photovoltaic (CPV) compared to the conventional fossil fuel based energy systems remains a barrier to their large-scale adaptability.
Phase change materials (PCMs) Concentrating solar radiation onto a smaller area by replacing expensive cell materials with cheaper optical
Thermal management materials can be an alternative way to reduce PV cost, but concentrated photovoltaics (CPV) yield substantially
Industrial processes
higher cell temperatures reportedly detrimental for CPV life and electrical yield. Various thermal management
Thermals energy recovery
approaches have been adopted to mitigate the adverse effect of temperature on CPV life and performance. The
potential use of thermal energy discarded in CPV thermal management systems has been traditionally over-
looked. The aim of this article is to briefly review the progress in PV cells, different CPV systems, and thermal
issues specific to concentration techniques and propose potential uses of thermal energy recovered from the CPV.
The review finds that temperature mitigation and thermal energy recovery & utilization can be a promising
pathway to improve CPV performance.

1. Introduction immense amount of thermal energy available in CPVs which otherwise

Photovoltaic (PV) technologies typically convert 15–18% incident
solar radiation to electricity while the rest is converted to heat [1,2].
The lower conversion efficiency and higher heat generation render PV
costlier and vulnerable to failures that eventually hampers their market
penetration [3]. The cost constraint can be overcome by concentrating
the solar radiation onto a smaller photovoltaic cell via inexpensive
optical devices such as lenses or mirrors [4] leading to the development
of concentrated photovoltaic (CPV) technology. CPVs are getting
market attention due to improvements in overall PV efficiency and
reduced cost due to decreased required cell area [5]. CPV has been
consistently improved in terms of space use, component materials re-
cycling and the use of less toxic products associated with PV cells
production [6].
CPVs are categorized as low concentration, medium concentration
and high concentration depending on the concentration ratio (CR), a
measure that determines the enhancement of radiation intensity re-
ceived by the cell area. The enhanced radiation intensity yields a sig-
nificant increase in the PV cell temperature that eventually reduces its
conversion efficiency and increases the probability of failures. Thermal
energy recovery is an effective route to avoid thermal driven damages
in CPV systems [7] and improve the overall energy performance. The
would be detrimental for cell life and integrity can potentially be
exploited for various applications [8–10]. Thermal energy management
is an important CPV design consideration [11] that can be broadly
categorized into active and passive systems [12–14]. By tailoring the
thermal management design at respective CR, the CPV temperature can
be optimized to deliver thermal energy at the desired temperature for
various domestic and industrial applications including water heating,
space heating and solar cooling [15].
Although conventional active thermal management systems can
deliver the desired temperature, its limited thermal energy storage
capability causes a demand-supply mismatch. Incorporation of phase
change materials (PCMs) in CPV can substantially enhance thermal
energy recovery and storage capability [16,17]. The CPV-PCM system
may effectively eliminate supply and demand mismatch, a constraint
faced by conventional CPV thermal management systems [18]. PCMs
can store and release thermal energy as latent heat at constant phase
transition temperatures to maintain CPV temperature in the desired
range [19].
Temperatures required by various industrial processes such as food,
beverages, paper, textiles, plastics and chemical industries in the range
of 60–200 °C [20] can be achieved by a CPV-PCM system with the right
selection of CR and PCM phase transition temperature. The CPV-PCM

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ahmed.hassan@uaeu.ac.ae (A. Hasan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.06.014
Received 5 September 2016; Received in revised form 2 June 2018; Accepted 6 June 2018
1364-0321/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Hasan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 94 (2018) 835–852

Nomenclature FHCD Flat high concentration devices

LSCs Luminescent solar concentrator
Symbols LCPC Low concentrated photovoltaic
HCPV High concentrated photovoltaic
I Current (A) NCR Nocturnal cooling radiation
P Power (W) PTC Parabolic trough concentrator
T Temperature (°C) PDC Parabolic dish concentrator
V Voltage (V) PV Photovoltaic
η˳ Optical efficiency (%) PCM Phase change material
λ Wavelength (nm) PV-PCM Photovoltaic with phase change material
CPV-PCM Concentrated photovoltaic with phase change material
Abbreviations PMMA Poly methyl methacrylate (Acrylic)
CR Concentration ratio
Aa Aperture area QDs Quantum dots
At Target area QDSCs Quantum dot solar concentrators
Ce Effective concentration ratio R Reflection
Cg Geometrical concentration ratio I Internal reflection
CPC Compound parabolic concentrator NREL National renewable energy laboratory
DTIRC Dielectric total internal reflected concentrator

system is not feasible above 200 °C as the PV cells may undergo irre- on latent heat storage employing phase change materials (PCMs).
versible degradation at such elevated temperatures. The objectives of • Evaluate the application of thermal energy retrieved from a CPV
the article are to: system for different industrial processes that require low to medium
grade heat input.
• Evaluate the feasibility of expected/prospected improvements in cell
efficiency for various cell types by tracking the historical efficiency
2. Photovoltaic materials
curves.
• Review the achievable temperatures and its effect on CPV perfor-
Several PV materials have been extensively researched such as in-
mances employing various concentrators.
• Assess the effectiveness of conventional thermal management
organic PV cells, including crystalline (mono and poly), amorphous,
and microcrystalline silicon cells [21], quantum dot cells [22–25], or-
techniques to mitigate CPV temperature and enhance performance.
• Introduce an emerging CPV thermal management technique based
ganic tandem cells [26–32], and perovskite cells [33–38]. Mono-crys-
talline silicon, Polycrystalline silicon and Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) are

Table 1
Comparison between first generation photovoltaic technologies.
References

Monocrystalline silicon
Description Monocrystalline silicon cells are shaped by cutting bulk crystal ingots into thin wafers from melted silicon feedstock. [39,40]
Advantages Commercial maturity, Abundance of silicon, Silicon nontoxicity
Higher stability under outdoor conditions
Disadvantages High material requirement with thickness ranging 0.25–1 mm
Material thickness requirement in the range of 10–100 times as compared to thin-film cells
Grain boundary defects results in pronounced performance reduction as compared to polycrystalline
Higher cost, recycling and disposal
Polycrystalline silicon
Description Polycrystalline silicon cells are shaped by cutting bulk crystal ingots into thin wafers from melted silicon feedstock. [39,41,42]
Advantages Silicon nontoxicity and stability under outdoor conditions
Lower cost than monocrystalline
Require lower feedstock purity to produce crystal ingots as compared to monocrystalline
Environmentally friendly due to reduced silicon waste
Grain boundary defects have lower effect on efficiency as compared to monocrystalline silicon
Disadvantages High material and high bulk recombination requirement
Decreased efficiency due to larger grains as compared to monocrystalline
Require more space due to reduced power conversion per m2 as compared to monocrystalline
Recycling and disposal
Gallium Arsenide
Description Crystalline gallium arsenide is fabricated using chemical vapor deposition (CVD) metal-organic chemical vapor deposition [39,43,44] Need to put
(MOCVD) or molecular beam epitaxy (MBE) of gallium and arsenic reference
Advantages Higher efficiency and absorption coefficient
Resistance to high temperature and to radiation damage
Excellent for space applications
Excellent performance under concentrated illumination
Lighter than mono and polycrystalline PV cells
Disadvantages Higher cost has shown potential for low cost manufacturing by reusing previously-used substrates
Lower manufacturability
Higher fragility
Higher density than silicon
Low potential for terrestrial applications

836
A. Hasan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 94 (2018) 835–852

categorized as first generation photovoltaic technologies [39]that ex- presented in Table 4 [66,71–73]. A detailed assessment of the perfor-
hibit long-term stability under the various outdoor conditions thereby mance of different CPV technologies based on their efficiency, power
drawing the largest market share compared to other PV technologies output and stability have been carried out by [74–78]. Concentrating
[39–41]. Mono-crystalline PV cells possess higher conversion efficiency solar radiation on a smaller PV cell area employing inexpensive lenses
but suffer from lower manufacturability and higher cost as compared to or mirrors have been reported as an optimal approach to improve the
polycrystalline PV cells [39,42]. GaAs exhibit higher efficiency along rate of efficiency increase [79,80].
with enhanced resistance to radiation damage but are not cost com-
petitive when compared with the rest of the first-generation PV tech- 3. Concentrated photovoltaics
nologies [39,43]. A comprehensive comparison between first genera-
tion photovoltaic technologies is presented in Table 1. A CPV system concentrates incoming solar radiation onto a smaller
Cadmium telluride/cadmium sulfide (CdTe/CdS), amorphous si- photovoltaic cell by using inexpensive optical devices (lenses or mir-
licon (a-Si) based thin films and copper indium gallium selenide (CIGS) rors) as shown in Fig. 2 [81–83]. The CPV is characterized by con-
solar cells are categorized as second-generation photovoltaics that are centration ratio expressed in Eq. (1) [84,85].
considered flexible, lightweight and low cost with competitive payback
periods [45–47], yet suffer from lower efficiencies and rapid cell de- Aa
CR =
gradation compared to the first-generation PV technologies [48] sum- At (1)
marized in Table 2. Effective concentration ratio (Ce) is defined as the total amount of
Organic solar cells, dye-sensitized solar cells and multi-junction radiation absorbed by the surface and is expressed by Eq. (2) [86].
solar cells are categorized as third-generation PV technologies.
Although organic and dye-sensitized solar cells are low cost, yet suffer Ce = Cg × η˳ (2)
from lower conversion efficiency and rapid cell degradation [52]. The
where Cg is the geometric concentration ratio and η˳ is the optical ef-
main challenge facing dye-sensitized solar cells is design and fabrica-
ficiency of the solar concentrator [88–94]
tion of photo-electrodes with better light-harvesting ability, charge
transport and lower recombination. Research is progressing towards
Table 2
improving Photo-electrode synthesis using diverse approaches in-
Comparison between second generation photovoltaics technologies.
cluding but not limited to TiO2, ZnO and Nb2O5 nanostructures [53,54].
Multi-junction solar cells have higher efficiency, thus are ideal for the References
space market, but are not cost competitive for the bulk consumer Amorphous silicon thin film
market. Quantum dots (QDs) are semiconductor nanocrystals composed Description Amorphous silicon panels are formed by vapor- [39,40,49,50]
of periodic groups of II-VI, III-V, or IV-VI and can confine electrons [55] depositing a thin layer of silicon material about
to generate multiple electron-hole pairs after the collision with one 1 µm thick – on a substrate material such as
glass or metal.
photon. QDs possess tunable bandgaps across a wide range of energy
Advantages Higher design flexibility and absorption
levels by changing the dot size. However, they are still not market Shade resistance
competitive due to lack of reliable performance data. Research on op- Lower manufacturing cost and payback period
timization of device structures and light trapping is underway to im- Higher bandgap energy
prove the performance of the quantum dot solar concentrators (QDSCs) Expandability to form multi-junction cells
Disadvantages Lower efficiency than mono and poly-
through enhanced photocurrent [56]. Comparison between different crystalline solar cells
third-generation PV technologies is summarized in Table 3. Shorter lifetime than crystalline cells
According to the NREL report, 2017 [66] shown in Fig. 1; the newly CIS/CIGS thin film
developed cells (dye-sensitized cells, organic cells, organic tandem Description CIGS absorber layer is fabricated either by [39,46]
using deposition of metallic precursor followed
cells, inorganic cells, QD cells) possess substantially lower efficiencies
by electroplating, salinization, sulfidization or
(10.6–13.6%) compared to first and second-generation technologies. vacuum co-deposition which then forms a
Relatively flattened efficiency improvement curves in recent years in- heterojunction with a CdS window layer.
dicate that only marginal efficiency improvement can be expected in Advantages Versatility & flexibility
these cells in future [66]. Higher absorption coefficient
Good Performance in Indirect Light
Thin film technologies for solar cells were invented in 1970s com- Lower payback period
prising of amorphous Si: H (stabilized), CIGS, and CdTe. Amorphous Si: Highest thin film efficiency
H (stabilized). These cells initially had an extremely low cell efficiency Disadvantages Lower efficiency
of 0.5%, but gradually improved reaching 12% in 2000. The next 17 Degradation of CdS window layer
Higher total cost
years witnessed marginal improvement in efficiency reaching 13.6% in
Lower manufacturability due to complexity of
2015. Thin film, CIGS and CdTe cells showed an efficiency increase the multi-component absorber layer
from 6% to 19% and 9% to 16% respectively in the initial 20 years Toxicity concerns
(1980–2000), but changed marginally afterward. A rise of 2%, 3.6% Indium scarcity
and 6.1% through 2017 was demonstrated for amorphous silicon, CIGS CdTe thin film
Description Cadmium telluride absorber layer is deposited [39,51]
and CdTe respectively as shown in Fig. 1.
using closed-space sublimation which then
For emerging PV technologies, a similar trend has been observed forms a heterojunction with a CdS window
from their inception until recently as shown in Fig. 1. Although the layer.
trend shows a remarkable increase in cell efficiencies (up from 3% to Advantages Flexibility
Lightweight
8%), the historical trend of first generation cells indicates that a sa-
Higher absorption coefficient
turation in efficiency may arrive sooner, thus retarding further effi- Lower payback period
ciency improvement. The efficiencies of some recently developed cells Lower cost
such as QDs, organic tandem and dye-sensitized cells are too low and Disadvantages Lower efficiency
would result in extremely reduced energy density compared to the first Degradation of CdS window layer
Back contact issues
generation cells. Perovskite [67,68] solar cells showed a remarkable
Rapid recombination
efficiency gain reaching 22.7% [69,70] in less than ten years, yet the Cadmium toxicity
cells face stability issues. Current efficiencies of different solar cells are

837
A. Hasan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 94 (2018) 835–852

Table 3
Comparison between third generation photovoltaics technologies.
References

Organic
Description Composed of semiconducting organic polymers or small organic molecules that absorb light. [39,57,58]
Advantages Flexibility and lightweight
Lower cost
Higher temperature resistance
Absorbance de-fractioned light
Expandability to form multi-junction cells
Variety of polymer options
Disadvantages Lower efficiency
Lower durability
Degradation and stability issues
Poor understanding of physics and operation
Dye-sensitized
Description Photo electrochemical solar cells that mimic photosynthesis where semiconductor nanocrystals collect photons while dye molecules separate the [39,58–60]
charge.
Advantages Better manufacturability
Flexibility
Lower cost
Excellent performance under low and indirect illumination
Ability to Operate at Lower Internal temperatures
Disadvantages Lower conversion efficiency
Rapid dye degradation
Sealing issues due to the electrolyte‫׳‬s volatile solvents
Risk of electrolyte freezing in low temperature
Multi-junction
Description Cells made from multiple materials have multiple bandgaps so it will respond to multiple light wavelengths and some of the energy that would [39,61,62]
otherwise be lost to relaxation.
Advantages Higher efficiency
Excellent performance under concentrated illumination
Ideal for space applications
Extensive room for innovation and improvement with respect to bandgaps and lattice structure
Disadvantages Higher production and maintenance cost
Cell degradation
Lower manufacturability
Bandgap limitations
Recombination losses at misfit and threading dislocations in lattice-mismatched structures
Quantum dots
Description Quantum dots (QDs) are artificial clusters of semi-conductive atoms that have the ability to confine the electrons motion due to their small size [63–65]
Quantum Dot formations absorb photons of light and then re-emit longer wavelength photons for a period of time.
Advantages Cost effect
Versatile
Highly efficient in conducting an electrical current
Only require a small amount of energy in order to be excited
Disadvantages Toxic
Have surface defects which can affect the recombination of electrons and holes by acting as temporary traps

Although the area of the PV cell decreases with concentration [87];
the total area receiving radiation remains unchanged. The concentrated
PV system may require additional space to house the structural support,
tracking system and thermal management system compared to a single
sun PV system that limits the building integration of CPV system due to
space economy. In order to justify the additional cost and space in-
curred by thermal management systems, solar concentration and
tracking arrangements, a threshold CPV efficiency of 24% must be
achieved under standard test conditions [4]. The configuration of CPV
systems is summarized in Table 5.
As described in Table 6, CPV are categorized into three types based
on CR and two types based on optics. [90,91,95]. Point focus systems
comprised of square Fresnel lenses, parabolic dish or central receivers
with heliostat fields are generally suitable for high concentration up to
11,575× [96]. Line focus systems typically comprised of linear Fresnel
lenses, parabolic troughs and cylindrical parabolic concentrators [97]
are suitable for low concentration up to 10× [96,98] as presented in
Table 7.
3.1. Fresnel lens concentrator
Fresnel lens works on the refraction principle which focuses radia-
tion through a chain of prisms each representing the slope of the surface
of the lens. As shown in Fig. 3, Fresnel lenses are lightweight and cost-
effective compared to conventional lenses, can achieve wide range of
concentrations [109–113] and can yield very high temperatures up to
1500–2000 K [101,108]. Their main limitation is a drop in efficiency
due to increased lens temperature that restricts their use in certain
geographical locations [114]. In hot climates, the optical efficiency of
Fresnel lenses fabricated from Silicon on Glass (SOG) dropped from
84% at 20 °C to 77% at raised temperature [115], while PMMA lenses
dropped efficiency from 84% to 80% [116]
3.2. Luminescent solar concentrator
A luminescent solar concentrator (LSC) is a device that comprises of
a thin sheet of polymer doped with QDs, organic dyes or rare earth
complexes. The LSC diverts the incoming radiation from the inter-
cepting surface to the edges of the sheets as shown in Fig. 4, thereby
concentrating both direct and diffuse irradiance [103,104]. Incident
irradiance (both direct and diffuse) is refracted, absorbed by lumines-
cent species and re-emitted to the plate edge by total internal reflection
eventually limited to low concentration systems [117–122].

838
A. Hasan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 94 (2018) 835–852

Fig. 1. Chart of best research cell efficiencies by NREL 2017 [66] “This plot is courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO.”.

Table 4 aperture area of 6 m2 resulting in heat transfer fluid temperatures rise

Current efficiencies of different solar cells. of up to 400 °C [97].
Photovoltaic cells Laboratory efficiency (%)
3.4. Parabolic dish concentrator
Monocrystalline silicon (non-concentrated) 25.3
Monocrystalline silicon (concentrated) 27.6
Polycrystalline silicon 21.9
The parabolic dish concentrator (PDC) shown in Fig. 6, has rota-
Gallium Arsenide (single crystal) 27.5 tional symmetry obtained by rotating the parabola across the normal
Amorphous silicon thin film 14 axis. PDC fall with in high concentration systems that can achieve CR
CIS/CIGS thin film 22.6 up to 11,575× for the angular radius of the sun at 4.653 mrad [96,98].
CdTe thin film 22.1
The theoretical concentration limit is about 45,700 suns corresponding
Organic 11.5
Dye-sensitized 11.9 to a limiting temperature of about 5300 K [125], which would result
Multi-junction 32.6–46 extremely higher solar to electrical conversion efficiency [126–128].
Quantum dots 13.4

3.5. Compound parabolic concentrator

Compound parabolic concentrators (CPCs) are two parabolas with

Fig. 2. Schematic of solar radiation concentration and reduction in PV cell area
by using concentrator.
3.3. Parabolic trough concentrator
Parabolic trough concentrators (PTC), as shown in Fig. 5, are line
focus type concentrators fully developed and installed at mass scale
with achievable concentration ratios of up to 215× [96,98]. However,
they require accurate control through a solar tracking system [123,124]
to concentrate radiation on pipes carrying heat transfer fluid in case of
cylindrical PTCs. The concentrators can achieve a CR up to 80 with an
three components: the entrance aperture, exit aperture and side profile
[98]. They are designed to collect the light from distant light sources
and efficiently concentrate the light to a specific point [129]. The CPC
can be designed with both rotational symmetry and translational
symmetry about the center axis [130] as shown in Fig. 7 [131].
A trade-off exists between geometric CR (the ratio between the
entry aperture and the exit aperture areas) [132] and the angle of ac-
ceptance (the part of the sky looked at by the concentrator) [133]as the
two are inversely proportional [134,135]. A very low CR of 2.0 and 1.9
is achievable at acceptance half angle ‘θ’ of 50° and 30° respectively
while the higher CR is only achieved by either high acceptance angle
that renders space economy issues or by sun tracking that requires
additionally power [136,137]. The major benefit of CPCs is its effi-
ciency to collect and concentrate all the rays within a specific accep-
tance angle, thereby attaining a concentration ratio of up to 45,031 for
the angular radius of the sun 4.653 mrad. At concentration ratios of 100
with a 0.05-degree acceptance half angle, the side profile length be-
comes ~ 1 m [138]. Additionally, a higher concentration without a

839
A. Hasan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 94 (2018) 835–852

Table 5 4.1. Solar spectrum

Categorization of concentrated photovoltaics.
Concentrating photovoltaic PVs are spectrally selective absorbers fabricated from semi-
conductor materials that generate electrical current from solar radia-
References tion within visible spectrum in the range of 400–700 nm [156]. The
Concentration factor Low (< 10×), Medium [88–94]
spectral distribution of sunlight depends on metrological conditions,
(10×–100×), High (> 100×)
Optics Linear or point focus
geographical location and position of the sun [155]. The decrease in
Photovoltaic cells Mono junction, multi junction visible radiation spectra renders decreased current collection and hence
Thermal management Active, passive the power of the modules [157,158]. Conventional single-junction
Technique semiconductor solar cells effectively convert only photons of energy
Tracking Single axis, Dual axes
close to the semiconductor bandgap due to the mismatch between the
incident solar spectrum and the spectral absorption properties of the
tracking system can be achieved by CPC with tubular absorbers and is material [159,160]. Photons generate charge carriers by penetrating a
currently widely used in solar thermal applications. Reducing the gap semiconducting material and create an electron and a hole if the energy
loss between the absorber and reflector is important for utilization of of the photon is equal to or higher than the band gap in the region of the
the concentrators [139]. p-n junction [161].
PV cells are not 100% efficient as they are unable to respond to the
entire spectrum of solar radiation. Photons with wavelengths of
3.6. Dielectric total internally reflected concentrator λ ≥ 1215 nm are reflected or transmitted through the cell and do not
contribute towards electrical conversion. Photons with energy less than
Dielectric total internally reflected concentrator (DTIRC) is the ad- the material's band gap are absorbed but do not contribute towards the
vancement of CPCs shown in Fig. 8. A DTIRC is filled with a dielectric creation of an electron and a hole. Photons with energy larger than the
material with high refractive index [140]. DTIRC can achieve higher CR band gap are absorbed, but the excess energy is not used effectively due
and conversion efficiencies due to lossless total internal reflection (TIR) to thermalization of the electrons. It can be as high as 50% in the single
consequently achieving higher gain than compound CPCs. However, junction silicon solar cell [162] summarized in Table 8.
the disadvantage lies in gathering the energy into the lower index and
inability to direct total energy to the PV cell [141–145]. 4.2. Reflection

3.7. Flat high concentration devices (RR, XX, RX and RXI)
Flat high concentration devices (FHCD) shown in Fig. 9 are very
compact devices employing a combination of reflection (X), refraction
(R) and internal reflection (I) to achieve very high concentrations
[146,147] up to 800 suns. Due to their complex PV cell position, FHCDs
exhibit a disadvantage in terms of installing electrical connections and
heat sinks [148] while cell sizes are limited by shadowing effects
[144,149].
4. Factors affecting conversion efficiency
Factors affecting PV efficiency are sunlight spectrum, module di-
rection and tilt angle, dust accumulation, cell temperature, shading,
soiling, load resistance, module mismatch, inverter conversion losses
and solar cell structure.
The main causes of energy loss are dirt accumulation on the surface
of the modules and reflection & absorption losses by the materials
covering the cells [3,167]. The cell power output can be increased by
minimizing the amount of light reflected (λ ≤ 900 nm) from the cell's
surface [168] by controlling incident angle of light [169]. Optical stu-
dies indicate that at early morning or late afternoon, the significant
energy loss of incident irradiance is caused by reflective optical losses
because of the large angle of incidence ‘θin ’. However, at other times,
reflection and transmission optical losses are at a steady level due to
slight optical differences in the range of θin < 45° [170]. Antireflection
technologies and optical confinement of the incident light with tex-
turing of the surface helps minimize reflection losses [168,171]. Most of
the normally incident light reflected by a pyramidal texture emerges at
an angle of 38.9°. Under an encapsulate having refractive index
n > 1.59, this initially reflected light will be confined by total internal
reflection and will receive a second opportunity to be absorbed by a
solar cell, leading to a short circuit current increase of around
0.39 mA cm−2 [172] as presented in Table 9.

Table 6
Comparison of concentrated photovoltaic based on concentration factors and optics.
Type Description Reference

Concentration Factors
Low Concentration Photovoltaic These required high quality silicon. Tracking is not mandatory for LCPV or Single axis tracking is enough for LCPV. [90,92,93,99]
These systems have concentration ratio Less than 10× and high acceptance angle and do not need active cooling due to
low heat flux.
Medium Concentration Photovoltaic These are made of Silicon or other material. They can achieve concentration ration up to 10×–100×. These systems [90,92,93]
need single axis tracking and active or passive cooling.
High Concentration Photovoltaic Multi-junction solar cells are used and dual axis tracking and active cooling is necessary for HCPV. Concentration ratio [90,92,93]
greater than 100× can be achieved. These systems employ Fresnel lenses or dish reflectors.
Optics
Reflector The sun rays strike at the surface of this type of concentrator and reflected towards the solar cell i.e.; (parabolic dish [100]
and trough concentrator, hyperboloid and compound parabolic concentrator
Refractor When the sun rays strike at the surface of this type of concentrator, they refract the rays towards the focus point i.e.; [100,101]
Fresnel lens.
Luminescent In this type of concentrator, the photons experience total internal reflection upon hitting the concentrator surface and [102–106]
guided towards the solar cell i.e.; quantum dot concentrator
Dispersive Dispersive concentrator has first portion and second portion, dispersion based on the dispersive power of prism or [107]
holograms

840
A. Hasan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 94 (2018) 835–852

Table 7
Advantages and disadvantages of different concentrators.
References

Parabolic Trough Concentrator

Advantages High concentration up to 215× [123,124,126,127,150,151]
Behave good in the case of direct solar radiation
Disadvantages Requires larger field of view
Higher in cost
Low optical efficiency
Not good with diffused radiations
Need a good tracking system
Hyperboloid Concentrator
Advantages Compact [144]
Disadvantages Additional cost due to introduce lens at the entrance aperture to work effectively
Fresnel Concentrator
Advantages Small in volume [109–113,151]
Light weight
Able to concentrate both direct and diffuse light
Suitable to control the illumination and temperature of the building interior
Disadvantages The solar rays improperly focused at the receiver caused by the deformity on the edges of the facets
Possibility of lost light due to incidence on the draft facet
Compound Parabolic Concentrator
Advantages Most of radiation within the acceptance angle can transmit through the output aperture into receivers [129,130,139,152]
Higher gain when the field of views is narrow
Disadvantages Need a good tracking system
Gap between the absorber and the reflector in CPC with tubular absorber cause the energy loss
Dielectric Totally Internal Reflected Concentrator
Advantages Higher gain than CPC [141–144]
Smaller size than CPC
Disadvantages Cannot transfer all of the solar energy efficiently into a lower index media
Flat High Concentration Devices (RR, XX, XR, RX and RXI)
Advantages Lighter weight [144,148,149]
Compact
Very high concentration
Disadvantages Difficulty to create electrical connection and heat sinking due to the position of the cell
The cell dimension must be designed to minimum to reduce the shadowing effects
Quantum Dot Concentrator
Advantages No tracking needed [118–122,153,154]
Fully utilize both direct and diffuse radiation
Disadvantages Advancement is restricted by strict requirements of luminescent dyes

Fig. 5. Geometrical representation of parabolic trough concentrator [98].

Fig. 3. Conventional and Fresnel lens [108].

Fig. 4. The schematic of principle of Quantum dot solar concentrator [102].

Fig. 6. Geometrical representation of the parabolic dish concentrator (PDC)
[98].
4.3. Temperature
[175] as shown in Fig. 10 [161].
Crystalline silicon PV cells convert ~ 14–27.8% of absorbed irra-
The increased temperature results in a decreased voltage thereby
diance into electrical energy, [173] while the rest is converted to either
reducing the power output [176] governed by temperature coefficient
thermal energy and or reflected [159,168]. This eventually raises PV
of power loss that continues to increase over time [177,178]. Therefore,
cell temperature [174]. For silicon solar cells the associated elevation of
the performance of a cell varies at different geographical locations
temperature reduces the solar to electrical energy conversion efficiency
depending on irradiance level and ambient temperature that affects PV
by − 0.08% K-1 [161] with an electrical power drop of 0. 4–0.5% K-1

841
A. Hasan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 94 (2018) 835–852

temperature [126,179,180]. The mathematical representation of the

effects of these parameters on PV operating temperature are extensively
resported [181,182]. PV cells degrade faster in hotter climates com-
pared to colder climates [183]caused by cell delamination and rapid
degradation [184]. For CPV systems, the increase in CR results in an
increase in radiation intensity per unit area of PV cell as shown in
Fig. 11 [185] leading to elevated PV cell temperature. Temperature
rises in CPV up to 800 °C at a CR of 100× that necessitates cooling to
maximize the lifetime and power output. In the absence of a cooling
system for the CPV system, the gain in electrical power achieved by
increased irradiance can offset the decrease in power conversion effi-
ciency due to increased cell temperature as summarized in Table 10.

Fig. 7. Geometry of compound parabolic concentrator [131].

5. Thermal management of photovoltaics (PV)

Thermal management is an important design element of the PV

Fig. 8. General design of a DTIRC [145].
system that extends from redesigning the PV panel to balance of system
to prevent energy losses [192–194] reaching up to 80% of the incident
radiation that eventually raises PV temperature. This loss emphasizes
an appropriate thermal management design to recover waste heat
[195–197].
Thermal management design involves a heat chain comprised of a
thermal stack, heat exchanger and disposal [180]. A thermal stack re-
fers to various layers of the PV cell from the front to the back of the cell.
The heat chain completes by the disposal of heat with following ap-
proaches to a PV system [198]:

• Transfer to air or fluid

• Storage by phase change material or water
Different passive and active cooling techniques to regulate the CPV
temperature are discussed in [199–205].

5.1. Passive thermal management of concentrated photovoltaics (CPV)

A passive cooling system transfers heat from the point of generation

(PV cell) to disposal (e.g. the ambient). The major advantage of a
passive system lies in zero external energy input to run a cooling system
Fig. 9. The use of an RX concentrator as the imaging secondary in the in- while the limitation stems from reliance on ambient conditions of
tegrator [146]. temperature and wind speed & direction [185]. In refractive con-
centrators, PV cells are located on the back of a concentrator and the
area equivalent to concentrator's inlet aperture area is available on the
back side of the PV cell for cooling. In reflective concentrators, the PV
cells are located in front of the concentrators wherein shading must be

Table 8
Summarized data for the effects of solar spectrum on photovoltaic performance.
Effects of spectrum on PV performance

Ref. Findings

[163] To check the spectral influence, the PV systems in tropical Singapore compared with the standard AM1.5 G spectrum over the average day. It was found that the
spectrum in Singapore is constantly blue-rich compared with the standard AM1.5G spectrum. This blue-rich spectrum results in an annual Effective Irradiance Ratio
(EIR) of 1.07 and 1.03 for a single-junction a-Si module and a CdTe module, respectively which shows the system gain as compared to standard AM1.5 G spectrum
because if EIR > 1 shows system gain and EIR < 1 shows system loss.
[157,158] Visible region in the solar spectrum is responsible to produce the short circuit current and the infrared region has detrimental effects on the device performance. The
visible region of the spectrum decrease and ultraviolet region increase (contributes least to the short circuit current) cause to reduce the short circuit current, power
and efficiency of the PV modules.
[164] The performance of a-Si modules is much more influenced by solar spectrum than the performance of pc-Si modules. However, in the case of pc-Si modules, the
spectrum factor suggests that the contribution of solar spectrum to the variations in the performance is quite small, less than 3%. In the case of the a-Si modules, the
performance is largely influenced by solar spectrum, more than 12%.
[165] The results indicate that solar spectrum has little influence on the annual energy yield of the c-Si module. On the other hand, the spectral influence on the annual
energy yield of the a-Si module increases with decreasing latitude. The effect of the solar spectrum would enhance the annual energy yield of a-Si modules by about
8% at Okinoerabu.
[166] Performance of four thin film PV modules has been explored under solar spectra whose long wavelength light is enhanced, when compared to the AM 1.5 G incident
spectral irradiance distributions. Small annual spectral losses are experienced by the CdTe PV module (0.4%) and small annual spectral gains are experienced by the
CdTe specimen (0.6%). These gains rise to 1.5% for the CIGS PV module. Since the a-Si:H PV module behaves in an opposite way from a spectral point of view, its
spectral losses are equal to 1% on an annual basis.

842
A. Hasan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 94 (2018) 835–852

Table 9
Summarized data for the effects of reflection on photovoltaic performance.
Effects of reflection on PV performance

[172] Most of the normally incident light reflected by a pyramidal texture emerges at an angle of 38.9°. Under an encapsulant having refractive index n > 1.59, this initially
reflected light will be confined by total internal reflection, and will receive a second opportunity to be absorbed by a solar cell, leading to a short circuit current increase
of around 0.39 mA cm−2
[169] Reflection loss of crystalline silicon solar module induced by incident angle of light
[167] The main causes of energy loss are dirt accumulation on the surface of the modules and reflection and absorption losses by the materials covering the cells
[171] Antireflection technologies and optical confinement of the incident light with texturing of the surface help to optimize light absorption.

Fig. 10. Output power versus voltage of a single-crystalline silicon solar cell at
various temperatures: 28 °C, 40 °C, 60 °C, and 80 °C [161].

Fig. 12. Heat spreading concept for CPV modules [207].

Fig. 13. Passive heat sink for a single cell [208].

Fig. 11. Temperature variation of silicon PV cell under concentrated irradiance
[185].
considered in designing a cooling system for the PV cells as reported in
[206].
A simple heat spreading technique for refractive concentrators
suggests a 3 mm thick normal grade aluminum sheet has sufficient heat
spreading coefficient to maintain the cell temperature near to the am-
bient temperature. The surface area of the heat sink should be equal to
the illumination receiving area of the concentrator as shown in Fig. 12.
The concept was applied to a module with a CR of 500 and CPV tem-
perature was maintained at only 20 °C higher than normal irradiated
flat-plate module [207]. The surface area of the same system was in-
creased by installing fins allowing for increased heat dissipation as
shown in Fig. 13 [208]. The cell could be kept below 150 °C at a CR of
90 in ambient temperatures ranged between 35 and 45 °C under calm
air conditions. It was also observed that a finless aluminium base en-
hanced radiation heat loss compared to a finned base, increasing effi-
ciency relative to cost.
A numerical investigation of cell temperature for CPV systems with
a CR of 10 was conducted by Natarajan [209]. The investigation of
aluminum base plates of 2 mm, 5 mm and 10 mm thick with and
without fins concluded that the aluminum base plate with fins better

Table 10
Summarized data for the effects of temperature on photovoltaic performance.
Effects of temperature on PV performance

Ref. Findings

[186] The overall efficiency of single mono-Si solar cell can be decreased up to 10. % by increasing the temperature from 25 °C to 60 °C
[187] Temperature has detrimental effects on the open circuit voltage, maximum power point, fill factor and cell efficiency.
[150,188,189] A temperature rise beyond standard test conditions of 25 °C reduces PV output by 0.25% for amorphous cells and 0.4–0.5% for crystalline cells.
[190] PV cells age faster in hotter climates than in colder climates primarily due to higher operating temperatures.
[143,149,190] The continuous operation of PV cells at higher operating temperatures also induces power failure through delamination and rapid degradation

843
A. Hasan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 94 (2018) 835–852

Fig. 16. ENTECH's Silicone CPV module [214].

Fig. 14. Schematic of solar concentrator PV and the applied boundary condi-
tions [209].

regulated the temperature of the cell compared to an aluminum base

plate with no fins [209] as shown in Fig. 14. A thermal model was
developed to study cooling of a cell bonded to a truncated aluminium
cone attached to an aluminium base plate as shown in Fig. 15(a). Na-
tarajan et al. concluded that a cell diameter below 5 mm yields better
performance [149]. The concept of a high concentration device (CR of
1000) was further refined by Feuermann as shown in Fig. 15(b). An
optical efficiency of 75% was reported and a temperature difference of
38 °C was reported between the PV cell and the ambient with a com-
bined convection-radiation heat loss coefficient of 10 W m-2 K-1 on both
sides of the disc [210]. Fig. 17. Experimental setup of water cooled CPV system [216].
A CPV system based on a prismatic (PMMA) lens concentrator with
a CR of 120 was developed by Mughal with a heat sink consisting of an
aluminium base plate equal in dimensions to the concentrator and
protruding fins from the back of the plate. A temperature difference of
35 °C was maintained between the PV cell and the ambient [211].
A high concentration PV system (CR of 250) involving Fresnel lens
concentrator was developed with a passive cooling system employing a
finned heat sink. The experimental and numerical analysis reported that
the chamber temperature was restricted up to 80 °C [212,213]. Ex-
tensive indoor characterization was conducted for high concentration
PV systems (CR of 100) with a passive cooling system which employed
a point focused Fresnel lens and aluminium base plate as a heat sink. A
maximum cell temperature of 130 °C was reported with natural con-
vection only inducing a cell efficiency loss of up to 50% [110].
A silicon-cell based concentrator module using a line-focused acrylic
Fresnel lens with a CR of 21 and a finned heat sink [214] was in- Fig. 18. Typical heat pipe cross-section [217].
vestigated as shown in Fig. 16. It was concluded that at higher con-
centration, the heat spreading techniques are required to maintain ac-
working fluid in two phases (liquid and vapor) as shown in Fig. 18
ceptable operating temperatures of the cell and reduce system costs.
[217,218]. A temperature difference of ~ 40 °C was reported between
A low-cost silicon PV cell based linear Fresnel lens concentrator
PV cells and the ambient which exceeded the design requirement of the
panel ‘Solar-Volt ™’ was tested at CR of 20. The cell temperature raised
application [217].
up to 50 °C at an ambient temperature of 20 °C and irradiance of
Cooling of a PV cell by a heat pipe for linear concentrator geometry
1000 W m-2 inducing a power loss of ~ 9% [215]. Heat pipes have also
[219] at a CR of 24 with benzene as a working fluid was investigated by
been employed for passive cooling of CPV and transporting heat in the

Fig. 15. Heat sink for passive cooling of a single photovoltaic cell, (A) heat sink with RXI concentrator [149] (B) heat sink with solar mini dish concentrator [210].

844
A. Hasan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 94 (2018) 835–852

[219]. The evaporator temperature reached above 140 °C, exceeding its
design temperature for wind speeds less than 1 m s-1 [219]. A copper
heat pipe with longitudinal copper fins was tested [220] to remove heat
at a CR of 700 using water or acetone as the working fluid. A tem-
perature difference of 30 °C was achieved between the PV cell and the
ambient in the vertical orientation [220].
Passive cooling of a PV with a 45 W heat load resulted in an average
temperature difference of 3 °C. The heat transfer performance of dif-
ferent combinations of a single or double heat pipe configurations with
radial fins or annular fins was evaluated. According to the findings, the
combination of two heat pipes and two radial-fin heat sinks, can
maintain PV cell temperature below 75 °C at 43 W heat load, but the
design of two heat pipes with annular-fins can only manage the heat
load below 50 W [221].
For the passive cooling of a CPV system, the performance of a single
fine heat sink (SFHS) and round pin heat sink (RPHS) were examined.
SFHSs dissipated more heat compared to RPHSs in all examined am-
bient temperatures up to 50 °C. At an ambient temperature of 25 °C the
solar cell average surface temperatures were about 65 °C and 85 °C for
SFHS and RPHS, respectively [222].
For high concentrator photovoltaic (HCPV) systems an analysis of
the benefits of using passive cooling techniques employing aluminum
and copper heat sinks has been carried out. Under the geometric CR of
1000, aluminum heat sinks are preferred over copper because of their
lower densities and costs for the same thermal management. HCPV
installation costs can be reduced by limiting the dimensions of the
cooling system [223]. Experimental findings for different passive
cooling techniques of PVs are presented in Table 11.
5.2. Active thermal management of concentrated photovoltaics (CPV)
Active cooling systems have the potential and ability to regulate the
temperature of a cell in any ambient conditions provided the economics
of the system are not taken into account. A CPV module with its active
cooling system, as shown in Fig. 17, was developed and investigated by
[216]. It has been observed that the performance of the CPV module
with the thermal management increased 4.9 times producing 71.13 W
compared to 16.55 W of the fixed cell [216].
Cooling a densely packed CPV system is hampered by limited heat
sink contact area at the back of the PV cell. This restriction limits the
design of passive cooling systems guiding attention to active cooling
systems [224–226]. The design of a cooling device based on jet im-
pingement for densely packed high concentration systems was pro-
posed. The device consisted of an array of jets and fluid drained from
the sides normal to the surface. An analytical model was developed to
predict and compare the pumping power required to maintain a given
temperature of the PV cell to optimize the design of the jet. It was also
Fig. 19. Schematic diagram of active cooling setup [185].
shown that non-uniform heat transfer distribution of jet arrays does not
have a considerable effect on the electrical performance of the PV array
[227]. A blower based cooling system, as shown in Fig. 19, restricted
PV module temperature at 38 °C thereby enhancing electrical conver-
sion efficiency from 8.6% to 12.5% [228].
A novel nocturnal cooling radiation (NCR) used as a supplemental
heat transfer is proposed by [229]. The nocturnal sky was used as a
supplemental heat sink for the heat pump system to reduce system
energy consumption. Based on the simulation, the nocturnal cooling
radiator was found feasible as a supplemental heat sink for an active
cooling system.
Several studies investigated the liquid immersion cooling technique
for CPV systems [230–234]. In liquid immersion cooling method, heat
is absorbed by circulating coolant from both the front and back surface
of the PV panel [235]. A narrow rectangular channel receiver using a
dimethyl silicone oil immersion cooling method was designed for a
linear CPV system and its performance was investigated experimentally
under an energy flux ratio of 9.1 suns [233]. The results show that the
cell temperature increases in the range of 0–35 °C linearly with silicon
oil temperature. The cooling capacity of the direct liquid-immersion
cooling method is favorable, and the average cell temperature and heat
transfer temperature difference can be maintained in the range of
20–31 °C and 5–16 °C respectively.
A simulation model has been developed to optimize the design for
an active cooling multi-channel heat sink that can maintain the tem-
perature of CPVs below 100 °C up to a CR of 1800. Among all tested
multi-channel heat sink configurations, the heat sink with 1 × 20 mm
configuration showed the best thermal performance and reduced the
temperature of the cell to 91.4 °C with a water flow rate 0.6 m/s [236].
A numerical model of an air based active cooling system has been
developed [237] to predict the solar cell temperature of a multi-junc-
tion CPV system. Air is forced flown within the duct installed behind
the solar cell to regulate the cell operating temperature. Results showed

Table 11
Experimental research findings for PV passive cooling techniques.
Ref. Findings

[167,199] A heat sink with equivalent area to the receiving area of the concentrator raised CPV temperature up to 20 °C higher compared to irradiated flat-plate module under
CR of 50×.
[168,200] The CPV was maintained below 150 °C at a concentration ratio of 90 in high ambient temperatures (35–45 °C) and calm air conditions.
[169,201] The aluminum base plate with fins regulated the temperature of the cell better than aluminum base plate with no fins
[171,202] The heat sink consisted of an aluminium base plate equal in dimensions to the concentrator (heat spreading technique) with aluminium fins which were protruding
from the back of the plate. The temperature difference between the PV cell and the ambient temperature was reported as 35 °C
[173,204] Experimental and numerical analysis were undertaken and it was reported that the chamber temperature reached up to 80 °C
[95,110] Maximum cell temperature of 130 °C was reported at 1000 W m−2 with natural convection only and the reduction in solar cell efficiency was ~ 50% compared to
that at STC.
[174,206] Heat spreading techniques are required to maintain acceptable operating temperatures of the cell during high concentration.
[177,207] Heat pipes used for the passive cooling of CPV system achieved temperature difference of ~ 40 °C between PV cells and the ambient.
[180,212] A copper heat pipe with longitudinal copper fins achieved temperature difference of 30 °C between PV cell and the ambient.
[27,222] Extended heat pipes combined with either annular or radial fins achieved average temperature difference of 3 °C at heat load of 45 W.
[28,223] Two heat sinks used for passive cooling maintained CPV temperature at 108 °C in climate with ambient temperature 40 °C under CR of 500×.
[29,224] Aluminum heat sinks perform better preferred compared to copper range in the geometric CR up to 1000× primarily due to lower densities and costs

845
A. Hasan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 94 (2018) 835–852

that with this configuration of channels the interaction of surface ra-

diation and air convection could effectively cool the solar cell and re-
duced the cell temperature 50% at medium CRs. The channel width
would need to be narrowed to micro-meter values at high concentration
to maintain the required cooling efficiency.
A simulation model was developed to predict the thermal behavior
of different CPV configurations under both active and passive cooling.
An active water cooling technique was used to maintain 1 cm2 solar cell
surface temperature below 80 °C under CR of 500 at different ambient
temperatures ranged between 25 °C and 50 °C. The simulation shows
that by using this model the cell surface temperature and electrical
efficiency can be maintained around 60 °C and 39.5% respectively re-
gardless of the ambient temperature [222].
A comprehensive study involving plate-fin heat sinks concluded that
the average PV cell temperature can be maintained below 75 °C with
less than 2 W of fan power consumption. The maximum waste heat
dissipated was 84 W (21.8 W/cm2) at an ambient temperature of
45 °C [221].
Numerical and experimental analysis of a water cooled hybrid PV-T
Fig. 20. Schematic illustration of indoor testing of PV-PCM system [16].
system is studied with specific interest in its electrical and thermal
performance by [234]. With this active cooling technique, a 20 °C drop
in operating temperature and 9% increase in electrical efficiency was
reported.
Although the active cooling system can achieve lower PV cell tem-
peratures, yet the cooling system adds to system complexity by invol-
ving mechanical components as presented in Table 12.

5.3. Thermal energy recovery in photovoltaics (PV) by phase change

materials (PCM)

Although thermal management systems discussed in previous sec-

tions can remove CPV heat effectively, they lack the ability to store and
deliver heat as demanded. Additionally, the drop-in PV cell temperature
is hampered by sensible heating of the heat transfer fluid. A novel
method to cool PV with an added capability of storing thermal energy
at a constant temperature was proposed by [16]. The technique in-
volves encapsulating phase change materials (PCMs) at the back of the Fig. 21. Schematic of an asymmetric compound parabolic PV concentrator
PV cell resulting in a PV-PCM system that removes heat at the PCM coupled with phase change material [239].
phase transition temperature shown in Fig. 20 [16].
The technique was applied indoors as well as outdoors on a full- concentrator was 88% at a solar angle of 5°, with a predicted decrease
scale PV (70 × 60) and demonstrated a promising potential for tem- of 12%. The temperature and electrical output of the concentrated
perature regulation of the PV. The thermal energy stored by PCM can system with PCM and without PCM was monitored at the irradiance
further be used for water heating [238]. levels of 280 W m-2 and 672 W m-2. A temperature reduction of 7 °C and
Paraffin wax (RT27) PCM was evaluated for temperature regulation 18 °C was achieved at an irradiance of 280 W m-2 and 672 W m-2 re-
of low concentration CPV (CR-2) [239] employing an asymmetric spectively by the concentrator with PCM compared to the concentrator
compound parabolic PV concentrator as shown in Fig. 21. The front and without PCM The CPV-PCM system resulted in a corresponding increase
back of the container were fabricated from aluminum and the sides in electrical output of up to 10% [239].
from Perspex. The maximum predicted optical efficiency of the

Table 12
Experimental research findings for PV active cooling techniques.
Ref. Findings

[27,222] By using plate fins heat sinks with active cooling design, maximum heat dissipation of 84 W (21.8 W/cm2) with PV cell temperature restricted to 75 °C was reported.
[28,223] Water based active cooling system modelled at 0.01 m3/s flow rate has could maintain CPV cell temperature down to 60 °C with and cell efficiency of 39.5%
regardless of the ambient temperature.
[30,238] Air active cooling model configuration, the interaction of surface radiation and air convection could effectively cool the solar cell and reduced the temperature up to
50% at medium concentration ratios
[31,237] Multi-channel heat sink configurations reduced the PV temperature down to 91.4 °C at water flow rate of 0.6 m/s under 1800 suns.
[176,216] By using active water based cooling system 4.9 times electricity was produced compared to non-concentrated fixed cell.
[184,227] Jet impingement based cooling system applied at normal surface to densely packed high concentration CPV system was proposed and simulated. The model predicted
that non-uniform heat of jet arrays does not have significant effect on the cooling performance of the system confirmed by electrical output of the CPV array.
[185,228] An air blower based to cooling CPV temperature at 38 °C with compared to 68 °C of non-cooled under single sun conditions improving the conversion efficiency by
approximately 4%.
[190,233] In silicon immersion cooling method cell temperature maintained in the range of 20–31 °C lower compared to non-cooled cells.
[191,234] A CPV system with active hybrid water cooling boosted electrical conversion efficiency by 9% compared to non-cooled CPV and 4 times compared CPV under single
sun conditions.

846
A. Hasan et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 94 (2018) 835–852

The sizing of the container for all three configurations was based on Table 14
the energy balance for PV-PCM systems developed by Huang Temperature level for industrial heat [254,255].
[16,238,239]. The energy balance equation only considered conduction Industrial sector Unit operation Temperature range (°C)
in the PCM while the natural convection was ignored. The experi-
mentally validated model was predicted a non-uniform temperature Textile Industry Bleaching 60–100
Dying 70–90
distribution indicating thermal stratification within melted PCM [238].
Drying 100–130
The validated container geometry was employed experimentally to Washing 40–80
evaluate different types of PCM, arbitrarily selecting aluminum and Fixing 160–180
Perspex as containment materials [240]. Different experimental find- Pressing 80–100
ings for PV cooling using PCM are presented in Table 13. Chemical Industry Soap 200–260
Synthetic rubber 150–200
The characteristics of a PCM based cooling technique compared to
Processing heat 120–180
the conventional cooling techniques are summarized in [240]. It is Pre heating water 60–90
concluded that apart from a few issues, the PCM based cooling tech- Food Drying 30–90
niques offer an advantage over conventional techniques in terms of Washing 60–90
Pasteurizing 60–80
energy storage and recovery. The technique has been extensively re-
Boiling 95–105
viewed with all the latest developments by [241] which highlights the Sterilizing 110–120
need for mechanisms to improve the heat exchange and exploit the Heat Treatment 40–60
available thermal energy in meeting thermal energy demand. Beverages Washing 60–80
Pasteurizing 60–90
Sterilizing 60–70
6. Industrial applications of recovered thermal energy Paper Industries Cooking and drying 60–80
Boiler feed water 60–90
Bleaching 130–150
Apart from domestic water and space heating, the solar thermal Plastic Industry Preparation 120–140
energy can be injected into various industrial processes [241]. The in- Distillation 140–150
dustrial sector constitutes 37% of the total world energy demand [252] Separation 200–220
representing a major source of energy consumption. Several industries Extension 140–160
Drying 180–200
require low to medium grade heat [253] as summarized in Table 14
Blending 120–140
[254,255]. Industrial thermal energy requirement analysis shows that
solar thermal energy has enormous applications in low (< 150 °C)
medium (150–400 °C) and high (> 400 °C) temperature ranges
[253,256].
The low to medium grade heat can be provided by a solar thermal
system. An extremely high percentage of heat demand in the low-
temperature range is found in food, beverages, paper and textiles in-
dustries. The low to medium grade thermal energy comes from plastics
and chemical industries as described in Table 14.
As discussed previously [16,240,257,258], thermal energy can be
stored and delivered on demand by using PCM as a heat storage ma-
terial. Mostly CPVs are installed and operated in regions with immense
Fig. 22. Melting temperature and heat of fusion of different PCMs. “This plot is
and stable solar radiation intensity wherein CPV temperature fre-
courtesy of Sustainable in Steel” [20].
quently rises above 200 °C [259]. In a CPV system, increasing CR
monotonically yields higher cell temperature [191,260,261] that can be
optimized and exploited for specific applications. 7. Discussion
By using the CPV-PCM system; temperatures up to 200 °C can be
achieved to serve various industries in addition to preventing cell de- As shown in Fig. 1, the developed cells (mono and polycrystalline
terioration through cell cooling. Various PCMs are available with sui- silicon, thin films, multijunction and GaAs) representing a major share
table melting point to store and supply thermal energy at desired of PV panels showed steadily increasing efficiencies. However, in the
temperatures for several industrial applications as summarized in last 15 years, the efficiency improved only marginally. Although the
Fig. 22 [20]. Fig. 22 shows the melting temperature and heat of fusion emerging cells (dye-sensitized, perovskite and organic cells) are
of paraffin and salt hydrates and other non-construction PCMs. showing sharp efficiency increases, the current lower conversion

Table 13
Experimental research findings for PV cooling techniques using PCM.
Ref. Findings

[242] By using the salt hydrate fatty acids the daily average power savings was found to be 7.7% in hot climate in the best case
[243] The maximum drop in peak temperature by using PCM was 5 °C on a cloudy day and 11 °C on clear sky condition
[244] System is cost effective only in warmer climates
[245] The maximum electrical efficiency of this BIPV-PCM can reach 10% and the thermal one 12%
[246] A time lag of 1 h was observed to reach 34.9 °C while the PCM always maintained PV temperature below 50 °C
[247] Energy gain from PV-PCM system was 3.3 kW h in hot and 1.8 kW h in cold climate
[239] Combination of RT27 and RT21 achieves the highest temperature reduction during the daily operation
[17] The open-circuit voltage improvement, at 1000 W/m2 was 4.4% with a reduction in module temperature of 3.8 °C
[248] Lauric acid and palmitic acid PCMs were found to drop the module temperature by 22 °C and 19.5 °C respectively
[249] The PV-PCM system with embedded metal shreds maintains the temperature around 65–68 °C for 3-h compared with paraffin only which reached 84 °C in less than
50 min
[250] CPV-PCM system yields 37.2% more power than CPV-only system in hot climate and 18% in cold climate
[251] A temperature drops of 18 °C with 10% increase in electrical efficiency is achieved by the CPV-PCM system at high intensity 672 W/m2

847
A. Hasan et al.
efficiencies (dye-sensitized and organic cells) and stability issues (per-
ovskite) limits their market penetration. Therefore, prospects for effi-
ciency improvement in mature PV technologies are limited and may not
offer a promising route for performance improvement. As shown in
Table 4, the single crystal concentrated PV possesses the highest effi-
ciency of 26.7%. However, the cells are subjected to very high tem-
peratures depending on CR that eventually leads to power and struc-
tural failures in CPV. As presented in Table 10, the increased
temperature induces power losses [186–190] and cell delamination
which leads to reduced cell life [143,149,190]. The temperature-in-
duced power loss in CPV is substantially lower (0.25%/K) in amorphous
cells [188] compared to 0.5%/K in crystalline cells [189]. The CPV
power loss and cell degradation can be mitigated by effective thermal
management techniques summarized in Tables 11 and 12.
Passive thermal management employing a heat sink equivalent in
area to the concentrator could bring CPV temperatures down to 35 °C
above ambient temperature [199] and 20 °C above the temperature of
single sun irradiated flat plate [202] while a heat pipe based approach
restricted CPV temperature to 30 °C above the ambient [212]. Although
the thermal management approaches presented in references
[199,202,212] manages CPV temperature effectively, the technique is
considered impractical due to the oversized heat sink and the associated
system cost. A more practical passive approach involves heat sink area
comparable to PV cell area, but the CPV temperature remains sub-
stantially higher at 130 °C [110] and 150 °C [200] under different CRs
and heat sink designs.
CPV cooling systems employing forced air circulation achieved CPV
temperature as low as 75 °C being comparable to temperatures achieved
by single sun PV without thermal management systems [222]. A water-
based CPV cooling system restricted CPV temperatures to 60 °C with an
electrical conversion efficiency of 39.7% [223] being 4 times the
standard non-concentrated PV system without cooling system
[216,234]. A multichannel heat sink employing a water-based active
cooling system could reduce the CPV temperature to 91.4 °C under a
very high CR of 1800 [237]. It is obvious that CPVs employing active
cooling systems achieve substantially lower temperatures compared to
CPV systems employing passive cooling systems under similar condi-
tions. However, considering fan/pump installation, energy consump-
tion and water consumption, the active systems become costlier, less
maintainable and less energy inefficient.
A novel thermal management system employing PCM beneath a
non-concentrated PV system reported improved energy performance
along with effective cell cooling primarily by virtue of recovering
thermal energy otherwise discarded in the conventional passive and
active cooling systems [242–247]. The CPV-PCM system achieved a
37% increase in energy output compared to the CPV system in a hot
climate without requiring additional energy input, no active fan/pump
and no water consumption [250,251]. The thermal energy stored in the
PCM can be injected to industrial processes with heat demand in the
medium temperature range of 60–260 °C [254,255] summarized in
Table 14. The PCMs are available in wide range of melting points that
can store heat at required temperatures for various industrial applica-
tions. The combined benefit of reduced CPV temperature, enhanced
energy recovery and integration into industrial processes offer potential
advantages to the newly developed CPV-PCM based cooling technique.
8. Conclusions
Current PV cells possess little scope to improve cell efficiency in
order to improve the PV performance. A promising option to enhance
PV performance entails solar radiation concentration by cheaper optical
elements replacing expensive cell materials leading to CPV technology.
CPV is a promising technology capable of generating electricity at
higher efficiency compared to current PV technology. However, CPVs
experience substantially higher temperatures depending on the CR.
These higher temperatures tend to deteriorate CPV life and efficiency,
848
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 94 (2018) 835–852
thus requiring an effective thermal management system to mitigate the
adverse effects. The conventional thermal management system dis-
sipates thermal energy through passive and active means to prevent cell
damage and efficiency loss.
Passive temperature management techniques involve buoyancy
driven natural air circulation and heat pipe based systems. The passive
systems possess benefits of lower initial cost, no maintenance and no
energy consumption, but suffer from lower heat removal rates de-
pending on wind speed and direction. Passive air circulation could
maintain CPV temperature to 130 °C without a heat sink and 108 °C
with a heat sink in optimal conditions. The active systems involve
forced air or water circulation and can achieve higher heat transfer
rates, but also involve higher initial cost and fan/pump energy con-
sumption. Active systems reportedly achieved a temperature decrease
to 75 °C and 60 °C in case of forced air and water circulation respec-
tively.
An emerging CPV thermal management technique employing PCM
shows promise in terms of cell cooling and thermal energy storage. The
CPV-PCM technique at lower CR maintained CPV temperature at 65 °C
and enhanced CPV energy performance by 37.2% compared to CPV
without PCM. The core benefit of the CPV-PCM technique lies in its
ability to store and deliver heat at a desired temperature meeting
supply and demanded dynamics. These CPV-PCM systems can be tai-
lored as cooling systems for CPVs under wide CRs to supply heat for
industrial processes merely by selecting the proper PCM phase transi-
tion temperatures.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support from
UAE University through center-based research Grant no. 31R040-
Research-center-ECEER-3-2014 and the College of Engineering for the
facilities to conduct the research.
References
[1] Browne MC, Quigley D, Hard HR, Gilligan S, Ribeiro NCC, Almeida N, McCormack
SJ. Assessing the thermal performance of phase change material in a photovoltaic/
thermal system. Energy Procedia 2016;91:113–21.
[2] Lewis NS, Crabtree G. Basic research needs for solar energy utilization. Report of
the basic energy sciences workshop on solar energy utilization; April 18–21, 2005.
[3] Ogunleye IO, Awogbemi O. Constraints to the use of solar photovoltaic as a sus-
tainable power source. Am J Sci Ind Res 2011;2:11–6.
[4] Luque A, Andreev V. Past experiences and new challenges of PV, concentrator
photovoltaics. Berlin: Springer; 2007.
[5] Khamooshi M, Salati H, Egelioglu F, Faghiri AH, Tarabishi J, Babadi S. A review of
solar photovoltaic concentrator. Int J Photo Energy 2014:17.
[6] Chemisana D. Building integrated concentrating photovoltaics: a review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:603–11.
[7] Emam M, Ahmed M, Ookawara S. Thermal regulation enhancement of con-
centrated photovoltaic systems using phase-change materials. In: Proceedings of
the 8th international exergy, energy and environment symposium (IEEES-8).
Antalya, Turkey; 2016.
[8] Kaldellis JK, Kapsali M, Kavadias KA. Temperature and wind speed impact on the
efficiency of PV installations. Experience obtained from outdoor measurements in
Greece. Renew Energy 2014;66:612–24.
[9] Yadav P, Tripathi B, Pandeya K, Kumar M. Effect of varying concentration and
temperature on steady and dynamic parameters of low concentration photovoltaic
energy system. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2014;61:101–10.
[10] Royne A, Dey CJ, Mills DR. Cooling of photovoltaic cells under concentrated il-
lumination: a critical review. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2005;86:451–83.
[11] Yang K, Zuo C. A novel multi-layer manifold microchannel cooling system. Energy
Convers Manag 2014;89:214–21.
[12] Reddy KS, Lokeswaran S, Agarwal P, Mallick TK. Numerical investigation of micro-
channel based active module cooling for solar cpv system. Energy Procedia
2014;54:400–16.
[13] Micheli L, Reddy KS, Mallick TK. Plate micro-fins in natural convection: an op-
portunity for passive concentrating photovoltaic cooling. Energy Procedia
2015;82:301–8.
[14] Anderson WG, Tamanna S, Sarraf DB, Dussinger PM. Heat pipe cooling of con-
centrating photovoltaic (cpv) systems. In: Proceedings of the photovoltaic spe-
cialists conference, PVSC '08. 33rd IEEE, San Diego, CA, USA; 2008.
[15] Lee D, Baek SW. Development of a heating system using CPV technology and heat
pipes. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 2015;34:1197–207.
[16] Huang MJ, Eames PC, Norton B. Thermal regulation of building-integrated
A. Hasan et al.
photovoltaics using phase change materials. Int J Heat Mass Transf
2014;47:2715–33.
[17] Sharma S, Tahir A, Reddy KS, Mallick TK. Performance enhancement of a building-
integrated concentrating photovoltaic system using phase change material. Sol
Energy Mater Sol Cells 2016;149:29–39.
[18] Kośny J, Shukla N, Fallahi A. Cost analysis of simple phase change material-en-
hanced building envelopes in Southern U.S. climates. U.S. Department of Energy;
2013.
[19] Browne MC, Norton B, McCormack SJ. Phase change materials for photovoltaic
thermal management. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;47:762–82.
[20] Bouwen met Staal. PCMs for construction; 2016. 〈http://www.sustainableinsteel.
eu/p/555/pcms_for_construction.html〉. [Cited: 01 06].
[21] Miles RW, Zoppi G, Forbes I. Inorganic photovoltaic cells. Materialstoday
2007;10:20–7.
[22] Nozik AJ. Quantum dot solar cells. Phys E: Low-Dimens Syst Nanostruct
2002;14:115–20.
[23] Aroutiounian VM, Petrosyan S, Khachatryan A, Touryan KJ. Solar and switching
materials. In: Proceedings of the SPIE 4458. San Diego, CA, USA; November 13,
2001.
[24] Raffaelle RP, Castro SL, Hepp AF, Bailey SG. Prog Photovolt 2002;10:433–9.
[25] Kamat PV. Quantum dot solar cells. semiconductor nanocrystals as light har-
vesters. J Phys Chem 2008;112:18737–53.
[26] Ameri T, Dennler G, Lungenschmieda C, Brabeca CJ. Organic tandem solar cells: a
review. Energy Environ Sci 2009:347–63.
[27] Hadipour A, Boer BD, Wildeman J, Kooistra FB, Hummelen JC. Solution-processed
organic tandem solar cells. Adv Funct Mater 2006;16:1897–903.
[28] Glaser K, Pütz A, Mescher J, Bahro D, Colsmann A. 14. Organic tandem solar cells:
organic photovoltaics: materials, device physics, and manufacturing technologies.
Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co.; 2014. p. 445–64.
[29] Riede M, Uhrich C, Widmer J, Timmreck R, Wynands D, Schwartz G, Gnehr WM,
Hildebrandt D, Weiss A, Hwang J, Sundarraj S, Erk P, Pfeiffer M, Leo K. Efficient
organic tandem solar cells based on small molecules. Adv Funct Mater
2011;21:3019–28.
[30] Cheyns D, Rand BP, Heremans P. Organic tandem solar cells with complementary
absorbing layers and a high open-circuit voltage. Appl Phys Lett 2010;97:3.
[31] Forrest SR, Lassiter BE, Wei G, Organic tandem solar cells. US 20100084011 A1
The Regents of The University of Michigan; 04, 08, 2010.
[32] You J, Dou L, Yoshimura K, Kato T, Ohya K, Moriarty T, Emery K, Chen CC, Gao J,
Li G, Yang Y. A polymer tandem solar cell with 10.6% power conversion efficiency.
Nat Commun 2013;4:1446.
[33] Zhou H, Chen Q, Li G, Luo S, Song TB, Duan HS, Hong Z, You J, Liu Y, Yang Y.
Interface engineering of highly efficient perovskite solar cells. Science
2014;345:542–6.
[34] Wang D, Wright M, Elumalai NK, Uddin A. Stability of perovskite solar cells. Sol
Energy Mater Sol Cells 2016;147:255–75.
[35] Betancur R, Ramirez D, Montoya JF, Jaramillo F. A calorimetric approach to reach
high performance perovskite solar cells. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells
2016;146:44–50.
[36] Jiang Z, Chen X, Lin X, Jia X, Wang J, Pan L, Huang S, Zhu F, Sun Z. Amazing
stable open-circuit voltage in perovskite solar cells using AgAl alloy electrode. Sol
Energy Mater Sol Cells 2016;146:35–43.
[37] Huang C, Fu N, Liu F, Jiang L, Hao X, Huang H. Highly efficient perovskite solar
cells with precursor composition-dependent morphology. Sol Energy Mater Sol
Cells 2016;145:231–7.
[38] Liu M, Johnston MB, Snaith HJ. Efficient planar heterojunction perovskite solar
cells by vapour deposition. Nature 2013;501:395–8.
[39] Sharaf OZ, Orhan MF. Concentrated photovoltaic thermal (CPVT) solar collector
systems: Part I – Fundamentals, design considerations and current technologies.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:1500–65.
[40] ISE. Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems. Photovoltaics report. Freiburg:
Fraunhofer ISE; 2015.
[41] Lan CW, Hsu C, Nakajima K. 10 – Multicrystalline silicon crystal growth for
photovoltaic applications. Handbook of crystal growth: bulk crystal growth
(second edition). Bulk crystal growth; 2015. p. 373–411.
[42] Tang X, Francis LA, Gong L, Wang F, Raskin JP, Flandre D, Zhang S, You D, Wu L,
Dai B. Characterization of high-efficiency multi-crystalline silicon in industrial
production. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2013;117:225–30.
[43] He H, Yu X, Wu Y, Mu X, Zhu H, Yuan S, Yang D. 13.7% efficiency graphene–-
gallium arsenide schottky junction solar cells with a P3HT hole transport layer.
Nano Energy 2015;16:91–8.
[44] Green MA, Emery K, Hishikawa Y, Warta W, Dunlop ED. Solar cell efficiency tables
(version 45). Prog. Photovolt: Res Appl 2014;23:1–9.
[45] Sinovoltaics. Solar cell guide, Part 4 - Organic and dye sensitized solar cells; 2016.
〈http://sinovoltaics.com/solar-basics/solar-cell-guide-part-4-organic-and-dye-
sensitized-solar-cells/〉. [Cited: 04 28].
[46] Ramanathan K, Keane J, Noufi R. Properties of high-efficiency cigs thin-film solar
cells. In: Proceedings of the 31st IEEE photovoltaics specialists conference and
exhibition. Lake Buena Vista, Florida; 2005.
[47] Lee TD, Ebong A. Thin film solar technologies: a review. In: Proceedings of the
12th international conference on high-capacity optical networks and enabling/
emerging technologies (HONET). Islamabad; 2015.
[48] Kibria MT, Ahammed A, Sony SM, Hossain F, Islam SU. A Review: Comparative
studies on different generation solar cells technology. In: Proceedings of the 5th
international conference on environmental aspects of Bangladesh [ICEAB 2014].
Dhaka, Bangladash; 2014.
[49] Liu P, Yang S, Ma Y, Lu X, Jia Y, Ding D, Chen Y. Design of Ag nanograting for
849
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 94 (2018) 835–852
broadband absorption enhancement in amorphous silicon thin film solar cells.
Mater Sci Semicond Process 2015;39:760–3.
[50] Cho J, Pham DP, Jung J, Shin C, Park J, Kim S, Le AHT, Park H, Iftiquar SM, Yi J.
Improvement of hydrogenated amorphous silicon germanium thin film solar cells
by different p-type contact layer. Mater Sci Semicond Process 2016;41:480–4.
[51] Fang Z, Wang XC, Wu HC, Zhao CZ. Achievements and challenges of cds/cdte solar
cells. Int J Photo 2011.
[52] Djurišić AB, Liu F, Ng AMC, Dong Q, Wong MK, Ng A, Surya C. Stability issues of
the next generation solar cells, hysica status solidi (RRL). Rapid Res Lett
2016;10:281–99.
[53] Raj CC, Prasanth R. A critical review of recent developments in nanomaterials for
photoelectrodes in dye sensitized solar cells. J Power Sources 2016;317:120–32.
[54] Ali N, Hussain A, Ahmed R, Wang MK, Zhao C, Ul Haq B, Fu YQ. Advances in
nanostructured thin film materials for solar cell applications. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2016;59:726–37.
[55] Jasim KE. Quantum dots solar cells. "solar cells - new approaches and reviews";
2015. 〈http://www.intechopen.com/books/solar-cells-new-approaches-and-
reviews/quantum-dots-solar-cells〉.
[56] Zheng Z, Ji H, Yu P, Wang Z. Recent progress towards quantum dot solar cells with
enhanced optical absorption. Nanoscale Res Lett 2016;11. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1186/s11671-016-1457-y.
[57] Feron K, Belcher WJ, Fell CJ, Dastoor PC. Organic solar cells: understanding the
role of forster resonance energy transfer. Int J Mol Sci 2012;13:17019–47.
[58] Sinovoltaics. Solar cell guide, Part 4 - Organic and Dye Sensitized solar cells; 2016.
〈http://sinovoltaics.com/solar-basics/solar-cell-guide-part-4-organic-and-dye-
sensitized-solar-cells/〉. [Cited: 04 27].
[59] Wanga P, Wanga J, Yua H, Zhaob L, Yu J. Hierarchically macro–mesoporous TiO2
film via self-assembled strategy for enhanced efficiency of dye sensitized solar
cells. Mater Res Bull 2016;74:380–6.
[60] Luk B. Dye-sensitized solar cells; 2015. 〈http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2010/
ph240/luk2/〉. [Cited: 30 12].
[61] Friedman DJ. Progress and challenges for next-generation high-efficiency multi-
junction solar cells. Curr Opin Solid State Mater Sci 2010;14:131–8.
[62] Moczała M, Sosa N, Topol A, Gotszalk T. Investigation of multi-junction solar cells
using electrostatic fore microscopy methods. Ultramicroscopy 2014;141:1–8.
[63] Ward A. Nanotechnology in solar cells, 136.142.82.187/eng12/Author/data/
2129.docx. [Cited: 05 18]; 2016.
[64] Ahmed R. Quantum dots: the pros and cons in PV; 2016. 〈http://www.pv-
magazine.com/archive/articles/beitrag/quantum-dots–the-pros-and-cons-in-pv-_
100010173/572/#axzz48wkIkG9Z〉. [Cited: 05 01].
[65] Bagher AM. Quantum dots applications. Sens Transducers 2016;198:37–43.
[66] NREL. National center for photovoltaic; 2017. 〈https://www.nrel.gov/pv/assets/
images/efficiency-chart.png〉. [Cited: 10 19].
[67] Wang Dian, Wright Matthew, Elumalai Naveen Kumar, Uddin Ashraf. Stability of
perovskite solar cells. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2016;147:255–75.
[68] Mesquita Isabel, Andrade Luísa, Mendes Adélio. Perovskite solar cells: materials,
configurations and stability. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;000:1–19.
[69] Khalaji Assadi M, Bakhoda S, Saidur R, Hanaei H. Recent progress in perovskite
solar cells. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;81:2812–22.
[70] Chao Lingfeng, Wang Ze, Xia Yingdong, Chen Yonghua, Huang Wei. Recent pro-
gress on low dimensional perovskite solar cells. J Energy Chem 2017;000:1–10.
[71] Albert Polman Mark W, Knight Erik C, Garnett, Wim C Sinke. Photovoltaic ma-
terials - present efficiencies and future challenges. Science 2016;352. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1126/science.aad4424.
[72] Li Weimin, Yan Xia, Xu Wei-Lun, Long Jidong, Venkataraj Selvaraj. Efficiency
improvement of CIGS solar cells by a modified rear contact. Sol Energy
2017;157:486–95.
[73] Schindler Florian, Michl Bernhard, Krenckel Patricia, Riepe Stephan, Benick Jan,
Müller Ralph, Richter Armin, Glunza Stefan W, Schubert Martin C. Optimized
multicrystalline silicon for solar cells enabling conversion efficiencies of 22%. Sol
Energy Mater Sol Cells 2017;171:180–6.
[74] Kumar Manish, Kumar Arun. Performance assessment and degradation analysis of
solar photovoltaic technologies: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017;78:554–87.
[75] Bianchini Augusto, Guzzini Alessandro, Pellegrini Marco, Saccani Cesare.
Photovoltaic/thermal (PV/T) solar system: experimental measurements, perfor-
mance analysis and economic assessment. Renew Energy 2017;111:543–55.
[76] Brahim Taoufik, Jemni Abdelmajid. Economical assessment and applications of
photovoltaic/thermal hybrid solar technology: a review. Sol Energy
2017;153:540–61.
[77] Bianchini Augusto, Gambuti Michele, Pellegrini Marco, Saccani Cesare.
Performance analysis and economic assessment of different photovoltaic technol-
ogies based on experimental measurements. Renew Energy 2016;85:1–11.
[78] Tossa Alain K, Soro YM, Thiaw L, Azoumah Y, Razongles Guillaume. Energy per-
formance of different silicon photovoltaic technologies under hot and harsh cli-
mate. Energy 2016;103:261–70.
[79] Zahedi A. Review of modelling details in relation to low-concentration solar
concentrating photovoltaic. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:1609–14.
[80] Pérez-Higueras P, Munoz E, Almonacid G, Vidal PG. High concentrator photo-
voltaics efficiencies: present status and forecast. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2011;15:1810–5.
[81] Han Xue, Zhao Guankun, Xu Chao, Ju Xing, Yang Yongping. Parametric analysis of
a hybrid solar concentrating photovoltaic/concentrating solar power (CPV/CSP)
system. Appl Energy 2017;189:520–33.
[82] Singh H, Sabry M, Redpath DAG. Experimental investigations into low con-
centrating line axis solar concentrators for CPV applications. Sol Energy
A. Hasan et al.
2016;136:421–7.
[83] Chr. Lamnatou D. Chemisana, concentrating solar systems: life cycle assessment
(lca) and environmental issues. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;78:916–32.
[84] Rabl A. Comparison of solar concentrators. Sol Energy 1975;18:93–111.
[85] De 70 DK, Olukunle OC. A brief review of solar concentrators. Energy Econ
Environ (ICEEE) 2015:1–7.
[86] Wu Y, Connelly K, Liu Y, Gu X, Gao Y, Chen GZ. Smart solar concentrators for
building integrated photovoltaic facades. Sol Energy 2016;133:111–8.
[87] Philipps SP, Bett AW, Horowitz K, Kurtz S. Current status of concentrator photo-
voltaic (cpv) technology. U.S.: Fraunhofer ISE and NREL; 2015.
[88] Reis F. Development of photovoltaic systems with concentration; 2013.
[89] IEC. 62108, Concentrator photovoltaic (CPV) modules and assemblies - Design
qualification and type approval; 2015. 〈https://webstore.iec.ch/publication/
6469〉. [Cited: 09 07].
[90] ESMAP. Concentrated Phtovoltaic (CPV), Energy Sector Managment Assistance
Program (ESMAP); 2014.
[91] Renewable Global Energy. Renewable global energy; 2015. 〈http://rge360.com/〉.
[Cited: 09 01].
[92] Chemisana D. Building integrated concentrating photovoltaics: a review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:603–11.
[93] Luque A, Hegedus S. Photovoltaic concentrators. Photovoltaic science and en-
gineering. John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2003. p. 449–503.
[94] Hussain MI, Lee GH. Thermal performance comparison of line- and point-focus
solar concentrating systems: experimental and numerical analyses. Sol Energy
2016;133:44–54.
[95] Luque AL, Viacheslav A. Silicon concentrator solar cells. Concentrator photo-
voltaics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2007. p. 51–66.
[96] Mills DR, Giutronich JE. Ideal prism solar concentrators. Sol Energy
1978;21:423–30.
[97] Anil PA, Compound parabolic concentrator. Kanpur: Mechanical Engineering
Department Indian Institute of Technology. Roll No.: 10105066.
[98] Welford WT, Winston R. The optics of nonimaging concentrators: light and solar
energy. Academic Press; 1978.
[99] Amanlou Y, Hashjin TT, Ghobadian B, Najafi G, Mamat R. A comprehensive review
of uniform solar illumination at low concentration photovoltaic (LCPV) systems.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;60:1430–41.
[100] Leutz R, Suzuki A. Nonimaging fresnel lens (design and performance of solar
concentrator). Springer; 2001.
[101] Xie WT, Dai YJ, Wang RZ, Sumathy K. Concentrated solar energy applications
using fresnel lenses: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:2588–606.
[102] Shen Y, Jia Y, Sheng X, Sheng L, Rogers JA, Giebink NC. Nonimaging optical gain
in luminescent concentration through. ACS Photonics 2014;1:746–53.
[103] Bailey ST, Lokey GE, Hanes MS, Shearer JDM, McLafferty JB, Beaumont GT,
Baseler TT, Layhue JM, Broussard DR, Zhang Y-Z, Wittmershaus BP. Optimized
excitation energy transfer in a three-dye luminescent solar concentrator, 1. Sol
Energy Mater Sol Cells 2007;91:67–75. [67-75].
[104] Sanguineti A, Sassi M, Turrisi R, Ruffo R, Vaccaro G, Meinardi F, Beverina L. High
stokes shift perylene dyes for luminescent solar concentrators. Chem Commun
2013;49:1618–20.
[105] Videira J, Bilott E, Chatten A. Cylindrical array luminescent solar concentrators:
performance boosts by geometric effects. Opt Express 2016;24.
[106] MacQueen RW, Tayebjee M, Webb J, Falber A, Thordarson P, Schmidt TW.
Limitations and design considerations for donor–acceptor systems in luminescent
solar concentrators: the effect of coupling induced. J Opt 2016;18:7.
[107] Cook MS. Photovoltaic solar system with dispersive concentrator. WO1991004580
A1; 1991.
[108] Sierra C, Vanquez AJ. High solar energy concentration with fresnel lens. J Mater
Sci 2005;40:1339–43.
[109] González JC. Design and analysis of a curved cylindrical Fresnel lens that produces
high irradiance uniformity on the solar cell. Appl Opt 2009;48:2127–32.
[110] Wu Y, Eames P, Mallick T, Sabry M. Experimental characterisation of a fresnel
lens. Sol Energy 2012;86:430–40.
[111] Chemisana D, Ibanez M, Barrau J. Comparison of fresnel concentrators for
building integrated photovoltaics. Energy Convers Manag 2009;50:1079–84.
[112] Akisawa A, Sato T, Miyazaki T, Kashiwagi T, Hiramatsu M. High concentration
non-imaging fresnel lens design with flat upper surface. SPIE 2007;6649:8.
[113] Joseph M, O’Neill. Stretched fresnel lens solar concentrator for space power,
6075200 USA. 06 13; 2000.
[114] Hornung T, Steiner M, Nitz P. Estimation of the influence of fresnel lens tem-
perature on energy generation. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2012;99:333–8.
[115] Huraib FS, Hasnain SM, Alawaji SH. Lessons learned from solar energy projects in
Saudi Arabia. Renew Energy 1996;9:1144–7.
[116] Miller DC, Kurtz SR. Durability of fresnel lenses: a review specific to the con-
centrating photovoltaic application. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2011;95:2037–68.
[117] Winston R. Thermodynamics illuminates solar optics; 2016. 〈http://spie.org/
newsroom/technical-articles-archive/3494-thermodynamics-illuminates-solar-
optics?ArticleID=x48979〉. [Cited: 01 31].
[118] Kennedy M, McCormack SJ, Doran J, Norton B. Improving the optical efficiency
and concentration of a single-plate quantum dot solar concentrator using near-
infra-red emitting quantum dots. Sol Energy 2009;83:978–81.
[119] Barnham K, Marques JL, Hassard J, O’Brien P. Quantum-dot concentrator and
thermodynamic model for the global redshift. Appl Phys Lett 2000;76:1197–9.
[120] Roaf S, Robertson N. Scottish institute for solar energy research; 2015. 〈http://
siser.eps.hw.ac.uk/research/concentrating-pv/luminescent-solar-concentrators-
lscs〉. [Cited: 09 20].
[121] Chattena AJ, Barnhama KWJ, Buxton BF, Ekins-Daukesa NJ, Malik MA. A new
850
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 94 (2018) 835–852
approach to modelling quantum. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2003;75:363–71.
[122] Gallaghera SJ, Eamesb PC, Nortonc B. Quantum dot solar concentrator behaviour,
predicted using a ray trace approach. Int J Ambient Energy 2004;25:47–56.
[123] Tao T, Hongfei Z, Kaiyan H, Mayere A. A new trough solar concentrator and its
performance analysis. Sol Energy 2011;85:198–207.
[124] Price H, pfert EL, Kearney D, Zarza E, Cohen G, Mahoney R. Advances in parabolic
trough solar power technology. J Sol Energy Eng 2002;124:109–25.
[125] Barton SA, Winger IL. Parabolic-dish solar concentrators of film on foam; 2009. p.
1–15. Available from: 〈http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0903/0903.1601.pdf〉.
[126] DeMeo EA. Renewable energy technology. Washington, California: Electric Power
Research Institute, Inc. and U.S. Department of Energy; 1997. [TR-109496].
[127] Mancini T, Heller P, Butler B, Osborn B, Schiel W, Goldberg V, Buck R, Diver R,
Andraka C, Moreno J. Dish-stirling systems: an overview of development and
status. J Sol Energy Eng 2003;125:135–51.
[128] Schlaich J. Tension structures for solar electricity generation. Eng Struct
1999;21:658–68.
[129] L. R. Corporation. Compound parabolic concentrator; 2015. 〈http://www.
genuineholographics.com/PDF/tracepropdf/compound%20parabolic
%20concentrator%20(cpc).pdf〉. [Cited: 08 25].
[130] Sukhatme SP, Nayak JK. Solar energy: principles of thermal collection and storage.
3rd edition Tata McGraw-Hill Education; 1996. p. 233–4.
[131] Mgbemene CA, Duffy J, Sun H, Onyegegbu SO. Electricity generation from a
compound parabolic concentrator coupled to a thermoelectric module. Sol Energy
Eng 2010;32:8.
[132] Nilsson J. Optical design and characterization of solar concentrators for photo-
voltaics. Johan Nilsson Div Energy Build Des 2005.
[133] Zagolla V, Dominé D, Tremblay E, Moser C. Self-tracking solar concentrator with
an acceptance angle of 32°. NCBI 2014;22:A1880–94.
[134] Isa MM, Abd-Rahman R, Goh HH. Design optimisation of compound parabolic
concentrator (CPC) for improved performance, International Journal of electrical,
Computer, energetic. Electron Commun Eng 2015;9:8.
[135] Sheth MG, Shah PK. Design and development of compound parabolic con-
centrating solar collector with flat plate absorber. Int J Innov Res Sci
2013;2:3885–9.
[136] Mallick TK, Eames PC, Hyde TJ, Norton B. The design and experimental char-
acterisation of an asymmetric compound parabolic photovoltaic concentrator for
building façade integration in the UK. Sol Energy 2004;77:319–27.
[137] Sellami N, Mallick TK. Optical efficiency study of PV crossed compound parabolic
concentrator. Appl Energy 2013;102:868–76.
[138] Rabl A. Optical and thermal properties of compound parabolic concentrators. Sol
Energy 1976;18:497–511.
[139] Wang J, Yu L, Jiang C, Yang S, Liu T. Optical analysis of solar collector with new
V-shaped CPC. Sol Energy 2016;135:780–5.
[140] Subrahmanyam N, Lal B, Avadhanulu MN. Optics. New Delhi: S. Chand &
Company LTD.; 2008.
[141] Soules JA, Buchele DR, Castle CH, Macosko RP. Design and fabrication of a di-
electric total internal reflecting solar concentrator and associated flux extractor for
extreme high temperature (2500 K) applications. NASA Contractor Report
204145. 1997.
[142] Winston R, Minano JC, Benitez P. Non imaging optics. Acadamic Press; 1989.
[143] Stine WB, Geyer M. Power from the sun; 2001. 〈http://www.powerfromthesun.
net/book.html〉, [Cited: 08 25].
[144] Sukki FM, Iniguez RR, McMeekin SG, Stewart BG, Clive B. Solar cocentrator, in-
ternational. J Appl Sci 2010;1:15.
[145] Ning X, Winston Ro, O’Gallagher J. Dielectric totally internally reflecting con-
centrators. Appl Opt 1987;26:300–5.
[146] Winston R, Minano JC, Benitez P. Nonimaging optics. San Diego, Calif, USA:
Elsevier Academic Press; 2005.
[147] Hernández M, Cvetkovic A, Benítez P, Miñano JC. High-performance kohler
concentrators with uniform irradiance on solar cell.In: Proceedings of SPIE - the
international society for optical engineering 7059:7. Madrid, Spain; 2008.
[148] Marti A, Luque A. Next generation photovoltaics: high efficiency through full
spectrum utilization. Taylor and Frencis group, LLC; 2003.
[149] Minano JC, Gonzalez JC, Zanesco I. Flat high concentration devices. Waikoloa, HI:
IEEE; 1994.
[150] Malato S, Blanco J, Vidal A, Richter C. Photocatalysis with solar energy at a pilot-
plant scale: an overview. Appl Catal B: Environ 2002;37:1–15.
[151] Khamooshi M, Salati H, Egelioglu F, Faghiri AH, Tarabishi J, Babadi S. A review of
solar photovoltaic concentrators. Int J Photo 2014:17.
[152] Ustaoglu A, Alptekin M, Okajima J, Maruyama S. Evaluation of uniformity of solar
illumination on the receiver of compound parabolic concentrator (CPC). Sol
Energy 2016;132:150–64.
[153] Zheng Z, Ji H, Yu P, Wang Z. Recent progress towards quantum dot solar cells with
enhanced optical absorption. Nanoscale Res Lett 2016;11.
[154] Tummeltshammer C, Taylor A, Kenyon AJ, Papakonstantinou I. Losses in-
luminescentsolarconcentratorsunveiled. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells
2016;144:40–7.
[155] Mondoc B, Pop F. Romania, Factor influencing the performance of phovoltaic
power plant,. In: Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on modern
power system. MPS; 2010.
[156] Einstein A. Über die entwicklung unserer anschauungen über das wesen und die
konstitution der strahllung. Phys Z 1909;10:9.
[157] Ghitas Ahmed Elsayed. Studying the effect of spectral variations intensity of the
incident solar radiation on the Si solar cells performance. NRIAG J Astron Geophys
2012;1:165–71.
[158] Okull W, Munji MK, Vorster FJ, van Dyk EE. Effects of spectral variation on the
A. Hasan et al.
device performance of copper indium diselenide and multi-crystalline silicon
photovoltaic modules. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2011;95:759–64.
[159] Green MA. Solar cells: operating principles, technology, and system applications.
USA: Prentice-Hall Series in Solid State Physical Electronics; 1982.
[160] Luque A, Hegedus S. Handbook of photovoltaic science and engineering. UK: John
Wiley & Sons, Wiley Ltd; 2011.
[161] Radziemska E. The effect of temperature on the power drop in crystalline silicon
solar cells. Renew Energy 2003;28:1–12.
[162] van Sark W, Meijerink A, Schropp R, Van Roosmalen J, Lysen EH. Enhancing solar
cell efficiency by using spectral coverters. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells
2005;87:395–409.
[163] Ye Jia Ying, Reindl T, Aberle AG, Walsh TM. Effect of solar spectrum on the
performance of various thin-film pv module technologies in tropical singapore.
IEEE J Photovolt 2014:1268–74.
[164] Ishii Tetsuyuki, Otani Kenji, Takashima Takumi. Effects of solar spectrum and
module temperature on outdoor performance of photovoltaic modules in round-
robin measurements in Japan. Prog Photovolt 2011;19:141–8.
[165] Ishii Tetsuyuki, Otani Kenji, Itagaki Akihiko, Utsunomiya Kenji. A simplified
methodology for estimating solar spectral influence on photovoltaic energy yield
using average photon energy. Energy Sci Eng 2013;1:18–26.
[166] Nofuentes G, de la Casa J, Torres-Ramírez M, Alonso-Abella M. Solar spectral and
module temperature influence on the outdoor performance of thin film pv modules
deployed on a sunny inland site. Int J Photo 2013;620127:12.
[167] Cano Jose. Photovoltaic modules: effect of tilt angle on soiling. Arizona State
University; 2011.
[168] Santbergen R, van Zolingen RJC. The absorption factor of crystalline silicon PV
cells: a numerical and experimental study. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells
2008;92:432–44.
[169] Yang Hong, Wang He, Cao Dingyue, Sun Dangmin, Ju Xiaobao. Analysis of power
loss for crystalline silicon solar module during the course of encapsulation. Int J
Photo 2015;251615:5.
[170] Lu ZH, Yao Q. Energy analysis of silicon solar cell modules based on an optical
model for arbitrary layers. Sol Energy 2007;81:636–47.
[171] Dinçer Furkan, Meral Mehmet Emin. Critical factors that affecting efficiency of
solar cells. Smart Grid Renew Energy 2010;1:47–50.
[172] Simeon C, Baker-Finch, Keith R McIntosh. Reflection of normally incident light
from silicon solar cells with pyramidal texture. Prog Photovolt 2011;19:406–16.
[173] Razykov TM, Ferekides CS, Morel D, Stefanakos E, Ullal HS, Upadhyaya HM. Solar
photovoltaic electricity: current status and future prospects. Sol Energy
2011;85:1580–608.
[174] Jiang B, Ji J, Hua Y. The influence of pv coverage ratio on thermal and electrical
performance of photovoltaic-trombe wall. Renew Energy 2008;33:2491–8.
[175] Emery K. Temperature dependence of photovoltaic cells, modules and systems.
Washington DC: IEEE; 1996.
[176] Chenni R, Makhlouf M, Kerbache T, Bouzid A. A detailed modeling method for
photovoltaic cells. Energy 2007;32:1724–30.
[177] Kamkird P, Ketjoy N, Rakwichian W, Sukchai S. Investigation on temperature
coefficients of three types photovoltaic module technologies under thailand op-
erating condition. Procedia Eng 2012;32:376–83.
[178] Kim JP, Lim H, Song JH, Chang YJ, Jeon CH. Numerical analysis on the thermal
characteristics of photovoltaic module with ambient temperature variation. Sol
Energy Mater Sol Cell 2011;95:404–7.
[179] Sarwar J, Sarah McCormack, Norton Huang, B. Numerical validation of experi-
mental temperature evolution in photovoltaic cells with varying ambient condi-
tions. UK-ISES; 2011.
[180] Bucher K. Site dependence of the energy collection of PV modules. Sol Energy
Mater Sol Cells 1997;47:85–94.
[181] Skoplaki E, Palyvos JA. Operating temperature of photovoltaic modules: a survey
of pertinent correlations. Renew Energy 2009;34:23–9.
[182] Skoplaki E, Boudouvis AG, Palyvos JA. A simple correlation for the operating
temperature of photovoltaic modules of arbitrary mounting. Sol Energy Mater Sol
Cells 2008;92:1393–402.
[183] Kurtz S, Miller D, Kempe M, Bosco N. NREL, Evaluation of high-temperature:
exposure of photovoltaic modules. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: IEEE; 2009.
[184] Saly V, Ruzinsky M, Redi P. Indoor study and ageing tests of solar cells and en-
capsulations of experimental modules. Calimanesti-Caciulata: IEEE; 2001.
[185] Zhangbo Y, Qifen L, Qunzhi Z, Weiguo P. The cooling technology of solar cells
under concentrated system. In: Power electronics and motion control conference,
IPEMC '09. IEEE 6th International, Wuhan; 2009.
[186] Chander Subhash, Purohit A, Sharma Anshu, Nehra SP, Dhaka MS. Impact of
temperature on performance of series and parallel connected mono-crystalline
silicon solar cells. Energy Rep 2015;1:175–80.
[187] Chander Subhash, Purohit A, Sharma Anshu, Nehra Arvind, SP, Dhaka MS. A study
on photovoltaic parameters of mono-crystalline silicon solar cell with cell tem-
perature. Energy Rep 2015;1:104–9.
[188] Goodpal, 6 Factors that affect solar pv system efficiency; 2017. 〈https://
livingonsolarpower.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/6-factors-that-effect-solar-pv-
system-efficiency/〉 [Cited: ].
[189] Fouad MM, Lamia, Shihata A, ElSayed, Morgana I. An integrated review of factors
influencing the performance of photovoltaic panels. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017;80:1499–511.
[190] Drissi Hanen, Khediri Jalel, Zaafrane Wajdi, Braiek Ezzedine Ben. Critical factors
affecting the photovoltaic characteristic and comparative study between two
maximum power point tracking algorithms. Int J Hydrog Energy
2017;42:8689–702.
[191] Du Dengfeng, Darkwa Jo, Kokogiannakis Georgios. Thermal management systems
851
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 94 (2018) 835–852
for Photovoltaics (PV) installations: a critical review. Sol Energy
2013;97:138–254.
[192] Energy.gov. Photovoltaic cell conversion efficiency basics; 2015. 〈http://energy.
gov/eere/energybasics/articles/photovoltaic-cell-conversion-efficiency-basics〉.
[Cited: 1 31].
[193] Hirst LC, Daukes NJE. Fundamental losses in solar cell. Prog. Photovolt: Res Appl
2010;19:286–93.
[194] Wong MK, Wong KY. Investigation of the factors affecting the power conversion
efficiency of all-solution-processed ‘bilayer’ P3HT:PCBM solar cells. Synth Met
2013;170:1–6.
[195] Dinçer F, Meral ME. Critical factors that affecting efficiency of solar cell; 2010.
[196] Radziemska E, Klugmann E. Thermally affected parameters of the current–voltage
characteristics of silicon photocell. Energy Convers Manag 2002;43:1889–900.
[197] Martinelli G, Stefancich M. Solar cell cooling: concentrated photovoltaic. Berlin:
Springer; 2007.
[198] T. Engineering. Photovoltaic efficiency: the temperature effect; 2016. 〈https://
www.teachengineering.org/collection/cub_/lessons/cub_pveff/Attachments/cub_
pveff_lesson02_fundamentalsarticle_v6_tedl_dwc.pdf〉. [Cited: 01 05].
[199] Makki A, Omer S, Sabir H. Advancements in hybrid photovoltaic systems for en-
hanced solar cells performance. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;41:658–84.
[200] Grubišić-Čabo F, Nižetić S, Tina GM. Photovoltaic panels: a review of the cooling
techniques. Trans Famena 2016:63–74.
[201] Bahaidarah Haitham MS, Baloch Ahmer AB, Gandhidasan Palanichamy. Uniform
cooling of photovoltaic panels: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;57:1520–44.
[202] Sargunanathan S, Elango A, Tharves Mohideen S. Performance enhancement of
solar photovoltaic cells using effective cooling methods: a review. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2016;64:382–93.
[203] Jakhar Sanjeev, Soni MS, Gakkhar Nikhil. Historical and recent development of
concentrating photovoltaic cooling technologies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;60:41–59.
[204] Hasanuzzaman M, Malek ABMA, Islam MM, Pandey AK, Rahim NA. Global ad-
vancement of cooling technologies for PV systems: a review. Soler Energy
2016;137:25–45.
[205] Elbreki AM, Alghoul MA, Sopian K, Hussein T. Towards adopting passive heat
dissipation approaches for temperature regulation of PV module as a sustainable
solution. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;69:961–1017.
[206] Nižetić S, Papadopoulos AM, Giama E. Comprehensive analysis and general eco-
nomic-environmental evaluation of cooling techniques for photovoltaic panels,
Part I: passive cooling techniques. Energy Convers Manag 2017;149:334–54.
[207] Araki K, Uozumi H, Yamaguchi M, Uozumi H. A simple passive cooling structure
and its heat analysis for 500× concentrator PV module. In: Proceedings of the
photovoltaic specialists conference, conference record of the twenty-ninth IEEE;
2002.
[208] Edenburn MW. Active and passive cooling for concentrating photovoltaic arrays.
United States: IEEE; 1980.
[209] Natarajan SK, Mallick TK, Katz M, Weingaertner S. Numerical investigations of
solar cell temperature for photovoltaic concentrator system with and without
passive cooling arrangements. Int J Therm Sci 2011;50:2514–21.
[210] Feuermann D, Gordon JM. High-concentration photovoltaic designs based on
miniature parabolic dishes. Sol Energy 2001;70:423–30.
[211] Mughal H. An innovative design of a low cost 120x concentrating system based on
proven one sun technologies. In: Proceedings of the 34th IEEE photovoltaic spe-
cialists conference (PVSC). Philadelphia, PA; 2009.
[212] Stone KW, Garboushian V, Hurt R, Gray A, Boehm R, Fletcher T, Hale MJ.
Operation and performance of the amonix high concentration photovoltaic system
at the University of Nevada, las vegas during second year of operation. In:
Proceedings of the ASME 2006 international solar energy conference. Denver,
Colorado, USA; 2006.
[213] Gray A, Boehm R, Stone KW. Modeling a passive cooling system for photovoltaic
cells under concentration. In: Proceedings of the ASME/JSME 2007 thermal en-
gineering heat transfer summer conference collocated with the ASME 2007
InterPACK conference. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; 2007.
[214] O'Neill MJ, McDanal AJ, Jaster PA. Development of terrestrial concentrator
modules using high-efficiency multi-junction solar cells. In: Proceedings of the
photovoltaic specialists conference. Conference Record of the Twenty-Ninth IEEE.
Keller, TX, USA; 2002.
[215] O’Neill M, McDanal AJ, Spears D, Stevenson C, Gelbaum D. Low-cost 20x silicon-
cell-basedlinear fresnel lens concentrator panel. In: Proceedings of the 7th inter-
national conference on concentrating photovoltaic systems (CPV-7). Las Vegas;
2011.
[216] Du B, Hu E, Kolhe M. Performance analysis of water cooled concentrated photo-
voltaic (CPV) system. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:6732–6.
[217] Anderson WG, Dussinger PM, Sarraf DB, Tamanna S. Heat pipe cooling of con-
centrating photovoltaic cells. In: Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE Photovoltaic
Specialists Conference, 2008. PVSC '08. San Diego, CA, USA; 2008.
[218] Russell GF. Uniform surface temperature heat pipe and method of using the same.
US4320246 A 3 16; 1982.
[219] Fildman KT, Kenney DD, Edenburn MW. A passive heat pipe cooled photovoltaic
receiver. In: Proceedings of the photovoltaic specialists conference, 15th,
Kissimmee, FL. New York, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, U.S.
Department of Energy; 1981.
[220] Beach RT, White RM. Heat pipe for passive cooling of concentrator solar cells. In:
Proceedings of the New York, institute of electrical and electronics engineers,
photovoltaic specialists conference, 15th, Kissimmee, FL. U.S. Department of
Energy; 1981.
A. Hasan et al.
[221] Verlinden P, Sinton RA, Swanson RM, Crane RA. Single-wafer integrated 140 W
silicon concentrator module. In: Proceedings of the Las Vegas, photovoltaic spe-
cialists conference, 1991, Conference Record of the Twenty Second IEEE. NV;
1991.
[222] Wang Sheng, Shi Junxiang, Chen Hsiu-Hung, Schafer Steven R, Munir Moiz,
Stecker Greg, Pan Wei, Lee Jong-Jan, Chen Chung-Lung. Cooling design and
evaluation for photovoltaic cells within constrained space in a CPV/CSP hybrid
solar system. Appl Therm Eng 2017;110:369–81.
[223] Aldossary A, Mahmoud S, AL-Dadah R. Technical feasibility study of passive and
active cooling for concentrator PV in harsh environment. Appl Therm Eng
2016;100:490–500.
[224] Micheli Leonardo, Fernández Eduardo F, Almonacid Florencia, Mallick Tapas K,
Smestad Greg P. Performance, limits and economic perspectives for passive
cooling of high concentrator photovoltaics. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells
2016;153:164–78.
[225] Tilford CL, Sinton RA, Swanson RM, Crane RA. Development of a 10 kW reflective
dish pv system. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Photovoltaic specialists conference;
1923.
[226] Horne WE. Solar energy system. US5269851 A USA; 12 14, 1993.
[227] Royne A, Dey CJ. Design of a jet impingement cooling device for densely packed
PV cells under high concentration. Sol Energy 2007;81:1014–24.
[228] Teo HG, Lee PS, Hawlader MNA. An active cooling system for photovoltaic
modules. Appl Energy 2012;90:309–15.
[229] Man Y, Yang H, Qu Y, Fang Z. A novel nocturnal cooling radiator used for sup-
plemental heat sink of active cooling system. Procedia Eng 2015;121:300–8.
[230] Zhu L, Boehm RF, Wang Y, Halford C, Sun Y. Water immersion cooling of PV cells
in a high concentration system. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2011;95:538–45.
[231] Han X, Wang Y, Zhu L. The performance and long-term stability of silicon con-
centrator solar cells immersed in dielectric liquids. Energy Convers Manag
2013;66:189–98.
[232] Xin G, Wang Y, Sun Y, Huang Q, Zhu L. Experimental study of liquid-immersion
III–V multi-junction solar cells with dimethyl silicon oil under high concentrations.
Energy Convers Manag 2015;94:169–77.
[233] Sun Y, Wang Y, Zhu L, Yin B, Xiang H, Huang Q. Direct liquid-immersion cooling
of concentrator silicon solar cells in a linear concentrating photovoltaic receiver.
Energy 2014;65:264–71.
[234] Bahaidarah H, Subhan A, Gandhidasan P, Rehman S. Performance evaluation of a
PV (photovoltaic) module by back surface water cooling for hot climatic condi-
tions. Energy 2013;59:445–53.
[235] Bahaidarah HMS, Baloch AAB, Gandhidasan P. Uniform cooling of photovoltaic
panels: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;57:1520–44.
[236] Hasan A. Phase change materials for thermal regulation of building integrated
photovoltaics. Dublin: Dublin Institute of Technology; 2010.
[237] Tan Woei-Chong, Chong Kok-Keong, Tan Ming-Hui. Performance study of water-
cooled multiple-channel heat sinks in the application of ultra-high concentrator
photovoltaic system. Sol Energy 2017;147:314–27.
[238] Al-Amri Fahad, Mallick Tapas Kumar. Alleviating operating temperature of con-
centration solar cell by air active cooling and surface radiation. Appl Therm Eng
2013;59:348–54.
[239] Yupeng W. Thermal management of concentrator photovoltaics. Warwick:
University of Warwick; 2009.
[240] Hasan A, McCormack SJ, Huang MJ, Norton B. Evaluation of phase change ma-
terials for thermal regulation enhancement of building integrated photovoltaics.
Sol Energy 2010;84:1601–12.
[241] Mauthner F, Weiss W. Solar heat worldwide markets and contribution to the
852
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 94 (2018) 835–852
energy supply; 2011. 〈https://www.iea-shc.org/data/sites/1/publications/Solar-
Heat-Worldwide-2013.pdf〉. [Cited: 02 02, 2016].
[242] Hasan A, McCormack SJ, Huang MJ, Sarwar J, Norton B. Increased photovoltaic
performance through temperature regulation by phase change materials: materials
comparison in different climates. Sol Energy 2015;115:264–76.
[243] Hassan A, Nouman H, Assi A, Norton B. Temperature regulation and thermal
energy storage potential of phase change materials layer contained at the back of a
building integrated photovoltaic panel. In: Proceedings of the 30th international
plea conference, CEPT University Ahmadabad; 2014.
[244] Hasan A, McCormack SJ, Huang MJ, Norton B. Energy and cost saving of a pho-
tovoltaic-phase change materials (PV-PCM) system through temperature regula-
tion and performance enhancement of photovoltaics. Energies 2014;7:1318–31.
[245] Aelenei L, Pereira R, Gonçalves H, Athienitis A. Thermal performance of a hybrid
BIPV-PCM: modeling. Des Exp Investig Energy Proc 2014;48:474–83.
[246] Biwole PH, Eclache P, Kuznik F. Phase-change materials to improve solar panel's
performance. Energy Build 2013;62:59–67.
[247] Hendricks JHC, Sark WGJHM. Annual performance enhancement of building in-
tegrated photovoltaic modules by applying phase change materials. Prog
Photovolt 2013;21:620–30.
[248] Sarwar J. Experimental and numerical investigation of thermal regulation of
photovoltaic and concentrated photovoltaic using phase change materials [Ph.D.
Thesis]. Dublin: Dublin Institute of Technology; 2012.
[249] Maiti S, Banerjee S, Vyas K, Patel P, Ghosh PK. Self-regulation of photovoltaic
module temperature in V-trough using a metal–wax composite phase change
matrix. Sol Energy 2011;85:1805–16.
[250] Lillo BI, Silva PM, Larraneta GCM. Use of phase change materials in photovoltaic
modules with solar concentration of up to 2. In: Presented at 26th European
photovoltaic solar energy conference and exhibition. Hamburg, Germany; 2011.
[251] Wu Y. Thermal management of concentrator photovoltaics. University of
Warwick; 2009.
[252] Abdelaziz EA, Saidur R, Mekhilef S. A review on energy saving strategies in in-
dustrial sector. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:150–68.
[253] Soteris K. The potential of solar industrial process heat applications. Appl Energy
2003;76:337–61.
[254] Vajen K, Lauterbach C, Schmitt B. Solar heat for industrial processes –potential,
technologies and applications. In: Proceedings of the international conference on
solar energy for MENA region (INCOSOL). Amman, Jordan, 22–23 October; 2012.
[255] Gerhard SH. Technologies and perspectives of large solar thermal systems. Lisboa,
Portugal: Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems ISE; 23 2012.
[256] Brief T. Solar Heat for Industrial Processes; 2016. 〈http://www.irena.org/
DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_ETSAP_Tech_Brief_E21_Solar_Heat_
Industrial_2015.pdf〉. [Cited: 02 02].
[257] Huang MJ, Eames PC, Norton B. Phase change materials for limiting temperature
rise in building integrated photovoltaics. Sol Energy 2006;80:1121–30.
[258] Huang MJ. The effect of using two PCMs on the thermal regulation performance of
BIPV systems. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2011;95:957–63.
[259] Lee D, Oh GS, Baek SW. Development of a heating device using CPV and heat pipe.
In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on heat transfer, fluid me-
chanics and thermodynamics. Orlando, Florida; 2014.
[260] Royne A, Dey CJ, Mills Dr. Cooling of photovoltaic cells under concentrated il-
lumination: a critical review. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2005;86:451–83.
[261] Sonneveld PJ, GLAM Swinkels, Tuijl BAJ, Janssen HJJ, Campen J, Bot GPA.
Performance of a concentrated photovoltaic energy system with static linear
Fresnel lenses. Sol Energy 2011;85:432–42.