December 18, 2009 at 1:39 pm | Solar Cell Company
- Posted by admin | 2 Comments
This company produces thin solar panels. A lot of tiny details viewable in this youtube video off of their site http://www.nanosolar.com/technology Basically, an ink jet printer prints solar cells on aluminum.
So, what would happen if you took these aluminum strips, and manufactured them in a way to replace the current skin on a Boeing 737. No excess weight should be added, because instead of paint, this high-tech Nanosolar technology is being used.
Shouldn’t this over the surface area of the aircraft, provide enough electricity to run an APU?
This is a proof of concept theory, and reliability can always be improved, I just need to know if it would even be plausible
Check out their website and see how small these cells truly are
The wing area of a Boeing 737-900 is 125 m^2. Fuselage length is 42 m and width is 3.8 m; so overall, the area that could be illuminated at any time would be a maximum of 280 m^2 or so.
Solar constant is 1366 W/m^2, but that assumes no attenuation due to the air nor being 100% transparent, no cloud and high noon, so the absolute maximum solar energy that it could capture would be 382 kW.
But solar cells are not 100% efficient, far from it really. The technology you refer to is about 15% efficient, so the actual electrical power released (again, high noon, perfectly clear day) is 57 kW, about 76 hp. That is roughly 1/2 the power of a typical APU for an aircraft of that size, which will place out its power reliably no matter what the lighting conditions is, as long as there is fuel available.
Free energy is always attractive, but what the aerospace world is after is _reliable_ energy.
By the way, if you check your source, it does state that the "nanoparticle ink is coated onto a specially-prepared proprietary alloy of metal foil". Do we know if that foil is compatible with the material used for aircraft wing and fuselage panels?
APUs don’t need electricity to run, they run off of jet fuel.
APUs don’t just supply electricity, they supply bleed air for the AC. They also run that generator output to transformer rectifiers to supply DC to the aircraft. They can also power aux hydraulic systems.
The terrible part about solar panels is the low amperage output. It’s fine if you are just powering, say, a motor in an ultralite car. Solar cells are usually just used to recharge batteries. I have a 65W panel that I use to charge a car battery in my work shop. The battery is used to illuminate 12v Halogen bulbs over my bench. The panel would never be able to light up even 1 bulb decently.
References :
The wing area of a Boeing 737-900 is 125 m^2. Fuselage length is 42 m and width is 3.8 m; so overall, the area that could be illuminated at any time would be a maximum of 280 m^2 or so.
Solar constant is 1366 W/m^2, but that assumes no attenuation due to the air nor being 100% transparent, no cloud and high noon, so the absolute maximum solar energy that it could capture would be 382 kW.
But solar cells are not 100% efficient, far from it really. The technology you refer to is about 15% efficient, so the actual electrical power released (again, high noon, perfectly clear day) is 57 kW, about 76 hp. That is roughly 1/2 the power of a typical APU for an aircraft of that size, which will place out its power reliably no matter what the lighting conditions is, as long as there is fuel available.
Free energy is always attractive, but what the aerospace world is after is _reliable_ energy.
By the way, if you check your source, it does state that the "nanoparticle ink is coated onto a specially-prepared proprietary alloy of metal foil". Do we know if that foil is compatible with the material used for aircraft wing and fuselage panels?
References :