>>16918927
Grok said this is possible. He also confirmed the establishment is hiding this.

>>16918927
>Why would this be a bad idea?
Yes, concentrated solar power has significantly higher cost than solar panels for a given output power. The proposal in OP is also a particularly bad way to make a solar concentrator since you will wast almost all of the material in these lens arrays that will almost always be out of focus which further increases cost and lowers efficiency.
>Why is it so hard to make a solar concentrator that doesn't need to track the sun?
You need to track the sun to capture the sunlight in an efficient manner.

>>16918933
>wast almost all of the material in these lens arrays that will

At one point, what you're calling "wasted material" will be cheaper than electronics and maintainance of servos and shit like that. Maybe you're not familiar with the concept of trade off.

>>16918936
You asked, I answered. If you don't believe the answer you are literally free to set up a concentrating solar power plant in what ever style you see fit and compete against solar panels in the markets.

>>16918929
>muh ai
Kys

>>16918940
You gave a knee-jerk thoughless answer

>>16918947
Why would you say that? You believe you know something I don't and the industry doesn't about the cost of these lenses and servos and electronics. I say you don't, I do not believe facts can convince you as they have not do so far so your only option is to put your ideas to the test in the real world.

>>16918951
Just look at your choice of words, making it seem like it's a "belief"-related thing. You keep using the term "believe". Believe X, I believe Y, if you don't believe X, I believe W, etc.


You don't cite a single issue with the concept. You don't say "it would be too big" (non issue if you have the space). You don't say "it would get dirty" (anything exposed to the elements will). It's just believe, believe, believe, believe. You can't make a contribution to the thread that isn't worthless.

>>16918955
It is a belief though. Or do you have some actual costs to make it a fact.
>You don't cite a single issue with the concept.
I mentioned several actually. Let's add "you believe you know how to read English" to the list of problems with OP.

>>16918927
we already have auto self orienting solar pannels, imo, solar + lense makes a lot of sense, I'm not an engineer though, I suspect people with in detail knowledge of this specific issue would be industrial engineers, they know the cost of the little pieces needed

>>16918967
>we
Who exactly is "we"?

>>16918967
>imo, solar + lense makes a lot of sense
The problem is why do that when you can just do two panels instead. Panels are just too cheap.

>>16919024
humanity you dense fucking retard

>>16919029
something tells me a lense is cheaper than a pannel, and pannels aren't cheap at all

>>16918967
Lenses and panels don't really make sense. For one large lenses tend to be (much) more expensive than actual solar panels but also because solar panels are already kinda pushing at the limits of sunlight in terms of thermals. Putting twice as much light on a panel will not give you twice as much power without significant active cooling which itself consumes lot of power and adds cost.
A good hint regarding stuff like this is that if an idea is obvious someone else probably thought about it and if you aren't seeing it everywhere it's probably a shit idea.

>>16919024
Anyone with access to about 250 bucks, you can get em off amazon.

>>16919057
>something tells me a lense is cheaper than a pannel
you are wrong

>>16918936
>At one point, what you're calling "wasted material" will be cheaper
Is that "one point" before of after the system's service expires? That's the relevant question.
Your idea isn't even particularly novel. V3Solar pitched a similar idea years with cone shaped solar cells. It just doesn't work in practice.

>>16919065
prove it

File: really.jpg (309.2 KB)

309.2 KB JPG

>>16919065
you are wrong

>schizo turns out to be an AI spammer
who could have predicted it

>>16918936
i guarantee you’re a dumb migger that thinks servos and electronics are as expensive as gold.

>>16919184
250$ for 400W PV? I Paid 50$ for 410W

If you add more panels equal to the volume, you don't add more failure points, you add redundancy.
If you add more lenses, you do add more failure points.

The current solution is to angle them at the zenith of March