seminar ppt on mobile solar power system.

1. IMTHIYAS VP
ROLL NO: 21
S7-EEE
GECI
1

2. CONTENTS
 INTRODUCTION
 SOLAR CELL TECHNOLOGY
 SOLAR PANEL DESIGN
 SOLAR PANEL CHARACTERIZATION
 SYSTEM INTERFACE DESIGN
 COMPARISON OF MSP WITH CURRENT SYSTEM
 CONCLUSIONS
2

3. INTRODUCTION
 Supply sufficient electricity by reducing battery.
 PV is only renewable energy source to meet challenge.
 PV power systems provide superior performance in
power generator compared with current system.
 10x improvement in efficiency over existing
technology.
 It can easily integrated with war fighter's equipment.
3

4. Solar Cell Technology
 SJ GaAs Solar Cell used in this project were formed by
ELO(Epitaxial Lift Off) process.
 ELO process, a technology for making large area of thin,
flexible, high efficiency solar cells.
 SJ GaAs cell have less efficiency, were applicable to system
related issues.
4

5. 5
 MSP cells produced average 500mA at SC, 0.98v at
OC, 440mW at max. Power point.
 Efficiency from 20-23%.
MSP panel.

6. Solar Panel Design
 Packaging of Solar Panel be Robust and Rugged.
 MSP panel consist of 30 GaAs Solar cell conjnected in
series.
 Each array was laminated between 2 sheets of
transparent fluropolymer film.
 Size & Configuration were driven by size of an average
marine backpack.
 Maximum space of 10.5in x 17.5in.
 270 gm in wieght.
6

7. Solar Panel Modelling & Simulation
 To determine baseline & expectations for system
performance during Limited Objective Experiment-
1(LOE-1).
 Spectra are seen to vary in both intensity and
distribution across the day.
 Figure shows maximum power generation about 10W
per panel.
 Total energy yield is 50Wh/day.
 Effieciency is 21.5% at noon. Average efficiency is
20.9%.
7

8. 8
Modeled performance of the MSP panels as a function of time throughout
one day at Fort Pickett, VA, on February 1, 2012

9. Solar Panel Characterization
 Output of MSP panel was measured in both horizontal
& solar tracking configurations shows in Figure.
 Continuous green line displays power output when
panel was flat, Red dot represents when panel was
actively pointed directly at sun in Figure .
 Total power produced by panel in flat configuration
was 30.1Wh, efficiency was 18.7%.
 Measured data are marginally less than Modelled
Data.
9

10. 10
Solar insolation measured at Fort Pickett
during the day
Power output measured from MSP # 6 in
both a flat and solar-tracking
configuration
I–V curves measured from MSP panel

11. System Interface Design
11
MSP system components.
MSP carrier

12. 12
 MSP solar panel connected connected with BB-2590 to
provide power & battery management,
MPPT(Maximum power point Tracking).
 Circuit designed for 15W, solar panel producing 28V @
OC & 23V maximum power.
 Connector box & battery are housed in 100 round
ammunition pouch using Modular light weight load
carrying component(MOLLE).
 Carrier also serve as protective case for MSP when not
in use.
 Not in use, panel can removed & stored inside carrier.

13. Comparison of MSP With Current
System
 MSP(Mobile Solar Power) mostly compared with
SPACES(Solar Portable Alternative Communications
Energy System).
13
MSP SPACES
Consists SJ GaAs Solar cells. Consists Copper Indium Gallium
Diselenide (CIGS).
Cell active area is 0.06sq.m. Cell active area is 0.7sq.m.
Panel efficiency is 19.6% Panel efficiency is 7.8%
Panel can recharge two BB-2590
batteries.
Panel can barely recharge one.

14. Conclusions
14
 MSP is useful for Warfighter’s and remote area.
 Charging were less positive, system efficiency attained
approx. 17%.
 Need to improve Solar cell interconnect issues.
 Panel will also designed to allow them to connected in
parallel so marine can charge a single battery.
 Efforts must be placed on making technology rugged
& affordable.

15. 15
References
[1] R. Tatavarti, G. Hillier, A. Dzankovic, G. Martin, F. Tuminello,
R. Navaratnarajah, G. Du, D. P. Vu, and N. Pan, “Lightweight, low cost
GaAs solar cells on 4 epitaxial liftoff (ELO) wafers,” in Proc. 33rd IEEE
Photovoltaic Specialists Conf., May 2008, pp. 1–4.
[2] R. Tatavarti, A. Wibowo, G. Martin, F. Tuminello, C. Youtsey, G. Hillier,
N. Pan, M. W. Wanlass, and M. Romero, “InGaP/GaAs/InGaAs inverted
metamorphic (IMM) solar cells on 4 epitaxial lifted off (ELO)wafers,” in
Proc. 35th IEEE Photovoltaic Spec. Conf., Jun. 2010, pp. 002125–002128.
[3] C. Gueymard, Simple Model of the Atmospheric Radiative Transfer of
Sunshine (SMARTS), ver. 2.9.5, 2009
[4] [Online]. http://www.bren-tronics.com/bt-70791a.html, last access Feb. 2,
2012.
[5] [Online]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOLLE, last access Feb. 2, 2012.
[6] Y. Kishi, H. Inoue, H. Tanaka, S. Kouzuma, K. Murata, S. Sakai,
M. Nishikuni, K. Wakisaka, H. Shibuya, H. Nishiwaki, A. Takeoka, and
Y. Kuwano, “New type of ultralight flexible a-Si solar cell and its application
on an airplane,” in Proc. 22nd IEEE Photovoltaic Spec. Conf., Oct.
1991, pp. 1213–1218.
[7] J. Park, H. Ham, J. Lee, and T. Kim, “Thin film encapsulation for flexible
organic solar cells,” in Proc. 35th IEEE Photovoltaic Spec. Conf., Jun.
2010, pp. 001657–001659.

16. 16