this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2025
563 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
72879 readers
3366 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Also, from the article - 33.6% efficiency in real-world conditions:
A lighthouse uses the same lens, just with the light coming from the inside. Since this is old knowledge, what is the drawback? Why isn't this widespread?
My completely uninformed guess:
The lens and assembly costs too much compared to just more solar panels
The lens/panel combo is so bulky/prone to failure it becomes unreasonable to actually install/use.
I suspect that the lens makes the whole solar assembly more directional and the Sun moves in the sky.
Commercial solar panels often move with the sun, too
The overwhelming majority of them don't, traditionnal rooftop installs don't either.