Australians Claim Solar Thermal Efficiency Record

I bet they are still 99.999999999 percent ineffective in the area where there is no receiver!

Better to go with a lower temperature design and an engineered heat transfer fluid....a high molecular weight heat transfer fluid gives more bang for the buck and is easier on the expander...

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3155/1047-3289.61.1.3

Wow. They were 0.4 percent better. Sounds like we are at about five time constants on the efficiency curve.

3.4

3.5 time constants is closer to 97%.

97% of what?

Carnot cycle says that, assuming exhaust temperature is 500K (dry steam), then the input temp must be about 17,000K. The sun's surface is colder than that.

We don't have to go that far; we get about 1KW insolation in each square meter, and 97 percent of 500 KW is a decent amount. It might even be cheaper to build and use than diesel.

"we get about 1KW insolation in each square meter"

Yes at peak, but what is the average? Peak is meaningless as a constant power source...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_duration

I take it that what you mean is we convert 97% of the incoming solar energy to usable heat energy. That would make sense.

However once we have that input you could only expect a maximum efficiency converting to electricity of 1 - Tout/Tin = say 1 - 500/3000 = 83%

I'm all for increasing energy efficiency, but I still have to ask:

What single portion of the (system) are they describing?

Does that include the efficiency of pumping the water as part of the (system) ?