Previous Article in Journal
Techno-Economic Assessment of Electrification and Hydrogen Pathways for Optimal Solar Integration in the Glass Industry
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Solar
Volume 5
Issue 3
10.3390/solar5030036
solar-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Experimental Studies on Partial Energy Harvesting by Novel Solar Cages, Microworlds, to Explore Sustainability

by
Mohammad A. Khan
1,*,
Brian Maricle
2,
Zachary D. Franzel
1,
Gabe Gransden
1 and
Matthew Vannette
3
1
Department of ECE, Saginaw Valley State University, University Center, MI 48710, USA
2
Department of Biology, Saginaw Valley State University, University Center, MI 48710, USA
3
Department of Physics, Saginaw Valley State University, University Center, MI 48710, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Solar 2025, 5(3), 36; https://doi.org/10.3390/solar5030036 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 20 May 2025 / Revised: 10 July 2025 / Accepted: 28 July 2025 / Published: 1 August 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Sources of renewable energy have attracted considerable attention. Their expanded use will have a substantial impact on both the cost of energy production and climate change. Solar energy is one efficient and safe option; however, solar energy harvesting sites, irrespective of the location, can impact the ecosystem. This experimental study explores the energy available inside and outside of novel miniature energy harvesting cages by measuring light intensity and power generated. Varying light intensity outside the cage has been utilized to study the remaining energy inside the cage of a flexible design, where the heights of the harvesting panels are parameters. Cages are built from custom photovoltaic panels arranged in a staircase manner to provide access to growing plants. The balance between power generation and biological development is investigated. Two different structures are presented to explore the variation of illumination intensity inside the cages. The experimental results show a substantial reduction in energy inside the cages. The experimental results showed up to 24% reduction in illumination inside the cages in winter. The reduction is even larger in summer, up to 57%. The results from the models provide a framework to study the possible impact on a biological system residing inside the cages, paving the way for practical farming with sustainable energy harvesting.

1. Introduction

The need for clean energy, a solution for reducing carbon emissions, becomes increasingly urgent every year [1]. As one clean energy source, solar energy is widely used since the technological development of photovoltaics (PVs) has reduced cost and increased the energy conversion efficiency [2]. (Note that the abbreviations and terminologies used in the article are listed in Table A1). To advance solar energy utilization further, Agrovoltaics has been utilized and studied for co-farming [3,4]. The integration of solar power irrigation systems [5] can reduce the cost over the long-term use of the system. However, the energy share that is sustainable is yet to be determined. This study intends to explore the energy share that is indicative of sustainability.
Solar energy outside of Earth’s atmosphere is around 340 W m−2 [6], which equals about 29.4 MJ m−2 day−1 (340 J s−1 m−2 × 86,400 s day−1). This energy is attenuated somewhat by the atmosphere and is influenced by the latitude and sky clarity at the location of interest [7]; however, this represents a large source of available energy.
PVs generate electric power in the presence of sunlight. The intensity of the available light contributes to the regulation of the generated power. Whereas their output is diminished on cloudy days, it is not zero. Even the diffuse, scattered light associated with overcast conditions offers some energy [8]. By scaling the size of a PV system, power demands may be met for illuminated road signs, single-family residences to factories, or neighborhoods.
The correlation between illumination level and power output strongly suggests placing PVs in lower-latitude, desert areas. An issue with this choice is that population and industrial centers, where electric power is consumed, tend to be far from deserts. It would be better to place power generation sites near power consumption sites [9]. This encourages building PV generation plants near urban centers or in rural areas near urban centers. Much of the land suitable for such PV generation plants is already used for agricultural purposes. There is a recognized need for integrating PV solar farms with existing agricultural farms [10,11,12,13].
This study explores the integration with an emphasis on shared energy for power generation and plant growth. The structures considered in the study have three or five solar panels. They have been referred to as a solar cage [14]. Since it has a different temperature and illumination compared to the outside natural environment, the term microworld is proposed for the space inside the cage. Knowing the solar energy available in the microworld is important for planning integrated PV generation and agricultural land usage.
Under average atmospheric conditions (clouds, haziness) at a latitude of Saginaw, MI, USA (43.4° N) where this work was conducted, solar radiation peaks near 20 MJ m−2 day−1 in June under average atmospheric conditions but is less than 5 MJ m−2 day−1 in the winter months [6]. Of this incoming radiation, about 45 percent of its energy comes in wavelengths shorter than 700 nm, the wavelengths suitable to drive photosynthesis [7]. The remaining 55 percent of this energy is in wavelengths longer than 700 nm, primarily in the near infrared. Energy per unit light decreases with increasing wavelength, as related to Planck’s Constant; in the present context, this sets up similar energetic constraints with respect to wavebands of light to be harvested by plants or solar panels. Light with wavelengths longer than 700 nm lacks the ability to power photosynthesis [15] or solar panels [16]. With both “harvesters” using the same waveband, efficient land use may come from sharing the light between panels and leaves. Understanding how this light energy can be shared between harvesters is clearly of great economic and ecological importance.
There are various means to harvest incoming solar radiation. In recent years, solar panels have been used to capture sunlight. As efficiency [17] in materials (intrinsic to the material) and design (e.g., multilayer PV, shingles, flexible substrate) improves, PV systems become more attractive. The solar panels might be termed “artificial” harvesters. In addition, the “natural” harvesters of incoming solar energy are plants and other photosynthetic organisms. This study focuses on the background of this combined harvesting.

2. Experimental Design

In this study, two styles of miniature solar cages have been built, differing in the number of panels. Model 1, the first one, has three panels, and Model 2 has five panels. Photovoltaic cells are placed in horizontal positions on each panel, with panels arranged in a horizontal semi-cylinder shape, called Model 1 (Figure 1). Whereas the panels in Model 1 (Figure 2) are fixed in place on thick aluminum wire, those in Model 2 are mounted on a frame that allows for independent adjustment of the height of each panel. The total horizontal surface area of Model 1 is 3162 cm2, and that of Model 2 is 2891 cm2. Panel area for Model 1 is 588 cm2, and for Model 2, it is 1237.6 cm2. Both cages are mounted to easily movable platforms, allowing for measurements in the lab under controlled light sources and outside in natural sunlight.
In the first study, the experimental data on illumination intensity were collected for a given set of solar panels. Model 1 sets up the framework for Model 2. Therefore, the basic structure of the model is briefly discussed here. In Figure 1, V1, V2, and H1 are 32 cm, 46.5 cm, and 21 cm, respectively. Each panel is 49 cm in length and 4 cm in width.
The impact of PV generation on energy remaining for agriculture is measured in two ways. First, illumination is directly measured at points in the cage using a DANOPLUS lux meter. Second, the measuring panel allows for an indirect measure of average illumination via voltage generation across its length. Therefore, a separate “measuring panel”, MP, similar to the Model 1 panels, was also constructed. This panel was used to measure the average light reaching the base of each cage. A calibration curve of lux vs. voltage for the measuring panel can be found in [14].
In order to explore more variables in the design, a flexible model has been developed, which is presented as Model 2 (Figure 3). To this end, a five-panel structure has been built to explore the energy available underneath for plants (Figure 4). Each panel is 66 cm in length and 5.75 cm in width. Panel heights are made adjustable to study the variation of energy for various configurations. Additionally, panels can be removed if needed. In Figure 4, the MP lies on the floor, and the five panels are lowered from the maximum height. The horizontal area of the cage is 2891 cm2, and the total effective area of the panels is 1237.6 cm2 (exact) (Figure 4). This results in 42.8% of the area of power generation.
In this model, 23 PV cells, manufactured by SUNYIMA, were soldered to make each panel. The panels sit on plastic hollow pipes. The whole structure stands on a wooden plank, which helps convenient movement during experiments.

Configurations of the Cage

There are four different configurations of panels for Model 2. In Top Dome, each panel is positioned at the top notch of its respective stand. In Bottom Dome, each panel is positioned at the bottom notch of its respective stand. In Large Dome, the center-top panel is at the highest notch of its stand. The panels directly to its left and right (panels 2 and 4) are set at the middle notch, while the outermost panels (panels 1 and 5) are positioned at the lowest notch. Finally, in Flat, all the panels are positioned at the same height. The height parameters for all orientations are presented in Table 1. Figure 5 shows the four configurations graphically. They offer the opportunity to study the remaining energy inside for the same structure with height adjustments. The adjustable height of Model 2 panels also allows them to explore the effect of multiple panel configurations.
The data in Table 1 are plotted in the figure below. The Top Dome and Bottom Dome in the figure represent the highest and lowest cage structures. One can assume that the intensity available on the ground would be maximum and minimum, owing to the indirect reflections from the surroundings when the sun is directly above the top of the dome for the two configurations.

3. Results

3.1. Reported Results on 3-Panel Structure

The results of the preliminary study using the three-panel model have been presented in [14]. In this study, the point illumination was initially measured using a luxmeter. However, it has been observed that the accuracy of average illumination was low. To increase accuracy over a broad area, an MP was built and utilized; it is shown in Figure 2. A similar MP is utilized in a five-panel solar cage.
The MP voltage for illumination intensity is presented in Table 2. Using the cage, measurements were taken at different times over several days in Saginaw, Michigan [14]. Example data are presented in Table 3. The table shows the MP voltage inside the cage and the panel voltage on the cage. The difference between voltages is relatively small; however, utilizing Table 3 data, it can be found to be a significant change in illumination intensity.
The cage has approximately 18% of the surface area covered by the panel structure. The maximum reduction in illumination intensity inside the cage was calculated as 20.2% by employing the point measurement of lux inside the cage.
The reduction in intensity is caused by the shadow of the panels on the ground. However, the reflected light from the surroundings is of importance since it can modify the available illumination inside the cage. As a result, illumination intensity can be enhanced; however, the exact method of reflection is yet to be studied in the cage.
This three-panel solar cage is representative of a fixed structure. However, how the configurations of the panel modify the intensity is a point of interest. To this end, the flexible five-panel solar cage has been modeled and built.

3.2. Results on 5-Panel Structure

The following figure is obtained from data using the MP and corresponding luxmeter values. The characteristics of the panel are used to convert the voltage to equivalent lux. A similar figure, shown in [14], was obtained from the measuring tool in Figure 2.
Data for the plot were captured during winter in Michigan, where the reflection from the surrounding area occurred due to snow. This conversion plot, therefore, may vary if it were to be carried out at other times. The trend line equation for the five-panel structure is logarithmic and can be presented as follows:
y = 1.2672 ln x + 1.2031
where x and y are the light intensity and generated voltage, respectively. As observed from the plot, when the intensity passes 25 × 103 lux, there is a small incremental voltage change with a large change of intensity.
The following tables present data collected on different days in winter in Saginaw. The voltages in the tables are taken at no load condition.
The highest panel position was expected to provide the highest intensity on the ground owing to the indirect reflection from the surroundings. However, the weather conditions in Saginaw were dynamic; therefore, the same lighting conditions did not persist over the period of data collection. The comparison between different orientations is not straightforward. For example, the lowest intensity was observed for Top Dome in Table 4; the data in Table 5, however, indicate that the lowest average intensity on the ground is available for the smallest height of the panels (Bottom Dome).
The percentage changes of light intensity were calculated for the data in Table 5 and are presented in Table 6. Bottom Dome in Table 6 shows that it has the highest reduction in intensity since the panels are closest to the ground compared to the other orientations.
Table 7 presents the no-load voltage in each panel. The MP voltage is the average of two measurements with the panel laid across the diagonals of the base of the cage. Inferred intensity can be obtained from Figure 6. Note that the shadow of panels creates lines of low intensities.
The voltage is equal to or smaller in the MP for three configurations; however, for the Large Dome, the MP voltage is large (Table 7). The rationale is that the voltage measurements were not simultaneous; therefore, when the next measurement is taken, the light intensity can already be changed. For example, for the Large Dome, the voltage measurement for panels 1 through 4 was not the same as the light intensity changed, and the measurements took place after every 1–2 min.
During the readings of Table 8, it was a cloudy day with snow on the ground. Building walls were located to the South and East of the panel. The panel 5 was facing East. Data were collected for four different configurations of panels. It is clear from Table 8’s data that most of the voltages in MP were smaller than that of the power-generating panels.
In Table 8, the percentage illumination change inside the cage is calculated with respect to the one on the corresponding panel. As explained for the Large Dome data in Table 7, the percentage change of light intensity is negative, which is an anomaly and likely within measurement error. However, for the other orientations, the percentage reduction in light intensity varies from 8.16% to 13.10% for the specific time of the day, as shown in Table 8.
The panel voltages or average panel voltages in the tables above are consistent with each time of data collection. The voltages are measured at a no-load condition. These voltages are indicative of the power generated in the cage. However, a loaded condition would provide the exact power generated. Since the internal resistance of the panel PVs is relatively small, the output voltages at a loaded condition for Model 1, reported in [14], did not change significantly for a load of 10 kΩ.
To include the results from summer, top and bottom configuration data were collected. They were collected on 9 July 2025 and are presented in Table 9.
The data in Table 9 shows a significant reduction in illumination intensity inside the cage for both the top and bottom domes. A probable explanation is the following one. In the cage, the direct light is mostly blocked by the panels. In winter, the ratio of indirect to direct light is higher compared to the one in summer. As a result, the reduction in intensity is markedly higher during summer.
The power generated in the five-panel cage is presented below. The data were collected in July 2025.
In the built structure, the power can be calculated as five times the values in Table 9 for the five panels. It can be observed from Table 10 that the power generated did not change noticeably when the illumination crossed 73 klux for the range shown.
Note that sunlight on panels was not blocked by the other panels for the data presented. Any blocking of the sunlight will not only impact the overall power generation but also modify the illumination intensity inside the cage.

3.3. Potential Impact on Biological System

The light environment varies widely in the different environments where plants grow. Plants (or portions of plants) at the top of the canopy are exposed to full sunlight [20]. Plants growing beneath the canopy might only receive 2 to 5 percent of this light in the understory of a temperate deciduous forest [21]. Furthermore, there is spatial and temporal heterogeneity in the lighting of the understory. Occasionally, there are small patches of high-intensity light that can reach the understory from between leaves and branches overhead. These “sunflecks,” although short in duration, can provide nearly half of the total daily photon flux for plants in the understory [20]. By comparison, light was around 75 to 90 percent of unshaded conditions under the flexible five-panel model in some cases. This should provide adequate light for most plant processes.
Plants vary in their ability to tolerate low-light environments. Individuals of some species can adjust to low light [20], showing different photosynthetic properties when grown under lighting environments of 50, 15, and 5 percent of full sunlight [22]. Other plants have adapted to low-light environments following many generations in shaded habitats [20]. In some cases, plants live in deep shade that averages 0.2 percent of full sunlight [22]. In the present context, the minimum 13,417.83 to 19,488.97 lux (Table 6 and Table 8) calculated during winter conditions is around 13.41 to 19.48 percent of full sunlight, higher than understory plants in a temperate deciduous forest [21] like Michigan. Further, 14.86 klux to 55.06 klux measured during summer conditions is around 14 to 55 percent of full sunlight. This suggests that the average intensity available inside the cage could be sustainable for the plants, and it warrants further study.

3.4. Limitation

The test results can be impacted by the surroundings. For example, the data for the three-panel structure, reported in [14], were obtained during the summer in Michigan, whereas the data for Model 2 were mostly collected during the winter. The difference in the outcomes likely results from the reflection of the surroundings. In the winter, the reflection from the snow was significantly high. Therefore, Figure 6 cannot be used in summer; a new calibration of the MP will be required to generate realistic data. The primary reason for recalibration is that the luxmeter associated with the measurement has a semi-spherical structure to collect photons, whereas the MP has a flat surface; the diffused and oblique lights make a difference in measurement, which results in requiring the recalibration of the MP.
The comparison of data would produce optimum results if the experiment could be carried out under the same conditions for all different configurations. An indoor space is being constructed with controllable illumination, including intensity and uniformity.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

The impending competition between power generation and agricultural use of land demands careful consideration. Balancing these two needs of society requires us to understand how one impacts the other. The aim of this study is to provide the basis for a quantitative work regarding this impact.
It has been found that measuring the light over a broad area (via the measurement panel) seems to be a more reliable method when compared to local light intensity measurements (here carried out via a lux meter).
The study explores the energy inside and outside the solar cage structures. The configuration of the panels of the cage impacted the energy inside significantly. The study shows that in the flexible five-panel model, the illumination reduction ranges from 9% to 24% for only a 42.8% effective area of power generation for the time indicated in winter. For the same structure, the reduction varies from 47% to 57.53% in summer. Even though the reduction is considerably large, the average light intensity available inside the cage stays in the range of 14 klux to 55 klux.
The reduced light intensity inside the cages found in this study can still be utilized for plant growth, as discussed in Section 3. However, only experimental studies can confirm the proper growth of plants under such structures.
This work provides a new level of understanding regarding energy sharing in an integrated PV power generation and agricultural system. Planned studies will directly determine the extent to which PV generation impacts plant growth. These results could have important implications for understanding the effects of light on plants in the context of agriculture and ecology. Simultaneously, these results may inform the harvesting of a renewable energy source.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.A.K.; methodology, all authors; validation, M.A.K., Z.D.F. and G.G.; formal analysis, M.A.K. and B.M.; investigation, all authors; writing—original draft preparation, M.A.K., B.M. and M.V.; writing—review and editing, M.A.K.; visualization, M.A.K., Z.D.F. and G.G.; supervision, M.A.K.; funding acquisition, M.A.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The project was funded by a Faculty Research Grant and Undergraduate Research Program (UGRP) grant at Saginaw Valley State University. Research reported in this publication was supported in part by funding provided by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), under award number 80NSSC20M0124, Michigan Space Grant Consortium (MSGC). The APC was waived as a feature article.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the ECE department and the SE&T school at Saginaw Valley State University for their support in the research. They thank the reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions that improve the content of the article. The authors would also like to thank John Leonard and Robert Mackie for building the model and the five-panel structure.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

The following table presents the terms and variables used in three-panel and five-panel solar cages.
Table A1. Variables and terminologies.
Table A1. Variables and terminologies.
VariablesMeaning
PVPhotovoltaics
V1Side panel height
V2Middle panel height
H1Horizontal distance between panels
MPMeasuring panel
Top DomeThe structure with largest height
Bottom DomeThe structure with smallest height
Large DomeThe structure with wide height
variation
FlatAll panels at the same height
Panel voltage avgAverage voltage of 5 panels
MP avgMP average voltage of diagonal
measurements

References

  1. IEA. World Energy Outlook 2022; IEA: Paris, France, 2022; Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2022 (accessed on 9 July 2025).
  2. Hughes, K.M.; Phillips, C.C. A Quantitative Analysis of the Need for High Conversion Efficiency Pv Technologies In Carbon Mitigation Strategies. Solar 2024, 4, 209–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Widmer, J.; Christ, B.; Grenz, J.; Norgrove, L. Agrivoltaics, A Promising New Tool for Electricity and Food Production: A Systematic Review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2024, 192, 114277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Scroggins, R.E.; Fry, J.P.; Brown, M.T.; Neff, R.A.; Asche, F.; Anderson, J.L.; Love, D.C. Renewable Energy in Fisheries and Aquaculture: Case Studies from the United States. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 376, 134153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ho, A.M.; Jaafar, H.Z.; Grozescu, I.V.; Zaharin, M.Z.A.B. Solar Powered Gravity-Feed Drip Irrigation System Using Wireless Sensor Network. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Dev. 2015, 6, 970–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gates, D.M. Biophysical Ecology; Dover Publications: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
  7. Campbell, G.S.; Norman, J.M. An Introduction to Environmental Biophysics, 2nd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  8. Li, Y.; Grabham, N.J.; Beeby, S.P.; Tudor, M.J. The Effect of the Type of Illumination on the Energy Harvesting Performance of Solar Cells. Solar Energy 2015, 111, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Naimah, D.Y.N.; Novitasaria, D.; Indartonoa, Y.S.; Wulandaric, E. Technoeconomic and Environment Assessment of Rural Electrification Using Solar Photovoltaic (Case Study in Parang Island, Indonesia). Int. J. Smart Grid Clean Energy 2020, 9, 383–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Boyd, M. The Potential of Agrivoltaics for the US Solar Industry, Farmers and Communities. PV Tech Power 2023, 34, 8. [Google Scholar]
  11. Carroll, M. Available online: https://craven.ces.ncsu.edu/considerations-for-transferring-agricultural-land-to-solar-panel-energy-production/ (accessed on 10 May 2025).
  12. Daniels, T.L.; Wagner, H. Regulating Utility-Scale Solar Projects on Agricultural Land, Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, Aug. 2022. Available online: https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/KCEP-Regulating-Utility-Scale-Solar-Projects.pdf (accessed on 9 July 2025).
  13. United States Department of Energy, Solar Energy Technologies Office. Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/farmers-guide-going-solar (accessed on 10 May 2025).
  14. Khan, M.A.; Vannette, M.D. Experimental Study of a Solar Cage on Energy Harvest and Unconsumed Energy. In 2024 the 8th International Conference on Energy and Environmental Science ICEES; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  15. Edwards, G.; Walker, D. C3, C4: Mechanisms, and Cellular and Environmental Regulation of Photosynthesis; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ibrahim, N.I.; Omer, M.M.B.E. The Effect of Wavelength of Light on Solar Electrical Performance. In Proceedings of the ASME 2020 Power Conference Proceedings, Anaheim, CA, USA, 2–6 August 2020. [Google Scholar]
  17. Best Research Cell Efficiencies, NREL. Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/pv/cell-efficiency.html (accessed on 19 June 2025).
  18. Khan, M.A.; Franzel, Z.D.; Gransden, G.; Maricle, B.; Vannette, M. An Experimental Study of Partial Energy Harvesting by Solar Cages for Sustainability. In Proceedings of the ICGEA Conference, Singapore, 7–9 March 2025. [Google Scholar]
  19. Khan, M.A.; Gransden, G.; Franzel, Z.D.; Maricle, B.; Vannette, M. Solar Energy Harvesting Study Using Solar Cages and Sustainability. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Sustainable and Renewable Energy Engineering (ICSREE 2025), Nice, France, 13–16 May 2025. [Google Scholar]
  20. Lambers, H.; Chapin, F.S.; Pons, T.L. Plant Physiological Ecology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  21. Niinemets, Ü. A Review of Light Interception in Plant Stands from Leaf to Canopy in Different Plant Functional Types and in Species with Varying Shade Tolerance. Ecol. Res. 2010, 25, 693–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Björkman, O. Responses to Different Quantum Flux Densities. In Physiological Plant Ecology I. Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology; Lange, O.L., Nobel, P.S., Osmond, C.B., Ziegler, H., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1981; Volume 12A, pp. 57–107. [Google Scholar]
Solar 05 00036 g001
Figure 1. Model of 3-panel solar cage [14].
Figure 1. Model of 3-panel solar cage [14].
Solar 05 00036 g001
Solar 05 00036 g002
Figure 2. Solar cage Model 1 and measuring panel, MP. MP lies on the base.
Figure 2. Solar cage Model 1 and measuring panel, MP. MP lies on the base.
Solar 05 00036 g002
Solar 05 00036 g003
Figure 3. Flexible vertical model, Model 2, in which the black horizontal areas are customized connected PV cells [18].
Figure 3. Flexible vertical model, Model 2, in which the black horizontal areas are customized connected PV cells [18].
Solar 05 00036 g003
Solar 05 00036 g004
Figure 4. Five-panel structure with adjustable height.
Figure 4. Five-panel structure with adjustable height.
Solar 05 00036 g004
Solar 05 00036 g005
Figure 5. Visual presentation of the four configurations in Model 2.
Figure 5. Visual presentation of the four configurations in Model 2.
Solar 05 00036 g005
Solar 05 00036 g006
Figure 6. Intensity vs. voltage of the MP [18,19].
Figure 6. Intensity vs. voltage of the MP [18,19].
Solar 05 00036 g006
Table 1. Configurations of the cage panels in Model 2.
Table 1. Configurations of the cage panels in Model 2.
Heights (cm)Top DomeBottom DomeLarge DomeFlat
Panel 131.4516.316.331.45
Panel 238.823.5531.1531.2
Panel 346.6531.546.631.5
Panel 438.723.631.231.15
Panel 531.2516.0516.0531.15
Table 2. Calibration of the MP in Figure 2 [14].
Table 2. Calibration of the MP in Figure 2 [14].
Illumination Intensity
(lm/m2)		66.5310.0402.03050.025,100.010,1200.0
Output Voltage
(V)		4.016.476.738.689.8210.26
Table 3. Generated voltage inside and outside the cage.
Table 3. Generated voltage inside and outside the cage.
Time of a DayPanel Voltage
(V)		MP Voltage (V)
10:30 a.m.9.749.40
11:00 a.m.9.848.71
11:30 a.m.9.629.20
12:00 p.m.9.498.97
Table 4. Panel and MP voltages on 16 January 2025.
Table 4. Panel and MP voltages on 16 January 2025.
Top DomeBottom DomeLarge DomeFlat
Time1:30 p.m.1:55 p.m.1:47 p.m.2:00 p.m.
Panel 1 Voltage (V)13.4113.6513.4813.54
Panel 2 Voltage (V)13.4713.7113.5813.56
Panel 3 Voltage (V)13.4813.7013.6113.50
Panel 4 Voltage (V)13.4813.6713.5713.51
Panel 5 Voltage (V)13.5113.6113.4413.55
Panel voltage avg (V)13.4713.6713.5313.53
MP avg (V)13.2513.3213.4013.34
Table 5. Panel and MP voltages on 27 January 2025.
Table 5. Panel and MP voltages on 27 January 2025.
Top DomeBottom DomeLarge DomeFlat
Time1:40 p.m.2:02 p.m.1:51 p.m.2:14 p.m.
Panel 1 Voltage (V)14.4014.1514.0714.25
Panel 2 Voltage (V)14.4314.3114.4314.35
Panel 3 Voltage (V)14.3714.3714.3414.37
Panel 4 Voltage (V)14.4014.3713.9414.40
Panel 5 Voltage (V)14.3414.2613.8714.20
MP avg (V)14.2714.1214.1514.34
Calculated intensity
(×103 lux)		30.0026.0027.0031.00
Table 6. Light Intensity reduction inside the cage for data in Table 5.
Table 6. Light Intensity reduction inside the cage for data in Table 5.
Top DomeBottom DomeLarge DomeFlat
Panel equivalent light intensity (lux)15,999.5918,723.1416,847.0116,801.87
MP equivalent light intensity (lux)13,417.8314,213.5015,199.6014,439.61
% Change16.1324.089.7714.05
Table 7. Panel and MP voltages on 30 January 2025.
Table 7. Panel and MP voltages on 30 January 2025.
Top DomeBottom DomeLarge DomeFlat
Time12:31 p.m.12:55 p.m.12:22 p.m.12:37 p.m.
Panel 1 voltage (V)13.8413.8914.0213.99
Panel 2 voltage (V)13.7913.8314.1214.06
Panel 3 voltage (V)13.9713.9113.8913.92
Panel 4 voltage (V)14.0014.0213.9014.01
Panel 5 voltage (V)13.8914.0413.6914.00
Panel voltage avg (V)13.9013.9413.9213.99
MP avg (V)13.7213.8313.9813.87
Table 8. Light intensity reduction inside the cage in winter.
Table 8. Light intensity reduction inside the cage in winter.
Top DomeBottom DomeLarge DomeFlat
Panel equivalent light intensity (lux)22,428.1323,147.3822,893.0624,231.46
MP equivalent light intensity (lux)19,488.9721,256.3223,927.4321,938.00
% Change13.108.17−4.529.46
Table 9. Light Intensity reduction inside the cage in summer.
Table 9. Light Intensity reduction inside the cage in summer.
Panel Equivalent Light Intensity (klux)MP Equivalent Light Intensity (klux)% Change
Top Dome32.0014.8653.55
Bottom Dome35.0014.8657.53
104.0055.0647.05
Table 10. Illumination and power generated.
Table 10. Illumination and power generated.
Light Intensity (klux)Power Generated/Panel (mW)
2512.40
3412.60
4012.70
4912.80
7313.00
14013.05
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Khan, M.A.; Maricle, B.; Franzel, Z.D.; Gransden, G.; Vannette, M. Experimental Studies on Partial Energy Harvesting by Novel Solar Cages, Microworlds, to Explore Sustainability. Solar 2025, 5, 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/solar5030036

AMA Style

Khan MA, Maricle B, Franzel ZD, Gransden G, Vannette M. Experimental Studies on Partial Energy Harvesting by Novel Solar Cages, Microworlds, to Explore Sustainability. Solar. 2025; 5(3):36. https://doi.org/10.3390/solar5030036

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khan, Mohammad A., Brian Maricle, Zachary D. Franzel, Gabe Gransden, and Matthew Vannette. 2025. "Experimental Studies on Partial Energy Harvesting by Novel Solar Cages, Microworlds, to Explore Sustainability" Solar 5, no. 3: 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/solar5030036

APA Style

Khan, M. A., Maricle, B., Franzel, Z. D., Gransden, G., & Vannette, M. (2025). Experimental Studies on Partial Energy Harvesting by Novel Solar Cages, Microworlds, to Explore Sustainability. Solar, 5(3), 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/solar5030036

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop