Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Solar Energy 132 (2016) 386–394
www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Modeling of flat-plate solar thermoelectric generators

for space applications
Lei Liu ⇑, Xue Sen Lu, Mao Lei Shi, Ya Kun Ma, Jian Ying Shi
College of Electronic and Information Engineering, Hebei University, Baoding 071002, PR China

Received 13 December 2015; received in revised form 13 March 2016; accepted 14 March 2016

Communicated by: Associate Editor Michael Epstein

Abstract

A model for a flat-plate solar thermoelectric generator (STEG) with sandwich-like structure is established in this paper. The influence
of the thermal concentration ratio, length of the thermoelectric legs and other geometrical factors on the performance of the STEG are
investigated by numerical calculations. The results indicate that the maximum conversion efficiency and output power per unit mass can
reach 5.5% and 6.5 W/kg, respectively, for Bi2Te3 based STEGs working in the Earth’s orbit. For PbTe based STEGs working in the
orbits of Venus and Mercury, the maximum conversion efficiency can reach 4.7% and 5.8%, respectively. It is also shown that, under
high intensity radiation, the conversion efficiency of a flat-plate STEG can be maintained at a relatively stable level by adjusting the
device geometry, which is precisely the advantage of STEG when compared to photovoltaic devices.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Space energy supply; Thermoelectric conversion; Solar energy; Thermal concentration

1. Introduction still the problems faced by RTGs. In this scenario, a solar

Photovoltaic technology and radioisotope thermoelec-
tric generators (RTGs) have been the main ways for
supplying energy to spacecrafts over the past few decades
and to date they have provided sufficient power to support
space exploration. However the performance of photo-
voltaic cells would be severely compromised at the elevated
temperatures close to the sun (Landis et al., 2005). In
addition, particle radiation and the high temperature will
cause irreversible damage to the structure of the photo-
voltaic cells, which would ultimately reduce the lifetime
of the spacecraft. Although the RTGs have no the above
mentioned disadvantages of photovoltaic cells, the
shortage of radioisotopes material and security issue are
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 312 5079656.
E-mail address: beimingzy@126.com (L. Liu).
thermoelectric generator (STEG) may become a better
choice in order to supply a spacecraft with energy (Karni,
2011; Deng and Liu, 2009; Macdonald et al., 2010).
Thermoelectric energy generators convert thermal energy
directly into electrical power via the Seebeck effect, which
is a solid state solar-heat to electricity conversion process.
There are many advantages of STEGs and these include
radiation resistance, high temperature resistance, environmen-
tal friendliness, low cost and long operational life. Although
they did not attract much attention for a long time due to
their low conversion efficiency, recently the use of STEGs
has become feasible and hence has been the subject of many
research studies (Su et al., 2014; Dehghan et al., 2015; Bjork
and Nielsen, 2015; Dallan et al., 2015; Chavez-Urbiola et al.,
2012; Chen et al., 2014; Cai et al., 2015).
Temperature differences determine the energy conver-
sion efficiency of the thermoelectric generator which is also

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.03.028
0038-092X/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 L. Liu et al. / Solar Energy 132 (2016) 386–394
a Carnot heat engine. So a large temperature difference
between the hot-end and cold-end of the thermoelectric
legs is the key of improving the performance of STEGs
in both outer space and ground applications. Concentrat-
ing sunlight through a lens or mirror is a common method
to achieve a large temperature difference between the ends
of the thermoelectric legs. Telkes achieved a temperature
difference of 247 °C with a conversion efficiency of 3.35%
by concentrating sunlight through a 50
lens (Telkes,
1954). Li and his coauthors built a STEG system based
on silver antimony lead telluride alloys, which could
achieve a conversion efficiency of 5% with a 55
Fresnel
lens concentrator and water cooling (Li et al., 2010).
Amatya also reported a STEG system using n-type ErAs:
(InGaAs)1x(InAlAs)x and p-type (AgSbTe)x(PbSnTe)1x
that reached a conversion efficiency of 5.6% under a
120
reflex mirror (Amatya and Ram, 2010). However,
in order to ensure continuous operation it is necessary to
add a solar tracking system for light concentration, and
this makes STEGs more complicated and costly. Another
way to achieve a large temperature difference between the
ends of thermoelectric legs is by using a flat-plate to achieve
thermal concentration, which is more suitable for space
applications because of its simple structure. For example,
the thermal concentration via a flat-plate has been used
in Fuschillo’s and Scherrer’s work to build STEGs that
supply energy to space based technologies (Fuschillo
et al., 1966; Eggleston and Fuschillo, 1965; Scherrer
et al., 2003). In 2011, Kraemer carried out experimental
research upon Bi2Te3 based STEGs with a flat-plate and
achieved a conversion efficiency of 5.2% under a 196 times
(1.5 kW/m2) thermal concentration (Kraemer et al., 2011).
Unfortunately Kraemer’s result was obtained when the
cold side was fixed at 20 °C, which is difficult to maintain
in practical applications.
Solar thermoelectric generators have also attracted a
range of theoretical and design studies. Gibson analyzed
the influence of material, radiation intensity, heat sink
area, contact resistance and other factors on conversion
efficiency in STEGs, and discussed the advantages of
segmented STEG (Gibson and Fuschillo, 1965). Chen’s
calculation suggested that the optimal working tempera-
ture of STEGs with an optical concentrator is dependent
on the nondimensional figure-of-merit (ZT) and the opti-
cal properties of the system, but independent of the
device geometry (Chen, 2011). However, Chen’s result
was based on a constant property model (CPM) in which
the transport properties of the thermoelectric elements
were assumed to be constant with temperature. In contrast
to Gibson’s flat-plate thermal concentrator, McEnaney’s
design employed an optical concentrator in segmented
and cascaded STEGs and was able to show a conversion
efficiency of 15.9% for cascade device based upon Bi2Te3
and Skutterudite (McEnaney et al., 2011). Baranowski also
carried out an analysis and showed that the conversion
efficiency of STEGs made from today’s materials could
reach 14.1% using an ideal optical concentration system
387
(Baranowski et al., 2012). Kraemer’s modeling yielded a
predicted efficiency of 5% for Bi2Te3 based terrestrial
STEGs (Kraemer et al., 2012), which is higher than the
result of our preliminary work (Liu et al., 2013). However,
it should be noted that most studies mentioned above were
based upon specific temperature differences (DT) or specific
cold-end temperatures (Tc) of the thermoelectric legs. In
fact, the temperature difference (DT) between the hot and
cold end of the thermoelectric legs should be a dependent
variable under certain operating conditions, which could
be used to calculate the conversion efficiency of STEGs.
This paper presents an analysis of the potential perfor-
mance of flat-plate solar thermoelectric generators for
outer space applications. The influence of geometrical
structure on the temperature difference (DT) between hot
and cold ends of thermoelectric legs is investigated by finite
element analysis based upon temperature dependent trans-
port properties of thermoelectric materials. The conversion
efficiency, maximum output power and maximum output
power per unit mass of STEGs are further calculated under
the influence of solar radiation at 1AU (Earth’s orbit),
0.72AU (Venus’ orbit) and 0.39AU (Mercury’s orbit),
respectively. Although we primarily consider the working
performance of STEGs in an outer space environment, this
model also applies to terrestrial operation conditions.
2. Model and calculation method
A unit cell of flat-plate STEG is primarily composed of
three parts: a flat-plate thermal absorber, a pair of p-type
and n-type thermoelectric legs and a heat sink forming a
sandwich-like structure, as shown in Fig. 1. We use Aa to
represent the area of the square absorber. Aa = a2, where
a is the side length of the absorber. L is the length of
thermoelectric legs, b is the cross-sectional side-length of
the p and n legs and therefore At (At = b2) represents
the cross-sectional area of the legs. The area of the heat
sink is designed to be equal to the flat-plate thermal absor-
ber so that it would also serve as a mechanical support. The
ratio of area of the thermal absorber to the cross-sectional
Incident solar radiation
Thermal absorber
b
L Thermoelectric legs
Radiation loss
Heat sink
a
Fig. 1. Schematic of the unit cell in a sandwich-like STEG, which consists
of a flat-plate thermal absorber, a pair of p-type and n-type thermoelectric
legs and a heat sink. The thermal absorber absorbs the solar radiation and
thermally concentrates the heat onto the thermoelectric legs. The heat is
conducted along the thermoelectric legs and is finally transferred to the
heat sink. In this process, the energy is simultaneously dissipated to the
surrounding environment in the form of radiation.
388 L. Liu et al. / Solar Energy 132 (2016) 386–394
area of one pair of p–n thermoelectric legs is defined as the
area thermal concentration ratio Cth (Cth = Aa/2At), which
combined with the length L of the thermoelectric legs are
considered to be the major structural parameters for
flat-plate STEGs. The thermoelectric materials of the device
legs should be chosen according to the working environment
and therefore Bi2Te3 would make an excellent choice for the
Earth’s orbit environment for its high ZT values at the
temperature near 100 °C, but PbTe which own high ZT val-
ues between the temperature of 300 and 400 °C (Fuschillo
et al., 1966; Rowe, 1995; Fuschillo and Gibson, 1966) may
be a superior candidate for that of Venus or Mercury on
which higher solar intensity results in higher hot-end tem-
peratures (Th) of the thermoelectric legs.
As incoming solar radiation is converted into heat
energy by the flat-plate thermal absorber, heat is conducted
along the absorber to the thermoelectric legs and finally is
transferred to the heat sink. In this process, a thermal
electromotive force forms between the hot and cold ends
of the thermoelectric legs. If there is a load accessing the
device, there will be an output power in the circuit. Since
there is no air convection in outer space, heat conduction
and radiation are the major factors affecting the thermal
distribution of the STEGs for space applications. In that
case, the absorber which converts solar radiation into
thermal energy should be a wavelength-selective surface
which has a high absorption to solar radiation but a low
emittance at its operational temperature. In contrast, the
surface radiation emitted by the heat sink should be as high
as possible in order to obtain a large temperature difference
between the ends of the thermoelectric legs. Therefore a
copper sheet with a wavelength-selective surface and an
anodized aluminum plate with high surface emission
coefficient would make excellent candidates for the thermal
absorber and heat sink of the flat-plate STEG respectively.
The energy balance equation for the absorber at steady
state conditions can be written as:
Qr;abs þ Qr;hs-abs þ Qr;teg-abs ¼ Qc;abs-teg þ Qr;abs-teg
þ Qr;abs-hs þ Qr;abs-sur
where Qr,abs is the solar heat absorbed by the selective sur-
face of the absorber, Qr,hs-abs and Qr,teg-abs are the heat from
radiation of thermoelectric legs and heat sink, Qc,abs-teg is
the heat conduction into the top of the thermoelectric legs,
Qr,abs-teg, Qr,abs-hs and Qr,abs-sur are the radiation heat losses
to the thermoelectric legs, heat sink and surroundings,
respectively. Similar to that of absorber, the energy equilib-
rium conditions of thermoelectric legs and heat sink in the
model are mainly concerned with factors of radiation and
heat conduction.
Finite element analysis was used for the temperature
distribution calculation of the three-dimensional STEG
models. The equation of heat conduction for a finite element
Xi in the model is given by (Lobo and Emery, 1995)
@T i
qi c i ¼ r  ðk i rT i Þ þ qi
@t
where q is the density, c is the specific heat, k is the thermal
conductivity, q is the strength of heat source or sink, T is
the temperature. The subscript i refers to the ith object.
The radiative flux at a point on the surface of the ith
element Xi is given by (Lobo and Emery, 1995)
N Z 
X cos hi cos hk
qr ¼ i rT i  i
4
b J k dCk ð3Þ
k¼1 Ck pr2
where Ck is the boundary of the element Xk, e is the
hemispherical total emissivity, r is the Stefan–Boltzmann
constant, hi is the angle between the normal ni at the radi-
ation point on Ci, and hk is the corresponding angle for the
normal nk at the radiation point on Ck, r is the distance
between the radiation points of Ci and Ck, and Jk is the
radiation flow density. More details of finite element anal-
ysis on the heat conduction coupled with radiation could
be found elsewhere (Bathe, 1996; Lobo and Emery, 1995;
Comini et al., 1993; Aziz and Lunardini, 1995; Daurelle
et al., 1994). The absorption coefficient of the thermal
absorber was assumed to be 0.9, which is slightly lower
than that of commercially available solar thermal absorber.
The average emission coefficients of the absorber, thermo-
electric legs and heat sink were 0.1, 0.4, and 0.9 respec-
tively. The boundary temperature of the finite element
analysis was set to be the cosmic background radiation
temperature of 3 K. The thermal conductivities, Seebeck
coefficients and conductivities of Bi2Te3 and PbTe used in
the numerical calculation are shown in Fig. 2 (Rowe,
1995, 2006; Fuschillo and Gibson, 1966; Cheng et al.,
2015; Yan et al., 2010; McEnaney, 2010; Pei et al., 2011;
Snyder and Toberer, 2008).
After obtaining the thermal distribution from the finite
element analysis, the open voltage Voc of a STEG unit cell
comprising a p-type and a n-type legs can be expressed as
(Liu et al., 2013)
Z Th
V oc ¼ ½S p ðT Þ  S n ðT ÞdT ð4Þ
Tc
ð1Þ
where Sp(T) and Sn(T) are the Seebeck coefficients as
functions of temperature for p and n type thermoelectric
materials respectively. Th and Tc are the temperatures of
the hot and cold ends of the thermoelectric legs respec-
tively. The resistance of a pair of p and n thermoelectric
legs is given by Liu et al. (2013)
Z L
1
R¼ ðqp ½T ðxÞ þ qn ½T ðxÞÞdx ð5Þ
0 A t
where qp[T(x)] and qn[T(x)] are the temperature dependent
resistivities of p and n type thermoelectric legs at the posi-
tion x, respectively. T(x) is the temperature distribution
function of the thermoelectric legs, which can be obtained
from the results of finite element analysis. The maximum
output power Pmax of a unit cell is given by Rowe (1995)
ð2Þ P max ¼ V 2oc =4R ð6Þ
 L. Liu et al. / Solar Energy 132 (2016) 386–394 389

Seebeck Coefficient S(μV· 䉝 -1)

300
Absolute value
250

200

150

100 n-Bi2Te3 p-Bi2Te3

n-PbTe p-PbTe
50

Conductivity σ(S·m -1) 4x10

5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

5
3x10

5
2x10

5
1x10

0
Thermal Conductivity k(W·m -1·K -1)

4.0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0
2.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
ZT

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Temperature (䉝)

Fig. 2. The Seebeck coefficients, conductivities and thermal conductivities versus temperature for n and p type thermoelectric materials used in this
calculation. Data from references Rowe (1995, 2006), Fuschillo and Gibson (1966), Yan et al. (2010), McEnaney (2010), Pei et al. (2011) and Snyder and
Toberer (2008).

Then the conversion efficiency g corresponding to the 3. Results and discussion

maximum output power can be expressed as
g ¼ P max =P in
where the Pin is the incident solar radiation power. The
above calculation processes are based on the following
approximations: (1) Electrical and thermal contact resis-
tances of the device are negligible. The importance of
electrical and thermal contact resistance are well recognized
in thermoelectric device literature (Gibson and Fuschillo,
1965). This approximation is made to allow us focusing
on the influence of geometrical structure on performance
of the STEGs. (2) The influence of Joule heat on the tem-
perature distribution are negligible. This approximation is
based on that the Joule heat will not have significant
impacts on the temperature difference between the hot-
ends and cold-ends of the thermoelectric legs especially
when the conversion efficiencies of the STEGs are low.
(3) The uneven distribution of temperature in the section
of the thermoelectric legs is negligible. This approximation
is the basis for Eq. (4) to calculate the open-circuit voltages
of the STEGs.
The influence of the thicknesses of the thermal absorber
ð7Þ
and the heat sink on the performance of Bi2Te3 based
STEGs were analyzed under the solar radiation at 1AU
(1400 W/m2). The results show that the conversion
efficiency of the device declines slightly with increasing
thermal absorber thickness (Thab), but the maximum
output power per unit mass decreases rapidly, as shown
in Fig. 3. In contrast, increasing the thickness of the heat
sink (Thhs) increases the conversion efficiency, but also
seriously reduces the maximum output power per unit mass
of STEGs, as shown in Fig. 4. These results indicate that
within a certain range of the thickness values, choosing a
thinner absorber and heat sink is helpful in order to
improve the maximum output power per unit mass of the
STEGs, whilst not having a big influence on the conversion
efficiency. However, the mechanical strength of the
absorber and heat sink should also be taken into account
in the design of STEGs. Therefore the thicknesses of the
thermal absorber and heat sink were set to 0.05 cm and
0.1 cm, respectively, in the following calculations.
390 L. Liu et al. / Solar Energy 132 (2016) 386–394

5.0 8 50 to 300 °C, which matches the best ZT value range of
Bi2Te3 thermoelectric material.

Output power per unit mass(W/Kg)

The open circuit voltage of a Bi2Te3 based STEG unit
7
cell can be calculated based upon its temperature difference
Conversion efficiency(%)

4.5
DT by using Eq. (4). Fig. 5b shows the contour curves of
6 the open circuit voltage in a unit cell with successive
changing of Cth and L. These are slightly different from
4.0
that of Fig. 5a because of the use of temperature dependent
a=5cm 5 Seebeck coefficients. However both the gradients of the
b=1cm
Cth=12.5 temperature difference and the open circuit voltage all
3.5
L=1cm 4
show a decreasing trend with increasing Cth and L. This
Thhs=0.1cm means that the smaller Cth and L, the greater the influence
of them on the temperature difference and open circuit
3.0 3 voltage. The contour curves of working currents Iw (Iw =
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
Voc/2R) in a unit cell with different Cth and L are shown
Thickness of absorber(cm)
in Fig. 5c. It is clear that increasing thermal concentration
Fig. 3. Dependence of the conversion efficiency and output power per unit ratio Cth will not have a positive impact on the working
mass on the thickness of the thermal absorber for a Bi2Te3 based STEG currents when Cth is higher than 20. This is because of
working at solar radiation of 1 AU(1400 W/m2) with a geometry of the resistivity of Bi2Te3, which increases with increasing
a = 5 cm, b = 1 cm, Cth = 12.5, L = 1 cm, Thhs = 0.1 cm.
temperature is affected by Cth. Fig. 5d shows the maximum
output power contour curves of the STEG unit cell. Within
5.0 7.0 the scope of our calculation, the maximum output power of
a Bi2Te3 based STEG unit cell could reach 0.72 W when
Output power per unit mass (W/Kg)

Cth and L is 100 and 0.2 cm respectively.

6.5
For reaching the maximum output power per unit
Conversion efficiency (%)

4.5
4.0
a=5cm
b=1cm
Cth=12.5
3.5
L=1cm
Thab=0.05cm
3.0
0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
Thickness of heatsink (cm)
Fig. 4. Dependence of the conversion efficiency and output power per unit
mass on the thickness of the heat sink for a Bi2Te3 based STEG working at
solar radiation of 1 AU(1400 W/m2) with a geometry of a = 5 cm,
b = 1 cm, L = 1 cm, Cth = 12.5, Thab = 0.05 cm.
As mentioned in the previous section, the achievable
temperature difference DT (DT = Th  Tc) between the
hot and cold ends of thermoelectric legs is the main
determinant of output power and conversion efficiency.
The thermal concentration ratio Cth together with the
length L of the thermoelectric legs are major structural
parameters for flat-plate STEGs, and determine the tem-
perature difference DT. It could be predicted that DT will
increase with the increase of Cth and L. Rigorous calcula-
tions have demonstrated this and are shown in Fig. 5a. It
is shown that large temperature differences can be
achieved for Bi2Te3 based flat-plate STEGs working in
outer space. The calculations show that the operating
temperatures of thermoelectric legs under solar radiation
at 1AU (1400 W/m2) are approximately in the range of
mass in outer space applications, a appropriate thermal
6.0 concentration ratio Cth should also be considered. Our
calculations indicate that the maximum output power per
unit mass of a Bi2Te3 based STEG unit cell can reach up
5.5 to 6.5 W/kg at Cth = 30 and L = 0.6 cm, as shown in
Fig. 6a. This value of output power per unit mass has
5.0
reached half of the application requirements of spacecraft
needing 12 W/kg (Macdonald et al., 2010). Fig. 5d shows
that small L and large Cth are beneficial for achieving
4.5 greater maximum output power in Bi2Te3 based STEGs.
0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22
However, the situation is different for conversion efficiency,
as shown in Fig. 6b. The peak region of the conversion
efficiency corresponds to large L and small Cth. The conver-
sion efficiency of Bi2Te3 based flat-plate STEG can reach
5.5% with Cth = 10 and L = 2.8 cm, which exceeds that
of Kraemer’s report and is realized at a low thermal con-
centration ratio. This is mainly because Kraemer’s result
was obtained at room temperature, therefore a high
thermal concentration ratio was required in order to achieve
a large temperature difference (Kraemer et al., 2011). The
above results suggest that it is difficult to achieve maximum
conversion efficiency and output power per unit mass
simultaneously for Bi2Te3 based STEGs. In practical
applications, we recommend that it is better to give priority
to power output per unit mass with due consideration of
conversion efficiency. For example, the output power per
unit mass and conversion efficiency could reach 6.5 W/kg
and 4%, respectively, at Cth = 30 and L = 0.6 cm for a
Bi2Te3 based STEG working at the Earth’s orbit. In this
geometry, the material cost of the STEG system per unit
area is about 900$/m2, and is about twice the cost of
poly-Si photovoltaic cells (Yazawa and Shakouri, 2011).
 L. Liu et al. / Solar Energy 132 (2016) 386–394 391

Fig. 5. Performance characteristics of Bi2Te3 based STEGs under the solar radiation at 1 AU (1400 W/m2) with successive changing of thermal
concentration ratio Cth and the length L of thermoelectric legs. (a) Temperature differences DT (DT = Th  Tc) between the hot and cold ends of
thermoelectric legs, (b) open circuit voltage Voc of a STEG unit cell, (c) working current Iw(Iw = Voc/2R) of a STEG unit cell, and (d) maximum output
power Pmax of a STEG unit cell.

The assumed cost of the material are based on the commer-
cial Bi2Te3 compounds, copper and aluminum at 550$/kg,
15$/kg and 8$/kg, respectively.
We have further studied the influence of the cross-
sectional area of thermoelectric legs on the device
performance. According to the definition of the thermal
concentration ratio Cth, the area of thermal absorber Aa
should change proportionally with the cross-sectional area
At of the thermoelectric legs when Cth is determined. In
addition, the surface radiation loss is proportional to the
surface area. Therefore under a fixed thermal concentra-
tion ratio, increasing the cross-sectional area of thermo-
electric legs will increase the radiation loss of the
absorber and heat sink, which would reduce the conversion
efficiency of the device. Fig. 7 shows the variation of
conversion efficiency in Bi2Te3 based STEGs with the
cross-sectional side length of the thermoelectric legs at
different Cth. Obviously, the greater the cross-sectional side
length b of the thermoelectric legs, the lower the conversion
efficiency of the STEGs. This is especially the case for large
Cth, where the influence of cross-sectional side length of
thermoelectric legs on conversion efficiency is much more
evident. Therefore, the cross-sectional area of the thermo-
electric legs should be as small as possible for the design
of STEGs once the application requirement has been satis-
fied. This is in agreement with Kraemer who also suggested
that it is best to adjust the thermal concentration via a
decrease in cross-sectional area of the thermoelectric legs
(Kraemer et al., 2012).
Fig. 8 shows the conversion efficiencies of Bi2Te3 and
PbTe based STEGs as a function of the incident radiation
intensity. Both of the conversion efficiencies in the two
STEGs increase at first and then decrease with increasing
incident radiation intensity. This is because the ZT values
of Bi2Te3 and PbTe are dependent upon the operating tem-
perature of the thermoelectric legs, which are affected by
the incident radiation. For Bi2Te3 based STEGs, the
incident radiation corresponding to the peak region of
conversion efficiency is in the range of 1–1.5 kW/m2, which
matches the solar radiation intensity near the Earth’s orbit.
However, for the PbTe based STEGs with the same
geometry, the peak region of the conversion efficiency
corresponds to a radiation of approximately 4 kW/m2.
This indicates that PbTe based STEGs are more suitable
for applications close to the Sun. Although ZT values
cannot be changed, the geometry of the STEGs can be
changed to make the thermoelectric legs have a high ZT
value at its operating temperature under different radiation
conditions.
The conversion efficiency of PbTe based STEGs working
at 0.72 AU (Venus’ orbit, 2600 W/m2) and 0.39 AU
(Mercury’s orbit, 9100 W/m2) were calculated successively
392 L. Liu et al. / Solar Energy 132 (2016) 386–394

100
4.6 Output power per
2.0 6
unit mass(W/kg)
1AU 0.39AU
80

Conversion efficiencyη(%)
Thermal concentration Cth

2.8
5
0.72AU
60
3.6
4
5.7
40
Cth=12.5
6.2
3 L =1cm
20 b =1cm
a =5cm
2.0 2
1.1 (a) Bi2Te3
0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 PbTe
Lengths of STEG legs L(cm)
1
0 1k 2k 3k 4k 5k 6k 7k 8k 9k 10k
100
2
1.2 Conversion efficiency(%) Radiation power(W/m )
1.5 Fig. 8. Conversion efficiencies of Bi2Te3 and PbTe based STEGs under
80
Thermal concentration Cth

different incident solar radiation regimes with a geometry of a = 5 cm,

b = 1 cm, Cth = 12.5, L = 1 cm. The vertical lines correspond to the solar
60 radiation at 1 AU (1400 W/m2), 0.72 AU (2600 W/m2) and 0.39 AU
2.7 2.1 (9100 W/m2), which correspond to orbits of Earth, Venus and Mercury,
3.3 respectively.
40
3.9

2.1
changing Cth and L. As can be seen in Fig. 9, the peak
20 4.4
conversion efficiency of a STEG operating in Mercury’s
1.5 5.0 orbit would have a smaller Cth and L than a one working
0.61 1.2 (b) in Venus’s orbit. That is because the higher intensity solar
0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
radiation elevates the operating temperature of the STEG,
Lengths of STEG legs L(cm) which in turn increases the surface radiation loss of the
Fig. 6. Dependence of the output power per unit mass (a) and conversion device. Therefore smaller Cth and L can be used to obtain
efficiency (b) of a Bi2Te3 based STEG unit cell on the thermal high conversion efficiency for STEGs working in Mercury’s
concentration ratio Cth and the length L of thermoelectric legs under orbit. Additionally, the output power per unit mass of
solar radiation at 1 AU (1400 W/m2). STEG in Mercury’s orbit is much larger than that of the
STEG in Venus’s orbit with the same conversion efficiency.
For example, a STEG with a conversion efficiency of 4.5%
can reach an output power per unit mass of 15 W/kg at
5.5 Cth = 50 and L = 0.5 cm in Venus’s orbit, while in
Cth=8 Cth=12.5
Cth=18 Cth=24.5 Mercury’s orbit it can reach 50 W/kg at Cth = 20 and
5.0 L = 0.4 cm. It can be seen that for STEGs working under
Conversion efficiency (%)

Cth=32 Cth=40.5
higher radiation intensity, the conversion efficiency can
4.5 be maintained at a relatively stable level by adjusting the
device geometry, yet the output power per unit mass are
4.0 greatly elevated. This is precisely the advantage of STEGs
when compared to photovoltaic devices, whose conversion
3.5 efficiency would be seriously impaired under high-intensity
solar radiation. It also should be noted that the output
3.0 power density of STEGs working in the orbits of Venus
or Mercury are fully able to meet the energy supply
2.5 requirements of the spacecraft.
According to the above results, the product or ratio of
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Cth and L are not proposed as a design reference for flat-
Cross section length of STEG legs b (cm) plate STEG, though contour curves approximate straight
Fig. 7. Conversion efficiency for Bi2Te3 based STEGs with different lines in some regions of Figs. 6 and 9. The product of Cth
crosssectional length b of the thermoelectric legs and concentration ratio and L may be an important parameter for thermoelectric
Cth under solar radiation at 1 AU (1400 W/m2). The thermoelectric legs L generators (TEG) working at a fixed temperature difference
of the unit cell were fixed at 1 cm. but it is not applicable to flat-plate STEGs working in an
 L. Liu et al. / Solar Energy 132 (2016) 386–394 393

100
Conversion efficiency(%)
together with the length of the thermoelectric legs are the
major structural parameters, and are crucially important
80 2.0 in obtaining good conversion efficiency and output power
Thermal concentration Cth

2.8 1.3 per unit mass of the devices. By adjusting the thermal con-
centration ratio and length of the thermoelectric legs, the
60 flat-plate STEGs can obtain relatively stable conversion
3.8 efficiency under different radiation conditions. It is shown
40
4.6 that the maximum conversion efficiency is not less than
5.5% for Bi2Te3 based STEGs working in the Earth’s orbit,
while it can reach 4.7% and 5.8%, for PbTe based STEGs
20 2.0 working in the orbits of Venus and Mercury respectively.
2.8 Due to the thermal concentration, only a small amount
1.3
0.55 (a) of thermoelectric materials are needed for STEG, making
0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 it an attractive direction for harnessing solar energy into
Lengths of STEG legs L (cm) electricity for outer space applications.
100
Conversion efficiency(%)
0.39 Acknowledgements
Thermal concentration Cth

80
This work was supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (No. 61204079), Nature
0.60
60 Science Foundation of Hebei Province (No. F2013201196),
1.7 1.0 and Support Program for the Top Young Talents of
40
Hebei Province. The calculation was supported by the High-
Performance Computing Platform of Hebei University.

20 4.0
5.3
1.7
0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Lengths of STEG legs L (cm)
Fig. 9. Dependence of conversion efficiency of PbTe based STEG on
thermal concentration ratio Cth and the length L of thermoelectric legs. (a)
Under solar radiation at 0.72 AU (Venus’ orbit, 2600 W/m2), and (b)
under solar radiation at 0.39 AU (Mercury’s orbit, 9100 W/m2).
open environment in which cold end temperatures of the
thermoelectric legs cannot be fixed. In addition, we believe
that a conversion efficiency of over 5% can be achieved in
flat-plate STEGs working in outer space, based on today’s
materials. This value will continue to improve with the
rapid development of thermoelectric materials (Snyder
and Toberer, 2008; Minnich et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2015).
Although the efficiency of STEGs are not comparable with
photovoltaics at present, the stability of performance under
high-intensity solar radiation is a key advantage. Taking
into account other advantages such as radiation resistance,
environmental friendliness, low cost and long operational
life, STEGs will surely become a major way to supply
spacecraft with energy.
4. Conclusion
A model has been developed that calculates the
performance of flat-plate STEGs used in outer space. The
results indicate that the thermal concentration ratio
References
(b) Amatya, R., Ram, R.J., 2010. Solar thermoelectric generator for
2.5 3.0 3.5 micropower applications. J. Electron. Mater. 39, 1735–1740.
Aziz, A., Lunardini, V.J., 1995. Multidimensional steady conduction in
convecting radiating and convecting radiating fins and fin assemblies.
Heat Transf. Eng. 16, 32–64.
Baranowski, L.L., Snyder, G.J., Toberer, E.S., 2012. Concentrated solar
thermoelectric generators. Energy Environ. Sci. 5, 9055–9067.
Bathe, K.J., 1996. Finite Element Procedures, first ed. Prentice Hall,
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Bjork, R., Nielsen, K.K., 2015. The performance of a combined solar
photovoltaic (PV) and thermoelectric generator (TEG) system. Sol.
Energy 120, 187–194.
Cai, L., Li, P., Luo, Q., Huang, W., Zhai, P., Zhang, Q., 2015. Validation
of discrete numerical model for thermoelectric generator used in a
concentration solar system. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C-J. Mech.
Eng. Sci. 229, 465–475.
Chavez-Urbiola, E.A., Vorobiev, Y.V., Bulat, L.P., 2012. Solar hybrid
systems with thermoelectric generators. Sol. Energy 86, 369–378.
Chen, G., 2011. Theoretical efficiency of solar thermoelectric energy
generators. J. Appl. Phys. 109, 104908-1–8.
Chen, W.H., Wang, C.C., Hung, C.I., Yang, C.C., Juang, R.C., 2014.
Modeling and simulation for the design of thermal-concentrated solar
thermoelectric generator. Energy 64, 287–297.
Cheng, L., Chen, W., Kunz, M., Persson, K., Tamura, N., Chen, G.Y.,
Doeff, M., 2015. Effect of surface microstructure on electrochemical
performance of garnet solid electrolytes. ACS Appl. Mater. Interf. 7,
2073–2081.
Comini, G., Saro, O., Manzan, M., 1993. A physical approach to finite
element modeling of coupled conduction and convection. Numer. Heat
Transf. 24, 243–261.
Dallan, B.S., Schumann, J., Lesage, F.J., 2015. Performance evaluation of
a photoelectric–thermoelectric cogeneration hybrid system. Sol.
Energy 118, 276–285.
Daurelle, J.V., Occelli, R., Martin, R., 1994. Finite element modeling of
radiation heat transfer coupled with conduction in an adaptive
method. Numer. Heat Transf. 25, 61–73.
394 L. Liu et al. / Solar Energy 132 (2016) 386–394
Dehghan, A.A., Afshari, A., Rahbar, N., 2015. Thermal modeling and
exergetic analysis of a thermoelectric assisted solar still. Sol. Energy
115, 277–288.
Deng, Y.-G., Liu, J., 2009. Recent advances in direct solar thermal power
generation. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 1, 052701–052723.
Eggleston, F.K., Fuschillo, N., 1965. Fabrication of flat plate solar
thermoelectric generator panels for near-earth orbits. IEEE Trans.
Aerosp. 2, 674–680.
Fuschillo, N., Gibson, R.D., 1966. Solar thermoelectric generators for
missions toward the sun. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst. AES-2,
93–102.
Fuschillo, N., Gibson, R.D., Eggleston, F.K., Epstein, J., 1966. Solar
thermoelectric generator for near-earth space applications. IEEE
Trans. Electron Dev. 4, 426–432.
Gibson, R.D., Fuschillo, N., 1965. Flat plate solar thermoelectric
generator design analysis. IEEE Trans. Aerosp. 2, 664–673.
Karni, J., 2011. Solar energy the thermoelectric alternative. Nat. Mater.
10, 481–482.
Kraemer, D., Poudel, B., Feng, H.P., Caylor, J.C., Yu, B., Yan, X., Ma,
Y., Wang, X.W., Wang, D.Z., Muto, A., McEnaney, K., Chiesa, M.,
Ren, Z.F., Chen, G., 2011. High-performance flat-panel solar ther-
moelectric generators with high thermal concentration. Nat. Mater. 10,
532–538.
Kraemer, D., McEnaney, K., Chiesa, M., Chen, G., 2012. Modeling and
optimization of solar thermoelectric generators for terrestrial applica-
tions. Sol. Energy 86, 1338–1350.
Landis, G.A., Merritt, D., Raffaelle, R.P., Scheiman, D., 2005. High-
temperature solar cell development. In: 18th Space Photovoltaic
Research and Technology Conference, pp. 242–247.
Li, P., Cai, L., Zhai, P., Tang, X., Zhang, Q., Niino, M., 2010. Design of a
concentration solar thermoelectric generator. J. Electron. Mater. 39,
1522–1530.
Liu, L., Zhang, S.L., Ma, Y.K., Wu, G.H., Zheng, S.K., Wang, Y.Q.,
2013. Modelling and structure optimization of flat-panel thermal
concentrated solar thermoelectric device. Acta Phys. Sin. 62, 038802-1–
038802-6.
Liu, W., Jie, Q., Kim, H.S., Ren, Z.F., 2015. Current progress and future
challenges in thermoelectric power generation: from materials to
devices. Acta Mater. 87, 357–376.
Lobo, M., Emery, A.F., 1995. Use of the discrete maximum principle in
finite element analysis of combined conduction and radiation in
nonparticipating media. Numer. Heat Transf. 22, 447–465.
Macdonald, M., McInnes, C., Hughes, G., 2010. Technology requirements
of exploration beyond Neptune by solar sail propulsion. J. Spacecr.
Rockets 47, 472–483.
McEnaney, K., 2010. Modeling of solar thermal selective surfaces and
thermoelectric generators. In: Department of Mechanical Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pp. 97–9, 107.
McEnaney, K., Kraemer, D., Ren, Z.F., Chen, G., 2011. Modeling of
concentrating solar thermoelectric generators. J. Appl. Phys. 110,
074502-1–6.
Minnich, A.J., Dresselhaus, M.S., Ren, Z.F., Chen, G., 2009. Bulk
nanostructured thermoelectric materials: current research and future
prospects. Energy Environ. Sci. 2, 466–479.
Pei, Y.Z., LaLonde, A., Iwanaga, S., Snyder, G.J., 2011. High thermo-
electric figure of merit in heavy hole dominated PbTe. Energy Environ.
Sci. 4, 2085–2089.
Rowe, D.M., 1995. CRC Handbook of Thermolelectrics. Springer CRC
Press LLC, New York (Chapter 39.4).
Rowe, D.M., 2006. Thermoelectric Handbook: Nano to Macro. CRC
Taylor & Francis, New York (Chapter 27.4).
Scherrer, H., Vikhor, L., Lenoir, B., Dauscher, A., Poinas, P., 2003. Solar
thermoelectric generator based on Skutterudites. J. Power Sources 115,
141–148.
Snyder, G.J., Toberer, E.S., 2008. Complex thermoelectric materials. Nat.
Mater. 7, 105–114.
Su, S., Liu, T., Wang, Y., Chen, X., Wang, J., Chen, J., 2014. Performance
optimization analyses and parametric design criteria of a dye-sensitized
solar cell thermoelectric hybrid device. Appl. Energy 120, 16–22.
Telkes, M., 1954. Solar thermoelectric generators. Appl. Phys. 25 (6), 765–
777.
Yan, X.A., Poudel, B., Ma, Y., Liu, W.S., Joshi, G., Wang, H., Lan, Y.C.,
Wang, D.Z., Chen, G., Ren, Z.F., 2010. Experimental studies on
anisotropic thermoelectric properties and structures of n-type Bi2-
Te2.7Se0.3. Nano Lett. 10, 3373–3378.
Yazawa, K., Shakouri, A., 2011. Cost-efficiency trade-off and the design of
thermoelectric power generators. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 7548–
7553.