Clean Energy, 2023, Vol. 7, No.

6, 1233–1246

https://doi.org/10.1093/ce/zkad067
Advance access publication 17 November 2023
Research Article

Solar thermoelectric generator and thermoelectric cooler

performance: analysis and comparison using a different
shape geometry
ALkhadher Khalil1,*, Smail Sahnoun1, Ahmed Elhassnaoui2, Said Yadir3, Abdellatif Obbadi1 and Youssef Errami1
1
Laboratory: Electronics, Instrumentation and Energy, Faculty of Sciences, Chouaïb Doukkali University, El Jadida, Morocco

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/7/6/1233/7425143 by guest on 18 February 2024

2
National School of Applied Sciences—ENSABM, Sultan Moulay Slimane University—Beni Mallal, Morocco
3
Laboratory of Materials, Processes, Environment and Quality, ENSA, Cadi Ayyad University, Safi, Morocco
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: alkhadher.k@ucd.ac.ma

Abstract
Thermoelectric devices are one of the technologies used either to generate electricity by applying a temperature difference using
thermal energy or as a heating/cooling system by applying an electrical voltage. The number of materials required to produce a
product is an important factor in determining its price. Production costs associated with these materials, as well as their availability
and quality, play a crucial role in price determination by manufacturers. In this context, a method that employs a uniform volume
distribution was implemented. This approach enabled the analysis to focus on other variables, thereby promoting a more precise and
relevant evaluation of overall performance. Based on the finite element method, this study investigated the influence of geometric
shape, including Rect-leg, Y-leg, Pin-leg and X-leg designs, on the performance of solar thermoelectric generators and thermoelectric
coolers. The study was conducted considering the same hot alumina junction surface that receives solar radiation; however, the ef-
fective surface, which corresponded to the heat flow area and had a similar area near the exposed surface, varied depending on the
chosen leg geometry, thus impacting the heat flux due to the variation in thermal resistance. In the case of a solar thermoelectric
generator, the Rect-leg model, having the same effective surface area, presented the lowest heat loss value resulting from convection
and radiation in the heat spreader and the hot alumina plate. Under the same conditions, the Y-leg showed the highest value. The
Rect-leg design generated, by using thermal and optical concentration, the highest output power of 0.028 and 0.054 W, and efficiency
of 3.47% and 4.7%, respectively, whereas the Y-leg generated lower values of 0.006523 and 0.018744 W for power, and 2.83% and 2.71%
for efficiency, respectively. In the case of the thermoelectric coolers, the Y-leg generated the highest temperature difference between
the hot and cold sides of 67.28 K at an electric current value of 1.8 A, whereas the Rect-leg, Pin-leg and X-leg generated ~66.25, ~67.02
and ~67.19 K at 6.1, 2.7 and 2.6 A.

Received: 10 May 2023. Accepted: 14 August 2023

© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of National Institute of Clean-and-Low-Carbon Energy
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For
commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
1234 | Clean Energy, 2023, Vol. 7, No. 6

Graphical Abstract
2.4 mm 2.4 mm
4.8 mm 2.4 mm 4.8 mm
4.8 mm
4.8 mm 2.4 mm

1.4 1.4 mm
A1 1.4 1.4 mm 1.4 mm
1.4

1.167 mm
1.4 1.4 mm A1
L3 A1

1.167 mm
A1
L3
A2

2.3345 mm
1.6 mm
L1 A2
0.9 L2

1.936 mm
L4 0.9 mm
L3 0.9

1.167
0.9 mm
A1
A2
0.9
A B 0.9 mm C D
Fig. 1: Geometric design of the legs (a) Rect-leg. (b) Y-leg. (c) Pin-leg. (d) X-leg.
respectively

A B A 450
B
0.035 0.05 Rect-leg 70 Rect-leg

Temperature of cold side (K)

Temperature of cold side (K)

Y-leg Y-leg
0.030 Pin-leg Pin-leg

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/7/6/1233/7425143 by guest on 18 February 2024

400 60
0.04 X-leg X-leg
System efficiency

System efficiency

0.025 50
350
0.020 0.03
40

0.015 30
0.02 300

0.010 Rect-leg Rect-leg 20

Y-leg 0.01 Y-leg
250
0.005 Pin-leg Pin-leg 10
X-leg X-leg
0.000 0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 200 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Concentration ratio (Cth) Concentration ratio (Copt)
Current (A) Current (A)

Fig. 2: Variation of efficiency with (a) thermal concentration ratio. (b) Optical Fig.3: Variation of (a) Temperature of cold side, (b) Temperature difference with current
concentration ratio. (TH = 300 K).

Table 7: Minimum of the cold side temperature for the TECs models.
Table 6: Performance of the STEGs for thermal and optical concentration
Thermal concentration Optical concentration Model Rect-leg Y-leg Pin-leg X-leg

Model C Power Efficiency Copt Power Efficiency

th
(w) (%) (w) (%) Temperature of cold side (K) 233.75 232.72 232.98 232.81

Rect-leg 70 0.028004 3.47 100 0.054148 4.7 Electrical current (A) 6.1 1.8 2.7 2.6
Y-leg 20 0.006523 2.83 60 0.018744 2.71
Pin-leg 30 0.010561 3.06 60 0.022214 3.21
X-leg 30 0.010603 3.07 60 0.022169 3.21

Keywords: solar thermoelectric generators; heat loss; thermoelectric coolers; coefficient of performance; leg geometry; same leg
volume; performance

Introduction A simulation of a STEG based on bismuth telluride using a flat

solar absorber under actual environmental conditions was per-
The massive use of fossil resources contributes to their deple-
formed throughout the day and the output power and efficiency
tion, environmental pollution and global warming. Faced with this
were 6.588 kWh and 2.657%, respectively, for the thermoelectric
problem, namely meeting energy demand for all consumers while
module with an external load resistance of 5.8 ohms [1]. In [2], high-
preserving the environment, the adoption of new means of energy
temperature thermoelectric materials (SiGe alloys) demonstrated
production is required. Thus, several countries are advocating the
an efficiency of >12%. Using a concentrated thermoelectric-based
production of so-called renewable energies. Energy is said to be
system led to an overall efficiency of ~80%. Therefore, higher-
renewable when it comes from a source that nature constantly re-
efficiency thermoelectric materials were the most appropriate to
news, as opposed to non-renewable energy, whose stocks are run-
increase the ratio of electrical efficiency [3]. A numerical simula-
ning out (such as oil, for example). It is also called ‘clean energy’
tion of a hybrid system composed of a concentrated photovoltaic
or ‘green energy’ because its use generates minimal pollution and
cell and a thermoelectric generator (CPV–TEG) was performed to
waste. A thermoelectric generator (TEG) is one of the devices used
study its efficiency as a function of the variation in solar radiation
in electric power generation or cooling/heating. Thermoelectric
and the temperature of the module [4]. Adjusting the thermal and
modules have two important features that can be widely used in
optical concentration ratio of the thermoelectric materials used
life fields. These two features are electricity generation (Seebeck
played an essential role in obtaining the best efficiency [5–9]. The
effect) and cooling (Peltier effect). Cooling is the reverse process of
electrical output of the STEG was calculated and evaluated using
generating electricity. Heat can be converted into electricity pro-
Ansys® Workbench v, 14.0, and the maximum power output was
vided there is a difference in the temperatures of the two sides
found to be ~33.7 W [10]. Improvement in the efficiency of the
of the TEG. At the same time, the cooling is done by applying a
STEG system was through improved system thermodynamics.
voltage to this generator, which results in heating one side and
Due to the combination of solar concentrators and solar-based
cooling the thermoelectric cooler (TEC) of the other side.
absorption, a maximum efficiency of 4.3% was obtained with a
In this field, researchers have recently developed solar thermo-
solar concentration of 78 and a maximum power of 11.2 W at 106
electricity, i.e. the thermoelectric conversion of solar energy. Solar
Suns [11]. In [12], high-performance solar–thermal hybrid appar-
thermoelectric generators (STEGs) are one of the technologies
atus was developed using a heat vacuum tube collector, a solar
used to convert thermal energy into electricity when solar radi-
selective absorbent surface and TEG modules. The experimental
ation is concentrated in two ways: thermal and optical concen-
results showed that the highest electrical efficiency is ~5.2%
tration. These generators have the advantage of being able to
and the system efficiency is 7.17%. A numerical study of a STEG
exploit the entire solar spectrum.
 Solar thermoelectric generator and thermoelectric cooler performance |
operating without a condenser was conducted. This system pro-
vided an efficiency of ~4.5% under the reference operating condi-
tions [13]. In [14], modelling and analysis of a car-mounted STEG
with a vortex tube for hybrid vehicles were conducted. The results
depended on the speed of the vehicle, the cold air mass and the
solar flow. This STEG system generated an output power and an
electric current of ~147.3 W and ~1.49 A with a vehicle speed and
a cold air fraction adjustment of ~55.5 m/s and ~0.9, respectively.
An experimental study of a thermocouple using solar energy
during the day and cold air at night was performed [15]. The vari-
able leg geometry of the TEGs by leg length and cross-sectional
area was an important factor in improving the performance of
the device [16–21]. A comprehensive model of the multi-mission
radioisotope thermoelectric generators (MMRTGs) was developed,
in which the thermocouples (TEs) of the MMRTG consisted of
traditional legs and segmented legs [22].
For TECs, many studies have been carried out to improve their
performance [23, 24]. The influences of the Thomson effect, the
segmented leg geometry on the heat absorbed and the coefficient
of performance (COP) of a segmented TEC cooler were evaluated
and it was found that the segmented thermoelectric micro-cooler
(TEMC) presented a maximum cooling power that was 5.10%
higher than that of the traditional TEMC [25]. In addition, some
tests were performed to obtain the best COP to apply as a heating
and cooling system for residential buildings [26]. Theoretical and
experimental studies were conducted on the trapezoidal-leg
and rectangular-leg models and the trapezoidal-leg model re-
quired fewer materials than the rectangular-leg and generated
a maximum temperature difference of 10% greater than the
rectangular-leg at an electric current of 5 A [27]. A simulation
model of the segmented TEGs for rectangular-leg, trapezoidal-leg
and inverse trapezoidal-leg models with different cross-sectional
areas was analysed using the finite element method (FEM) and
the trapezoidal-leg presented an improvement in cooling of
~4.75% [28].
In the first part of this study, and in the axis of conversion of
solar energy into electricity STEGs, we will study the effect of
the variable geometry of the legs with the same volume and hot
cross-sectional area on the performance of the STEGs in using
thermal and optical concentration. The effect of the contribution
of the two concentrations on the temperature of the hot side of
the TEG models is evaluated to have significant temperature gra-
dients that ensure a good production of electricity by the Seebeck
effect. In addition, the heat lost by convection and thermal radi-
ation is evaluated.
The Peltier effect stipulates that with a voltage difference is
applied between the two sides of a module, heating/cooling can
be obtained. TECs are alternative cooling technologies that are
attracting more and more attention. In the second part of this
study, we will analyse the performance of TECs using the same
legs as in TEGs. The temperature difference, the heat absorbed
and the COP are evaluated by applying an electric voltage.
1 Studied geometries
TEs are modelled and simulated for four diverse geometric
shapes: Rect-leg, Y-leg, Pin-leg and X-leg. The Rect-leg model
is an established geometry, whereas the other three were de-
veloped for this research. The rectangular geometry legs
of the GM200-31-14-16 module manufactured by European
Thermodynamics Ltd are the current standard leg geometry,
which was chosen as a reference (see Fig. 1). Bismuth telluride
1235
(Bi2Te3) is chosen as the base material for the design. The p- and
n-type legs are connected thermally in parallel and electrically
connected in series through copper electrodes. Furthermore,
thermoelectric elements and copper electrodes were placed be-
tween two alumina ceramic plates to support the mechanical
stress between the hot and cold junctions while avoiding elec-
trical interaction.
In Fig. 2, the Y-leg, Pin-leg and X-leg models have the same
volume and hot junction of the cross-sectional area of the Rect-
leg model, as shown in Relationships (1) and (2), while the leg
length is variable:
vY−leg = vPin−leg = vX−leg = vRect−leg
(1)
A1, Y−leg = A1, Pin−leg = A1,X−leg = A1,Rect−leg
(2)
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/7/6/1233/7425143 by guest on 18 February 2024
2 STEGs
2.1 Description of the solar thermoelectric
system
To take advantage of the large amount of solar radiation in the
solar thermoelectric system, solar radiation is concentrated in
two ways: thermally and optically. In the thermal concentration,
the solar radiation is concentrated under a vacuum environment
to avoid heat loss by convection, which is underlined. Moreover,
this radiation is absorbed by the selective absorbent surface and
thus its temperature increases, creating a temperature difference
in the thermoelectric generator. Fig. 3 shows the STEG system of
thermal concentration.
For the optical concentration, the solar radiation is concen-
trated by using a Fresnel lens, which allows direct incident solar
irradiation exploitation. Therefore, this radiation is received
using an aluminium plate of high thermal conductivity as a heat
spreader, which occupies the same cross-sectional area of the hot
side of the thermoelectric module (see Fig. 4). To use most of the
solar radiation, a selective absorption coating with a high absorb-
ance of 0.95 is used on the outer surface of the heat condenser
and the heat distributor. The aluminium and alumina emissivity
is 0.1 and 0.75, respectively, while the emissivity of the solar ab-
sorber is 0.05.
4.8 mm 2.4 mm
1.6 mm
1.6 mm
1.4 1.4 mm
1.4 1.4 mm
Fig. 1: Thermocouple of the GM200-31-14-16 modules
1236 | Clean Energy, 2023, Vol. 7, No. 6

2.4 mm 2.4 mm 2.4 mm

4.8 mm 4.8 mm 4.8 mm
4.8 mm 2.4 mm

1.4 1.4 mm
A1 1.4 1.4 mm 1.4 mm
1.4

1.167 mm
1.4 1.4 mm A1
L3 A1

1.167 mm

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/7/6/1233/7425143 by guest on 18 February 2024

A1
L3
A2

2.3345 mm
1.6 mm

L1 A2
0.9 L2

1.936 mm
L4 0.9 mm
L3 0.9

1.167
0.9 mm
A1
A2
0.9
0.9 mm
A B C D
Fig. 2: Geometric design of the legs (a) Rect-leg. (b) Y-leg. (c) Pin-leg. (d) X-leg, respectively

Solar irradiation (qs) system. The convective heat loss by convective heat in the STEGs
for all the studied models was calculated using the air properties
dependent on the ambient temperature (T), as shown in Table 2.
Tables 3 and 4 give the properties of the materials used.
Thermoelectric materials properties of p-type and n-type Bi2Te3
Qint are dependent on the temperature equations, as shown in Table
Qrad Tint
3. The thermoelectric properties at average temperatures are cal-
Thermal concentrator
QH culated. To understand the system behaviour of the STEGs, a 3D
Q rad
TH Qrad simulation is performed using a program based on the FEM. Fig. 5
P N Vacuum Environment
illustrates the flowchart showing the different stages of the simu-
lation study.
Heat Extractor Enclosure
Copper
2.2.1 Boundary conditions
Alummina plate
Rload Some assumptions related to boundary conditions are made:
Glass
(i) Heat transfer by convection and radiation on all TEG sur-
Fig. 3: Schematic diagram illustrating STEG using thermal faces is neglected except for that on the ammonia plate
concentration on the hot side.
(ii) Electrical and thermal contact resistance are not con-
sidered.
2.2 Mathematical model
(iii) There is no difference in properties as a function of pos-
To evaluate and compare the performance of the STEGs, a 3D ition.
simulation of different geometrical shapes was carried out with
the same leg volume, as shown in Fig. 2. The solar radiation, cold- The electrical power produced by the STEG depends on the tem-
side temperature and ambient temperature were set at 1000 W/ perature of the hot side generated from the concentration of solar
m2, 300 K and 298 K, respectively. An aluminium heat spreader radiation absorbed by the selective absorbent surface, the tem-
was placed on the hot side of the TEGs. Due to the different max- perature of the cold side, the Seebeck coefficient, electrical resist-
imum allowable lateral temperatures of the Bi2Te3, the operation ance and thermal conductance.
of the proposed models was examined under different thermal In thermal concentration, the heat flow on the concentrator
and optical concentration ratios (Cth and Copt). Different leg geom- can be calculated using the following equation [6]:
etry affects the thermal and electrical resistance of the models
studied. Therefore, the external load resistance was considered (3) Qint = τg αs qs Cth As
equal to the internal resistance of the model. Table 1 shows the The temperature generated on the hot side of the TEGs de-
parameters used in the simulation of the solar thermoelectric pends on Cth:
 Solar thermoelectric generator and thermoelectric cooler performance | 1237

Solar irradiation (qs)

As
Cth =
(4) Ateg
The heat flow on the hot side of the generator QH can be ex-
Fresnel lens
pressed by using the following equation:
Qint
(5) QH = Qint − Qrad−modl − Qrad−abs
Qrad where Qrad–abs represents the radiation heat loss from the front
Qconv side, the back side and the edges of the thermal concentrator into
Heat spreader
the environment, while Qrad–modl represents the radiation heat loss
QH
Tint from the edges and the back side of the hot alumina plate of the
TH
Qrad Copper
P N Qconv TEGs.
Alummina plate
The heat flow concentrated in the heat spreader can be calcu-
lated by using the following equation [8]:
Heat Extractor
Qint = ηopt αs τg qs Copt Ateg

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/7/6/1233/7425143 by guest on 18 February 2024

(6)
The optical concentration, Copt, can be written as:
Rload Aopt
Copt =
(7) Ateg
Fig. 4: Schematic diagram illustrating a STEG using optical The heat flow on the hot side of the generator, QH, can be ex-
concentration
pressed by using the following equation:

(8) QH = Qint − Qrad,abs − Qconv,abs − Qrad,modl − Qconv,modl

where Qconv,abs represents the convection heat loss from the front
Table 1: Parameters used in the STEG system [6] side, the back side and the edges of the thermal concentrator into
the environment, while Qconv,modl represents the convection heat
Parameter Value Units
loss from the edges and the back side of the hot alumina plate
Transmittance of glass (τg) 0.95 – of the TEGs. The heat transfer by radiation and convection over
Absorptivity of the selective coating (αs) 0.95 – the hot outer surface of the TEGs is written by using the following
equations:
Optical concentration efficiency (ηopt) 0.94 –
Ä ä
Stefan Boltzmann’s constant (σSB) 5.67 × 10–8 (W/(m2-K4)) Qrad = ε σSB A Tint 4 − Tair 4
(9)
Solar radiation (qs) 1000 (W/m2)
(10) Qconv = hair A (Tint − Tair )
For cooling by free convection on the cold side of the TEGs, the
following equations are used [33]:

g β δ3 (Ts − Tair )
Table 2: Thermophysical properties of air [29,30] Ra =
(11) vλ
Properties Values Units Thermal expansion can be written as follows:

Density (ρ) 345.57/(T − 2.6884) (kg/m3) (12) β = 1 /T

Heat capacity 1007 (J/(kg-K)) where T = [(Tint + Tair)/2].
(Cp) Thermal diffusivity is expressed by using the following equa-
Thermal 1.5797 × 10–17 × T5 + 9.4600 × 10–14 × T4 W/(m-k) tion:
conductivity + 2.2012 × 10–10 × T3 – 2.3758 × 10–7 ×  
(λair) T2 + 1.708 × 10–4 × T – 7.488 × 10–3 λ = k /(ρ Cp )
(13)
Kinematic (–1.04271 + 0.00705 × T + 5.70086 × (m2/s)
viscosity (v) 10–6 × T2) × 10–5 The Nusselt number for the horizontal isothermal plate can be
expressed by using the following equations [34]:

Table 3: Properties of bismuth telluride used in simulations [30]

Properties n-Type Units

Seebeck coefficient (α) 1.291689 × 10–13 × T3 + 1.074408 × 10–9 × T2 – 9.271759 × 10–7 × T + 8.95888 × 10–6 (V/K)
Electrical conductivity (σ) (1/(–1.24614 × 10–14 × T3 – 6.429015 × 10–11 × T2 + 9.103036 × 10–8 × T – 1.049646 × 10–5)) (S/m)
Thermal conductivity (k) –1.592653 × 10–8 × T3 + 2.905845 × 10–5 × T2 – 1.58323 × 10–2 × T + 3.727526 (W/(m-K))

p-Type

Seebeck coefficient (α) 5.921376 × 10–13 × T3 – 3.274207 × 10–9 × T2 + 2.422355 × 10–6 × T – 2.743842 × 10–4 (V/K)
Electrical conductivity (σ) (1/(2.248899 × 10–14 × T3 – 1.250867 × 10–10 × T2 + 1.388189 × 10–7 × T – 2.244786 × 10–5)) (S/m)
Thermal conductivity (k) 1.251606 × 10–7 × T3 – 1.242845 × 10–4 × T2 + 3.873788 × 10–2 × T – 2.362707 (W/(m-K))
1238 | Clean Energy, 2023, Vol. 7, No. 6

Table 4: Properties of the TEG materials [31]

Material Heat capacity, Cp Density, ρ Seebeck Electrical Thermal conductivity, λ

(J/(kg-K)) (kg/m3) coefficient, conductivity, (W/(m-K))
α σ
(V/K) (S/m)

Alumina 900 3900 – – 27

Bi2Te3 (p–n types) 154 7700 Table 1 Table 1 Table 1
Copper 385 8960 – 5.81 × 107 401
Solder 220 7390 – 7.299 × 106 37.8

Create the geometrical model ˆH ˆTC

dx
Q = −k dT

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/7/6/1233/7425143 by guest on 18 February 2024

A (x)
(16) 0 TH

Meshing The cross-sectional areas of the models studied are given by

using [17]:
A(0 ≤ x ≤ L)Rect−leg = AH = AC
(17)
Define constants Å ã
AH − AC
A(0 ≤ x ≤ L)Y−leg = AC + 2 x + 2AC − AH
(18) L
AH − AC
Define initial and boundary conditions A(0 ≤ x ≤ L)Pin−leg = x + AC
(19) L
Å ã Å ã
AC − AH AH − AC
A(0 ≤ x ≤ L)
X−leg= 2 x + AH + 2 x + 2AC − AH
(20) L L
Introduction of differential equations The internal resistance of the TEG models, as shown in Fig. 2,
related to the physical model can be given by using Equations (21–24) [17]:
Å ã
1 1 L1
RRect−leg = +
(21) σp (T) σn (T) A1
Assign tolerance Å ãß Å ã™
1 1 L4 L3 A1
RY−leg = + + ln
(22) σp (T) σn (T) 2A2 2(A1 − A2 ) A2
Å ãÅ ã Å ã
1 1 L2 A1
Solve inbuilt convergence RPin−leg = + ln
(23) σp (T) σn (T) A1 − A2 A2
Å ãß Å ã™
1 1 L3 A1
RX−leg = + ln
(24) σ p (T) σ n (T) A1 − A2 A2
View results
The thermal conductance of the TEGs models, as shown in Fig.
2, can be given by using Equations (25–28) [17]:
Fig. 5: Flow chart for the simulation study [32]
  A1
KRect−leg = kp (T) + kn (T)
(25) L1
 1/4  
Ra kp (T) + kn (T)
Nu = 0.36 + 0.518∗ î ó  KY−leg = ¶ L L3
Ä ä©
A1
9/16 16/9
2A2 + 2(A1 −A2 ) ln A2
4
1 + (0.559/Pr) (26)
(14)
Also, the Nusselt number can be written in the following  
kp (T) + kn (T)
form: KPin−leg = Ä L ä Ä A ä
A1 −A2 ln A2
2 1
(27)
k  
hair = Nu
(15) δ kp (T) + kn (T)
KX−leg = ¶ L Ä ä©
A1
The characteristic length (δ) can be calculated by using δ = A1 −A2 ln A2
3
(28)
A/P, where A and P represent the surface area and the perimeter,
The heat of the hot and cold sides can be given by using
respectively.
Equations (29) and (30) [35]:
In STEGs, the conversion of heat into electricity depends on î Ä ä ó
the solar radiation, concentration ratio and absorption coefficient QH = α ITH + KTH ∆TTE − 0.5∗RG I2 − (0.5∗I µ ∆TTE )
(29)
of the selective coating. The output power of the STEG increases î Ä ä ó
with these parameters. In the shapes Y-leg, Pin-leg and X-leg, the QC = α ITC + KTH ∆TTE + 0.5∗RG I2 + (0.5∗I µ ∆TTE )
(30)
cross-sectional area of the leg changes with the length of the leg. The output power of the TEGs can be calculated as follows:
Therefore, the amount of heat flowing through the leg changes. î Ä ä ó
Using Fourier’s law, we can calculate the value of the heat flow Pout = QH − QC = α I∆TTE − RG I2 − (I µ ∆TTE )
(31)
through the leg length by using the following equation: or
 Solar thermoelectric generator and thermoelectric cooler performance | 1239

performed. The plots illustrated in Fig. 6 show compatibility be-

ñ ô
Ä ä (α∆TTE )
2
tween the results obtained from the present numerical model
Pout = I2 RL = R
2 L
(RG + RL ) and the previous numerical results obtained from the literature
(32)
[10]. The temperature values on the hot side that correspond
The efficiency of STEGs can be given as follows:
to the temperature range of the Bi2Te3 are taken. Therefore, in
Pout the GM200-31-14-16 module, the temperature range of Bi2Te3 is
ηsym =
(33) Q int obtained at a concentration ratio of 120 and, in the GM200-31-14-
16 module, it is 270; this is due to the effect of the cross-sectional
area of the ceramic plate receiving solar radiation. Fig. 6a and b
3 TECs shows the variation in the output power and the STEG efficiency
Thermoelectric cooling depends on the Peltier effect; this ef- with the concentration ratio. The results show that the GM200-
fect works on the flow of heat at the intersection of two types of 31-14-16 module has the highest efficiency of 3.214%, while that
thermoelectric materials, where the heat is transferred from one of the GM250-127-28-12 module is 3.235%.
side to the other with the consumption of electrical energy, and The heat flow on the selectively absorbing surface that receives
the incident solar radiation is affected by several parameters, the

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/7/6/1233/7425143 by guest on 18 February 2024

this depends on the direction of the electric current. The efficiency
of the TEC module depends on the amount of heat transferred
(QC), the temperature difference between its sides (∆T) and the
applied current (I0). This phenomenon can be used for heating or
cooling. In addition, TEC modules can be used to control tempera-
ture. In this study, the performance of TEC models is evaluated
and compared using the same previous shapes (see Fig. 2) with
the same material properties, as shown in Tables 3 and 4. The
simulation of the TEC models is carried out by applying a variable
electric current on their two ends. The internal electrical resist-
ance and thermal conductance are calculated using Equations
(21–28). To calculate QC and COP, it is assumed that ∆T = 30 K, with
the temperature of the cold side considered to be TC = 270 K and
the temperature of the hot side was fixed at TH = 300 K.
Some assumptions related to boundary conditions are made.
To this effect, the thermal properties of the ceramic plates and
copper slices are independent of temperature, and it is assumed
that all other surfaces, except the hot and cold surfaces, are adia-
batic. In addition, electrical contact resistance and thermal con-
tact resistance are not considered.
The amount of heat absorbed and released by the TEC mod-
ules can be expressed by the using the following equations [23]:
î Ä ä ó
QC = αI0 TC − 0.5 ∗ RG I0 2 − (KTH ∆TTE )
(34)
î Ä ä ó
QH = αI0 TH + 0.5 ∗ RG I0 2 − (KTH ∆TTE )
(35)
The input current can be given by using the following equa-
tion [23]:
(V0 ) − α∆TTE
I0 =
(36) RG
The input power can be written as:
î Ä äó
W = αI0 (TH − TC ) + RG I0 2
(37)
The COP for cooling and heating can be calculated by using
Equations (38) and (39) [24]:
QC
COPCooling =
(38) W sents the lowest values.
QH
COPHeating =
(39) W
4 Results and discussion
4.1 Performance analyses of the STEGs
To verify the mathematical model used in this study, simula-
tion of the commercial modules (GM250-127-28-12 and GM200-
31-14-16) manufactured by European Thermodynamics Ltd was
most important being the concentration ratio. The concentration
ratio was set at 1:100. The heat flow on the alumina plates was
calculated using Equations (3) and (6). Table 5 gives the heat flow
values on the selective absorbent surface as a function of the
thermal and optical concentration ratios.
The variable geometry of the leg affects the heat flow through
the leg due to the change in the effective area with the length
of the leg. The Rect-leg model presents the lowest temperature
on the hot side, while the Y-leg, Pin-leg and X-leg models present
the high temperatures, as shown in Fig. 7a and b. Therefore, to
calculate the output power and optimum efficiency, the tempera-
ture values that correspond to the temperature range of the Bi2Te3
are taken.
To calculate the heat lost by radiation and convection, the
emissivity of aluminium and alumina plates and the selective ab-
sorbent surface were given as 0.1, 0.75 and 0.05, respectively. Heat
transfer between other thermal elements and the environment
is neglected. Heat loss due to radiation and heat convection was
calculated using Equations (8) and (9).
The variable cross-sectional area of the leg affects the heat
flow and this is due to the increase in thermal resistance. The
Y-leg, Pin-leg and X-leg models generate higher temperatures
on the hot side, whereas the Rect-leg has low values. The heat
losses of the STEGs increase with the temperature of the hot side.
Therefore, the Rect-leg model has the lowest heat loss values,
whereas the Y-leg model has the highest, as shown in Fig. 8. The
results show that the heat loss values by the thermal concentra-
tion are higher than those by the optical concentration; this is
due to the receiving aluminium plate area for the heat flow.
Fig. 9 shows the heat flow on the alumina plate of the TEG
models. The optical concentration presents the highest heat flow,
while the thermal concentration presents the lowest values. In
the thermal concentration, the heat flow values decrease when
the concentration ratio for the Rect-leg, Y-leg, Pin-leg and X-leg
is higher than 90, 40, 40 and 30, respectively. In the two concen-
trations, the Rect-leg gives the highest values, while the Y-leg pre-
In shapes with variable cross sections, namely Y-leg, Pin-leg and
X-leg, the cross-sectional area decreases with the length of the
leg, which leads to an increase in thermal resistance. Increasing
the thermal resistance leads to a rise in the temperature of the
selective absorbent surface (see Fig. 7a and b). Therefore, the
loss of heat increases by convection and heat radiation (see Fig.
8a and b), which leads to a decrease in the heat flow of the TEG
models, as shown in Fig. 9a and b.
For the thermal concentration, although all the models have
the same cross-sectional area of the hot alumina plate, the
1240 | Clean Energy, 2023, Vol. 7, No. 6

A 40 B
Model [10] 3.5 GM200-31-14-16
35 Presente model
Model [10] 3.0
30

Output power (W)

Presente model
GM250-127-28-12 2.5

Efficiency
25
GM250-127-28-12
20 2.0

15 1.5

10 Model [10]
1.0
GM200-31-14-16 Presente model
5 Model [10]
0.5 Presente model
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 50 100 150 200 250 300

Concentration ratio Concentration ratio

Fig. 6: Numerical model validation. Variation of (a) output power and (b) efficiency with Copt.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/7/6/1233/7425143 by guest on 18 February 2024

­ ot-side temperature of the Rect-leg model increases with the
h Table 5: Heat flow in the STEGs
concentration ratio and decreases in the Y-leg, Pin-leg and X-leg
Thermal concentration Optical concentration
models when the concentration ratio values are more than 30,
40 and 40, respectively, as shown in Fig. 10a. In the optical con- Cth Qint (W) Copt Qint (W)
centration, the hot-side temperature values increase with the
1 0.010 397 1 0.009 773
concentration ratio for all studied models, as shown in Fig. 10b.
10 0.103 968 10 0.097 73
The temperature values correspond to the temperature range of
Bi2Te3. 20 0.207 936 20 0.195 46
Figs 11a and b and 12a and b show the output power and effi- 30 0.311 904 30 0.293 19
ciency for the studied models. In the thermal concentration, for 40 0.415 872 40 0.390 92
the low concentration ratio, the Y-leg, Pin-leg and X-leg shapes 50 0.519 84 50 0.488 65
generate output power and efficiency higher than the Rect-leg 60 0.623 808 60 0.586 38
model, whereas in a high concentration ratio, the Rect-leg model 70 0.727 776 70 0.684 109
gives the highest values; this is due to higher temperatures on 80 0.831 744 80 0.781 839
the hot side of the TEGs in the low concentration ratios. At a con-
90 0.935 712 90 0.879 569
centration ratio of 90, the Rect-leg model presents the highest
100 1.039 68 100 0.977 299
output power at ~0.0316 W, while the Y-leg, Pin-leg and X-leg pre-
sent 0.00965, 0.01292 and 0.01295 W at 30, 40 and 40, respectively.
For the optical concentration, the output power increases with
the concentration ratio, where the Rect-leg model generates the and efficiency values with a concentration ratio for all models
highest values of the output power of ~0.054 W, while the Y-leg studied in the two systems.
model, Pin-leg and X-leg generate ~0.0187, ~0.022 and ~0.022 W, Through the results obtained, the optical concentration shows
respectively. the best performance compared with the thermal concentration.
In the thermal concentration, the Rect-leg, Y-leg, Pin-leg and In addition, the Rect-leg model presents the best performance
X-leg models give the highest efficiency values of 3.47%, 2.14%, compared with the other models studied.
2.56% and 2.55% at concentration ratios of 70, 20, 30 and 30, re-
spectively, whereas in the optical concentration, the efficiency
increases with the concentration ratio for all studied models 4.2 Performance analysis of the TECs
where the Rect-leg generates the highest efficiency value of 4.7%, A 3D simulation of the previous models was carried out using
and the Pin-leg and X-leg give a value of 3.21%. The Y-leg has the the Peltier effect by applying a variable electric current at the
lowest value of 2.71%, as shown in Fig. 12a and b. temperature of the hot side of 300 K. Each leg presents different
Figs 13 and 14 show the variation in the output power and ef- temperature distributions at different electrical currents as a re-
ficiency with the external load resistance. In thermal concentra- sult of the thermal resistances of the thermoelectric materials.
tion, the output power for the models studied was calculated at The Joule temperature in the thermoelectric legs increases with
an optimal concentration ratio of 70, 20, 30 and 30, respectively. the electric current, which may affect the performance of the
The Rect-leg model gives an output power value of 0.028004 W TECs.
more than the Y-leg, Pin-leg and X-leg models by about 76.7%, For the Rect-leg model, the cold-side temperature of the TEC
62.3% and 62.14%, as shown in Fig. 13a. In optical concentra- decreases with the electric current, where the lowest cold-side
tion, the optimal concentration ratios are 100, 60, 60 and 60. The temperature is 233.75 K at a current of 6.1 A, while in the Y-leg,
Rect-leg model generates a higher value than the Y-leg, Pin-leg Pin-leg and X-leg models, they are 232.72, 232.98 and 232.81 K
and X-leg models of 65.38%, 58.97% and 59.05%, respectively, as when the electrical current values are 1.8, 2.7 and 2.6 A (see Table
shown in Fig. 13b. 7). The cold-side temperatures of the TECs increase with the elec-
In thermal and optical concentration, the Rect-leg model pre- trical current values, as shown in Fig. 15a and b.
sents the highest efficiency values with ~3.47% and ~4.7%, re- Fig. 16a and b shows the variation in the absorbed heat and
spectively, while the Y-leg has the lowest values, at 2.83% and released heat for the models studied with the electric current.
2.71%, as shown in Fig. 14a and b. Table 6 shows the output power The absorbed heat values increase to the peak value and then
 Solar thermoelectric generator and thermoelectric cooler performance | 1241

A B
800 800

700 700

600 600

Tint (K)

Tint (K)
500 500

Rect-leg Rect-leg
400 Y-leg 400 Y-leg
Pin-leg Pin-leg
X-leg X-leg
300 300
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Concentration ratio (Cth) Concentration ratio (Copt)

Fig. 7: Variation in the hot-side temperature of the STEGs with (a) the thermal concentration ratio and (b) the optical concentration ratio

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/7/6/1233/7425143 by guest on 18 February 2024

A B
0.30
0.7
0.25
0.6

0.20
Heat losses (W)

Heat losses (W)

0.5

0.4 0.15

0.3
0.10
0.2 Rect-leg Rect-leg
Y-leg Y-leg
0.05
0.1 Pin-leg Pin-leg
X-leg X-leg
0.0 0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Concentration ratio (Cth) Concentration ratio (Copt)

Fig. 8: Variation in heat losses with (a) the thermal concentration ratio and (b) the optical concentration ratio

A B
0.6
0.8

0.5
Heat flow on TEGs (W)
Heat flow on TEGs (W)

0.6
0.4

0.3 0.4

0.2
Rect-leg Rect-leg
0.2
Y-leg Y-leg
0.1 Pin-leg Pin-leg
X-leg X-leg
0.0 0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Concentration ratio (Cth) Concentration ratio (Copt)

Fig. 9: Variation in the heat flow on the hot side of TEGs with (a) the thermal concentration ratio and (b) the optical concentration ratio

decrease to zero for all the studied models because the Peltier current. At the lowest current values, the Y-leg model presents
effect gives the best results when the electrical current is small. the highest values of the heat released, and the Pin-leg and X-leg
The Joule heat, which offsets the cooling effect, makes a differ- models have almost the same values, while the Rect-leg model
ence when the values of the electrical current are higher. Due to gives the lowest values.
the effect of the variable leg geometry on the thermal resistance, In the cooling process, all the models studied give the same
the Y-leg, Pin-leg and X-leg models produce low heat absorption maximum performance coefficient values of ~0.695 at the dif-
at low electric current, and the Rect-leg generates high heat ab- ferent electric current values. The Y-leg model presents the max-
sorption at high electric current values, as shown in Fig. 16a. The imum COPCooling value at an electric current of 0.82 A, the Pin-leg
results show that the maximum absorption heat of the Rect-leg and X-leg models at 1.1 A, and the Rect-leg model at 2.41 A, as
is 0.178 W at electric current values of 6.1 A, and the Pin-leg and shown in Fig. 17a. For the heating process, all the studied models
X-leg are 0.081W at 2.84 A, while the Y-leg is 0.061 W at 2.05 A. give the same COPHeating value of ~1.695 at the same electric cur-
In Fig. 16b, the released heat increases with the applied electric rent values in the cooling process, as seen in Fig. 17b.
1242 | Clean Energy, 2023, Vol. 7, No. 6

A B
460

440 500

Hot side temperature (K)

Hot side temperature (K)

420
450
400

380
400
360

340 Rect-leg Rect-leg

350 Y-leg
Y-leg
320 Pin-leg Pin-leg
X-leg X-leg
300 300
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Concentration ratio (Cth) Concentration ratio (Copt)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/7/6/1233/7425143 by guest on 18 February 2024

Fig. 10: Variation in the hot-side temperature of the TEGs with (a) the thermal concentration ratio and (b) the optical concentration ratio

A B
0.035 0.06

0.030 0.05

0.025
Output power (W)

Output power (W)

0.04

0.020
0.03
0.015

0.02
0.010
Rect-leg Rect-leg
Y-leg 0.01 Y-leg
0.005 Pin-leg Pin-leg
X-leg X-leg
0.000 0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Concentration ratio (Cth) Concentration ratio (Copt)

Fig. 11: Variation in the output power with (a) the thermal concentration ratio and (b) the optical concentration ratio

A B
0.035 0.05

0.030
0.04
System efficiency

System efficiency

0.025

0.020 0.03

0.015
0.02

0.010 Rect-leg Rect-leg

Y-leg 0.01 Y-leg
0.005 Pin-leg Pin-leg
X-leg X-leg
0.000 0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Concentration ratio (Cth) Concentration ratio (Copt)

Fig. 12: Variation in efficiency with (a) the thermal concentration ratio and (b) the optical concentration ratio

5 Conclusions thermal and optical concentration techniques were utilized.

Throughout the evaluation, we took into account the tempera-
To determine the most cost-effective leg geometry while
ture dependence of the properties of thermoelectric materials.
maintaining optimal performance, we examined and evaluated
The ambient temperature, solar radiation and cold-side tempera-
various leg configurations with different geometries but iden-
ture were assumed to be equal to 298 K, 1000 W/m2 and 300 K,
tical volumes and hot alumina junction surfaces. The evaluation
respectively. Furthermore, the cold-side temperature and the COP
involved comparing the heat flow, heat loss and performance
of the TECs were evaluated using the same shapes. The results
of STEGs across these different geometries. In the assessment,
obtained showed that:
 Solar thermoelectric generator and thermoelectric cooler performance | 1243

A B 0.06
Rect-leg Rect-leg
0.030
Y-leg Y-leg
0.05 Pin-leg
Pin-leg
0.025

Output power (W)

Output power (W)

X-leg X-leg
0.04
0.020

0.03
0.015

0.02
0.010

0.005 0.01

0.000 0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
External load resistance (ohm) External load resistance (ohm)

Fig. 13: Output power of the STEGs. (a) Thermal concentration and (b) optical concentration with external load resistance.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/7/6/1233/7425143 by guest on 18 February 2024

A B
0.035 Rect-leg Rect-leg
0.05
Y-leg Y-leg
0.030 Pin-leg Pin-leg
X-leg 0.04
X-leg
0.025
Efficiency

Efficiency
0.020 0.03

0.015
0.02

0.010
0.01
0.005

0.000 0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

External load resistance (ohm) External load resistance (ohm)

Fig. 14: Efficiency of the STEGs. (a) Thermal concentration and (b) optical concentration with external load resistance.

Table 6: Performance of STEGs for thermal and optical concentration

Model Thermal concentration Optical concentration

Cth Power (W) Efficiency (%) Copt Power (W) Efficiency (%)

Rect-leg 70 0.028 004 3.47 100 0.054 148 4.7

Y-leg 20 0.006 523 2.83 60 0.018 744 2.71
Pin-leg 30 0.010 561 3.06 60 0.022 214 3.21
X-leg 30 0.010 603 3.07 60 0.022 169 3.21

Table 7: Minimum cold-side temperatures for the TEC models tration, the output power increased with the concentra-
tion ratio for all models studied.
Model Rect-leg Y-leg Pin-leg X-leg
✓ In thermal and optical concentrations, the Rect-leg model
Temperature of cold side (K) 233.75 232.72 232.98 232.81 gave the highest output power of 0.028 and 0.054 W, and
Electrical current (A) 6.1 1.8 2.7 2.6 efficiency values of 3.47% and 4.7%.

➢ For the TECs:

➢ In the STEGs:
✓ The absorbed heat increased with the applied electrical
✓ The changing geometry of the shape affected the current where the minimum temperature of the cold
heat flow along the leg as the thermal resistance de- side for the Rect-leg, Y-leg, Pin-leg and X-leg were 233.75,
creased with the flow area. Therefore, the temperature 232.72, 232.98 and 232.81 K at electrical currents of 6.1,
of the hot side increased in the Pin-leg, X-leg and Y-leg 1.8, 2.7 and 2.6 A, respectively.
models. ✓ The results indicated that the Y-leg TEC offered the low-
✓ The Rect-leg model presented the lowest heat loss est cold-side temperature at a low value of the applied
value, while the Y-leg presented the highest value, due electric current.
to the high temperature of the plate aluminium and ✓ The Y-leg model presented the highest COP of cooling
alumina. and heating of 0.695 and 1.695 at an electrical current
✓ Regarding thermal concentration, the output power of of 0.82 A, while the Rect-leg, Pin-leg and X-leg models
the Rect-leg model increased with the concentration ratio presented the same COP values for cooling and heating
and decreased in the other shapes. In the optical concen- at 2.41, 1.1 and 1.1 A.
1244 | Clean Energy, 2023, Vol. 7, No. 6

A B
450
Rect-leg 70 Rect-leg

Temperature of cold side (K)

Temperature of cold side (K)

Y-leg Y-leg
Pin-leg 60 Pin-leg
400
X-leg X-leg
50
350
40

300 30

20
250
10

200 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Current (A) Current (A)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/7/6/1233/7425143 by guest on 18 February 2024

Fig. 15: Variation in (a) the temperature of the cold side and (b) the temperature difference with current (TH = 300 K)

A B
0.20 2.5
Rect-leg
0.18 Y-leg
0.16 Pin-leg 2.0
Absorbed heat (W)

X-leg

Released heat (W)

0.14 ∆T = 30 K
0.12 1.5

0.10

0.08 1.0 Rect-leg

Y-leg
0.06
Pin-leg
0.04 0.5 X-leg
0.02 ∆T = 30 K

0.00 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Current (A) Current (A)

Fig. 16: Variation in (a) the absorbed heat (QC) and (b) the released heat (QH) with electrical current at ∆T = 30 K

A B
2.0
0.8
Rect-leg Rect-leg
1.8
0.7 Y-leg Y-leg
Pin-leg 1.6 Pin-leg
0.6 X-leg X-leg
1.4
∆T = 30 K
∆T = 30 K
COPCooling

COPHeating

0.5 1.2

0.4 1.0

0.8
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.2

0.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Current (A) Current (A)

Fig. 17: Variation in (a) COPCooling and (b) COPHeating values with electrical current at ∆T = 30 K

Nomenclature
TH Hot-side temperature (K) As Aluminium plate area (m2)
TC Cold-side temperature (K) k Thermal conductance of model (W/K)
∆TH Temperature difference (K) vleg Thermoelectric leg volume (m3)
σn Electrical conductivity (n-type) (S/m) Λ Thermal diffusivity
σp Electrical conductivity (p-type) (S/m) Qrad Radiation heat losses (W)
αn Seebeck coefficient (n-type) (V/K) Qconv Convection heat losses (W)
 Solar thermoelectric generator and thermoelectric cooler performance |
αp Seebeck coefficient (p-type) (V/K)
kn Thermal conductivity (n-type) (W/(m-k))
kp Thermal conductivity (p-type) (W/(m-k))
Nu Nusselt number
RG Total electrical resistance (ohms)
RL External load resistance (ohm)
L Leg length (m)
A Cross-sectional area (m²)
Rp Electrical resistance (p-type) (ohms)
Rn Electrical resistance (n-type) (ohms)
Aopt Aperture area of the Fresnel lens (m2)
Ateg Cross-sectional area of the ceramic (m2)
Author contributions
Ahmed Elhassnaoui conceived of the presented idea. ALkhadher
Khalil, Ahmed Elhassnaoui and Said Yadir developed the the-
ory and performed the computations. Obbadi Abdellatif and
Youssef Errami verified the analytical methods. Smail Sahnoun.
Encouraged ALkhadher Khalil and Ahmed Elhassnaoui to investi-
gate the best model to obtain the optimal internal resistance and
thermal conductivity and supervised the findings of this work. All
authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manu-
script. ALkhadher Khalil, Ahmed Elhassnaoui wrote the manu-
script with support from Smail Sahnoun and Said Yadir. Smail
Sahnoun supervised the project.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
Data Availability
All data used to support the findings of this study are included
within the article.
References
[1] Sun D, Shen L, Yao Y, et al. The real-time study of solar thermo-
electric generator. Appl Therm Eng, 2017, 119:347–359.
[2] Rowe DM. A high performance solar powered thermoelectric
generator. Appl Energy, 1981, 8:269–273.
[3] Li P, Cai L, Zhai P, et al. Design of a concentration solar thermo-
electric generator. J Electron Mater, 2010, 39:1522–1530.
[4] Mahmoudinezhad S, Rezania A, Rosendahl LA. Behavior of hybrid
concentrated photovoltaic-thermoelectric generator under vari-
able solar radiation. Energy Convers Manage, 2017, 164:443–452.
[5] Kraemer D, Poudel B, Feng HP, et al. High-performance flat-
panel solar thermoelectric generators with high thermal con-
centration. Nat Mater, 2011, 10:532–538.
[6] Lamba R, Manikandan S, Kaushik SC. Performance analysis
and optimization of concentrating solar thermoelectric gener-
ator. J Electron Mater, 2018, 47:5310–5320.
[7] Lv S, He W, Hu Z, et al. High-performance terrestrial solar
thermoelectric generators without optical concentration for
residential and commercial rooftops. Energy Convers Manage,
2019, 196:69–76.
1245
QH Heat flow at the hot side (W)
QC Heat flow at the cold side (W)
Qint Heat flow on aluminium plate (W)
Copt Optical concentration ratio
Cth Thermal concentration ratio
μ Thomson coefficient (V/K²)
I Current (A)
P Output power (W)
η Efficiency (%)
qs Solar radiation (W/m²)
hair Heat transfer coefficient (W/(m2-K))
ε Emissivity
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/7/6/1233/7425143 by guest on 18 February 2024
[8] Maduabuchi CC, Ejenakevwe KA, Mgbemene CA. Performance
optimization and thermodynamic analysis of irreversibility
in a contemporary solar thermoelectric generator. Renew
Energy, 2021, 168:1189–1206.
[9] Chen WH, Wang CC, Hung CI, et al. Modeling and simulation
for the design of thermal-concentrated solar thermoelectric
generator. Energy, 2014, 64:287–297.
[10] Kossyvakis DN, Vossou CG, Provatidis CG, et al. Computational
analysis and performance optimization of a solar thermoe-
lectric generator. Renew Energy, 2015, 81:150–161.
[11] Li L, Gao X, Zhang G, et al. Combined solar concentration and
carbon nanotube absorber for high performance solar thermo-
electric generators. Energy Convers Manage, 2018, 183:109–115.
[12] Zhao Y, Wang S, Ge M, et al. Energy and exergy analysis of ther-
moelectric generator system with humidified flue gas. Energy
Convers Manage, 2017, 156:140–149.
[13] Bellos E, Tzivanidis C. Energy and financial analysis of a
solar driven thermoelectric generator. J Clean Prod, 2020,
264:121534.
[14] Fotso BEM, Talawo RC, Feudjio Nguefack MC, et al. Modeling
and thermal analysis of a solar thermoelectric generator
with vortex tube for hybrid vehicle. Case Studies in Thermal
Engineering, 2019, 15:100515.
[15] Xia Z, Zhang Z, Meng Z, et al. A 24-hour thermoelectric gen-
erator simultaneous using solar heat energy and space cold
energy. J Quant Spectrosc Radiat Transfer, 2020, 251:107038.
[16] Ali H, Yilbas BS. Innovative design of a thermoelectric gener-
ator of extended legs with tapering and segmented pin config-
uration: thermal performance analysis. Appl Therm Eng, 2017,
123:74–91.
[17] Ibeagwu O. Modelling and comprehensive analysis of TEGs
with diverse variable leg geometry. Energy, 2019, 180:90–106.
[18] Maduabuchi C, Ejenakevwe K, Jacobs I, et al. Analysis of a
two-stage variable leg geometry solar thermoelectric gener-
ator. In: Proceedings of the 2nd African International Conference
on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Harare,
Zimbabwe, 7–10 December 2020, 982–988.
[19] Khalil AL, Elhassnaoui A, Yadir S, et al. Performance compar-
ison of TEGs for diverse variable leg geometry with the same
leg volume. Energy, 2021, 224:119967.
[20] Maduabuchi C, Ejenakevwe K, Ndukwe A, et al. High perfor-
mance solar thermoelectric generator using asymmetrical
variable leg geometries. E3S Web of Conferences, 2021, 239:00005.
[21] Murmu P, Kennedy J. Energy harvesting from ambient
heat sources using thermoelectric generator: a modelling
1246 | Clean Energy, 2023, Vol. 7, No. 6
study. Mater Today Proc, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
matpr.2023.03.528.
[22] Liu Y, Zhang Y, Xiang Q, et al. Comprehensive modeling and
parametric analysis of multi-mission radioisotope thermo-
electric generator. Applied Thermal Engineering, October 2022,
2023, 219:119447.
[23] Abdelkrim K, Younes C, Abdelhalim T, et al. Thermal investi-
gation of a thermoelectric cooler based on Arduino and PID
control approach. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering, 2022,
36:102249.
[24] Ming T, Chen S, Yan Y, et al. The simulated cooling perfor-
mance of a thin-film thermoelectric cooler with coupled-
thermoelements connected in parallel. Heliyon, 2022,
8:e10025.
[25] Badillo-Ruiz CA, Olivares-Robles MA, Ruiz-Ortega PE.
Performance of segmented thermoelectric cooler micro-
elements with different geometric shapes and temperature-
dependent properties. Entropy, 2018, 20:118.
[26] Ibañez-Puy M, Bermejo-Busto J, Martín-Gómez C, et al.
Thermoelectric cooling heating unit performance under real
conditions. Appl Energy, 2017, 200:303–314.
[27] Raihan A, Siddique M, Venkateshwar K, et al. Performance
analysis of bismuth-antimony-telluride-selenium alloy-based
trapezoidal-shaped thermoelectric pallet for a cooling applica-
tion. Energy Convers Manage, 2020, 222:113245.
[28] Ruiz-Ortega PE, Olivares-Robles MA, Badillo-Ruiz CA. Transient
thermal behavior of a segmented thermoelectric cooler
with variable cross-sectional areas. Int J Energy Res, 2021,
45:19215–19225.
[29] Hmouda I, Rodriguez I, Bouden C, et al. Unsteady natural con-
vection cooling of a water storage tank with an internal gas
flue. Int J Thermal Sci, 2010, 49:36–47.
[30] Eldesoukey A, Hassan H. 3D model of thermoelectric gener-
ator (TEG) case study: effect of flow regime on the TEG perfor-
mance. Energy Convers Manage, 2019, 180:231–239.
[31] Shittu S, Li G, Zhao X, et al. Series of detail comparison and
optimization of thermoelectric element geometry considering
the PV effect. Renew Energy, 2019, 130:930–942.
[32] Abderrahim EA, Yadir S, Chanaa F, et al. Modeling and sim-
ulation of a modified solar air heater destined to drying the
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ce/article/7/6/1233/7425143 by guest on 18 February 2024
Gelidium sesquipedale. International Journal of Renewable Energy
Research (IJRER), 2018, 8:2003–2013.
[33] Noble RD. Natural convection. AIChEMI Modular Instruction,
Series C: Transport, 1983, 4:20–28.
[34] Churchill SW, Chu HHS. Correlating equations for laminar and
turbulent free convection from a horizontal cylinder. Int J Heat
Mass Transfer, 1975, 18:1049–1053.
[35] Meng F, Chen L, Sun F. A numerical model and compara-
tive investigation of a thermoelectric generator with multi-
irreversibilities. Energy, 2011, 36:3513–3522.