These systems show great promise by converting waste heat from photovoltaic modules into additional electrical power. The study analyzes the performance and efficiency of the hybrid PV-TEG systems under varying conditions, such as different solar concentration ratios, cooling methods, and materials. While these innovations promise to improve system efficiency, the review also identifies several challenges, including increased thermal resistance, higher system costs, and the minimal temperature difference across the TEG, which significantly limits its performance. This limitation, where the temperature differential is often too small to be effectively harnessed, reduces the TEG's overall efficiency and hinders the integrated system's potential gains. The review underscores the need for urgent and extensive research to develop optimized design configurations, durable mathematical models, and further experimental validation to ensure the practical viability of these systems under diverse environmental conditions. Despite these challenges, the potential of PV-TEG systems to revolutionize solar energy technologies is undeniable.PV-TEG performance is intricately linked to environmental conditions: higher solar radiation boosts efficiency, but increased ambient temperatures reduce it. TEGs often hinder PV cooling, yielding minimal efficiency gains. Non-uniform heat and low-temperature differences across TEGs further decrease performance. While hybrids can improve power conversion, high costs limit feasibility. However, with strategies such as enhancing solar concentration, using effective cooling methods like water or nanofluids, and advanced materials like phase change materials, the efficiency and reliability of these systems can be significantly improved
This paper describes a numerical method for calculating the temperature distribution and latent heat storage (LHS) in the treated wall (TW) and non-treated wall (NTW). The developed method was assumed that the outer cement layer (Iraqi wall) enveloping the external wall of building and houses are contains paraffin wax as a phase change material (PCM). (25%) is the volume percentage of paraffin wax is mixed with cement which forming a treated layer. A comparison results between the (TW) and (NTW) has been done. The paper presents a simple calculation of case study for air-conditioning in two walls type of residential building. The outer solar air temperatures as function of day time are considered for a hot day in summer (July) for Baghdad city. The aim of this paper was to obtain physical validation of the numerical results produced from using developed FORTRAN program. This validation was obtained through a comparison of numerical solution of two different wall compositions exposed to the same external and internal load conditions. The calculations on transient heat transmissions across different walls were conducted. It was found that when using the (TW) with (PCM) produces lower surface and heat flux towards the cooling space with respect to (NTW).
The reducing of heat gain through the outer walls of the buildings in summer will contribute in reducing the air conditioning costs. This is one of the best features of design requirements nowadays. To achieve this, the phase change materials (PCM) can be used as an embedded material in the walls to reduce heat transfer. The paraffin wax is one of the common materials used as a PCM in the building walls. The paraffin wax is used in this study with (20%) volume percentage in the external layer of the treated wall. In the present work, the treated wall (with embedded wax in the wall) and non-treated walls have been experimentally investigated. Two Iraqi wall models were employed to run the experiments, whereby these models were exposed to an external heat source using (1000 W) projector for each model. The temperatures were recorded at different locations in the walls during the charging and discharging periods. The results showed that the temperature of the internal surface for the treated wall was lower than that of the non-treated wall at the end of the discharging period (6 hr) where the temperature difference between the treated and non-treated walls was reached (1.6℃).