Let's do the math. Rainiest spot on Earth sea level, say 1 inch freshwater per day, every day, and somehow consistent all year.
One square meter, 100% efficient, looks like it would produce less than 1 kW with a river feeding it. With just rain, figure on well under 100 watts. Probably under 10 watts.
Compare with a floating PV array, also 1 square meter, but real-world 20% efficient cells. In the same rainy rainy spot. Probably much higher than 10 watts, even factoring in nights and overcast skies.
Maybe you could combine them, but I bet you'd get better bang for your buck by just doubling the floating PV array size. PV doesn't need a freshwater (or saline) source either.
If you care about consistent power then you'll need a battery (or grid connection) either way.
I would think that you could combine the two. The solar collectors could also funnel rain water to a column of this membrane that is located within the salt water.
One square meter, 100% efficient, looks like it would produce less than 1 kW with a river feeding it. With just rain, figure on well under 100 watts. Probably under 10 watts.
Compare with a floating PV array, also 1 square meter, but real-world 20% efficient cells. In the same rainy rainy spot. Probably much higher than 10 watts, even factoring in nights and overcast skies.
Maybe you could combine them, but I bet you'd get better bang for your buck by just doubling the floating PV array size. PV doesn't need a freshwater (or saline) source either.
If you care about consistent power then you'll need a battery (or grid connection) either way.