Clear Solar Panels Double As Projection Screens 304
EnergyEfficient writes "Metropolis Magazine has an article about a company that is producing transparent solar panels. The panels 'can generate 3.8 watts of electricity per square foot, an above-average level of efficiency.' They come in a thick version that can be used for glazing buildings. Imagine if all those glass skyscrapers could also produce power! As an interesting aside, they can also be used as screens for projection TV units."
Wonder if they are more efficient... (Score:3, Insightful)
Cool! (Score:3, Insightful)
Whats the point (Score:1, Insightful)
How much does it cost (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cool! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How much does it cost (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the question should probably be: How much energy does it take to produce a square foot compared to a square foot of glass? But the question probably isn't even relevant, I'm sure the price will be prohibitive anyway, at least for mass adoption. In general, you're right, of course: this "ecological backpack" is an important issue the public really isn't aware of.
Re:Whats the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How much does it cost (Score:5, Insightful)
Solar is attractive because it isn't seasonal (unlike hydroelectric, which is only available during a portion of the year and is usually unavailable during the time we need it most, summer). Solar is unsightly and takes up a lot of real estate, which makes local environmental lobbyists pissed, but where I live (Southern California), it makes sense because we have a perfectly good desert nearby and placing a solar panel farm out there is simple Trying to place one in downtown Chicago is made easier by the panels in this story, since they could be incorporated into most buildings that have a modern, glass-heavy look. But the problem there is that Chicago and many other urban cities don't get nearly enough sunlight to make a panel farm efficient, just like most most areas don't get enough wind to make a propellor farm efficient. Better panels may come along, but there will always be cities that have to rely on other forms of power (nuclear comes to mind, and maybe someday we'll get fission to work-bring on the Duke Nukem Forever jokes).
As for corn ethanol, not only is it wasteful of energy, it's typically more expensive than your average gallon of gas here in the United States. Have to agree with you there.
The trick is that you have to look at solar from a few angles. It isn't a cure all for our energy problems, but it has more than just a few 'niche' applications and it could help make a serious contribution once the technology has matured.
Wow, did I really write all of that?
Re:Whats the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Still much better than regular glass that doesn't produce any power.
Re:How much does it cost (Score:4, Insightful)
Um.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cover a building in it? (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends, you have to ask more questions:
1.) How much does the ordinary glass cost?
2.) How much electricity is generated? How much would this reduce the yearly bill?
3.) How much would/could electric prices rise?
4.) How long do these panels last?
5.) What other benefits are you buying? (I.e. is there resistance to power failures? Those in Cali during the rolling blackouts would appreciate that....)
6.) How does this compare to the cost of the rest of the building?
7.) Is running on solar power going to be attractive to tenants?
Re:How much does it cost (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah Except (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How much does it cost (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How much does it cost (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, in the far-off future world of the 1960s, we and our descentants will live on a world powered by the mysterious atom! You can ride an atomic-powered sidewalk to the nuclear air-depot, catching a 5-minute ride to Bangladesh on the world-wide nuclear shuttle. Energy will be cheap and reliable in this spectacular future, brought to you by the scientists at General Atomics!
What about hybrid cars? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey, who knows. Maybe one day drivers trying to park in parking decks will fight over top-level spaces to get their batteries charged.
theDunedan
The new math (Score:2, Insightful)
First, these cannot be used as windows on cars. The minimum tint is something like 20%, and these allow only 10% of the light.
Second, at most two sides of a building receive sunlight at a time. In fact, it's the average of the cosine of the angle of incidence that matters.
Third, less energy gets through the atmosphere when the sun is near the horizon -- much less.
What we really want is the average of the product of the cosine with the transparency of of the atmosphere, which is equivalent to around 3 hours of straight on sunlight per day per 3 panels (none on the north face).
At 3.8 watts/sq-ft, it's about 3.8 watt-hours per day, per sq ft.
Electricity costs $0.08 per kilowatt-hour, so 1 sq ft of panel produces about 0.3 milli-dollars of electricy per day.
Because of clouds, there are around 150 clear-sky equivalent days/year, so that's about 5 cents per year.
Assuming a measly 3.3% interest rate, that income stream is worth $1.50 if that sq. ft. of panel lasts forever, or about 75 cents if it lasts an average of 20 years.
And the panel costs $45 per sq ft.
This is offset by the cost of glass which it replaces, which is neglible.
Most of the costs of production are energy, in one way or another (which is the point that most environmentalist REFUSE to admit). Even including a carbon-dioxide tax, these have to be much cheaper before they can be considered environmentally-friendly.
Economics (Score:1, Insightful)
----------
Gay mobile porn [studmobile.com]
Re:How much power would that be? And at what cost? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cool! (Score:3, Insightful)
* These can never be cheaper than plain glass, because no matter how far the price drops you can always build the same thing minus the solar collector and get it even cheaper
* When you spend more money to save in the long run, you are judging a present value versus multiple future values. To get an accurate number you need to take the initial price difference of the inefficient model and the efficient model, invest that at a given rate, and calculate the compound interest each year until the year that the efficient model would supposedly "pay itself off". Then take the cost savings each investment period from the more efficient model, and invest that in to a growing account at the same rate and figure out the compound interest on that for the same period. Graph it out in Excel and you might be surprised at the results, and think twice when someone tries to sell you something that will "pay itself off in x years".
Re:The new math (Score:3, Insightful)
Riiiight. You can put them on the roof and probably rear side windoews.
>Third, less energy gets through the atmosphere when the sun is near the horizon -- much less.
For the roof top panel noon is the best.
Re:Ah, I see (Score:3, Insightful)
This means that a 60W light bulb would need almost 16 square feet to function. Well, that of course is a reason to move to compact flourescents or LED light bulbs. But my computer takes up a bit of power. So does a refridgerator. So does a washer/dryer.
Moving to LEDs will cut prices drastically. The VOS Pad [findaproperty.com] is lit only by ultra-bright LEDs, around 400 LEDs grouped into 135 fittings that can show 16.7M colours, and only consumes 360W when every light is fully on. Computers are way over-powered for 90% of users and people could benefit by buying a less power-hungry machine (even a laptop, as their prices have dropped drastically).
Let's say that it is a television. What's the equivalent of a square foot display (asuming a 5:4 ratio)? About 13"? Can a 13" LCD display work with 3.8W of power? (I don't know. That's why I'm asking.)
New OLED technology should cut the power even of the LED display considerably as it no longer needs a back-light.
I'm not questioning whether it can give power. I'm questioning whether it can give sufficient power to offset the price. Or would the money be better spent elsewhere in green technologies to reduce the actual draw from the grid?
Wrong answer. The best thing is to attack it from both ends, the suppy and the demand. I don't understand some of the "it won't supply 100% of my needs" negativity by some people (not yourself). If someone came and showed me how I could lower my electricity bills by eg 50% then I'd be interested.
Phillip.
Money (Score:3, Insightful)
So for $45 * 95 square feet, you can run the VOS Pad LEDs. Of course, I acknowledge that you pointed out that this is when all lights are on full. What you failed to mention was that the VOS Pad costs £35,000 (about US$52,500). This is not practical. The return on investment would likely take the better part of your life -- if even that short. Sure, it could take this portion of your energy consumption off the grid, but how much energy was required to make these materials in the first place? How much energy was used by the manufacturing facilities? At a price of £35,000, you can bet it isn't peanuts.
As for OLEDs, yes they look promising. However, until they actually hit mass market, we don't know actual numbers. Looking at this press release [zdnet.co.uk], Samsung's 17" display "will consume no more power than a 15-inch display..." Sure you can take away the backlight, but this is not the same as slashing the total power consumption. Reduces it, yes, but doesn't make revolutionary drops. On the bright side (no pun intended), OLEDs have the potential for cost savings.
You're right. We should attack it from both ends or at least leave everything open as possibilities. However I still believe that I was right. We should not concentrate on technologies that only provide marginal improvements for the amount of money/resources spent. We shouldn't ignore them of course, but we definitely shouldn't fixate upon them. We have a limited amount of resources and money. For better or for worse, this is the reality of our world: scarcity and commerce.
Who cares if my electricity bill is reduced by half or even eliminated entirely if the initial cost in materials exceeds what I would pay in electricity for the next fifty years?
If a solution presents itself that uses more resources or costs substantially more than our current methods, it is not a good solution. In some circumstances I could see this PV glass making sense. In most scenarios though, I see it as a curious novelty that makes little sense for the average Joe like myself.
As I look out one of the windows in my bedroom, I estimate that the 2.5 by 3 foot window would cost me around $337.50 to replace just the glass. (I'm sure the framing would add to the cost.) I have three such windows in my bedroom. For some odd reason, I think my money would be better spent on double-paned replacements and using the money saved on both initial investment and heating costs to pay for my energy bills until the technology improves in a few years.
At $45/sq. ft., the $1,012.50 (at least) I would spend on three PV glass windows would not be recouped anytime soon. I like to think of myself as an optimist, but I'm not that blindly optimistic. Assuming 22.5 sq. ft. of PV glass, 3.8W/sq. ft., 7hrs of useable sunlight a day for 22 sunlit days a month (on average), I get a little more than 13kWh (kilowatt hours) per month. Let's say I pay about 10 cents per kilowatt hour -- pretty expensive I think. This means I get back $1.32 every month from these windows. Woohoo! I will have paid for them in 64 years! Well... That's assuming they last for 64 years.
Stop bitching about the inefficiency! (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course the efficiency goes down when you remove 10% of the photovoltaic material, but if you can put it up where windows used to be, you end up winning in the end. This is especially true for office towers and skyscrapers which mostly have exclusively glass exteriors. This technology will not replace existing panels. Current opaque solar technology will always have it's place on roofs and walls. The invention of clear solar panels allows those opaque panels to be complemented by making more surface area available to install panels on existing glazing surfaces.