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."
Fantastic (Score:5, Interesting)
The first is simply to make more efficient use of natural light! I stayed for a week in a new residence building at The University of East Anglia [uea.ac.uk] (Norwich, UK) and the building really intrigued me. It had hollow lighting columns running up to the top of the building, despite being a rather tall apartment. So there was natural light from the top reaching all floors. That definitely saves lighting costs.
So with approaches like that (using natural light as much as you can) coupled with clear solar panels, you could both use natural lighting and collect power for electrical lighting later on. Improve actual lighting with high-efficiency (85% +) white LEDs (last forever) or high efficiency fluorescents, and you've got one amazing power-efficient building.
The problem is that these supplies -- solar panels, white LEDs have large initial costs. As these costs come down we'll see lots of nice new interiors. I can only expect such things to become more common as people actually realized they're screwed for cheap power.
3.8 watts per square foot with what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Bright sunlight, regardless of angle?
Diffused light on a cloudy day?
In outer space, facing the sun?
They say absolutely nothing about the preconditions that are necessary to produce that 3.8 watts... and it's simply not possible for it to produce the same output regardless of its environment.
Re:How much does it cost (Score:5, Interesting)
1) How much does it cost to produce a square foot of this solar panel?
2) Same question as #1 for the glass that would be used normally?
3) How much energy will this solar panel -leak- over the expected life span of the installation?
4) Same as #3 for regular glass?
5) What is the energy gained by the solar collection process?
6) After all factors considered, is the cost of the solar panel compared to regular glass over the lifespan of both higher (bad) or lower (good)?
Illustration (all assumptions):
* Assume the installation has an expected life span of 10 years (I would hope the lifespan of skyscraper glass would be more like 40-50 years or more, but that is a pain to calculate).
* Assume that the glass installation costs $1,000 (we're talking a big piece of skyscraper glass here, ok?)
* Assume solar panel costs 10x the normal glass installation, $10,000
* Assume that each year the regular glass will cost 1/2 again the initial cost in energy loss (probably a pretty drastic assumption but it makes things easy)
* Assume that each year the solar glass will net 1/2 again the initial cost of -regular- glass each year (another drastic assumption)
Factored together, after 10 years the regular glass net cost was $6,000 whereas the solar glass net cost was $5,000 (and also helped subsidize the cost, making future installations less costly).
Of course, being assumptions you could easily make an example where the reverse was true and the solar glass was more expensive over 10 years (again, hoping that 10 years is a small chunk of the real installation).
My point is pretty small for all of the above
Re:Cover a building in it? (Score:5, Interesting)
On an unrelated note, the Aon Center (formerly the Amoco/Standard Oil Bldg) in Chicago was originally clad in white marble. Years later, the climate softened the marble and bits of it began to fall off. So they re-clad the entire building with granite in the '90s, which ended up costing them more than the original price of the building. At least the electricity-producing glass could alleviate the utility costs of the building, but who knows how long it would take until the glass ended up paying for itself.
However, if it turned out that the glass turned out to be inferior to normal glass (visibility, thermal properties, etc), then the owners would have to go through the costly process of replacing it with regular glass.
Re:Fantastic (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How much does it cost (Score:3, Interesting)
Not true. Both hydroelectric and wind are basically solar-powered. And neither of those have much in the way of a set lifetime, nor do they take large amounts of energy to develop.
There are also solar powerplants that use large arrays of mirrors to boil water into steam and run turbines. Again, I don't see these having any specific lifetime so there isn't any cost of recreation, just maintenance (which should be small)
As far as I know, it's basically only photovoltaic cells that are a net-loss of energy. And even that could be fixed by increasing efficiency in the production process or increasing the lifespan of the panels.
Re:How much does it cost (Score:4, Interesting)
You know what will release the world from dependence on oil? The oil running out. The only question is, will the replacement energy technology be ready by then, or will we be caught unprepared and reduced to Mad Max style barbarism for a few centuries?
Re:How much does it cost (Score:5, Interesting)
Kind of the opposite here in Ontario. The length of time the sun is out changes a lot. On June 20th of this year, the sun rose at 5:45am and set at 9:07pm (at my location of course). On December 20th of this year, the sun will rise at 7:52am and set at 4:52pm. The further north you go, the more drastic the changes.
Solar power should work out reasonably well even with those changes in daylight hours because peak electric use is during the summer where the most power is used.
Why is hydroelectric generation seasonal? It's my understanding that most of our hydro is generated using dams. Some is generated on rivers such as the Niagara River. Do your rivers dry up in the summer or something?
if they could... (Score:1, Interesting)
you would have a window, which can work as a tv, and you can sunbathe, and it genereates it's own power.
just add a soundbug [thinkgeek.com] and you'll get everything a flat surface can be =)
Re:Replying to my own post... tsk tsk... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of the Gigawatt produced by a power plant, how much of it is lost to power transmission? I mean, if these powerplant-esque high rises are closer to the point of consumption, aren't they a tad more efficient than the traditional at-a-distance power plants?
Ah, I see (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
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.)
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?
Re:How much power would that be? And at what cost? (Score:4, Interesting)
It might take $900k/megawatt to build a coal fired power plant, but once built you still have to sustain it. Its costs will continue for the life of the power plant. Once you put solar panels onto a building, aside from a little light maintenance (har har) it's a one-time cost.
Aside from economical benefits, it's also more accessible and conveniant to be hooked up to power from your own building -- there nothing much short of a true disaster that would knock out your power. Being off the grid can be a very good thing.
And of course, factor in the environmental impact. How much coal do we really have left in the world? It takes nearly 100 tons of prehistoric plant matter to create a single gallon of gasoline. I don't know how much prehistoric life goes into coal, but how about let's just not waste it in the first place?
Re:In 59 years it will pay for itself. (Score:1, Interesting)
2. Electricity price inflation rates are not something I would necessarily ignore over the long term, either. Though your 15 cents / kWh number is pretty high for a commercial customer, dropping in 8 cents now and a 1 - 2% annual inflation will, I suspect , make your equation more favorable...or look somewhere like Japan or Hawaii, where people are paying $.20+ today.
I find it irresponsible of the construction & (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if there will be any cities that will ever require buildings to have such technologies in the new construction, just as say Germantown Tenneesee requires no backlit signs above a certain height and at that can't diplay food items. They also have restrictions about trees and shrubs having to be every few feet in a parking lot and cobble stone or brick pavers instead of concrete or black tar paving.
Reclamation and regeration could EASILY revoltionalize the tax system in my opinion. One of the number one costs to most cities is paying for the power for stoplights, government buildings, and sign illumination. If this cost were significantly reduced or eliminated, it could be extra money in the taxpayers hands and therefore less tax increases or maybe even a rollback.
Kanazawa Station (Score:2, Interesting)
Could someone use multiple layers? (Score:3, Interesting)