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)
Re:Wonder if they are more efficient... (Score:5, Informative)
I gotta look at my 165 W sharps which are about 8sq feet and wonder at that. But my panels are not clear. Which is a plus as the also shade the roof and make that part of the house cooler. (if only they had 1/2" pipes wired under them so I could water cool them and run the warmed water into a tank).
And yes, the windows are mounted vertically. In math, that's at 90 degrees.
The ideal mounting angle is your latitude (eg the Bay Area and DC are around 37 degrees).
So these will be most efficient at Sunrise/Sunset. When the sun is at its weakest (lots of atmosphere to get through).
On the other hand, if they are good projection screens, you aim your projector at it, that causes it to generate power which you can use to plug the projector into!! Perpetual energy!!!
or something.
Bottom line:
If they work and don't cost a lot more than regular windows (such that in 10 years they save more in power costs than they cost), then great!
If every house with a decent roof exposure between 10 and 3 has even 4 solar panels on and generated even 20% of their own power, and there was enough to knock 5% of power use down in our country (world?), then it's a win.
There's no need to "go off grid" and raise your own goats for food and knit you're own underwear to use solar.
(Now, if you switch from CRT to LCD, you save having to buy $500 of solar panels...)
Re:Wonder if they are more efficient... (Score:3, Informative)
Cool! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cool! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cool! (Score:5, Informative)
A.) Prices will go down if these things take off.
B.) Think of how much cheaper the electric bill will be. (Also consider how much more regular it has the potential to be.)
C.) Imagine if an ill-timed power outage wouldn't necessarily mean the building was affected.
I imagine once somebody sits down with a calculator and thinks out 5 to 10 years, the cost will end up being quite competitive AND they get bonus features to boot.
Just because something starts out at a high price doesn't always mean the value's not there, or that the price will always stay that way. The main reason I'm replying is not so much because of your particular comment, but because I've seen a great deal of sticker-shock on Slashdot without understanding some of these basic things about how technology economics works.
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 e
how much do the super-efficient panels cost? (Score:3, Informative)
Brainstorm (Score:5, Funny)
No Dumbass (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Brainstorm (Score:2)
Does it play d00m? (Score:3, Funny)
How much does it cost (Score:4, 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: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:How much does it cost (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How much does it cost (Score:2)
If they catch on enough, a cheaper non-display version could along in the future, once the economy of scale kicks in.
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:How much does it cost (Score:2)
Hmm, I don't think they'll buy that argument in northern Europe or Alaska. (But I agree with the point for most of the world's highly populated areas.)
Re:How much does it cost (Score:5, Informative)
be lucky to get the things to last 5 years without breaking), then that momentary expenditure of oil will more than pay for itself.
Um, solar panels do in fact last that 20-30 years. [solarbuzz.com]
Re:How much does it cost (Score:3, Informative)
Re:How much does it cost (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How much does it cost (Score:2)
Thats easily fixed. Simply wire the power outflow through the fence around the solar farm. Should keep most of those punk vandals from damaging the cells.
Re:How much does it cost (Score:2)
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?
Re:How much does it cost (Score:2)
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!
Re:How much does it cost (Score:2)
Re:How much does it cost (Score:2)
hydroelectric [...] is usually unavailable during the time we need it most, summer
I can tell you're a southerner :).
Re:How much does it cost (Score:2)
I call NIMBY! Would people in forested regions care if we leveled a couple acres to put up solar panels (or those folk in Nanntuket with the wind farm)? I'm sure they would. Now why would paving over a perfectly good desert with them be any different?
I've lived my whole life in the desert (South/Central
Re:How much does it cost (Score:2)
WHY CAN'T I EDIT MY POSTS! My life is too fast and.. er... I'm too lazy to preview...
Re:How much does it cost (Score:2)
I'm also going to attack your list of c
Re:How much does it cost (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How much does it cost (Score:2)
This is a good point.
At the same time, though, solar cells last up to about 30 years. So in a way, a solar cell is like a 30 year battery. There may be situations in which bying cheap energy now and "storing" it in a solar cell for 30 years might by less expensive in the long run. They would in effect grabbing more cheap energy early while others have to buy more expensive energy la
Re:How much does it cost (Score:2)
Yet. Technology only gets better. Say a minor tweak to the process makes a solar panel last twice as long. That's half the resources to make one panel, right?
It's not so much that it's a falicy, it's that the game isn't over yet.
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 basi
Re:How much does it cost (Score:5, Informative)
As for ethanol, I will raise you Cornell study with this one from the USDA [usda.gov] which seems to say that ethanol is energy positive.
USDA Study? (Score:4, Informative)
Not that I'm a consipracy theorist or anything, but of course it does. That is the US Department of Agriculture after all. And we're talking about what? Corn ethanol? Hmm, corn is an agricultural crop.
Now, take a look at the first two bullet items from their mission statement [usda.gov]:
Do you honestly think they'd ruin a perfectly good opportunity for one of the largest food crops in the US by speaking badly of corn derived ethanol? Please...
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:3, Informative)
In 59 years it will pay for itself. (Score:3, Informative)
I think the question most businesses ask is how long will it take to get a return on investment.
The manufacturer specifies 38 W/m^2 or about 3.5 W/ft^2. Used as a window, the orientation would be fixed and I think you would be lucky to get four hours of good light to get something close to full efficiency.
So 3.5*4 = 14 Wh per day.
If electricity is 15 cents/kWh, you could buy 300 kWh for $45 (the cost per square foot of window).
To produce 300 kWh from a square foot of window would take 300 000/14
Re:How much does it cost (Score:2)
The main expense (in terms of energy) in producing solar panels is the silicon wafer that most commercial panels are based on. A company called Astropower (now defunct) recycled flawed wafers from chip manufacturers. That cut t
Re:How much does it cost (ot: ethanol vs gasoline) (Score:2)
The story [cornell.edu] you cite does not show this.
Your (and the article's) p
Re:How much does it cost (Score:4, Informative)
And how much energy does it take to produce a single square foot. There is a basic falicy that a lot of folks seem to miss ... The same thing holds for all current forms of solar energy.
Actually, this is a basic falacy that you have missed. While what you say is true for ethanol, it is not true for modern photovoltaics (and hasn't been for some time). [nrel.gov] As for photothermal, you are also dead wrong. [ecovillage.org]
Re:How much does it cost (Score:2)
They do and have been doing.
This is an oversimplification, the stages do overlap a lot.
Drill into small isolated pockets. Lots of places have some but not much oil.
Primary recovery. Drill a hole and pump out the oil. Very cheap production.
Secondary recovery. Pump water into the formation so you can get more oil out.
Tertiary recovery. Pump a propant under sufficiently high pressure to fracture the formation so you can get more oil out.
Tar
Is it cost effective? (Score:2)
Not really... (Score:2)
Re:Not really... (Score:2, Informative)
That's only if you used it one day and then threw it away. You need to divide by the number of days in use; if it lasted 10 years, that would come out to $1500/3650 = $.27/kwh. Of course, power inverters and storage would probably significantly increase the total cost above that.
Yeah I should have put that in there... (Score:2)
Re:Not really... (Score:2)
Assuming it lasts more then a day, wouldn't the effective $ per kW/h price drop over time?
Re:Not really... (Score:2)
These things get cheaper the longer you use them, so it'll be
Re:Is it cost effective? (Score:2)
I think the point was that there are other benefits to this type of power. If, for example, these panels charged a battery that a house or building ran on, then you'd have a form of UPS in the event of a power failure. How much is that worth? Etc.
Re:Is it cost effective? (Score:2)
My question is... how many kilowatts of electricity is used to produce each square foot? I'm sure it probably exeeds the ammount of energy these things produce for at least 10 years.
How good of a projection surface is this? (Score:2)
"Since the PV-TV screens don't have the luminosity of liquid crystalline or a digital TV screen, they perform best when there are no other competing light sources, according to MSK spokeswoman Aya Tanida."
That means you can only use it in the dark? i.e. nighttime?
Also if it's really reflective, isn't that goin
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.
Re:Fantastic (Score:4, Funny)
Heh. Where I work, our computer screens light the room.
white LEDs are not 85% efficient (Score:2, Informative)
White LEDs are less efficient than fluorescent lights.
Colored LEDs are quite efficient.
Re:white LEDs are not 85% efficient (Score:2)
Re:Fantastic (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fantastic (Score:2)
How much power would that be? And at what cost? (Score:5, Informative)
The article calls out a price of $45 per square foot, making the solar panels for such a building cost about $52 million dollars. Surprisingly cheap for that much electrical capacity, though the usage factor would be pretty low, what with it being dark at night and all.
Replying to my own post... tsk tsk... (Score:3, Informative)
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?
Re:How much power would that be? And at what cost? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How much power would that be? And at what cost? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Ummm... (Score:5, Informative)
"As an external glaze, PV-TV allows up to 10% visible light to be transmitted through the panel."
transparent Audio pronunciation of "transparent" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trns-pârnt, -pr-)
adj.
1. Capable of transmitting light so that objects or images can be seen as if there were no intervening material. See Synonyms at clear.
Re:Ummm... (Score:4, Informative)
"Translucent" means that while some qunatity of light is allowed to pass, no meaningful image passes.
So it is possible to be both transparent and yet block some of the light - and for an example look no furthur than your sunglasses.
Re:Ummm... (Score:3, Informative)
No. It's transparent. Translucent means you can see a shadow cast against it from the other side. My honeycomb blinds are translucent.
...can generate 3.8 watts of electricity... (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Um.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Um.... (Score:2)
I mean, this is neat, but it looks like a solution in search of a problem -- some situation where you both need full visibility and need to generate power. I just can't think of anything like that.
Mega-whats? (Score:5, Informative)
The factory is now the world's largest single PV module plant, producing 100 megawatts of energy annually.
A megawatt isn't a unit of energy, it's a rate of transfer. Do they mean that it produces a continuous flow of 100 megawatts? If so, they would have to have 604 acres of glass [google.com] (2.4 million of their 1m^2 panels). Of course you need to double that number because they're only collecting power half the day (generously assuming they're at peak output during all daylight hours)
On the other hand, if they're talking about generating 100 megawatt hours over the course of a year, then the plant is generating about 11,000 watts, or enough for about 10 average homes. By those numbers they'd have about 600 panels [google.com]. That's a lot more reasonable.
Wait a minute here.... (Score:5, Funny)
Arrrrgggghhhhhhh
Junk the TV part of it.. (Score:2)
Advertising... (Score:2)
Am I the only one who is getting really fed up with the ever-increasing advertising going on? This might be a fantastic invention--certainly it sounds very innovative--but if they are
Above average? (Score:5, Informative)
My Kyocera KC120 panels produce 12 watts per square foot, 3.8 doesn't sound above average to me.
Something is bogus (Score:5, Informative)
http://jsl.com/solar
What's the lifespan of these panels? (Score:3, Informative)
Polycrystalline cells don't have this problem, and I can buy top shelf "BP Solar" branded cells with a 20 year warranty! Similar $/Watt too. What does this mean for the MSK-clad building? Will its enviro-friendliness fade? And what effect does age have on its transparency/opacity?
Additional Info (Score:2, Informative)
This two page .pdf [msk.ne.jp] provides additional and larger images. You can clearly see the etching and degree of tint. It also includes tables of electrical and mechanical specs.
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
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: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
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
just cause (Score:4, Funny)
131,657,416,704,000,000 sq/ft
and cost
$5,924,583,751,680,000,000
in raw materials (maybe we could get a bulk discount)
we should also try to cash in on a "free installation"
The output of such a sphere would be
500,298,183,475,200,000 watts continuous
Or (for sake of easier calculation in an already complicated process) if only half of the sphere received light at any given time
250,149,091,737,600,000 watts continuous
250,149,091,737.6 kW continuous
250.15 Petawatt continuous
Power demand in 2002 for the entire world
13,747,393,531.8 kW continuous
0.0137474 Petawatt continuous
sure every living thing on earth would probably die and we would enter a perpetual ice age from the lack of light and heat but, you could throw away the sunscreen and with all that extra energy maybe we could string up some halogens or something along the inside! We could also sell advertising space on it.
All conversions made with http://www.onlineconversion.com/ [onlineconversion.com]
Power consumption data from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/total.h
Geostationary orbit data from how http://octopus.gma.org/surfing/imaging/howhigh.ht
Radius of the earth from http://www.page.sannet.ne.jp/ikenoue/e-mode/earth
Output and cost from RFTA
If you think that my math is wrong then check and let me know, too tired to think anymore.
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.
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.
Could someone use multiple layers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Whats the point (Score:5, Funny)
Unlike horizontally mounted stuff which is good at night?
Re:Whats the point (Score:3, Funny)
speaking of things passing overhead, that sound you just heard, a sort of cross between a whistle and a rush of wind, was the sound of a joke passing you by. as a slashdot coward, doubtless you were unfamiliar with the subject matter...
Re:Whats the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Whats the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Still much better than regular glass that doesn't produce any power.
Re:Whats the point (Score:2)
Who's to say they wouldn't mount it at an angle to get more benefit from this technology? Could be aesthetically pleasing as well. Get the right guy working on the blueprint and all should be well.
Yeah Except (Score:5, 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: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:Cover a building in it? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:LCD power requirements vs. Solar panel output (Score:2)
It works as a surface on which you can project an image with a projector.
And you'd like to be a bit cautious about what kind of content you project there, since the picture will be visible on the other side of the panel. ^_^
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.