Solar Panels As Building Clothing 242
Makarand writes "A Canadian company is developing a
flexible solar-power generating material that can be
draped over any building. This will allow buildings with curves and complex
shapes to use solar panels. The new material is made of silicon beads,
each acting as a solar cell, placed between two aluminum foils and sealed on the sides
with plastic.
The manufacturing process for the silicon beads can use waste silicon
from the chip-making industry. The material has an overall
efficiency of 11 per cent which is comparable to the performance of
conventional photovoltaic cells. The material looks like blue denim
and architects might love to work with it."
I can hear the designers now... (Score:2, Troll)
Clothing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Clothing (Score:2, Funny)
Re:A long time (Score:3, Interesting)
It supplies a certain amount of power on average from a certain surface area. It'll be sufficient for some needs, insufficient for others. Beyond that, it doesn't have to stand alone anyway - it can simply reduce your use of mains power, not replace it. It's still a win, and once installed it lasts damn near forever.
If you think this is inefficient, you should really take a look at the crap in your house you can't power with it - your incandescent lights, TV set, refrigerator, hair dryer, computer. Is the problem really in supply or demand?
Another point people seldom make is that absorbing solar energy on the outside of a house saves cooling costs. At least 11% of the energy that would be absorbed as heat is instead being borne away as electricity. That's actually not a bad insulator (though dedicated solar heating & cooling schemes can do far better).
Personally I think wind power is going to achieve commercial success before solar power does, but this material is still a notable milestone. I played with silicon solar cells when I was a kid, and the one thing they were above all else was rigidly fragile.
Nice for (Score:2)
not ugly?! (Score:3, Insightful)
This might make our decision a lot easier!
Re:not ugly?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:not ugly?! (Score:5, Funny)
Reminds me of a joke. Guy goes into a hardware store, wants a hammer. Hardware store says they cost $10, but they are out of them. Guy goes to hardware store number two. This store says hammers are $20.
"But the store down the street will sell me a hammer for $10, they are just out of them right now!"
"Well, when we are out of hammers, we sell them for $5".
Useful! (Score:2)
Now I happen to own a pair of panels (24") and I must say they do put out quite a bit (these are the huge crystalline growth), but frankly the pricetag is scarry. If I hadn't seen them in a dumpster.....
Levi corporate headquarters! (Score:2, Funny)
Looks like Levi's headquarters could get a facelift
But really, blue denim look, could look really cool if used correctly, but just how efficient is if if we put it on the walls of buildings instead of the roof, where most of the sun hits?
Re:Levi corporate headquarters! (Score:3, Informative)
Mounting Angle of Solar Panels (Score:5, Interesting)
The article isn't explicite about this, although they do say something about the round beads helping to gather the sunlight. The implication is that these are a lot less sensitive to variation of the incoming angle of the rays, which not only gives you the flexibility to put them on more surfaces, but also means the efficiency is higher in the morning or evening than conventional panels.
Now, what I want to know is how hard is it going to be to mold these into the deck of a boat? And is the coating durable enough to take walking on it? I guess the top protective layer could be epoxy for good abrasion resistance.
This is realy cool, particularly if you can make it cheaply enough. So what if you can't get above the 11-17% range of efficiency if you can easily make a much larger surface. Further, you might be able to create more complex circuits than just an array of photovoltaic cells, and really give the whole concept of wearable computers a boost. Active matrix displays would be nice.
Re:Mounting Angle of Solar Panels (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Levi corporate headquarters! (Score:2)
Of course if you are in Houston, the Transco Tower [about.com] is all alone. It is 64 stories and 901 feet tall.
Re:Levi corporate headquarters! (Score:2)
You mean the eviction tag isn't sufficient decoration?
Homepage (Score:5, Informative)
Somewhat old really. July 17th they announced this and their 20 megawatt pilot plant came online October 31st it looks like.
Much older (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Homepage (Score:2)
And correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that reference to the 20MW plant seem to suggest that it still hasn't happened? I'd love to hear some good news here because I've taken some grief from a few skeptics already who blamed me for hyping these guys. The web page looks the same as it has since last Fall to me. If they're so active, why is the web page so infrequently updated?
Imagine... (Score:4, Funny)
GameTab.com [gametab.com] - Game Reviews Database
like these? (Score:2)
questions (Score:2, Insightful)
1) How strong is it, yeah sure denim-like is fine for cowboy(neal) but when it is stuck to your roof in a force 8 gale how strong is it.
2) Again on strength what is it's ability to function when damaged. Is it like fibreglass that can split if the hard external case is broken. What % damage can it take before it needs to be replaced repaired.
I know this sounds like a whinge but this stuff is only cool if it works
Re:questions (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:questions (Score:3, Funny)
Re:questions (Score:3, Informative)
Second some of the anamorphic silicon types (flexible) cant take bullets without affecting the power output much... you lose that section.. usually a 1 inch by 4 inch piece.
I'm betting that these "bead" types are even more durable.. you can take a machine gun to it and probably not affect the power output at all.
Re:questions (Score:2, Interesting)
As for the strength of the material, it would be pretty strong if the middle layer is made out of a high-tensile material. Mylar maybe? And I doubt you would have sheets of the stuff flapping around.
A peak into the private mind of the building (Score:5, Funny)
"Does this make my delivery bay look fat?"
*honk*
Worse yet! (Score:2)
But the question is the cost (Score:5, Interesting)
1. The panels are only usable in some applications due their overall effeciency (quoted as 11% for this stuff) that you can only use it in very sunny places.
2. The cost per kilowatt hour is still not compariable to some very environmentally unfriendly stuff.
So its nice that they have stuff that the architects like for curved surfaces but for the rest of us with smooth flat roofs and commercial buildings with flat sides and roofs, it would be nice to get some panels that have higher effeciency and have lower cost per kilowatt hour.
Re:But the question is the cost (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:But the question is the cost (Score:2, Insightful)
The important question is are they cleaner than coal, gas and nuclear.
Actually, it's cost (Score:4, Informative)
As the bloke below points out, Lomborg's argument on cost is very much relevant and explains a great deal of the slow uptake in the industry over the last few decades. This being said, however, worldwide usage of PV technologies (excluding in toys like solar calculators and whatnot) has easily demonstrated 25% growth rates year-on-year for the last few years or so (Ispra report, June 2002, European Commission Joint Research Centre; also at PVNet).
Of course, when you start from nothing, anything sounds impressive. However, in Europe we have around 6% of total energy consumption coming from renewable sources. Less than everyone aside from the petrol industry (and even these guys are heavily invested in renewable energy) expects, but still, you have to start somewhere...
PS: No idea why the http://www.pv-net.net link doesn't work, so I've just included it in plaintext
Nice troll. Wrong too. (Score:5, Informative)
If you're talking about GaAs-panels (cells), they are dirty, I'll grant you that. They are not, however, at all popular. The largest makers of PV are Kyocera, Sharp, RWE Schott Solar and Astropower. None, as far as I know, are selling exotic PV cells or modules in any numbers. They're expensive, and the current technology offers enough benefits to outweigh the point of bothering with fancy stuff.
Re:Nice troll. Wrong too. (Score:3, Informative)
Well, this process requires large amounts of electrcity to heat the silicon dioxide. It doesn't just become pure silicon if you ask it to. Silicon has a melting point of 1410C, and to get really pure silicon, you must melt it several times, recrystalizing it each time. There was a period where the estimated lifetime of solar cells was short enough and their efficiency low enough that the cell would not be able to generate enough electricity under even the most ideal conditions to make up for the amount of energy used to create the cell. That is no longer the case.
However, I imaging the poster was confused by the large amount of chemicals required to create semiconductors, especially multilayered microprocessors. Those require extremly pure silicon (99.999% or better), plus an etching process involving hydroflouric acid and many liters of water. Luckily manufacturers have refined ways of recycling these chemicals and the water.
dope (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you dope it with? How long do those cells last in direct sunlight? How long will the plastic sheeting encasing these particular cells last?
Can you make electricity which costs 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour yet? Don't forget to add disposal costs. When you can do that, your photovoltaics will be competitive with nuclear power and sometimes natural gas.
Are we being honest here? Anyone who covers their building with solar cells right now is doing it more to make a statement than to get power. If that statement is one of self sufficiancy, great and more power to them. If the statement is "environment friend" the speaker is ignorant or dishonest.
Boron and phosphorus (Score:3, Insightful)
There are installations extant for the last 20 to 30 years, still producing electricity.
My company makes modules (no, I'm not interested in advertising it here, so no names) guaranteed for 20 years. This is against weather damage. We use tempered glass tested by firing half-inch steel balls at a distance of 2-3m at 15m/s to hold the cells. (No damage, by the way) The plastic sheeting, or polyvinyl fluoride (Tedlar, by DuPont -- OK, I'll concede the point here), is a derivative/related material to Kevlar
Electricity is still too expensive compared to non-renewable sources, I will freely admit this. However, I think you need to get out of the US-centric mindset: Japan has by far the highest level of PV installations, currently about half the world total. Africa finds it an economical alternative to nonrenewables. I don't think either region would do it just to make a ecological statement, do you?
Re:dope (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I agree that one should compare the total costs of solar (environmental costs in construction, total cost of deployment and costs of shutdown) to the costs of electricity, but 2.5 cents has got to be about a third of the national average.
Also, it would be more fair, if we're to do an apples to apples comparison, so look at the environmental costs of coal, gas, hydro, nuke in making the judgement. Yes, I know those costs aren't reflected in your power bill, but ultimately they manage to come back to you in other goods (e.g. more expensive fish because there are fewer clean waters to hold viable nurseries...)
your power bill (Score:2)
That price does not accuratly reflect costs. The cost of generating electricity by nukes. It is about 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour. This includes decomissioning and disposal costs, which are higher than they would be if the federal government would keep it's end of Yucka mountian. Yucka mountian is added to your electric bill and so that's part of your 8 cents. Other things that go into that price are higher cost "peaking" power, distribution, taxes. Windmills and other stuff like that cost lots of money and can be thought of as a "feel good" or a research and development tax.
In short, disposal costs ARE a part of the cost I quoted. Power companies used to be gaurnteed a "reasonable" rate of return on investment. Obviously, covering all of your costs is part of reasonable.
"That sidesteps the issue as I see it!", you might cry. OK, I'll make it easier for you. Find yourself some solar cells that make electricity for less than the rate the power company will sell it to you. If you don't include disposal costs, you are screwing yourself. If you can find such cells, more power to you and let me know about it. I'll slap them on my roof. Remember, however, that economies of scale allways apply. When such cells are invented, it may still be cheaper to make a huge farm of them looked after by a few people than it would be for everybody to slap them on their buildings and hire people to look after them. Centralization and co operation have saved us money in the past and they can save us money in the future, regardless of the technology in question. Self reliance is something you might want to pay for anyway.
Re:your power bill (Score:3, Insightful)
I wasn't claiming I could. But that you were doing a comparison of electricity at a third the rate I pay and that's a unreasonable comparison.
*You* may think that the added costs in nukes aren't warrented, but the fact remains they are there and thus must be the compared value. But you admit this yourself, so there's no point in flogging that one further.
Your comment about disposal costs being included isn't quite accurate, you refer to nukes, but I was referring to gas, coal, hydro. Those environmental costs aren't at all included as much of the interesting waste goes into the air, but they do exist.
PV power generation is 25-30 cents an hour now, so it's still considerably more expensive than your utility bill, but if all the costs of conventional power generation were on your bill it would be a much closer comparison.
I think we largely agree though. Don't buy solar to save money, buy it if you have other motivating factors.
Re:dope (Score:2)
8 cents an hour is the average residential rate.
Its much cheaper to give electricity in bulk to sites that use around full capacity 24 hours a day that can guarantee usages than distributed housing networks that really peak the lines in the early mornings and evenings. Early in the morning, many people use electric heat. In the evening, people get home and use air conditioning, take showers with electric heated water, and cook. Overloading the wires lowers efficiency of maximum power transfer and costs for the utility soar.
If you have a housing development that can use a constant 10MW with a power factor of
Re:dope (Score:2)
Comparing the prices of renewable power to non-renewable power to judge environmental effects isn't appropriate unless you factor in the cost of depleting the (irreplaceable) fuel supply. Of course the non-renewable processes will be cheaper; they get their energy "for free" from the Earth's dwindling supply of fuels. You might as well say "why work for a living, when it's so much easier to spend my inheritance"? That's trivially true, but only until your inheritance runs out.
Not to mention that the cost of fossil and nuclear power almost certainly doesn't factor in the (non-trivial) costs of safeguarding their supply of fuels (i.e. how much will this year's Iraq invasion cost the US? How much does it cost to secure each nuclear plant against terrorists? How much does it cost to clean up after a nuclear plant when it is closed down or blown up?)
renewable and afordable (Score:2)
Nuclear is renewable. You can breed and reprocess fuel practically forever.
Not to mention that the cost of fossil and nuclear power almost certainly doesn't factor in the (non-trivial) costs of safeguarding their supply of fuels (i.e. how much will this year's Iraq invasion cost the US? How much does it cost to secure each nuclear plant against terrorists? How much does it cost to clean up after a nuclear plant when it is closed down or blown up?)
You can spend an infinite amount on "security" and "clean up" and such costs can be used to kill anything. Decomisioning costs are already included in your bill, indeed they are part of the 2.5 cent figure. So are the cost of all sorts of absurd spending, armored machine gun emplacements, double fences with razor wire, radar and microphones constantly monitored between those fences, "monkey cages" designed to slow progress outside and inside the plant, fixtures designed to injure parachutists, M16 armed security gaurds, games played with Special Forces, and even a new office that must evaluate terror potential of new modifications. Places like Yucka mountian demonstrate that ludites can add unreasonable costs to anything. You have paid 17.5 billion dollars for a two million dollar hole. Still, the costs have been livable. Reading "Fallen Angels", I loved seeing the word "appropriate" in your post. "Appropriate Technology" will ruin us. Listen to the engineers, they still believe in a better tomorrow.
Re:renewable and afordable (Score:3, Insightful)
According to this [world-nuclear.org] document, nuclear fuels can be extended by about 30% via reprocessing, which is useful but hardly makes nuclear power "renewable". Common sense and the Second Law of Thermodynamics say that you can't get something for nothing -- you have to keep shovelling new energy into the system.
"Appropriate Technology" will ruin us. Listen to the engineers, they still believe in a better tomorrow.
Their "better tomorrow" isn't better enough. I want a tomorrow where our energy sources never run out (at least, not for billions of years) and nuclear materials do not find their way into the environment or into the hands of people who would use them to kill. The best way to accomplish this (at least until fusion reactors are viable) is via non-nuclear renewable technologies.
Re:dope (Score:5, Insightful)
When I first started using Linux it wasn't commercialy-viable but I saw it had potential. Sure I was concidered some kind of bizzaro geek for using it at the time but look at it now. No new technology is an instant commercial success and needs a few early-adopters who are able to look past the warts and spur continued developement until it's polished for greater consumption. Photovoltaics will never replace our present electric system, but they might allow a few less generating plants to be required.
Re:But the question is the cost (Score:3, Informative)
Bjorn Lomborg argues in his much-maligned book that solar power prices are following a kind of inverse Moore's Law, effectively halving in price every N years (I forget what N is), which creates a further disincentive to buy solar now. If it'll cost you $20k for your household array and you'll get the money back in savings from reduced draw off the grid, in say 20 years, but the panels themselves will cost half as much in 5 years, you're better off waiting. And so on.
Re:But the question is the cost (Score:2)
1. The panels are only usable in some applications due their overall effeciency (quoted as 11% for this stuff) that you can only use it in very sunny places.
Hmm so I guess the South pole and northern canada and alaska are very sunny places? many tundra towns and research facilities as well as tree-hugging-antisocial-freaks up there rely on solar AND wind power. Just pick up a copy of home power magazine and you'll see at least one story about some loonies who live in the mountians or northern canada that use solar and wind only.
Solar works perfectly well anyplace that has light.. you just need more panels to make your power.
2. The cost per kilowatt hour is still not compariable to some very environmentally unfriendly stuff.
True.. you do much more damage to the environment for every cell made than your useage from a coal or oil plant belches into the air. but the facts are not important when it comes to the environment!
Re:But the question is the cost (Score:2, Informative)
Re:But the question is the cost (Score:3, Informative)
Actually they are. At least for the half year they are in 24 hour daylight. Also the polar regions are the dryest area of the planet, so you are unlikely to get clouds in the way.
Re:But the question is the cost (Score:2, Interesting)
A significant breakthrough in renewable energy, Spheral Solar Power cells produce electricity at considerably lower cost than conventional solar technology, and on a cost-par with fossil-fuel based electricity in many regions of the world.
Re:But the question is the cost (Score:2, Insightful)
Similar technology is being used in car-washes to pre-heat water. I wonder if the flexible material technology could be incorporated into a system that pre-heats in the winter, and in the summer generates electricity which could be used for cooling. The summer months have some of the highest electrical energy demands as air conditioners are running.
I would imagine that you might be able to reduce the heat incident on the building using this material in the summer. For example, instead of introducing the heated air into the building, you could vent it out the top using either convection or wind-powered turbines.
Solar heating seems like a great alternative. Our house has good southern exposure, and stays reasonably warm during the day even with the heat set low (10C). Right now it is about 19C while it is -22C outside (-7F).
Photo-voltaics may also be useful, but the parent comment's points are quite good explanations for why they aren't in widespread use. On the other hand, if the cost of installing a system is sufficiently low and the esthetic is good enough, this could be a reason for buildings like warehouses and so on to reduce their reliance on non-renewable energy.
Re:But the question is the cost (Score:2)
Heh, you know, I just had a thought...if I had this on the roof of my Boston 'burb home, not might it be tough to get enough power in the winter because there's less sunlight, but what about what the damn thing gets covered in snow? Oy flaven.
And then there's the brigade against the windmills around Nantucket. NIMBY rules.
Clothing. (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder what the care instructions will say...
Re:Clothing. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Clothing. (Score:2)
That's easy enough already! *starts to rub his feet vigorously on the carpet* Gimme a few minutes though...
I want a solar sailboat (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I want a solar sailboat (Score:2)
Wouldn't salt spray interfere with collecting the sun? I'd think the sail would get coated with salt.
Re:I want a solar sailboat (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with this material for sails is going to be that it alters the strength and weight of the the materials, and extra weight aloft carries a big penalty in performance. The deck is the right place for this technology. I would think it would be excellent for multi-hulls with large deck areas that maintain faily constant angles. The sides of the hull might be good on a monohull to take advantage of certain courses and heal angles, but you'd always have part of the array where the sun isn't shining.
Re:I want a solar sailboat (Score:2)
Solar panels with style (Score:5, Funny)
I just know my wife is going to want, no _need_, Levi stonewash solar panels with a hipster fit.
Damn fashion.
----------
Interior decorating your home in style? [wallpaperscoverings.com]
Excellent (Score:2)
Solar power without the panels (Score:2, Insightful)
This could also be useful in the automotive industry I would think. No longer would cars have to be designed to fit to a solar panel. The possibilities are out there!
Denim? oh the possibilities! (Score:2, Funny)
Wait, this means that I would have to go outside to use it. Nevermind
Solar Pants? (Score:2, Funny)
Good idea, but probably not a cost-cutting one (Score:2, Insightful)
On the flip-side, Levi's could start selling "hot pants"... just don't get caught in the rain while charging your cell phone in your pocket...
Link to more of the technology (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Link to more of the technology (Score:2)
Hmmm (Score:2, Funny)
I'm an architect (Score:4, Funny)
That's what I always say -- "this building looks great, but it really could use some denim trim for that special something."
(Okay, so I'm actually a software architect. Sue me.)
Or might not.... (Score:3, Informative)
Covert Solar (Score:2, Informative)
Cool concept... (Score:2)
bla--Bla--Bla.. who cares. (Score:5, Informative)
I can use solar wayyy up here in michigan. I just need twice the panels that those in Arizona need. The problem comes in when you try and buy the panels to only satisfy 1/10th your house load even on the used / surplus market the prices are horribly high and not feasable for anyone but the ultra rich who need to decide either between burning a pile of money or buying solar panels.
I have done amazing things with home automation and switching to Compact flouresent and other lighting as well as changing computing from the wasteful typical 300-400 watt PC to a compact Pc using only 90 watts and a cheaper flat panel displays to cut my electrical consumption in half... but trying to reduce my load further by adding solar to take up some slack... I can pay electrical bills for 4 years befire I even get near paying for the solar panels.. and that doesnt include the battery bank and other assorted equipment.
Solar needs to be made cheaper and better.
skip the batteries and panels-- get a windmill! (Score:5, Interesting)
One of these days I will get to solar. But I wouldn't *ever* bother with the battery bank-- it's chock-full of nasty chemicals, needs careful tending, and has to be replaced every few years at large expense and environmental cost. Just by panels and a smart inverter, and run grid-connected, if you ever feel like actually taking the plunge.
In the meantime, you might consider a small windmill as a starter. They're cheaper than solar, and they do some work at night. (Actually, I would think they'd compliment solar well, producing LOTS of power in dark, windy storms) http://www.altenergystore.com/cart/windmills.html [altenergystore.com] has 46" 400-watt turbines for $600. Unless you've got a bunch of 12v appliances, you'll need an inverter, too. Probably another $1000 or so for an inverter that supports grid intertie. I'm not sure on price there. But once you have a good inverter, you can add another windmill, or play around with a few small panels to test it out in your area.
Anyway, that's what I plan to do first, as soon as I get a house.
Suggestion: (Score:2)
Do it with the vertical axis windmill -- preferrably something not too large, though it is less efficient than a large one.
And if you do that, you can put a few in a row. Then, when you get more money, raise another level of scaffolding above it, with another row of windmills.
If you can stand the noise! (Score:3, Interesting)
BTW, solar panels are very popular with sailors too.
Re:bla--Bla--Bla.. who cares. (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but most useful technologies start out that way. Microwave ovens were invented in the 50s, yet did not take hold of the mainstream until the 70s, because of quality and price. VCRs started out as toys for porno watchers for several years before every mom and dad got one. Price was the main reason. Computers, Internet access, and the list goes on.
I agree with your main point, but I don't see it as a problem. Once the technology reaches a point where it is cost effective in some situations (price vs efficiency vs installability) the "rich" will be the first to use it in mass (god bless them) which in turn jacks up production, which in turn reduces costs. We are getting close to that point where it becomes feasible, say within 10 years. This means it won't be mainstream for another 20 to 30 years. Yes, thats a ways off, but its still something.
Personally, Im impressed at the progress made, including this newer flexible material. Its always nice to see private enterprise making gains, even if they are only incremental. You have to crawl before you walk.
Forget photovoltaics for the moment. (Score:2)
Solar heating panels[1] are *much* *much* cheaper than photovoltaics, they are also much much more efficient at 80+% efficient. They are also far less affected by cloud cover.
Generate power from the waste heat using a Stirling engine[2].
[1] e.g. http://www.thermomax.co.uk/
[2] e.g. http://www.stmpower.com/Technology/Technology.asp
uh huh (Score:5, Interesting)
How much does it cost compared to regular panels(which are INCREDIBLY expensive.)
How do you clean it when a bird craps on it?(bird crap is exceptionally acidic- which is why it damages automotive paint/clearcoat.)
Does it stand up to acid rain?
How will you deal with wind?(even small banners need cutouts to keep them from getting ripped off a building).
Will it keep from tearing from raim or snow?(remember, rain and snow loading cause most structural failures.)
How do you position it so it gets maximum sun?(oops, can't. Unlike panels which can be rotated to face the sun as much as possible, automatically.)
Also, I find it hard to believe puts out the same power per square foot as a full panel- it may be as "efficient" as regular solar panels, but i bet they're only "counting" the area of the little bits of silicon, not the total area of the fabric.
Lastly- flexible solar panels are nothing new, They've been around for years- look in any boating catalog.
Re:uh huh (Score:3, Interesting)
Everlasting Gobstoppers of Power (Score:2)
The main caveat would be that the core layer of the bead will have to be fairly large relative to the size of the complete bead (to allow enough contact area once the outer layers are etched off) which would limit the number of layers for a given bead size. I'm not sure if there is a way to pre-test the beads before they're etched to allow for quality control, but there might be.
As an alternative to beads, I wonder if there might be a cheap means of making small layered columns or chips that could be aligned before being laid up in the material, skipping the etching step entirely.
craziness! (Score:3, Informative)
Almost there! (Score:2, Funny)
Practical question for anyone who might know... (Score:2)
Re:Practical question for anyone who might know... (Score:2)
I have also heard the oil used to make a solar cell is more than the energy it will soak up. But someone on slashdot called everyone idiots who believed that and said that is no longer true.
Also, where you are located plays a big role(Seattle or Arizone) in costs.
In the end solar cells are not cost effective, but some would say there are other benefits other than money.
Neat stuff (Score:3, Insightful)
11%? How Much Is That? (Score:2)
Re:11%? How Much Is That? (Score:2)
Seriously though, I recalled previously hearing the average peak solar energy available at ground level as being 1KW/m2. No one seem to agree on that number and the actual total daily energy varies vastly depending on your location. Another source says the average over the entire earu over a 24 hour day is 164watts.
Source: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/2001/ph162/l4.html
Perhaps this is a better formula:
* Multiply the UV index (1-10) by 100 to roughly estimate the peak solar energy (usually around noon) in Watts per square meter for the day (i.e., UVI = 9 => 900 W/m2 around noon)
Source: http://rredc.nrel.gov/tidbits.html
75% efficiency???? (Score:2)
Offtopic: M$ add on slashdot? (Score:2, Offtopic)
Of course, this may be enough to get me to pay for the add-free fee.
Product: Myth and Matter (Score:2, Informative)
As for powering laptops with this stuff, good luck. Laptops suck an enormous amount of power that only the really high-end (gallium aresenide, gallium indium) modules can even begin to touch. Of course, according to ITFT's pictures from this year's CES, they do have a recharge system for cell phones and PDAs.
Fabric != cloth (Score:3, Insightful)
It also comes in multiple colors; the website shows brown spanish tile versions. I've no idea if there's a performance hit for aesthetics but at this point I don't care if it's 5% efficient if people start using it. That's still up to 50 watts/m^2 of pollution free power that wasn't there before.
To properly compare this to normal PV panels, go look at a nice glass enclosed mall. Pay attention to the heavily reinforced angled glass skylights. You'll see lots of angle iron in very particular shapes to keep things solid. That's the kind of crap you have to do with glass-substrate PV. Then there's the whole "cracked by hail" thing to deal with. This stuff may lose a couple of beads but it won't shatter and if the insulating material's good, it won't short out.
This will amount to architectural facade; build your normal structure then bolt this stuff on. The weight will be far less than architectural concrete. From the design it could quite possibly be cut and shaped in the field; a massive bonus to construction. No special order components. Order a couple of spare sections of it and cut/sand to fit.
Solar naysayers consider this (Score:5, Informative)
Solar shingles with a 20 year warranty. [westernsun.org] Available today.
I don't know about the rest of the country, but our household budget electric bill averages $82 bucks a month. 20 years, 240 months, that's $19,680 for 20 years of electricy. This site above has a $10K and a $22K system.
Now if you subract the cost of a new roof the deal looks even better. Raise the value of the property, if you live in a sunny area you can even get paid for feeding energy back into the grid. After all a whole roof solar panel that even has some shade functionality [smartroofsolar.com] would be pretty productive.
Why aren't these at least being put on more new homes?? What a selling point.
Architect's perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
One issue in it's favor is the faddish aspects of 'green building'. Lots of clients want to think that they have a 'green building' but don't want to spend the money or make the compromises required. Slapping some of this on your facade would go a long way - you can see it, point to it and say 'look, green building.' A lot of more effective systems aren't as easily understood or are out of sight.
The biggest down side is the reality of building roofs/skins. Water penetration is the biggest thing that makes architects sweat and loose sleep. Leaky roofs are the biggest source of lawsuits for architects in the US. Roofs undergo massive thermal expansion ranges (for a building product) and are exposed to the weather and physical abuse constantly. I expect a roof to last for decades with minimal maintenance. Anything that claims to be a water-tight roofing surface has to be tested and proven before I'm going to specify it for a project. As with all roofing products, it's not just the stuff that shows up on a truck at the site, but the experience of the roofers who install it and the complete roofing system as installed that is critical.
Of course, you could put this stuff up as an 'outer skin' over a real roof/cladding system, but then you're paying twice for a roof/skin.
A lot of faddish materials have come and gone. They get installed in some buildings, fail in a few years, get ripped off and replaced with something proven. In the end, this stuff has to prove itself over the long run as a high quality building product before it's going to be used extensively. It will be judged on its price vs. performance like anything else.
Ok, how will the pr0n industry use this? (Score:3, Funny)
At the very least, it ought to convince people to produce efficient wearable computers. You know that the guy in jedi-robes must have a pimpin' CPU... but the model who's almost in a bikini might be highly optimized *wink wink*.
Cost. (Score:2)
These on the other hand are 80+% efficient, cheaper than a photovoltaic array and work well in cloudy conditions:
http://www.thermomax.co.uk/
Add a stirling engine for electricity generation.
Masse Solar? Needs Centrifugal storage. (Score:2)
Seems to me that something like RPM's centrifugal power storage units [geocities.com] would be ideal to go along with this. That way, you could load up a building's walls and roof with these things, and produce enough to last through the night.
Then sell it as unit solution: Get the whole package, and have power whenever you need it.
But I'll bet these little factories will be extremely expensive.
Re:These will be cheap until we say they are dumpi (Score:4, Interesting)
Canada's lumber is cheaper because the lumber industry spent tens of millions of dollars on new equipment and research into better harvesting techniques that don't decimate the forests. The US lumber industry is still stuck in the 1950's with labour intensive harvesting techniques and equipment.
Canada has more trees, not only because we're a much larger country, but also because we replant the forests after they've been cut. We've been doing that since the 1960's. The American Lumber Industry keeps spending their money on lobbying the governments instead of replanting the forests and modernization.
Canada's so-called dumping of forestry products in the US is simply crass politics which have nothing to do with reality. It is the US's imposing of the tarriffs that are illegal
Despite all the crap from Americans about free enterpirse and free trade, the US is the world's most tarriff protected nation. As long as the balance of trade remains positive for them, they are happy. As soon as a foreign country, such as Canada, reverses that trend, up go the tarrifs.
What ever happened to NAFTA, you ask? Obviously it's nothing but smoke for the American government since they still slap tarriffs on us. Only now with NAFTA we can prove that they are illegal.
Re:These will be cheap until we say they are dumpi (Score:2)
What!? When did this happen?
Re:If the Canadians have the trees... (Score:2)
Around 1900 the state was about 10% forest. Most land was used for agriculture or logging. Gradually agriculture moved west and logging moved further west, and now it is 85% forest. The "Pemigewasset Wilderness" is a forest area between mountains where no signs of human habitation (roads, houses, etc) are allowed. It's covered with hiking trails that were logging roads or train tracks 100 years ago.
Re:These will be cheap until we say they are dumpi (Score:3, Informative)
Not that the US ever listens to what international organizations ever say if it doesn't benefit them...
Re:Here is a picture (Score:5, Informative)
Score:4, Informative???? The first link points to siding which has nothing to do with solar power, or Spheral Solar Power, Inc.. The second link points to a picture of a denim apparel factory [mitsubishi.or.jp] in China.
If you want to learn more about the product, go to the company's web site [spheralsolar.com].