Clear Solar Panels Double As Projection Screens

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."

Comments

Wonder if they are more efficient...

[DannyiMac]

Wonder if they are more efficient than the solar panels mentioned in a previous /. story?

Cool!

[Zorilla]

It's nice to see that projection technology will be getting cheaper, what with the integrated solar panels and all. Wait, how much do the super-efficient panels cost? Oops...

Re:Cool!

[UberDork]

If you are getting the building cladding as well as the PV units in the one unit, the cost equation looks even better. I don't know what normal 13mm glass might cost, but figure it is fairly expensive in itself. The TCO of these things might not be that bad after all?

How much does it cost

[DaveInAustin]

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. Like the fact that you burn more oil to create an equivianent amount of ethanol from corn. There is a study at cornell that shows this. The same thing holds for all current forms of solar energy. While it will no double have niche applications, it's not going to release the world from dependence on oil, even if we could plater all the skyscrapers of the world with it.

Re:How much does it cost

[moonbender]

And how much energy does it take to produce a single square foot.

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

[irokitt]

But there is something. If solar panels could have a lifetime of about 20-30 years of use (right now you'd be lucky to get the things to last 5 years without breaking), then that momentary expenditure of oil will more than pay for itself. It would be better to spend that oil on making efficient solar panels than to burn it in an SUV. No, we're not there yet and we're probably a good decade off, but the only way to improve this is to keep refining the fabrication process.

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

[GileadGreene]

The fallacy that you refer to doesn't apply to solar panels in quite the same way as it does to ethanol. The question needs to be something more like "what is the ratio of (power produced per sq ft)*(lifetime of a sq ft)/(energy required to create square foot)?" So long as that ratio is greater than 1 there will be a net gain in energy.

Re:How much does it cost

[silentbozo]

Don't forget to put in discount factors for future costs of electricity, growing demands on the local grid from other development, and utility of having an independent power source in the event of generation plant or transmission line failure.

Re:Whats the point

[AlexMidn1ght]

This is great since mornings and afternoons are the usual peak periods for electricity demand.

Re:Whats the point

[Captain Splendid]

Most glass is mounted vertically so it will only be good in the mornings/afternoons.....

Still much better than regular glass that doesn't produce any power.

Um....

[RobL3]

Has anybody considered that most skyscrapers are surrounded by -other- skyscrapers? Kind of cuts down on the whole direct sunlight thing......

Re:Cover a building in it?

[NanoGator]

"Is $19 million worth of glass really what you would want to get?"

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?

Yeah Except

[deathcow]

In many latitudes the Sun never comes anywhere close to being overhead. I've been in Alaska 28 yrs and never seen the Sun, Moon, or any planets even close to overhead. The highest they ever get is about 60 degrees above the horizon or so.

Re:How much power would that be? And at what cost?

[Eivind]

It's probably not very realistic to calculate as if the sun is shining straigth-on on all 4 sides of a skyscraper at once...

Stop bitching about the inefficiency!

[Lihtan]

This is revolutionary because it nows allows solar panel installation in a place where no one could before: on windows. I don't understand all the bitching about the panel's inefficiency. The panel is a compromise, if anyone read their website, they etch lines into it with a laser.

...During the manufacturing process a laser scribes a series of ultra fine lines, allowing 10% of visible light to be transmitted through the panel...

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.