Slashdot Mirror


Pliable Solar Cells on a Roll

klevin writes "New Scientist is running a story on someone else who's developed thin, flexible, photovoltaic cells: 'The thin and bendy solar panels can be stuck to fabrics, sheets or backpacks and promise a go-anywhere electricity supply.' Whatever happened to those sheets of solar cells that some university here in the US developed several years back? As I remember, the concept was that they could be draped across roof-tops and whatnot. Never heard anything after that." We had post about solar building clothing last year.

241 comments

  1. Slashdot is evil! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google it! NFJ

  2. Hmmm. by krymsin01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Would be good to use as a solar sail, I bet.

    --
    stuff
    1. Re:Hmmm. by FuturePastNow · · Score: 1

      As I'm sure others will point out, this would not make a good solar sail. But that doesn't mean it would not be useful for space applications- picture a very long, flexible solar power-cell rolled up around a spacecraft for launch, then unrolled and made rigid in space (piezoelectricity?). I imagine it could have a lot more surface area than the solar cells currently used.

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    2. Re:Hmmm. by JPriest · · Score: 1

      What is new about pliable solar sells? What about this jacket for instance?

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    3. Re:Hmmm. by TummyX · · Score: 1

      um, no it wouldn't. i can't believe you got modded up insightful.

      solar sails need to be incredibly light and (as a consequence) thin.

      solar sales work on light pressure not by converting light to electricity to drive an engine.

    4. Re:Hmmm. by krymsin01 · · Score: 1

      I am fully aware that solar sails need to be incredibly light and thin. What I was trying to say, and apparently failed horribly at, is that perhaps it would be cool if (after a lot more development) could make a solar cell light, thin, and flexabile enough to make a solar sail out of.

      --
      stuff
    5. Re:Hmmm. by The_Dougster · · Score: 2, Informative
      Piezoelecticity is a force to voltage type thing and while pretty nifty, is unrelated to photovoltaic cells.

      For the laymen out there, I'll explain this in technical terms. If you have a roughly cylindrical quartz crystal, and if you squeeze it, the crystal lattices "snap" into an alternative arrangement which free's up some electrons and essentially produces a static charge. When you remove the stress, the crystal lattice snaps back into its rest state and wants its electrons back.

      Conversely, by applying an alternating current to a quartz crystal, you can make it physically stretch and shrink.

      Because a quartz crystal is somewhat like a spring, a given shape/mass/volume of it will possess a resonant vibrational frequency. If you apply a signal to the crystal at or near the resonant frequency, the crystal's vibrational magnitude will increase, just like the famous Tacoma Narrows bridge "Galloping Girdy".

      Piezoelectricity is a weird and wonderfull direct mechanical to electrical conversion phenomenon and it is typically used in electronics to convert a sloppy signal into a more precise one, or by utilizing higher harmonic modes, to multiply a lower frequency into a higher one.

      --
      Clickety Click ...
    6. Re:Hmmm. by The_Dougster · · Score: 1
      Oops, I missed the point, you proposed to apply a voltage to unroll the material. Personally I would think more along the lines of those pop out punching glove xxxxB type things with a small worm drive to extend and retract it.

      Well a little piezoelectric tutorial can't hurt anyways :-)

      --
      Clickety Click ...
    7. Re:Hmmm. by The_Dougster · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Solar sail? Try relativity rocket.

      Just use the solar cells to power up a linear accelerator and shoot nuclei out the back at near the speed of light. If you can get 0.999c from a nucleus you get a tremendous thrust for one little atom. Remember, F mA when you approach the speed of light. Relativity rockets (super ion engines) are probably the best means of propulsion where electric power is plentiful but mass is dear. I'm sorry, but that tiny momentum of a photon is so small it is pathetic. Granted you get 2x boost for reflection vs 1x boost for adsorbtion, but 2 x 0 still equals 0. The only way to practically get around in space is to shoot nuclei out the back of a rocket engine at the speed of light.

      --
      Clickety Click ...
    8. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Possibly for a Sail boat or Sand/Ice Racer.... I have to wonder how well it would handle luffing and such as well as the occassional wind shift or tack. Good Idea though, great for powering lights and radio, or just as an emergency suplement.

    9. Re:Hmmm. by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1
      The only way to practically get around in space is to shoot nuclei out the back of a rocket engine at the speed of light.

      The problem is that energy efficiency of space drives (i.e. how much kinetic energy ends up in the vehicle, rather than the exhaust) is inversely proportional to the speed of the exhaust.

      So, nuclei at 0.999c are very much *less* energetically efficient than chemical drives or normal ion drives; atleast unless you intend to travel at *very* high speeds- as in interstellar travel rather than interplanetary travels; in that case carrying enough fuel is difficult and the very high velocity drive is a better way to go.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    10. Re:Hmmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you'd get more thrust by using that solar panel sail to power an ion engine.

    11. Re:Hmmm. by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 0
      solar sales work on light pressure
      Solar sales - 30% off our extensive range of suns. And with our new binary systems, buy one - get one free!

      (void where prohibited. YMMV. Ca residents add 8% sales tax.)

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    12. Re:Hmmm. by Citizen+Gold · · Score: 1

      Just don't point that thing at my planet...

    13. Re:Hmmm. by FuturePastNow · · Score: 1

      Personally I would think more along the lines of those pop out punching glove xxxxB type things with a small worm drive to extend and retract it.

      You're probably right, but I remember reading that NASA was researching flexible construction materials. A solar cell that can change it shape could track the sun by simply bending itself.

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    14. Re:Hmmm. by syukton · · Score: 1

      How do you propose we get something like this, which is usually a few kilometers long, into space? The linear accelerator I mean, it's not like one 100 metres long will get you atomic nuclei traveling at 0.999 of lightspeed. The things are usually a few kilometres in size.

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    15. Re:Hmmm. by SagaLore · · Score: 1

      I keep looking for a jacket, but I all I see is girl... :)

    16. Re:Hmmm. by harrkev · · Score: 1
      picture a very long, flexible solar power-cell rolled up around a spacecraft for launch, then unrolled and made rigid in space (piezoelectricity?).

      Piezoelectricity is not a good way to make it rigid. All that you really have to do is to put a couple of small hollow "channels" on either side of the strip. Puff in a little air, and the channels would blow up like little baloons, holding the thing rigid. In a vacuum, it would take almost no air.

      And for spacecraft that return to Earth, the material could just burn up on re-entry, so you would not have to mess with re-folding it (assuming that it is not terribly expensive)
      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    17. Re:Hmmm. by The_Dougster · · Score: 1
      Not a very timely reply but...
      The problem is that energy efficiency of space drives (i.e. how much kinetic energy ends up in the vehicle, rather than the exhaust) is inversely proportional to the speed of the exhaust.
      I'm not sure that I believe that. It goes against all that I have learned. The amount of force required to accelerate a particle to relativistic speeds becomes infinite the closer one comes to c. And for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. I'm not saying that its easy to build a linear accelerator or a massive power source into a spaceship, but I'm saying that if you want to get the most thrust from a given amount of matter(fuel) then this is the only way to go.
      --
      Clickety Click ...
    18. Re:Hmmm. by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1
      but I'm saying that if you want to get the most thrust from a given amount of matter(fuel) then this is the only way to go

      That's quite true (actually, the correct term is 'impulse' rather than thrust); but not the point I was making.

      The problem is that if the exhaust is going much faster than the rocket ever does, then the exhaust ends up carrying away very nearly all the energy of the rocket- the rocket gets very little of the energy.

      So, although a super-fast exhaust reduces the fuel consumption, the energy use goes up. Pretty soon, the power generator is heavier than the fuel tank, or you make do with a smaller generator and take ages getting to the destination.

      That's actually why ion drives are so slow- they don't have a lightweight/powerful source of energy.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  3. Didn't RTFA, but... by Dorsai65 · · Score: 1

    I wonder how the efficiency of these panels compares to the more conventional ones. I can't help but think that there's probably a difference; but if it isn't too bad, they could prove to be pretty useful.

    --
    --- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
    1. Re:Didn't RTFA, but... by aheath · · Score: 1
      QTFA:

      "Kroesen's team has made its solar cells bendy simply by making them thin. But this has involved a trade-off. While the best solar cells are now working at efficiencies above 20%, the H-AS cells are only about 7% efficient. The researchers think efficiency is worth sacrificing for a cell that is going to be more generally useful, though they still hope eventually to reach 10% efficiency."

    2. Re:Didn't RTFA, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OMFG paragraph three sentence three is WAY too deep into the story for this person to venture...

    3. Re:Didn't RTFA, but... by luvirini · · Score: 1

      Allready the quite low efficiency of traditional solar cells makes their use in many applications too cumbersome, so the fact that these are flexible is not likely to help with the lower efficiency as the surface area will start to get very big.

    4. Re:Didn't RTFA, but... by Spruitje · · Score: 1


      I wonder how the efficiency of these panels compares to the more conventional ones. I can't help but think that there's probably a difference; but if it isn't too bad, they could prove to be pretty useful.


      At the moment it's around 7% which is a little bit lower than conventional solar cells which have an efficiency of around 20%.
      But they are working to get it to 10%.
      Second, they can produce it for 1 a watt.
      Which means that it's 8 to 10 times cheaper than conventional solar cells.

    5. Re:Didn't RTFA, but... by Dorsai65 · · Score: 1

      mmmmmmmm - I think not. You can get a similar convenience by using smaller rigid cells on a foldable surface, and still have the higher efficiency. Oh, well.

      --
      --- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
    6. Re:Didn't RTFA, but... by Dorsai65 · · Score: 1

      True. If it was a difference of even 10%, it might be worthwhile; but between 20+% and SEVEN? Nah.

      --
      --- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
    7. Re:Didn't RTFA, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, the artical states that they are MUCH cheaper to produce than the traditional glass based panels. Since they can produce it continuosly in sheets, it's a much cheaper process, about 1 euro/watt And that definately will help. Lower cost per watt is a good thing.

      At that price you can produce a kilowatt/hour for around 1000 euro (or about $1330). It will make the idea of a household producing it's own energy and not relying on a public power grid much more realistic.

      The flexible part will help enable a number of other applications.

      Imagine Camping with a tent made out of the stuff. Charge a battery all day, and run your lights and small applainces at night.

      Imagine a sailboat with a sail made out of it. It could power a rather nice navigation system I think.

      Imagine the applications of something that is essentially a fabric producing electricity. Your clothing could power your cellphone, MP3 player, PDA, etc.

      Also remember that it's a technology in it's infancy. it should get more efficient as the process is improved upon. The implications are far reaching and rather astounding if you ask me.

    8. Re:Didn't RTFA, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More than this it could also be very good for emergency uses. For example emergency life rafts could have their upper surfaces made of this material and it could be used to extend battery life for the emergency beacon. (In any case the emergency beacon is going to be most useful at night when rescuers can see people, so it would be very useful if it turned out that the battery for the beacon was totally dead anyway).

      Another example might be providing power for some systems in areas affected by an earthquake. Disaster relief organisations turn up, find a conveninent patch of land, and unroll a huge area, and the place has power for some essential services. When the disaster is over, simply roll it back up, put in on the back of a low loader and drive it to the next disaster.

      In other situations, though, I'd want to know how long it takes before the energy required during manufacture, transport to market, etc., is recouped to know whether it would be worth suggesting this as a way to provide cheap additional energy to top up fossil fuel sources.

    9. Re:Didn't RTFA, but... by justanyone · · Score: 1


      I hate to correct you on costs per watt: currently is between $3.50 and $5.30 per watt, dependind if you buy 1 module or 100,000 modules.

      Current prices of photovoltaic cell modules is always tracked at a nice website, http://www.solarbuzz.com/Moduleprices.htm.

      Half the cost (55%+) of a solar cell installation is dc->ac conversion & associated electronics. this development does not help that cost, unfortunately...

      --Kevin

      --> Shameless Plug: I'm looking for a Sr. Software Engineer Job in Northwest suburbs of Chicago, Perl, C, some Java & C#, 14 yrs. experience; Laid off due to merger. kevin@justanyone.com--

    10. Re:Didn't RTFA, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Per the article, they are considerably worse: 7% vs. 20%. The stated goal is to trade high volume, low cost production techniques for efficiency (the article quotes 1 Euro per watt as the price point). They call them "polymorphus" cells, and the technique sounds very similar to the established amorphous solar cells. Some of these are also made in flexible formats.

    11. Re:Didn't RTFA, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the hell cares what the efficiency is?

      The only thing that matters is the cost per watt. At 1 Euro, this would be a revolution.

    12. Re:Didn't RTFA, but... by SagaLore · · Score: 1

      Why are we still at such a low efficiency? If we approached a 70% to 80% efficiency with solar technology, we'd have all the electricity we need to power our homes...

    13. Re:Didn't RTFA, but... by clonan · · Score: 2, Informative

      We are actually unlikly to get much past about 50%

      This is the best plant chlorophyl (sp?) systems can get. It is also sad but true that it is extremly rare that machines, silicon or other, significantly out do nature in efficiancy.

      HOWEVER, since the average solar energy hitting earth is 1.4 kW/m^2 that means that even at 50% we are taking in 700 w/m^2. Now since the average energy use for a home is 17,130 kw/h that means we will need an average of 24-25 square meters to power a house.

      Then of course there is no light at night so we will need to double the area to 50 square meters and add a battery system.

      But REGARDLESS at even 50% efficiency we can power most single family american houses with simply the roof area!

    14. Re:Didn't RTFA, but... by SagaLore · · Score: 1

      Maybe that's what we need to do, stop playing with silicon and start creating organic-based solar cells. Of course instead of electricity the house will be powered off starch. ;)

    15. Re:Didn't RTFA, but... by clonan · · Score: 1

      Actualy you are not far off.

      There are methods of taking chlorophy and instead of using the electrons that get kicked off to create sugar they are directed to a wire and produce current.

      It actually works REALLY well...something like 40% efficiency but it doesn't last long...the chlorophyl degrades in under an hour unless the cell is there to support it.

      I think slashdot acytually had an article with that some time ago...years ago.

  4. Are there other applications besides clothing? by aheath · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I wonder if there are other applications that make more sense than clothing that can charge a cell phone.

    I think this type of material could be very useful to provide electricity in places that do not have access to a reliable electrical grid.

    How many watts are needed to run a a phone, a refrigerator, a radio or a computer?

    1. Re:Are there other applications besides clothing? by ThisNukes4u · · Score: 1

      Quite a bit more than I would think can be powered by embedded solar cells. It is hard enough for a regular solar cell to power anything with somewhat demanding electricity usage. Besides the fact that solar energy is not exactly the 100% uptime 24h solution.

      --
      thisnukes4u.net
    2. Re:Are there other applications besides clothing? by dougmc · · Score: 1
      I think this type of material could be very useful to provide electricity in places that do not have access to a reliable electrical grid.
      Solar cells are already used in lots of applications that don't have access to an electrical grid, reliable or not. Pliable solar cells might be useful in more applications, but the ones we have now are used quite a bit.

      What applications, you might ask? `35 mph school zone' lights (it's easier to add solar cells than to run wires.) Remote creek monitoring stations. Satellites in orbit. There's lots lots more.

      As for providing 110v power to remote locations, this is done too. It generally requires quite a bank of solar cells, and lots of batteries (the sun isn't up 24/7) to provide the power used just by a single household, but some people do it.

      How many watts are needed to run a a phone, a refrigerator, a radio or a computer?
      This is easily measurable. For a fridge, it's a lot, but you can read the average right on the yellow label on the front when you buy it. For a phone, what kind of phone? A cell phone probably averages much less than one watt (assuming the time spent actually talking on it is minimal.) For a computer, it depends on the type of computer. A PC often uses 100-200 watts of power (not counting the monitor), but some computers use a lot less.
    3. Re:Are there other applications besides clothing? by pyat · · Score: 1

      Well, my laptop power supply is rated at 65W.
      It takes about as long to charge the battery (while still using the computer) as to exhaust the battery so i'd imagine the power consumption of the laptop itself is about half this.

      Regarding the mobile phone. My charger has a rating of less than 7W, and i usually need to charge it for about 2.5 hours every 3 days. This is very manageable with solar cells (you have 72 hours to accumulate 21 watt-hours of energy).

    4. Re:Are there other applications besides clothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. With a reliable energy source Bedouins, the Inuit, Sherpas, Amazon tribesmen, and Bushmen can finally power up that refrigerator sitting idle in their camps.

    5. Re:Are there other applications besides clothing? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      it isn't 24hr, but it is a 100% uptime solution. Many people think that you need direct sunlight, but if you can see, then there's enough light hitting the panels to generate some electricity. It may not generate as much as you'd get when the panels are in direct, full sunlight, but you get something.

    6. Re:Are there other applications besides clothing? by tricorn · · Score: 1

      "if you can see" - well, technically, yes, but the dynamic range of the eye is amazing. The difference in the amount of energy you could get in dim light (say, just enough to read by) and the amount in full sunlight is so enormously large that the former might as well be zero. Even in fairly good light (e.g. under a 60W bulb 2-3 feet away) the amount of energy you can practically recover is very small (enough to run a calculator, not much more). Even with full sunlight and high efficiency, you still need quite a bit of area to satisfy the energy demands of the typical North American house, even disregarding heating/cooling needs.

  5. Solar clothes by Rii · · Score: 0

    So... what color is it?

    1. Re:Solar clothes by Mhtsos · · Score: 1

      Duh, black. All other colors would be less efficient.

  6. I can see it now by SuburbaniteFury · · Score: 2, Funny

    The new Apple fashion: instead of black shadow people in their iPod advertisements, everyone is now covered with solar panels. (This might actually help the batter life, though, so it's not a total loss.)

  7. Solar Area 51. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Whatever happened to those sheets of solar cells that some university here in the US developed several years back? As I remember, the concept was that they could be draped across roof-tops and whatnot. Never heard anything after that.""

    I believe the aliens complained about it, making it difficult for their craft to land.

  8. WARNING by Dash'n'SlashDot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    God, solar panelling on the clothes. try to imagine the warning labels they would put on thee things: WARNING! DO NOT USE WHILE BATHING OR WHILE HAVING SEX. ... Don't laugh. You heard it here first. Expect it on your self-heating winter coats next year.

    1. Re:WARNING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just lieve the warning signs off and let the evolution handle it.

    2. Re:WARNING by Icarus1919 · · Score: 1

      Normally winter occurs because there's less sunlight than usual. I don't think they're going to be producing your imagined self heated clothing through solar panels any time soon.

    3. Re:WARNING by TummyX · · Score: 1


      WARNING! DO NOT USE WHILE BATHING OR WHILE HAVING SEX


      I think that warning is pretty redundant for most people around here...

    4. Re:WARNING by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "Expect it on your self-heating winter coats next year."

      Uh, we already have those. They're called "dark colors". Direct light to heat conversion. Very efficient.

    5. Re:WARNING by Stray7Xi · · Score: 1

      Self-heating winter coats... so they take photons, convert it to electricity then convert it to heat.. ingenious.

      or you can just wear a black shirt and skip the whole electricity part.

  9. Not really by Nomihn0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If I understand solar sails correctly, this is not how they work. Instead, they utilize the combined force of billions of subatomic particles radiated by stars hitting a parachute shaped foil to tow a capsule. This is why they are made to be exceptionally lightweight and large in their surface area.

    1. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forgive my grammar, it's late.

    2. Re:Not really by krymsin01 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, you are correct in that, but if you made the sail out of a large, lightweight, flexible solar panel, you'd be generating electricity and momentum.

      --
      stuff
    3. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oddly enough, not so much the force but the momentum. And not subatomic particals so much as light. Stars appearently make a lot of light. And that's why solar sails, as opposed to cells, are reflective. The radiation pressure equation would probably provide more insight into this should you wish to investigate further.

    4. Re:Not really by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But unless they can make it much thinner, this WOULDN'T make a good solar sail.

      At "a little thicker than photographic film", it is probably too heavy to be a good solar sail material.

      (Yeah, I know you never said it would, but you do seem to be defending that position.)

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    5. Re:Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that mean that if the solar sail was made of PVCs it would slow down?

      Seriously, If a solar sail were made of that material, it could generate quite some wattage, in addition to its task as a sail. I think that's what he meant.

    6. Re:Not really by cosmol · · Score: 1
      you'd be generating electricity and momentum.

      you'd be generating electricity at the cost of momentum. If the sail absorbs the photons to make electricity it can't reflect the photons to make motion.

    7. Re:Not really by lightsaber1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Holy Crap! Am I the only one that read this as a joke? Geez, some people take things way too seriously...and whoever modded this "Insightful" as opposed to "Funny" needs to grow a sense of humour.

    8. Re:Not really by SagaLore · · Score: 1

      When you say momentum, what are you suggesting? What would you do with the electricity generated to push the ship foward?

      I would use the electricity to power an electron gun, similar technology as in CRTs. The focused propulsion of electrons may be enough to move the ship? Don't be making any trips into deep space...

  10. Re:But what will the Terrorist implications be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sincerly hope you are joking... cause there is no solar panel that can compare to the power of a lithium ion battery in the common cell phone...

    as for amature rockets... whats wrong with those? you can do way more damage with a car that a small carboard tube with a little black gunpowerder in it.

  11. Re:But what will the Terrorist implications be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Godwin's law for Slashdot:

    The longer a Slashdot story stays on the front page, the more the probability of someone mentioning terrorists or banning by the US government approaches one.
  12. Iowa Thin Film Technologies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The poster might have been thinking about Iowa Thin Film Techologies...

    1. Re:Iowa Thin Film Technologies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a minor technical hurdle to overcome before this stuff makes sense. They need to remove the toxicity from the substrate.

  13. Flat vs. Flexible Info by sahrss · · Score: 4, Informative

    To address some of Klevin's confusion, since I've been following solar panel advancements:

    Thin, flexible cells have been around for a while. One reason they haven't caught on heavily is because they're nowhere near as 'powerful' (efficient at conversion) as hard panels. Did a quick search (don't take this data *too* seriously, but it represents what's normal); compare panels from these two pages:
    Flexible
    Solid

    Specifically, compare "Unisolar 32 watt flexible solar panel" from the first link to "Shell ST40 thin film CIS 40 watt solar panel" on the second. The flexible panel is 940 sq. inches and 32 watts, while the solid panel 663 sq. inches and 40 watts. Big difference in watt per area.

    I ended up choosing a big solid one to fit in the rear dash of my car; flexible would have been easier to deal with, but it won't fold, and produces less power. (I use the panel in my car to power my laptop/cell phone combo while camping and stuff, it's very cool and gets a lot of questions from random interested people!)

    Here's another chart to compare the two: Product Page
    Tried to find an efficiency rating chart comparing the two types, but no luck. The numbers are out there somewhere...

    1. Re:Flat vs. Flexible Info by $uperjay · · Score: 1

      Solar on the rear dash is a very smart idea. I don't know why most cars don't have this attached by default and coupled to rechargable batteries.

    2. Re:Flat vs. Flexible Info by The_Dougster · · Score: 1

      Heck, just hook it up to a little exhaust fan so when you open the door of your auto in the heat of summer its not so hot but yet you don't need to leave your windows down.

      --
      Clickety Click ...
    3. Re:Flat vs. Flexible Info by RealUlli · · Score: 4, Informative
      You mean, like this?

      Cheers, Ulli

      --
      Simple things should be simple, complex things should be possible.
  14. sweet! by Cannedbread · · Score: 2, Funny

    i live in oregon and i really cant wait to get a solor powered raincoat. oh wait

    1. Re:sweet! by BladeMelbourne · · Score: 1

      I live in Antarctica and cant wait to try one of those solar powered raincoats on June 22nd.

    2. Re:sweet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and a solar powered sunlamp.
      PH: How long does it take to get, say a 2 hour suntan?
      A: About 4 hours.

  15. Cheap solar panels by Squalish · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Screw clothing to charge cellphones, etc. I can't think of a more petty use.

    The major impact of this tech has nothing to do with its portability/flexibility. The article estimates that the price for a final process fab will be about 1 euro per watt, compared to a highly competitive market which has so far only produced 5.6 euro per watt glass panels.

    Simply put, this would make photovoltaics as an energy source an order of magnitude more competitive, if the process is scalable.

    --
    People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation
    1. Re:Cheap solar panels by Squalish · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Okay, was reading the wrong data, that was peak price, the lowest prices one can find are around E2.66 per watt for crystalline + E3.15 for thin film.

      Still, 1 euro per watt would make a HUGE difference in the viability of solar.

      --
      People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation
    2. Re:Cheap solar panels by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Assuming one doesn't care about the total energy output over the life of the device, yes.

    3. Re:Cheap solar panels by Squalish · · Score: 1

      It brings the break-even in price in terms of capital down to (back-of-napkin-calculations) 5 years or so instead of 15-20.

      I assume that it does something similar in terms of energy.

      --
      People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation
  16. Re:But what will the Terrorist implications be? by HillBilly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Get over the terrorist thing. Stop letting them win with your paranoid thoughts.

    --
    "Go into the hall of mirrors and have a bloody hard look at yourself" - HG Nelson
  17. Bendy by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    The thin and bendy solar panels can be stuck to fabrics, sheets or

    "Bendy"? Seems English is becoming as flexible and bendy as solar panels. Gotta do some practicizing myself.

    1. Re:Bendy by m3j00 · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Bendy by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Dubya? Is that you?

    3. Re:Bendy by dread_pirate_smoochy · · Score: 1

      Dang! You must be an expert in Wordyology !!!!

    4. Re:Bendy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Got fuck your mother language nazi!

    5. Re:Bendy by JimmehAH · · Score: 1

      It's is a perfectly cromulent word.

    6. Re:Bendy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dictionaries record language usage, they don't define words for us (it's vice-versa) or determine their acceptability. e.g. irregardless

      OTOH, I'm amazed at the OP being amazed that words in English are easily (and often) modified. That's one of the best features of the language. Hasn't that guy ever delved outside of modern literature? Read the KJV Bible, Shakespeare and Chaucer and then come and complain about "bendy", I dare him.

      There just isn't One True English unless you're a Platonist or a royalist (and in the latter case, RSE has hardly remained static).

  18. Re:But what will the Terrorist implications be? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    Right, we should suspend ALL technological devellopments and scientific research, lest the boogyman, I mean, terrorist use it. Also, let's scrap all the tech we have and go live in caves.

    You first, of course.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  19. Re:nothing says nerd like.... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    ...and an instant replacement for the classic "kick me" sign.

    Neon self-charging Kick-Me signs? Those are for the rich kids. Not sure if it counts as a status symbol to have one on, though. Is it better to be jammed into a gold-lined garbage can as freshman than a tin one?

  20. Solar Cells on a Roll by fireboy1919 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't care what anyone says.

    Now matter how pliable or environmentally friendly, solar cells are not good on a roll. They taste absolutely nothing like butter, and quite frankly, I find them barely palatable.

    Don't the editors try this these things themselves? This is as bad as that "http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/10/28/18522 41&tid=126" story. Trust me, those things taste absolutely nothing like fruit-rollups.

    --
    Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    1. Re:Solar Cells on a Roll by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 1

      Maybe there's something wrong with your roll...

    2. Re:Solar Cells on a Roll by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      oh come on, they're like popcorn & potatoes: they taste like salt & butter, or whatever else you use to spice/jazz them up

  21. cell phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Cell phones, and battery powered devices in general are pretty easy to figure out.

    If your phone has a 780mAh LIon battery (it does, roughly), then the battery contains 0.78*3.7 (3.7 is the nominal voltage) or 2.8Wh of power. then you figure out how long the battery lasts.

    In the case of a phone, just turned on, doing nothing, it probably lasts at least 56 hours. 2.8Wh/56 = 0.05W. The phone is using 50mW of power on average. When you are talking, you probably get about 5.6 hours of talk time. So it's using 0.5W (500mW) on average.

    All this is pretty easy to do with battery-powered devices. If you have a wall-powered device you need something to measure the power usage, like a Kill-A-Watt.

  22. Obviously.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    anyone who wears solar-cell clothing doesn't have to worry about either of those activities. I hear that they'll be sold exclusively under the "Members Only" lable.

  23. Re:But what will the Terrorist implications be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're obviously in your early stages of becoming a troll. Not bad, but not entirely convincing. Keep working on it, i see potential here.

  24. Re:But what will the Terrorist implications be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who cares? The ATF and the FBI and the CIA and the friggin NSA have no authority in EUROPE, you saddite. If GW Bush trespassed in my house, I would be fully within my rights to have him arrested, prosecuted, and thrown in prison. Hail the old world!

  25. people are missing the point by rubee · · Score: 0

    although its a nice novelty to have a solar-backpack, the real good news is that this trend will eventually bring down solar panel prices and make them avaliable to a wider audience. the biggest obstacle today to a solar panel on every roof is cost and installation, for they are already highly efficient (they can capture something like 30% of all energy to that hits a certain surface).

    1. Re:people are missing the point by PabloJones · · Score: 1

      Actually, the biggest obstacle is making them efficient in the first place. A solid panel made of crystalline cells can only get between 11% and 14% efficiency (thin film PVs gets even less), when optimally tilted towards the sun. This is because only certain wavelengths are allowed to be converted into energy at the moment. Scientists are still working on a molecule or bunches of molecules (I'm not entirely sure how it all works) that will be able to utilize more of the spectrum. Until then, we are stuck with relatively expensive panels, which are also not terribly eco-friendly to manufacture.

    2. Re:people are missing the point by The_Dougster · · Score: 1
      Your post made me remember something that I was wondering about a while back but never found an answer.

      Since Infra-Red radiation is part of the electromagnetic spectrum and very near the wavelengths of visible light, can it be focused using an optical lens just as one can focus light rays?

      I had an idea about placing a fresnel lens in front of a large low-availability IR radiating source and focusing it to make a hotspot. A small area with an extremely high temperature is much more thermodynamically usefull than a large area with a relatively low temperature.

      You might use this, for instance, to focus process heat onto a catalyst to improve chemical reaction rates.

      --
      Clickety Click ...
    3. Re:people are missing the point by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      Since Infra-Red radiation is part of the electromagnetic spectrum and very near the wavelengths of visible light, can it be focused using an optical lens just as one can focus light rays?
      Yes, you can buy IR film[1]. I think the refractive index of the glass is slightly different, so you have to focus differently - you see a red dot or mark on some SLR lenses for this purpose.

      [1] Film was a kind of light sensitive medium, usually shaped like a strip or tape used in cameras in the old days.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:people are missing the point by inflex · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can focus infrared light. On most SLR camera lenses, you'll see there's an iR compensation mark for when you're using iR film.

      Paul.

    5. Re:people are missing the point by The_Dougster · · Score: 1

      Thanks guys. I will have to think about the potential applications. Typical heat sources emit IR radiation as the (approximately) 4th root of temperature, but still this is some interesting stuff because not everything is typical. My thanks for answering my question!

      --
      Clickety Click ...
    6. Re:people are missing the point by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Why bother ... use a tracking reflector farm and focus as much of the spectrum as you can on a black-body liquid sodium tank and run a steam turbine with it, and use the sodium as a thermal reservoir for power generation at night. I remember reading that a megawatt+ pilot plant using that kind of technology is either being built or in use today.

      The best conventional (fossil fueled) steam turbine power plants are something like 30% efficient. That compares favorably with the best solar cells available, so presumably with a solar-fired plant you could achieve a similar efficiency. If you then sell the "waste" heat from the turbines as process heat for industrial use, or pipe it somewhere for building heating, your overall efficiency goes way up. I think it was the Netherlands (not sure about that) that has a coal-fired plant that achieves over 80% thermal efficiency that way, which is pretty damned impressive.

      I admit, solar cells have a certain appeal (silent, direct conversion of light to electricity) but it isn't quite as simple as all that. Power grids don't have much use for direct current, so you'll need really high-powered DC to AC inverters or some other means of converting panel output into 50/60 Hz. AC for distribution. Well, okay, you could put a small synchronized inverter on every panel and do it that way I suppose. However you do it, there is going to be a significant (read: massive) investment in physical plant to use solar in conjunction with an existing power grid on the same scale, and with the same reliability, as existing power sources. The panels themselves aren't necessarily even the largest part of that cost. Face it, solar isn't a particularly energy dense power source (not here on the Earth's surface, anyway.) The "cost per watt" of a solar cell needs to be put in terms of what it would take to build a solar power plant that could compete with, say, a typical 2400 megawatt nuclear unit. That estimate, which should include energy storage for nighttime and inclement weather, is substantially higher than the numbers being bandied about here on Slashdot.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  26. What if.... by dteichman2 · · Score: 1

    Could you use one of these as the roof for a shade structure (it's portable). Then you could use the power for say... a fan. Nice day at the beach.

    --


    Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
  27. Is $US52 per square metre about right? by thorpie · · Score: 4, Informative

    They quote 7% efficiency, 1 euro per watt.
    Full sun is 1000 watts/sq metre, so with 7% efficiency we get 70 watts/square metre, so it has a cost of 70 euros/sq metre or, at 1.33 euros to the dollar, about $US52.60/sq metre.
    Cover a 10 * 4 metre area of roof for $2,100 and get enough energy, in the middle of summer, to boil your 2 kw electic kettle all day.
    At 12c per kwH for electricity, @ 2.8 kw * 6 hours/day * 365 days/year gives a cost saving of $735 pa, or a repayment of the $2,100 capital in 3 years

    Are these numbers OK?

    At this price will it be practical to disconnect from the grid sometime soon?

    --
    The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime - Floyd, Pink
    1. Re:Is $US52 per square metre about right? by matt21811 · · Score: 1
      Finnally someone who gets it.

      The whole aspect of attaching this product to clothing or backpacks is just a gimmic to attract press attention.

      The real story here is that the cost per what is falling. Only one order of magnitude in efficiency (in $ per watt) to go before we stop burning coal for electricity. I look foreward to a time when countries that whose only natural resourse is large amounts of scourching hot desert and they are considered energy rich.

    2. Re:Is $US52 per square metre about right? by DustyShadow · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think you 1.33 US dollars to 1 euro.

    3. Re:Is $US52 per square metre about right? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      Are these numbers OK?
      No, you forgot to discount the capital over time and to allow for depreciation.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:Is $US52 per square metre about right? by drphil · · Score: 5, Informative

      Although there is nothing wrong with your calculation per se, there are a lot of costs it doesn't include, so it is low by quite a bit. The 1 euro per W (peak Watt or average W - article doesn't say) is only the cost for just the solar cell at high volume manufacturing. At that point you are still quite a long ways from installing this on your roof cost-wise. You still have to put the solar cell in a module, then install it in a panel, then install the panel on your roof along with a rectifier (since your house expects AC) plus other equipment and power storage if you want to be competely off-grid - there are costs, of course, each step of the way.

      The rule of thumb I came across when I was studying the econ of solar cells ~18 months ago was that for thin film cell solar to be viable (without govt subsidy) it had to be manufactured for $1/pW (or one euro, depending on exchange rate) and had to have at least 10% efficiency. If the 10% efficiency is not met then the downstream costs eat you alive because you have to install so much more area of solar cells to get the required power.

      The current advances in flexible solar have been excellent and the solar market is growing at ~30% (although still >90% c-Si cells), but unless you are willing pay a price to be "green" or your govt gives you a fat subsidy for installing the solar power it will take you many years to repay your capital - on the order of 10 or more if you currently have ready access to the power grid. If you are remote from the grid, solar is actually a great deal cheaper today - but by using Si-based solar which is manufactured on relatively large scale today and has 15% efficiencies versus thin film.

      Govt subsidies are still going strong in Japan - Germany is wavering. With G(lobal) W(arming) Bush in office the increase in solar in the US is going to be from the Eco-minded willing to take a bath $$-wise or off grid applications - well, there are also cats who are pretty good at utilizing passive solar power.

    5. Re:Is $US52 per square metre about right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The real story here is that the cost per what is falling
      The cost per what?
    6. Re:Is $US52 per square metre about right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only places (in the US) that get 6hr/day of
      direct sunlight are in the desert around Phoenix.
      Clouds and haze limit most other locales to 4hr/day
      or less.

    7. Re:Is $US52 per square metre about right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what if the houses get pre installed with solar cells? How much would that drop costs?

      Quickshot

    8. Re:Is $US52 per square metre about right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      (yes, I have an exactlywhat on a chain...)

    9. Re:Is $US52 per square metre about right? by Phanatic1a · · Score: 1

      No, they're not. While insolation at 1AU from the sun is indeed about 1300 watts per square meter, that, or anything approaching it, can't be used as an average insolation value *anywhere* on the earth's surface.

      In Albequerque, New Mexico, the yearly average (taking into account both day *and* night, when the sun doesn't shine at all), is actually only about 250 watts per square meter. So you're already off by a factor of 4. Move to a city like Seattle, which is a lot farther north (less sunlight) and where inclement weather is a lot more frequent than in Albequerque (less sunlight), and I wouldn't be surprised to see that you're off by a factor of 10. And if you can't recoup your capital investment before your solar cells and inverters (you completely ignored the cost of the other parts of the system other than the cells, by the way) need replacement, you're talking about a net loss - the system never pays for itself.

    10. Re:Is $US52 per square metre about right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > or, at 1.33 euros to the dollar

      where can I buy those euros? I am interested to buy them (over here, it's more like 1.33 dollar to the euro at the moment)

    11. Re:Is $US52 per square metre about right? by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      well, there are also cats who are pretty good at utilizing passive solar power.

      I'm going to have to agree with drphil on this one. I myself have three cats, and they're extremely well versed at passively utilizing the solar power entering through the window.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    12. Re:Is $US52 per square metre about right? by DaChesserCat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Let's say it's 1 Euro/watt. That's about $1.33 USD/watt, or about $1,330/kW.

      The next factor to consider is the solar insolation for your area. This tells you how many hours of direct sunlight you get, for your area, each day. In my case, the annual average is about 4.5 hours / day.

      At that rate, 1 kW of photovoltaics will give me about 4.5 kWh of electricity, per day, on average.

      Also in my area, electricity is about 7 cent/kWh. Consequently, that 1 kW PV array will save me about 31.5 cents/day, on average. Thats 4,222 days (about 11 years and 7 months) for payoff. If your area gets more direct sunlight, or your electrical rates are higher, your payoff period would be shorter.

      That's the bare, basics of the whole thing. Don't forget: PV makes DC current, but most of your household stuff runs on AC, so you'll need an inverter. Count on a low four-figures for something that can handle the load for a small-medium household. Also, to go off-grid, you'd need some kind of batteries for energy storage (otherwise, the power goes out when the sun goes down), as well as a controller to regulate power to/from them, etc. That gets really expensive, really quick. Consequently, while you may not be able to go off-grid, you could probably do net metering and reduce (if not eliminate) your electric bill.

      --
      ... by the Dew of Mountains the thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shakes, the shakes become a warning
    13. Re:Is $US52 per square metre about right? by Xoro · · Score: 1

      No, he's right -- 1000 watts is the standard value used for direct sunlight. 1300-1400 watts is the value outside the atmosphere.

      The 250 watt figure for New Mexico is averaged over 24 hours. The parent is only using six hours.

      --
      Kill, Tux, kill!
    14. Re:Is $US52 per square metre about right? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      along with a rectifier (since your house expects AC)

      Inverter you mean- rectifier changes AC to DC, inverter on a DC clock changes DC to AC.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  28. Re:But what will the Terrorist implications be? by krymsin01 · · Score: 1

    That should be Donald's Law, I think.

    --
    stuff
  29. Wonder... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

    How durable is it? If it got ripped, would it work anymore?

    Could you grab a roll and keep it round the house, then just cut strips off and make things with it?

    And 1 euro per watt... WTF? How many cubic meters of fabric in a watt exactly?

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    1. Re:Wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      And 1 euro per watt... WTF? How many cubic meters of fabric in a watt exactly?
      Depends if they're metric watts or english ones.
    2. Re:Wonder... by wish · · Score: 2, Funny

      1 Sheet A4 10 Euros probably meaning at least 9 euros or 9-10W
      A4=0.0625 m^2 IIRC
      So 1m^2=144-160W

      Add suitable number of pinches of salt.

      Alternatively find out how efficient regular solar panels are and reduce the power output by 50-65%.

    3. Re:Wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Watts are metric dumbass. There is no such thing as English Watts.

    4. Re:Wonder... by Xoro · · Score: 1

      The classic rating number is 1000W/m^2 for 100% efficiency.

      So at 7%, this would be 70W/m^2.

      --
      Kill, Tux, kill!
    5. Re:Wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      > Watts are metric dumbass. There is no such thing as English Watts.

      Moreover James Watt was from Scotland. Thus there is such a thing as Scottish Watt but never English Watt.

    6. Re:Wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You really are a stupid twat. Who did The Jam write the song about? Do you think they just made it up?

      fa fa far far far far...

  30. Re:But what will the Terrorist implications be? by dteichman2 · · Score: 1

    There won't be any terrorist impications. At least not beyond today. To get a decent amount of power, you need a large surface area. Seems like that'd be a little visible to me, given that solar cells are highly reflective. If terrorists are out in direct sunlight with enough room to lay out a mat of these and not be spotted, are they in position to attack a field of wheat.

    --


    Silence is golden... and duct tape is silver.
  31. Re:But what will the Terrorist implications be? by isometrick · · Score: 1

    One word (hyphenated to ease your reading speed): J-O-K-E.

    Good day to you.

  32. Is this different... by anethema · · Score: 1

    Without even glancing at the article (this IS /.) I'm curious how this is different than the rollable flexible solar cells that have been on the market forever.

    I can buy them at canadian tire, thats how common they are. Product # 11-1575-0 for example. (might neet to enter a postal code, v1p1c7 works.)

    Maybe they are more efficient or something? These seem about the same as a rigid solar panel for the size. More expensive though obviously.

    FINE, I just looked at the article..seems the only advantage is they are expected to be dirt cheap. I've heard that before. I'm still waiting to wallpaper my house in transparent OLED film :)

    --


    It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    1. Re:Is this different... by LordOfYourPants · · Score: 1

      FINE, I just looked at the article..seems the only advantage is they are expected to be dirt cheap. I've heard that before. I'm still waiting to wallpaper my house in transparent OLED film :)

      I've got my north wall wallpapered with an OLED screen broadcasting a white image and my south wall wallpapered with solar panels to catch it all.

      I hereby claim prior art for all the future perpetual motion/infinite energy machine creators who attempt to patent my brilliant idea.

    2. Re:Is this different... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our Ninja assassins are on you house. Make your peace, you have no time.

  33. United Solar Ovonics by egotripper · · Score: 1

    Energy Conversion Devices created the thin-film amorphous photovoltaics used in their flexible solar panels, and created United Solar Ovonics to commercialize it. ECD Ovonics (the current name, I guess) is at www.ovonic.com. A quote from one of the documents on their site says, "ECD Ovonics and United Solar Ovonic hold the basic patents covering the continuous roll-to-roll manufacturing of thin-film amorphous silicon alloy multi-junction solar cells and related products. More information is available at www.uni-solar.com."

    1. Re:United Solar Ovonics by lucyfersam · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't put too much faith in anything ECD says... Forbes had a great article titled Repeat Pretender (reprinted here) about Stan Ovshinsky, the master con-man behind the company. A number of people have attempted and claimed a commercially viable roll-to-roll process for solar, but from what I can see the only company to actually produce modules with it is Iowa Thin Film Technologies.

  34. Weight is the key... by The+Kiloman · · Score: 3, Informative

    Usually people imagine solar sails as being made of a very VERY thin film,on the order of a few micrometers thick... the point being that there's very little additional mass created by the sails themselves since you need so much surface area to create any appreciable force. Also, the less mass that's used for the sails, the more mass that's available for payload (or just plain not there, which means greater acceleration).

    Here's a few links (thanks Google and the obligatory Wikipedia):
    A geocities-looking site with some usefull info
    Planetary Society has some more info
    Wikipedia entry

    --
    You may disagree, but to be blunt, you're wrong. -tgd
  35. Re:But what will the Terrorist implications be? by LordEd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It didn't say it was ultra-powerful, it says it was thin and cheap in trade for efficiency (and possibly usefulness)

    A truly inventive person can use anything to any purpose. Don't fear the technology, fear the people using it. If we abandoned all technology used by terrorists, we'd be living in caves and the government would be licensing the use of fire, wheels, and hammers.

    -- guns don't kill people, kids playing video games kill people

  36. Spheral Solar Power in Canadian Tire... by Mr.+Flibble · · Score: 1

    As I remember, the concept was that they could be draped across roof-tops and whatnot. Never heard anything after that.
    http://www.atsautomation.com/solar_technologies/de fault.asp

    SSP as mentioned on Slashdots pior story for having solar "denim" has small flexible solar panels avaliable now in Canadian Tire. Not that this helps those of you not in Canada... But you can buy them now.

    --
    Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
    1. Re:Spheral Solar Power in Canadian Tire... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those aren't Spheral Solar Power... Spheral uses silicon spheres - the CT product uses CIGS (copper indium gallium diselenide) - older technology which I think is a bit less efficient looking at the size and rating of the panels on http://www.spheralsolar.com [Spheral Solar]'s website. (and unlike the article, Spheral is in production rather than sometime eventually if we decide to make the factory)

  37. What about Iowa Thin Film Technologies? by jjeffers · · Score: 1

    Right down the road from me is Iowa Thin Film Technologies who have been making these sort of things for a number of years. Disclaimer: I wasn't able to access TFA so I could be way off base. -Jim KB0THN

    1. Re:What about Iowa Thin Film Technologies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the Australian National University - 70 microns thick, dual layer - see
      http://www.originenergy.com.au/environment/fi les/f actsheet_sliver.pdf.

  38. Highways by under_clocker · · Score: 1

    The key to solar energy lies in our highways...
    we need to research that as a viable source of electrical, and thermal energy.
    IF we can build effecient nano- machines and embed them into the pavement we may achieve a new form of effecient enegry...
    MIght require road side banks of capcitive storage cells...

    1. Re:Highways by The_Dougster · · Score: 1
      The key to solar energy lies in our highways... we need to research that as a viable source of electrical, and thermal energy. IF we can build effecient nano- machines and embed them into the pavement we may achieve a new form of effecient enegry... MIght require road side banks of capcitive storage cells...
      Nice try but you get what you pay for. Sucking electromagnetic energy from moving vehicles would only result in vehicle drag, resulting in worse fuel economy, resulting in faster depletion of precious chemical energy.

      Chemical energy storage really is the ultimate. Fossil fuels, and the synthetics, provide an unbeatable weight/energy ratio. Fuels don't decay, are easily able to be handled, and provide instantaneous energy transfer.

      Biological energy, is in fact the most advanced form of energy capture available. I don't know if you believe in a GOD, but to me, GOD is Mr. Energy because he is one heck of a chemist. An enzyme is an incredibly complicated chemical molecule which is a catalyst that can make an ordinarily impossible chemical reaction thermodynamically favorible. Our bodies use thousands of these neato enzymes to enable us to eat more or less anything and walk, talk, think, and live. I don't really care if you believe in GOD or not, but you should probably realize that biochemistry is about the ultimate energy storage achievement and utilization possible. We humans run completely from fusion energy (our sun) via a tremendously complicated system of chain chemical reactions which we have only the barest understanding of. It's quite amazing if you think about it.

      Highways, come on, give me a break. We should have bullet trains running in the center dividers of every major interstate highway. I personally would much rather have a luxurious 1/2 hour train ride to work, reading a book and drinking coffee, than a daily 1 hour hell ride up the highway worrying if some clowns will make me late and risk my job, meanwhile exposing my precious auto to no end of hazards and decay for such sensless activity.

      See what I mean?

      --
      Clickety Click ...
    2. Re:Highways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, embedding photovoltiac collectors in all of our roadbeds would give us a HUGE surface area from which to collect solar power. Solar power is limited by cost and available surface area. ...But it's clean.

      If we can bring down the cost of Solar energy production, then our biggest battle becomes surface area. If we could find a way to embed Photovoltaic collectors in our roadbeds in such a way that they won't be destroyed as we drive over them, then surface area would become a non-issue.

      I have No argument that Organic energy storage is more efficent. But it certainly isn't clean (At least not in the ways we currently use it) The efficiency of Organic fuels is not the issue here. The practicality of a clean alternatives (such as Solar) IS this issue here.

      Your Bullet Trains running down the center of our Highways could conceivably be powered by the solar power generated from the road's surface. ...So chill out, and try to offer some constructive critisism instead of flaming someone for comitting the awful crime of STAYING ON TOPIC!

    3. Re:Highways by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      You're imposing some strict stress and maintanaince requirements by letting trucks drive on them.

    4. Re:Highways by under_clocker · · Score: 1

      You seem to have missed the point... I am talking about solar energy...Hmm your reply seems alot like an attack...And it is a rather silly assumption on your part that I would be reffereing to using enegry from the highway as a form of power to move vehicles... 1> based on your rather ignorant assumption that I would want to draw energy from passing cars...If I were to do a mathematical model on that idea It would lead to a dead end so to speak. 2> bio-energy is indeed a viable form of power- no argument there. 3> Reaserch is being done to make room temperature super conductors. when you take all that those could give us, it makes for a very promising future in power creation.. If I had a generator made with super conductive magnets and wire. It could approach near 100% effecientcy- now dont get me wrong...Nothing in the universe is 100% effecient. But put another way Imagine a generators a fraction of the size they are now powering an entire city ...That eliminates one problem. THe other is the source of power which turns the turnbine in the generator... 4> The effect that I am discussing with the highway is similar to a thermo couple except that this concept is much more complex.- Perhaps you should read on Nanotech? - The idea is that light and thermal energy from the road way would be absorbed by billions of microscopic collectors in 3 to 4 cubic inches of highway(this is a hypothetical number but it works for our discusion) the principal is that the simplistic nanomachines act collectively as one larger collector per so many meters of feet and store the power in large batteries or capacitors (read up on the differences between batteries and capacitors) Now although in our time this technology is still experimental.it could be used for simplistic machinery or even establishments that exist in a rural environment. The key of course is not only the use of effecient collectors but also a power inverter system either individualy or at a central storage system. 5> you should spend some time familiarizing yourself with basic electronics theory. Also super conductivity... In a lab in my electronics class in I think it was the 4th quarter we built a superconductor. intresting to see the tiny litty thing float on the magnet. But think now, WHat does that represent? if you consider that a wire is like a traffic lane and has resistance to flow(traffic jam) yet when super cooled electrons move much more efficiently - and since I know you are mostlikely skimming Let me state that WE NEED ROOM TEMP SUPERCONDUCTORS which is why I specified it in the beginning- The key to producing efficient power, solar or otherwise is Research in to the fields of super conductivity, nanotech and batteries. Science Not faith is god will provide us with energy...Science, data and open minds. Not supercillious people so, Give me a break. if you spend more time studying and less trying to flame people I would not have to spend my time correcting your assumptions. Seriously you think I was talking about leaching power from moving cars? how dumb! Hugs Veronicca

    5. Re:Highways by under_clocker · · Score: 1

      Nanites would be self repairing... you really should read up on nano technology... Essentialy the key building in this century could be the collective multi-tasking of tiny self maintaing robots. See we are relying too much on older thinking. Since the industial revolution mankind has refined machines to assist in our goal to build new-better and faster. the next step is nanites. Veronicca

    6. Re:Highways by under_clocker · · Score: 1

      You seem to have missed the point... I am talking about solar energy...Hmm your reply seems alot like an attack...And it is a rather silly assumption on your part that I would be reffereing to using enegry from the highway as a form of power to move vehicles... 1> based on your rather ignorant assumption that I would want to draw energy from passing cars...If I were to do a mathematical model on that idea It would lead to a dead end so to speak. 2> bio-energy is indeed a viable form of power- no argument there. 3> Reaserch is being done to make room temperature super conductors. when you take all that those could give us, it makes for a very promising future in power creation.. If I had a generator made with super conductive magnets and wire. It could approach near 100% effecientcy- now dont get me wrong...Nothing in the universe is 100% effecient. But put another way Imagine a generators a fraction of the size they are now powering an entire city ...That eliminates one problem. THe other is the source of power which turns the turnbine in the generator... 4> The effect that I am discussing with the highway is similar to a thermo couple except that this concept is much more complex.- Perhaps you should read on Nanotech? - The idea is that light and thermal energy from the road way would be absorbed by billions of microscopic collectors in 3 to 4 cubic inches of highway(this is a hypothetical number but it works for our discusion) the principal is that the simplistic nanomachines act collectively as one larger collector per so many meters of feet and store the power in large batteries or capacitors (read up on the differences between batteries and capacitors) Now although in our time this technology is still experimental.it could be used for simplistic machinery or even establishments that exist in a rural environment. The key of course is not only the use of effecient collectors but also a power inverter system either individualy or at a central storage system. 5> you should spend some time familiarizing yourself with basic electronics theory. Also super conductivity... In a lab in my electronics class in I think it was the 4th quarter we built a superconductor. intresting to see the tiny litty thing float on the magnet. But think now, WHat does that represent? if you consider that a wire is like a traffic lane and has resistance to flow(traffic jam) yet when super cooled electrons move much more efficiently - and since I know you are mostlikely skimming Let me state that WE NEED ROOM TEMP SUPERCONDUCTORS which is why I specified it in the beginning- The key to producing efficient power, solar or otherwise is Research in to the fields of super conductivity, nanotech and batteries. Science Not faith is god will provide us with energy...Science, data and open minds. Not supercillious people so, Give me a break. if you spend more time studying and less trying to flame people I would not have to spend my time correcting your assumptions. Seriously you think I was talking about leaching power from moving cars? how dumb! Hugs Veronicca

    7. Re:Highways by The_Dougster · · Score: 1

      Oops, sorry about that, I didn't mean to flame you. I admit, I posted this after more than a few beers and I think I got *ahem* a bit carried away. My bad. I think I turned off my computer and crawled up to bed shortly after pressing the submit button. I hate it when that happens.

      --
      Clickety Click ...
    8. Re:Highways by under_clocker · · Score: 1

      Its ok... I am scientist and technologist... consider early solar cells of the 80s if we were to embed highways on the nanite level with similar types of cell repairing cells we could have a source of solar and thermal energy...

    9. Re:Highways by under_clocker · · Score: 1

      I dont think that I flamed someone. However I do agree and your ideal is logical. If we consider the unused surface area of all the road ways in america and if we were to calculate the amount of energy that could give us in say joules or horsepower It could be a signifigant number even with older tech from the 80s (old style solar collectors) but if we were to embed the the road way with self repairing nanites the act as collectors, then we may have a viable source of energy. As for a high speed train...I do not believe I offered a suggestion into anything like a train. My concern is energy alternatives. Untapped sources specifically. We should also invest more in to geo thermal. But there is another source of discussion from which more of you could flame me (so to speak) Hugs Veronicca.

    10. Re:Highways by under_clocker · · Score: 1

      Ok lets review for a moment... First nanites are self repairing robots that are microscopic. They could turn the highways in to one giant solar collector. 2nd embedding the roads with millions of these devices working collectively would not be that difficult and would be immune to being crushed due to their size,durrability and the ability to repair themselves. Make sence? read up on nanotech... See the main key to energy is not in the explotation of new sources but making what we have more effecient. Consider if you will the weight of an air plane. Currently there exist a technology to use plastic wires that would replace the existing circuitry in the vehicle. Now keep in mind that plasic is an insulator but we can add a strip of conductive ink or even go fiber to a network location and run the controls via fiber or useage of plastic wire. Cars for instance should not be made out of metal at all. We should be using almost 100 percent plastics in the body and maybe even the frame. Less weight = less load = less work = less energy required to move the object. "work =force x distance "

  39. Re:But what will the Terrorist implications be? by Zen+Punk · · Score: 1

    Could I inquire as to what a "saddite" is?

    --
    Sleep is futile.
  40. Price per watt is what matters by The_Dougster · · Score: 1
    Any reasonably useful photovoltaic system is going to need about 1kW output under typical conditions. So with this material, for around $1000 you can generate maybe 50 cents worth of electicity each day. Obviously you aren't going to get rich by selling power back to the grid with a scheme like this but 1kW of totally free power would be kind of nice to have.

    I always thought that a cool thing to do would be to use the excess electricity from PV cells to crack water and make Hydrogen gas rather than goofing around with expensive batteries.

    Probably one of the cheapest ways to store Hydrogen "on site" is the old upside down reservoir immersed under water. In this case you would just make some electrodes under the reservoir, maybe concentric stainless steel rings? And set up the cell array for 1.5 volts, which IIRC is close to the optimum voltage for water cracking. Hook it up and collect your "Brown's Gas" during the summer, and burn it during the winter.

    I just love PV Cells, they really spark my imagination. I even have a little 5V/1A PV array to play with. Too bad where I live if it isn't raining then its probably snowing.

    --
    Clickety Click ...
    1. Re:Price per watt is what matters by humbads · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, you will get rich. If a $1000 investment yields $0.50 per day worth of electricity on average, then that results in $182.50 per year in revenue. Assuming no maintenance, land, installation, or other overhead costs, you are earning 18.25% yearly on your investment. It would be like printing money!

    2. Re:Price per watt is what matters by Verio+Fryar · · Score: 1

      That would be true if you do not take into account the amortization of the inversion. How long these panels last?

    3. Re:Price per watt is what matters by The_Dougster · · Score: 1
      Yeah, now that you mention it, I believe that it used to cost around $5000 for a 1kW PV array. This is a 5X price drop in capital equipment costs. If you set up shop like in New Mexico, you might make more like 90 cents per day's worth of power also because of the increased solar mean day index, and desert land in NM is probably super cheap.

      Hooking up to the grid is both tricky and lossy. You must feed in a synchronous AC signal which is in phase with the grid. Typically you would use a DC->AC motor/generator set and you absolutely have to match the phase with the grid or else you have serious sparks flying. Fortunately, there are a lot of commercial solutions already out there which can do this.

      Nice insight humbads, you set up some financing and I'll engineer it up. Deal?

      --
      Clickety Click ...
    4. Re:Price per watt is what matters by The_Dougster · · Score: 1
      As far as I know they decay, slowly losing output over time. Probably when it comes time to replace them, though, the replacements will be both cheaper and more efficient. They will last many years if properly installed; i.e. with a thin sheet of glass or some kind of transparent protective film to protect them from abrasion and help keep them free of dust and dirt.

      Maintenence is an issue of course, nothing is perfect in this world.

      --
      Clickety Click ...
    5. Re:Price per watt is what matters by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

      Any reasonably useful photovoltaic system is going to need about 1kW output under typical conditions. So with this material, for around $1000 you can generate maybe 50 cents worth of electicity each day. Obviously you aren't going to get rich by selling power back to the grid with a scheme like this but 1kW of totally free power would be kind of nice to have.


      There are two key price points;
      Cheaper than a consumer can buy electricity,
      and cheaper than the electric company can make electricity.

      From the fine article, I see that they are projecting 1 euro per watt if they go into full scale production.
      Not so cheap that it's obviously better than grid power, but cheap enough to be interesting.


      I always thought that a cool thing to do would be to use the excess electricity from PV cells to crack water and make Hydrogen gas rather than goofing around with expensive batteries.


      Personally, I like the idea of a solar powered air conditioner.

      -- should you believe authority without question?
    6. Re:Price per watt is what matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typically you would use a DC->AC motor/generator set

      You would have done that ten years ago. Nowadays, inverters make a perfect sine wave with pulse width modulation and using modern IGBT's they can easily put the power back in the grid. This is way cheaper and way more efficient! This is the way it is done with the large wind-generators that generate something in the order of a megawatt a piece.

  41. Solar power head wear by j14ast · · Score: 1

    Now I'll finaly have a excuse to wear my big black cowboy hat. If anyone asks Im powering my prescott based p4 laptop 8P

    --
    Damn the man!
  42. Re:But what will the Terrorist implications be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    please don't feed the trolls. Thank you!

  43. An order of magnitude? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You must be converting the Euro into the forthcoming American Lira.

  44. thank you, my error, cost around $US93 /sqm by thorpie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Thank you, so a cost of $93 sqm making close to $4,000 to cover 40sqm, or a repayment time of 6 years. Not so good, They won't get you to disconnect from the grid

    --
    The memories of a man in his old age are the deeds of a man in his prime - Floyd, Pink
  45. Electricity is only a small part of the game by dr.Flake · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What amazes me is that all this investment time and "energy" is spent on cells that produce electricity.

    Whereas the collection of Heat is as simple as it can get, but rarely used.
    Though most mediteranian countries use solar heat for heating their domestic water, but that is about it.

    What i have in mind is the use of solar heat, collected during summer, to warm domestic homes during winter. (Thats where real amounts of energy (read CO2) are needed !)
    Water is an exellent storage container for heat and is dirt cheap.

    The only problem is where to store all the warm water. Probably the easiest solution would be to pump up ground water, heat it, and pump it back. (The ground is actually an exellent therman insulator!)
    Use the 1kW of solar energy from a couple of M2 of these cells to make water run through 100 m2 of cheap solar heat collectors.

    Now we are SAVING evergy.

    --
    Why are other peoples sig's always more witty ???
    1. Re:Electricity is only a small part of the game by TheLoneCabbage · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most solar researchers in this veign are using Sodium Cloride (table salt). It has a much higher specific heat than water. Tends to be less explosive when heated to 600c (you really want to build your house on top of an aging steam boiler with the equivalent energy of dynamite?), and is even cheaper than water and dirt (water aint cheap where I come from)! When molten it's conduction of heat is so efficient you don't even need pumps, it's own confection currents do the work for you.

      Now you just need a near perfect insulator and your all set. (say an underground tank insulated with airogel)

      The real trick isn't in just heating homes though. It's also running things like ovens and stoves. For that your going to need a liquid that stays a liquid between -10c and 250c, without dangerous pressure build up, freezing, corroding or screwing up your pumps. (and it can't pollute the environment when it leaks)

      Once you can safely transport high temperatures 2-3 times boiling point, you can do some pretty amazing things. Like running your A/C from the heat well. (two sterling engines hooked up to eachoter in reverse) Water pumps, air tools, and electrical generators (40-50% efficient in sealed systems like sterlings, but much higher for open ended boilers. The trick as you put it is to avoid converting the energy from one form to another untill it's absolutly necesary.

    2. Re:Electricity is only a small part of the game by fourtwo · · Score: 1

      What impact would heating the water table have on the local environment? If all the lakes go up a few degrees, the inhabitants may suffer.

    3. Re:Electricity is only a small part of the game by dr.Flake · · Score: 1

      I'm no expert at this, but how easy is it to have a pipe of molten sodium, insulated from everything, to a tank in the basement.

      than have water run by it to heat up the central heating, but never reaching the boiling point.

      This all with enough safety, that any moron can have one in the basement?

      I think the hot water soultion looks simpler. probably not as efficient, but safer the least.

      s.

      --
      Why are other peoples sig's always more witty ???
    4. Re:Electricity is only a small part of the game by Oligonicella · · Score: 2, Funny

      Please tell me you don't ice your cake with salt.

    5. Re:Electricity is only a small part of the game by TheLoneCabbage · · Score: 1

      I was thinking 2 or 3 parabolic mirrors to reflect it to it's finaly destination point under the grownd. You loose upto 5% for each reflector, depending on the quality of it, but you would loose allot more in terms of insolation by trying to spot heat it above ground and then pump it down. Moveing it as light, is more cumbersome, but much more efficient, and in the end uses less equpimpent.

    6. Re:Electricity is only a small part of the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are behind the curve by more than 5 years. A major Norwegian airport pumps heat underground into water table during summer and extracts it during winter. It works, and works well.

      The Norwegian environmental laws are serious; you can be assured there is no adverse effect on nature.

    7. Re:Electricity is only a small part of the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of a system some friends of mine had to heat their pool. They had a small pump and a few hundred metres of black polypipe, and the water was near boiling by the time it went through it all. A total investment of under $50 including the pump, and their pool was usable for a far greater part of the year.

    8. Re:Electricity is only a small part of the game by slowtech · · Score: 1

      What do you keep the NaCl in? It is pretty corrosive, especially at high temperatures ...

      --
      "Well it's not Victory - but then it's not Death either."
    9. Re:Electricity is only a small part of the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pipe of molten sodium

      the guy was talking about kitchen salt, which is sodium chloride, not sodium. Sodium is a metal which is extremely flamable. Kitchen salt is relatively harmless, even though it will ofcourse burn you.

      tank in the basement

      not a tank in the basement, a tank underground. you want to use the ground itself to insulate it.

      than have water run by it to heat up the central heating, but never reaching the boiling point.

      what do you think is happening when you have a central heating system. You have an oil or gas burner and you heat water with it to 70 degrees celcius, in very large building 90 degrees.

      You make it seem like this is an unrealistic idea, but it already works. Maybe not for the 300 degrees that were mentioned, but using parafin as a heat capacity, heat is regularly stored at a temperature of about 100 degrees. It would be better to increase this, because as I mentioned, you need to heat water to at least 70 degrees to have efficient central heating and a temperature difference of only 30 degrees make it hard to exchange the heat.

    10. Re:Electricity is only a small part of the game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why is NaCl corrosive?

  46. Re:But what will the Terrorist implications be? by berkut7 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh no! Ossama got an AA battery!

  47. Re:But what will the Terrorist implications be? by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 0
    as for amature rockets... whats wrong with those?
    The fact that an armature belongs in an electric motor, perhaps?

    --
    Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
  48. Re:nothing says nerd like.... by nilbog · · Score: 0
    how is this off topic?

    If you put a million monkeys with slashdot mod privledges in front of a million computers....

    --
    or else!
  49. Re:But what will the Terrorist implications be? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
    Ossama got an AA battery!
    Is that AA battery as in a smallish cylinder giving 1.5 volts, or AA battery as in a platoon of ZSU-23-4s?
    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  50. Re:nothing says nerd like.... by Moderatbastard · · Score: 0

    Jokes are always offtopic, especially if you're too stupid to get them. There was a memo or something.

    --
    1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
  51. Home Power Magazine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's a GREAT resource when it comes to "hands on" (i.e. Real World experience) solar installations.

    Home Power Magazine

    I've been a reader since issue #15 or so.

  52. Good For Space? by Oliver_Fisher · · Score: 1

    If this was strong enough (UV resistant ect) to last in space it might be much cheaper than conventional solar panels as it will be so much lighter. Space is not really a problem in .... um space, what costs money is weight.

  53. Jacket in the summer by gnuLNX · · Score: 1

    "An A4-size panel sewn onto the back of a jacket and costing less than 10 euros would charge a mobile phone during a summer stroll."

    I don't wear a jacket in the summer.

    Sounds totally cool tho

    --
    what?
    1. Re:Jacket in the summer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it sounds kinda hot and sweaty to me.

  54. What about real sails? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps these panels could ring in a new age of sailing ships? Cover the sails in these panels (or, if they prove to be strong enough, make the sails out of the panels themselves).

    When there's wind you hoist your sails and go. When there's no wind there's usually a nice blue sky which would provide enough light to power electric motors and screws.

  55. Solar Power on the Go by ElDuderino44137 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think solar power would be great for my home,

    It spends a lot of time out in the sun.
    But my clothing?
    I don't spend nearly as much time in the sun as my home does ;)

    Cheers,
    -- The Dude

  56. Mod Parent -1 Didn't RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't RTFA, but ... I wonder how the efficiency of these panels compares to the more conventional ones.

    Not only are you wasting bandwidth, you're sucking up precious oxygen. Please stop one or both immediately.

    -kgj

  57. Mod Parent +Funny by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    WARNING! DO NOT USE WHILE BATHING OR WHILE HAVING SEX. ... Don't laugh. You heard it here first.

    True, I did hear it here first.

    But I couldn't help myself -- I laughed.

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
  58. Mod Parent +Informative by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    You mean, like this ?

    Interesting link, very relevant -- thanks!

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
  59. Energy Rich Desert by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    I look foreward to a time when countries that whose only natural resourse is large amounts of scourching hot desert and they are considered energy rich.

    Um, that's the situation right now -- Saudi Arabia, scorching hot desert, energy rich, no other resources. (Or did I miss your irony?).

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:Energy Rich Desert by advance512 · · Score: 1

      You might be forgetting their huge amounts of oil.

      They might be the only country in the world who would find these solar cells attractive at one point or another, though, having the capital to use them.

    2. Re:Energy Rich Desert by matt21811 · · Score: 1

      There was no irony intended.
      If a country has oil then desert isn't the only natural resource it has. Clearly, Saudi doesnt meet my criteria.
      I was thinking of countries in Africa.
      The capital investment required to get into the market is a problem but one that can be overcome.

    3. Re:Energy Rich Desert by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

      You might be forgetting their huge amounts of oil.

      No, I'm not forgetting the oil -- I refer to it implicitly:

      "Saudi Arabia, scorching hot desert, energy rich, no other resources."

      -kgj

      --
      -kgj
    4. Re:Energy Rich Desert by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

      There was no irony intended. If a country has oil then desert isn't the only natural resource it has. Clearly, Saudi doesnt meet my criteria. I was thinking of countries in Africa.

      Got it, makes sense.

      I was thinking of Saudi Arabia, after the oil runs out.

      -kgj

      --
      -kgj
    5. Re:Energy Rich Desert by advance512 · · Score: 1

      You should read matt's message.

      You quote him: "whose only natural resource is large amounts of scorching hot desert". Obviously, since Saudi Arabia has both oil and scorching hot deserts - it is not a country that he could possibly be referring to.

    6. Re:Energy Rich Desert by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

      You should read matt's message.

      It reads:

      "I look foreward to a time when countries that whose only natural resourse is large amounts of scourching hot desert and they are considered energy rich."

      Okay, I mis-read his statement. Easy to do, let's read it again:

      " ... only natural resourse is large amounts of scourching hot desert and they are considered energy rich..."

      This fits Saudi Arabia perfectly: Scorching desert, considered energy rich.

      But of course, the kicker is Matt's preface: "I look foreward to a time ..."

      So the "energy rich" refers to the future, not the present.

      My mistake.

      -kgj

      --
      -kgj
    7. Re:Energy Rich Desert by rubberbando · · Score: 1

      How about the Mojave dessert here in the US?

      I believe the Luxor hotel (the one shaped like a Pyramid) is covered in Solar Cells to power the beam of light that shoots into the sky they have on at night.

      If I had my own house instead of an apartment, I'd love to cover it with solar cells. We get around 12 hours or so of sunlight every day, even in the winter.

      I also wonder how much it would take of these to keep a battery charged in a car. It could further improve gas milage on hybrid cars (at least during the day anyway).

      Just a thought....

      --
      DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
  60. Prefab Solar Roofing by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    So what if the houses get pre installed with solar cells? How much would that drop costs?

    Good questions. Answers, anyone?

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
  61. Mr. Solar by Spudley · · Score: 1

    Yay! At long last! Mr Solar is a reality. :-D

    --
    (Spudley Strikes Again!)
  62. Live in Caves by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    Right, we should suspend ALL technological devellopments and scientific research, lest the boogyman, I mean, terrorist use it. Also, let's scrap all the tech we have and go live in caves.

    Sorry, no can do.

    All the good caves are already taken, by guys in robes with long beards, whose names I can't pronounce.

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
  63. www.oksolar.com/roof/ by 6800 · · Score: 2, Informative

    www.oksolar.com/roof/ You can start there :-)

  64. How durable are they? by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

    Can they be used for shingles or siding? It might not look pretty, but the savings on the electrical bill would be worth it.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  65. For a fridge, it's a lot/right on the yellow label by way2trivial · · Score: 1
    that reply is so American it's not funny.

    for non-US readers, we have nifty governmental regs that require yellow energy consumption labels on the side of most kitchen appliances, that include likely annual operating costs, to allow the consumer to make a better informed choice...

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  66. Mod Parent +1 Informative by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    www.oksolar.com/roof/ You can start there :-)

    Thanks!

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
  67. where to find thin-film amorphous silicon by da_crusher · · Score: 1

    This company is one of many companies that are moving ahead with this technology http://www.ovonics.com/res/2_2_thin_film/thin_film _phot.htm It also seems that residential installs are happening in the Atlanta area too. It is something I am considering for my next roof job in about 5 years. As for the solar powered clothing....now i have not seen anybody working on that.

  68. Hot property coming up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With a price per watt lke this you can be sure that Sahara, Gobi, Taklamakan and other places like it will become truly hot property: vast deserts begging to be paved over with photovoltaic converters to kickstart the hydrogen economy.

  69. Re:But what will the Terrorist implications be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, terrorist, no, but... ...this is a story heard from a guy who went into PV business like, in the 70s or so. The first use for solar cells were space implementations, since the price didn't matter that much. But in order to get the price lower they would've needed to mass-produce them, yet no-one was buying PV systems thanks to the high price.

    Yet there was this one source of demand for easily taken care of power producers which were quiet to boot - to power the South American drug farms. Conventional generators produced enough noice national armies could spot them, solar panels were quiet. So, some claim that the one of the early adopters for this new tech, giving it a nudge forward it needed, was drug industry.

    Chew on that.

  70. Efficiency, efficiency, efficiency! by anadem · · Score: 1

    Don't forget to include the installation & ancillary costs, which ae a big hunk of the expense for a "stiff" PV system and will probably be an even larger percentage for flexible (I haven't read the original article, this is /. after all -- just may be that flexible panels are cheaper to mount, but you still need the inverter etc.)

    Not to decry the advantages of flexible low cost arrays, but the latest PV arrays are getting upwards of 20% (with 28% reported for some) and higher efficiency really is the holy grail for PV.

  71. Re:Temperature Fascists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > [1] Film was a kind of light sensitive medium, usually shaped like a strip or tape used in cameras in the old days.

    I'm not sure if it is sad, or funny, to have to define "film"....

  72. Solar Luxor by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    How about the Mojave dessert here in the US?

    I believe the Luxor hotel (the one shaped like a Pyramid) is covered in Solar Cells to power the beam of light that shoots into the sky they have on at night.


    Vegas itself is a monument to excess, but Luxor is synonymous with pure luxury. Those Pharaohs sure know how to live!

    I live in Minnesota, our sunlight situation is not so, um, bright. We're making some headway with agrofuel and wind, but relatively little, and there are problems.

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
  73. And you can buy them by Migraineman · · Score: 2, Informative

    TFA talks about the product entering mainstream production in a couple of years. You can purchase the Iowa Thin Film solar cells now. They're about 7% efficient, as they claim. They're not expensive, and you can get them at a number of distributors. I've personally used Jameco and Sundance Solar.

  74. Flexible solar cells have been available for years by Animats · · Score: 1

    From US companies, too. The current leader in thinness is PowerFilm flexible solar panels. Flexible panels have been available for years from Ovonics; they're widely used on boats. Some sailboats have solar panels in the sails.

  75. I'm not so sure of that... by bluGill · · Score: 1

    An engine is most efficient when running at close to wide open throttle at (relatively) low RPMs. Most people like to accelerate harder than an engine that at achieves this at highway speed will allow. Combine that with varying loads, (Most cars have just one person in them, but the engine is sized for all seats full, luggage, and a trailer) and it would be an advantage to use induction to pull energy from most cars - IF you can control the amount gathered from each car.

    I don't if this makes up for all the losses involved in pulling energy from cars. Nor am I sure that a car engine pushed to maximun efficiency (~40%) from normal (~30%) is a better use of resources (it is burning more gas to do this), than a large power plant (~60% efficient). Its something to consider though.

    1. Re:I'm not so sure of that... by under_clocker · · Score: 1

      oops sorry my reply was meant for The_Dougster somehowe the systme here put it to you oops sorry dude V

  76. Re:But what will the Terrorist implications be? by ravenspear · · Score: 1

    Maybe you should try exercising the "sarcastic humor" portion of your thoughts more. ;)

  77. Solar power? by galenoftheshadows · · Score: 2, Informative

    Several U.S. Companies now provide solar shingles, in fact, my company has two vendors that carry them, they're just not quite popular yet because they're still a tad pricey.

  78. Re:But what will the Terrorist implications be? by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    One word (hyphenated to ease your reading speed): J-O-K-E.

    Two words: Not funny.

    Good day to you.

    Same : )

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  79. Well, we won't be after their oil anymore... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we were able to produce our own energy from the sun, the struggle to control the world's oil supplies would diminish. Terrorists would need something new to be mad about. Maybe they'll start going after spammers and trollers then...

  80. Old News by monkeymanatwork · · Score: 1

    This was covered in MIT's Technology Review at least a month ago, for those who actually pay for a dead tree subscription.

  81. basically wrong by Khashishi · · Score: 1

    First of all, it's quite difficult to make a light-mass, zero-maintainance linear accelerator. Secondly, energy = momentum*c for photons. Your argument that the momentum is pathetically tiny also means that the energy is pathetically tiny. How do you intend to power the linear accelerator? Even if it was 100% efficient, you are still limited to the original momentum of the photons. A large sail can reflect a large number of photons; enough to produce maybe tenths of gees, which might be sufficient to travel to nearby stars in a lifetime. Don't ask me how you plan on stopping; it's certainly one-way.

    1. Re:basically wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can photons have any momentum? Momentum is equal to mass times velocity.

    2. Re:basically wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By relativity.

      Momentum p = mv
      only works for non-relativistic cases (the Newtonian approximation). For a photon, p = h / lambda

      See this page:
      http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/ relativ /relmom.html#c2

    3. Re:basically wrong by alva_edison · · Score: 1

      Chemical burn to give you enough momentum to tack your way back (watch a sailboat going into the wind).

      --
      He effected a bored affect.
    4. Re:basically wrong by harrkev · · Score: 1

      Nope. Not in space. I can tell that you haven't sailed ;)

      The ONLY reason that a sailboat works is that it had a large keel (or centerboard or daggerboard, depending upon the model). This means that the boat can only go easily forward or backward, and there is almost no sideways motion. It is this and this alone that allows for tacking to occur. Remove the keel, and you are at the mercy of the wind.

      In space, a keel is not possible. Therefore, all thrust is away from the sun. I am afraid that there is no known way around this.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    5. Re:basically wrong by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      You aren't thinking hard enough. Use the photon momentum to cut down your orbital velocity, and use the Sun's gravity to pull you inward. Obviously this is only useful for intrastellar travel.

    6. Re:basically wrong by zuzulo · · Score: 1

      Photons and other particles emitted from the sun, as you say, are essentially vectored perpendicular to the emitting surface. There is no known way to get around this.

      However, the spaced based equivalent of a keel in water is gravity. So you would use the gravity wells of different objects in the solar system to revector velocity achieved via solar sail mediated transfer of photonic momentum. Additionally, presumably any functional solar sail system could increase and decrease its cross sectional area thereby increasing or decreasing the induced accelleration.

      So i guess to extend your analogy you could indeed use a rudderless boat if the body of water you were sailing on was plagued by a horde of whirlpools and you had some means of doing very minor steering (perhaps something like an ion engine for our putative solar sail based craft).

      I mainly just had to pass on that amusing mental picture. ;-)

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  82. Cue Pananoic Soundtrack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay class, considering the current political climate of the world, raise your hand if you think this will see the light of day.

  83. 12V DC - Can solve this with old technology by dbIII · · Score: 1
    then install the panel on your roof along with a rectifier (since your house expects AC)
    You don't necessarily need to run much or any through a rectifier and lose power that way.

    Forty-five years ago my parents had a 12V DC generator, they still have a pile of 12V bulbs and other bits. 12V DC lighting has improved a lot since then, and there are a lot of appliances (including refrigerators) that run off 12V DC. Your computer lives on 12V, some LCD screens can too. Buying a whole lot of stuff that runs on 12V DC makes perfect sense if it is a new house. Some people I know who aren't on the grid did this, and get a fair bit of solar power despite being in a deep valley and getting sun for only half the day - mini hydro takes up the slack, and changes of behaviour like only using the electric oven in daylight help. Heating in not an issue where the house is located. In midwinter if it gets really cold they close the windows and put a blanket on the bed.

    For those of us in cities economy of scale still rules.

    Another solar option worth exploring will be on the market soon - light piping, from Australia's CSIRO research organisation. Why use office lighting in daylight if you can channel in sunlight in cables?

  84. They are at Fry's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ummm...this is /. right? Didn't anyone mention that FRY's has rolled up solar pannels for about 2x to 3x the price of their flat pannels? I mean, Ya'll do know they are available, right?

    Andy Out!

  85. Re:nothing says nerd like.... by jaelle · · Score: 1

    ooohhhh...solar-powered roto-beanie!

    --
    You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
  86. Snow is also annoying by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Here in Silicon Valley we almost never have that silly white stuff falling from the sky, and when we do it usually doesn't stick around very long, especially because it usually gets rained on, but I seem to remember from when I lived in other parts of the world that it sticks around on roofs for a while. And solar cells probably don't like having you climb around on them with a broom.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  87. Nothing new here...move along by raelimperialaerosolk · · Score: 1

    This has been around for a long time.

    I saw this technology over 10 years ago, and then it disappeared off the map. I think the story was that TI had the patent, then it got lost during a shuffle of mergers and selloffs, and resurfaced a few years ago. This company http://www.speralsolar.com/ picked it up and started making them.

    The unique idea behind this solar collector is that they use a doped slicon ball bearing embeded in a flexible foil backing. The collector comes of the assembly line in a continuous roll.

    Dunno what the price/watt is.

    From their web site:

    The SuperFlex(TM) solar module is designed to keep your batteries fully charged and/or provide power for portable appliances. Whether you are a boater, RVer or an outdoor enthusiast, the SuperFlex(TM) series will provide enough energy for all your recreational needs. SuperFlex(TM) is available in 25, 50 and 75 watt models making them the most powerful flexible solar panels on the market today

    --
    A good friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move a body.
  88. more info here by eur · · Score: 1

    Here is more info http://paris.fe.uni-lj.si/pvnet/europv/europv2004/ PPT/10_Jongerden.pdf about how this is manufactured.

  89. Oh, man... talk about APPLICATIONS! by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1
    Here's a list off the top of my head:
    • Perforated material laminated to vehicle rear windows to provide shade, maintain battery charge (esp. for hybrids) and power vent vans on hot days. Minuscule thickness means negligible weight penalty.
    • Adhesive-backed, encapsulated cells in roll form for direct application to membrane or raised-seam metal roofing turns any smooth roofing surface into a solar roof.
    • Solar hat fans.
    • Solar fairings for bicycles which charge the electric assist batteries.
    • Electric awning for fishing or pleasure boats, powers trolling/cruise motor.
    If you can assume 120 kcal/cm^2/year, (1390 kWH/m^2/yr) a panel at 7% efficiency will yield 97.6 KWH/m^2/year. If the panel generates its rated output at 1000 W/m^2 insolation and costs 1 Euro ($1.34) per peak watt, each square meter costs $93.80 and returns about 10% on the capital investment (assuming 10 cents/kWH power, which may be much cheaper than daytime/afternoon rates when the panels would be generating). If you can get money at 6.5% this would be a good investment. If you can get money at 6.5%, pay with pre-tax dollars and use the output to displace post-tax expenses, it's a no-brainer.
  90. Think delta-P by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1
    A solar sail can provide thrust on a vector from the Sun-spacecraft line, with the magnitude equal to max thrust times the cosine of the angle.

    You can vector your thrust because you're not just absorbing the incoming light, you are bouncing (most of) it away again. The thrust is the difference in the momentum of the incoming and outgoing light. For instance, if you angle the sail at 45 degrees to the incoming light, the light coming in on the radial vector departs on the circumferential vector, and your thrust is half outward and half circumferential.

  91. Flexable is done dude. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.icpsolar.com/ssfamille.php3?id_rubrique =11

  92. This has been done. by activesynapsis · · Score: 1
    I work for a company that has done this already, over a year ago. We make flexible solar cells and make tents, clothes, and backpacks out of them. About a month ago I watched our backpack charge up an iPod.

    http://www.globalsolar.com/start.htm

  93. Wipe it! by MasTRE · · Score: 1

    Perfect application: toilet paper for those "eco" latrines.

    --
    Must-not-watch TV!
    1. Re:Wipe it! by BeaverCleaver · · Score: 1

      But everybody knows the sun don't shine there...

  94. The price has to drop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Solar is simply too expensive still. The price has to drop a lot before it will take off. Currently, even with tax deductions, it is still more expensive to use solar than to buy from the inefficient power companies. This makes no sense. Prices have to drop considerably. When they do, solar will take off. I'll even set something up, as I've been looking at the systems for some time.

    Hair Trap Hair Salon New York