Chicago's Willis Tower To Become Vertical Solar Farm

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chicago's Willis Tower To Become Vertical Solar Farm

Posted by Soulskill on Monday March 21, 2011 @10:03AM from the free-range-sunlight dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The tallest building in the United States is set to become a soaring vertical solar farm, as Pythagoras Solar just launched a project to emblazon the building's glass façade with transparent photovoltaic panels. The new windows, dubbed high power density photovoltaic glass units, are a clever hybrid technology that lays a typical monocrystalline silicon solar cell horizontally between two layers of glass to form an individual tile. An internal plastic reflective prism directs angled sunlight onto the solar cells but allows diffuse daylight and horizontal light through. The high-profile project will begin on the south side of the 56th floor and could grow up to 2 MW in size — which is comparable to a 10-acre field of solar panels."

227 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Transparent? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 10:06 · Score: 0

If they are transparent, how can they capture the light and convert the photons to electrons?
1. Re:Transparent? by Locke2005 · 2011-03-21 10:10 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Only transparent at certain frequencies, e.g. the frequencies of visible light.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
2. Re:Transparent? by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-03-21 10:14 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If they are transparent, how can they capture the light and convert the photons to electrons?
  For the same reason your car windshield is transparent, but your Transitions glasses won't darken.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
3. Re:Transparent? by milkmage · 2011-03-21 10:52 · Score: 1
  
  "An internal plastic reflective prism directs angled sunlight onto the solar cells but allows diffuse daylight and horizontal light through. Think of it as a louvered shade which allows for views but cuts out the harsh direct sun."
  not related, but still neat: glass turns opaque with the flip of a switch.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_glass
4. Re:Transparent? by similar_name · 2011-03-21 12:49 · Score: 1
  
  It sounds to me like they are trying to capture all of the direct sunlight but none of the ambient (ie diffuse and horizontal) light. Think of it this way, you can put an awning on a window and still see everything outside even though it completely blocks direct sunlight (during parts of the day). I wonder what the sun looks like through these windows.
5. Re:Transparent? by skids · 2011-03-21 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  Actually it's not clear there is spectral selection, other than IR blocking. There may be but the key trick is angular selection.
  A very clever design concept, but I have a hard time believing their efficiency figures (140Wp per square meter). Especially given the effective cross section.
  
  --
  Someone had to do it.
How much offset? by adenied · 2011-03-21 10:07 · Score: 1

That's cool. 2 MW. But it would be nice to know how much the building and its occupants use in an average 24 hour period.
1. Re:How much offset? by Locke2005 · 2011-03-21 10:11 · Score: 2
  
  Also be nice to know how much power they could save by using windows that open instead of A/C...
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
2. Re:How much offset? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 10:17 · Score: 0
  
  http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sears+tower+electrical+usage
3. Re:How much offset? by BlackSnake112 · 2011-03-21 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  If they would move the air from the higher floors to the lower floors, it would work great. I know people who worked in the Empire State building in the 1960s. They worked on in 72nd (it was 70 something) floor. They opened the windows in the summer. Being up that high the air was cooler. You just had to hang on due to the updraft that happened sometimes. The updraft often swept her off of her feet.
4. Re:How much offset? by jhoegl · 2011-03-21 10:29 · Score: 1
  
  Also be nice to know how much power they could save by using windows that open instead of A/C...
  It has been a while since the ability to open windows existed on tall buildings. You can thank those that jumped from the buildings.
5. Re:How much offset? by C_amiga_fan · 2011-03-21 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  >>>how much power they could save by using windows that open instead of A/C...
  They'd actually save more money by keeping the A/C and eliminating the windows so the cool in summer (and heat in winter) could not escape from the building. FAR more energy escapes through porous windows, then is generated by these solar panels.
  
  --
  FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
6. Re:How much offset? by AvitarX · 2011-03-21 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  According to an article about projects started in '09 to reduce it's usage 80% reduction in power is 52 million kWh annually, putting its total usage at 65 million kWh annually.
  this gets me at 2000 ish days of pure sunlight (at 2MW, when I say pure, I mean 24 hours of it) to completely meet its annual demands (divide all numbers by 365 to get your daily number).
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
7. Re:How much offset? by peragrin · 2011-03-21 10:40 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Actually you can thank the buildings designers for that. most skyscrapers suffer from updrafts, that could be strong enough to lift 120 pounds. Think about it, that cute secretary in those awesome heels, walks by the open window and gets sucked out of it because the wind shifts just right. It has happened.
  
  --
  i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
8. Re:How much offset? by Dasher42 · 2011-03-21 10:48 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  When you consider the inefficiencies of powering it through the grid, going through miles and miles of resistance on the wire, you're going to offset much more than 2MW. Bringing the energy source onsite is a smart move.
9. Re:How much offset? by Dahamma · 2011-03-21 10:51 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  And remember this is Chicago, not New York, so even the not-so-cute 300lb IT support guy would be in peril with those winds...
10. Re:How much offset? by StikyPad · 2011-03-21 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Are you implying that it's windier, or that there are no cute secretaries in Chicago?
  If the former, New York is actually as windy or windier than Chicago on average, though if the latter, I'll have to defer to your expertise.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
11. Re:How much offset? by nogginthenog · 2011-03-21 11:05 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Simply place a sign by the window: "Do not stand next to open window or you may get sucked off"
12. Re:How much offset? by shermo · 2011-03-21 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  But people tend to notice very windy days. They don't keep a running count of the average wind speed
  We have a similar situation in New Zealand. Wellington is known as the windy city, but it has a lower average wind speed than Auckland. Wellington has more windy days than Auckland, but it also has more no-wind days, which brings the average down.
  This is because Auckland gets sea-breezes more often than not during the summer, while Wellington doesn't, but Wellington gets pummelled by gradient breezes due to its location next to the Cook Strait.
  
  --
  Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
13. Re:How much offset? by butalearner · 2011-03-21 11:09 · Score: 1
  
  According to an article about projects started in '09 to reduce it's usage 80% reduction in power is 52 million kWh annually, putting its total usage at 65 million kWh annually.
  this gets me at 2000 ish days of pure sunlight (at 2MW, when I say pure, I mean 24 hours of it) to completely meet its annual demands (divide all numbers by 365 to get your daily number).
  The articles I've seen have said 68GWh was the reduction, putting its total pre-upgrades usage at 85GWh. That means it averaged about 10MW of usage at any given time. Also, don't forget the other upgrades they're planning/implementing to bring energy costs down: wind turbines and solar water heaters, efficiency upgrades like replacing single pane windows and outdated elevators, and installing advanced lighting systems and more efficient plumbing.
14. Re:How much offset? by h4rr4r · 2011-03-21 11:16 · Score: 2
  
  1. Please do provide some proof.
  2. Stop making new puppet accounts Commodore.
15. Re:How much offset? by Surt · 2011-03-21 11:21 · Score: 2
  
  They'd lose huge amounts of money when they couldn't lease the floorspace in the building that way.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
16. Re:How much offset? by Surt · 2011-03-21 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  What backwards part of the world do you live in that you don't get your power via superconducting wire?
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
17. Re:How much offset? by Dahamma · 2011-03-21 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  I wish the 108th story of the Sears Tower did have windows that could open, so you would be able to compare it to the 108th story of a skyscraper in New York... oh wait, nevermind, there isn't one ;)
  Anyway, I think in general (and these comments in particular) people are more interested in the gusts and max wind speed. The ave max wind speed in Chicago is about 58 MPH, and only 40 MPH in New York (Manhatten). Not even close!
18. Re:How much offset? by EdIII · 2011-03-21 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  Why even do that?
  If you updrafts that are that powerful you can use *them* to generate power. Then run fans to swap air from the outside to the inside. Fairly simple. Bonus would be to filter it first.
  You can even design it passively. Have intakes on the outside and exhaust ports on the top the building. Use them to suck the air out from the insides of each of the floors. All you would need is a central line through the whole building vertically where the negative pressure causes the fresh air to be sucked in from the top of the building and then back out through those exhaust ports.
  I would imagine you would need to design it for noise and what not. Of course I am no engineer, but if you really have winds that can lift up a 120 pound secretary or 300 lb IT guy, that is a lot of energy. Some sort of active/passive system could be designed around that.
19. Re:How much offset? by c6gunner · 2011-03-21 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  When you consider the inefficiencies of powering it through the grid, going through miles and miles of resistance on the wire, you're going to offset much more than 2MW.
  Yeah! Like 2.2MW at least! Maybe even 2.3!
20. Re:How much offset? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 11:29 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Chicago is actually named the "Windy City" thanks to their politicians, not their weather. Lots of cities are windier.
21. Re:How much offset? by cdrguru · 2011-03-21 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  There was once a story about a guy named Shorty that came up with the idea that you could build a tube that would extend from near to the ground to, oh, say 30,000 feet. The idea was that all the pollution and particulates would be sucked up that stack into the lower pressure very high up, thus virtually eliminating the sort of inversion layer pollution that exists in bowls like Los Angeles, Phoenix and Denver.
  The gizmo was called (in the story) a "shortstack". As opposed to a smoke stack.
  Probably this is one of the best reasons why we're not building really tall buildings anymore. Also, nobody needs that much office space in the US any longer - companies that used to employ 10,000 people are making do with just 1,000 or so now with the others being in India or China. There might be some interest in really tall buildings elsewhere if the land wasn't so darned cheap.
  Japan, where the land is anything but cheap, doesn't build them because of earthquakes like the one they just had.
  I think the day of the "skyscraper" is pretty much over. I think the Willis tower is about 2/3rds empty as it is. Nobody knows what to do with all that really expensive office space anymore.
22. Re:How much offset? by darkshadow88 · 2011-03-21 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  Your calculations are wrong. The 80% reduction was 68GWh, meaning there is 17GWh = 17000MWh per year left. One year is 365.25*.24 = 8766 hours. 17000MWh/8766h = 1.94 MW, which means that continuous sunlight would, in fact, be more than enough to power the building. In any case, with realistic amounts of sunlight, the generation would take care of a significant fraction of the building's usage.
23. Re:How much offset? by darkshadow88 · 2011-03-21 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  365.25*24, of course, not 365.25*.24
24. Re:How much offset? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 11:48 · Score: 0
  
  I bet there's a fetish video of it somewhere.
25. Re:How much offset? by im_thatoneguy · 2011-03-21 11:55 · Score: 1
  
  http://earth911.com/news/2009/07/01/sears-tower-retrofit-to-reduce-energy-use/
  Says 80% reduction in energy use equal to 52 million kWh per year. So in other words 65 million kWh per year.
  65 million kWh / 365 days
  ~= 178,000 kWh per day. /24 hours
  ~= 7.4 megawatt average draw.
  That means the solar panels would contribute about 27% of the buildings pre-existing power requirements.
  Additional energy efficiency efforts I guess will contribute the other 43%,
26. Re:How much offset? by cavePrisoner · 2011-03-21 12:13 · Score: 1
  
  I wish the 108th story of the Sears Tower did have windows that could open, so you would be able to compare it to the 108th story of a skyscraper in New York... oh wait, nevermind, there isn't one ;)
  Was that just a 9-11 joke?
  
  I hope it wasn't. Towers one and two of the WTC each had 110 stories.
27. Re:How much offset? by reub2000 · 2011-03-21 12:20 · Score: 1
  
  There is no such thing as a wind free day in Chicago, especially near the lakefront.
28. Re:How much offset? by Raenex · 2011-03-21 12:29 · Score: 1
  
  that cute secretary in those awesome heels
  Heels are stupid.
29. Re:How much offset? by mcneely.mike · 2011-03-21 12:38 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, for the same reason you can hate the buildings' designers for not making glass floors/ceilings. Think about it, that cute secretary in those awesome heels, walks above you.............
  
  --
  soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
30. Re:How much offset? by jhoegl · 2011-03-21 12:47 · Score: 1
  
  I think the Willis tower is about 2/3rds empty as it is. Nobody knows what to do with all that really expensive office space anymore.
  Except lowering the price...
  
  Is it better to stay empty or to pull in some cash?
31. Re:How much offset? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 12:47 · Score: 0
  
  Ask Eric Clapton how he feels about high rise buildings with opening windows.
32. Re:How much offset? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 12:49 · Score: 0
  
  whoosh
33. Re:How much offset? by opposabledumbs · 2011-03-21 13:10 · Score: 1
  
  Come to Hong Kong. The days of the skyscraper are far from over here - we don't have earthquakes, and we have no more land available - the population density here is 6480 people per square kilometre over the whole territory, but most of Hong Kong's land is unusable, so the real density in urban spaces is much higher. The official factsheet suggests 53 110 pp/sq.km, but wikipedia goes for 130 000 pp/sq.km in Mongkok, the busiest area.
  Here, there is nowhere else to go but up.But I agree with you, in any reasonable area, and especially in the States, it's better to build lower and sprawl.
34. Re:How much offset? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 13:11 · Score: 0
  
  Durr. Ur slow.
35. Re:How much offset? by BitterOak · 2011-03-21 13:12 · Score: 1
  
  Actually you can thank the buildings designers for that. most skyscrapers suffer from updrafts, that could be strong enough to lift 120 pounds. Think about it, that cute secretary in those awesome heels, walks by the open window and gets sucked out of it because the wind shifts just right. It has happened.
  Ever heard of an amazing invention called screens?
  
  --
  If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
36. Re:How much offset? by similar_name · 2011-03-21 13:19 · Score: 1
  
  Was that just a 9-11 joke?
  
  If it was It was the worst one I've heard.
37. Re:How much offset? by EdIII · 2011-03-21 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  Probably this is one of the best reasons why we're not building really tall buildings anymore.
  I don't understand. Why is the shortstack one of the best reasons why we are not building really tall buildings anymore? Is that what you meant? In Los Angeles alone the shortstack seems worth it to try and build it just for the pollution "reduction". Sounds like an awesome idea. Of course, actually building something 6 miles high is an impressive achievement to say the very least. We don't have viable building materials and technology to accomplish that right now.
  As for the rest of your comments, I understand your points. However, for existing places like New York and Chicago it makes sense still to build upwards. It also makes sense to retrofit those buildings as much as possible.
  For as dense as those skyscraper areas are in New York I have hard time seeing how they would demolish an old building to create a new one. That just seems very dangerous to me and too disruptive to the local economy around it to allow it to happen. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. It just seems safer and smarter to try and renovate and upgrade existing buildings.
38. Re:How much offset? by MBC1977 · 2011-03-21 14:03 · Score: 1
  
  Too soon...
  
  --
  Regards,
  
  MBC1977,
39. Re:How much offset? by afidel · 2011-03-21 14:36 · Score: 1
  
  Kowloon is 43,000/km^2 which is amazing considering Manhattan is 27,600/km^2, I'm not sure I can image a place almost 60% denser than Manhattan (though it's a bit denser if you take out the 5% that's central park).
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
40. Re:How much offset? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 14:38 · Score: 0
  
  The Windy City got its name for politics, not weather.
  see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_name_"Windy_City"
41. Re:How much offset? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 14:49 · Score: 0
  
  source?
42. Re:How much offset? by BeanThere · 2011-03-21 15:04 · Score: 1
  
  So instead of being sucked out, the secretary will just be slammed against a screen? You're right, that sounds quite acceptable.
43. Re:How much offset? by Dahamma · 2011-03-21 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  Jeez, of course not! Guess I should have just said "108th story of the Empire State Building", since my fact checking only went as far as making sure it had less than 108 stories...
44. Re:How much offset? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 16:51 · Score: 0
  
  Simply place a sign by the window: "Do not stand next to open window or you may get sucked off"
  And cause the death of every /. person (and other hopeful male virgins) who reads the sign... perhaps a bit of rewording would be appropriate? Might as well just use the words "Glory Hole".
45. Re:How much offset? by pclminion · 2011-03-21 16:51 · Score: 1
  
  that cute secretary in those awesome heels, walks by the open window and gets sucked out of it because the wind shifts just right. It has happened.
  Citation? I'm fascinated.
46. Re:How much offset? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 16:58 · Score: 0
  
  no if that was happening there would be LINES to get near the window :)
47. Re:How much offset? by Dahamma · 2011-03-21 17:01 · Score: 1
  
  True, but just because "douche bag" started out as a feminine product, doesn't mean it's not still appropriate in the more recently popular meaning.
  And to that, you have clearly never been in the Loop in September, or in the left field upper deck at Wrigley when the wind's blowing in...
48. Re:How much offset? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 17:47 · Score: 0
  
  Simply place a sign by the window: "Do not stand next to open window or you may get sucked off"
  Then you'll need a sign to tell me where the line forms to stand next to that window. I want to get sucked off during work. :)
49. Re:How much offset? by TapeCutter · 2011-03-21 18:23 · Score: 2
  
  So instead of being sucked out, the secretary will just be slammed against a screen?
  No, she will be turned into chips.
  
  --
  And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
50. Re:How much offset? by Kokuyo · 2011-03-21 21:02 · Score: 1
  
  Who said the window had to open all the way? I'd say 5 inches would be way enough the get some fresh air in.
  Besides, as certain Toronto natives know, even closed windows won't stop determined jumpers... or idiots:
  http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/window.asp
51. Re:How much offset? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 21:14 · Score: 0
  
  What if the sign gets sucked off?
52. Re:How much offset? by xaxa · 2011-03-21 22:58 · Score: 1
  
  For as dense as those skyscraper areas are in New York I have hard time seeing how they would demolish an old building to create a new one. That just seems very dangerous to me and too disruptive to the local economy around it to allow it to happen. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong. It just seems safer and smarter to try and renovate and upgrade existing buildings.
  It's only 100m (25 floors), but this building in London was essentially disassembled rather than collapsed. Possibly it could have been collapsed/imploded on a Sunday, except it's next to a major railway station and a major hospital, and possibly above at least two (well, four) underground railway lines. Google Maps shows it partially demolished. (Wiki has some lists like this one.)
  For a taller building in a denser place I doubt there's much alternative to taking the building apart slowly. See this one, but that's not really comparable.
53. Re:How much offset? by tehcyder · 2011-03-22 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  Also be nice to know how much power they could save by using windows that open instead of A/C...
  It has been a while since the ability to open windows existed on tall buildings. You can thank those that jumped from the buildings.
  If God had wanted us to live hundreds of feet in the air, He'd have given us wings in case we fell of and proper claws to hold on with.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
54. Re:How much offset? by tehcyder · 2011-03-22 00:27 · Score: 1
  
  Who said the window had to open all the way? I'd say 5 inches would be way enough the get some fresh air in.
  Besides, as certain Toronto natives know, even closed windows won't stop determined jumpers... or idiots:
  http://www.snopes.com/horrors/freakish/window.asp
  LOL at how he was "one of the best and brightest" lawyers, fuck knows how thick the others must be.
  
  --
  To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
55. Re:How much offset? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 00:33 · Score: 0
  
  "Think about it, that cute secretary in those awesome heels, walks by the open window and gets sucked out of it"
  Man, your punchlines suck. Where does the skirt come in? ;)
  Also, this would make defenestration effortless.
56. Re:How much offset? by C_amiga_fan · 2011-03-22 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  >>>how much power they could save by using windows that open instead of A/C...
  They'd actually save more money by keeping the A/C and eliminating the windows so the cool in summer (and heat in winter) could not escape from the building. FAR more energy escapes through porous windows, then is generated by these solar panels.
  --
  
  --
  FREE magazine : http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/prior/
57. Re:How much offset? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  Windows that open in a skyscraper create an updraft that could be absolutely deadly in the case of a fire, unless doors and walls are made draftproof to confine airflow, which costs money during construction if the building code even lets you do it.
58. Re:How much offset? by sharkey · 2011-03-22 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not impressed. If the designers were so freaking brilliant, they make it so only her blouse was sucked out.
  
  --
  
  --
  "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
59. Re:How much offset? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 02:17 · Score: 0
  
  Think I saw a porno that started that way.
60. Re:How much offset? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 02:22 · Score: 0
  
  As long as it involves the cute secretary in those awesome heels, I can live with that
61. Re:How much offset? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  That is enough energy for about 200-250 homes, so that is not that small. Basically, that is the power of a small town outside of Chicago.
  Windbourne(moderating).
62. Re:How much offset? by kryliss · 2011-03-22 03:33 · Score: 1
  
  Probably due to old buildings not being up to code.. still you would think it would be cheaper to renovate an older building than to tear it down and build a newer one. Plus the fact that the old buildings from the early 20th century are so much more beautiful than the modern day glass crap that's built these days.
  
  --
  --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
63. Re:How much offset? by turtledawn · 2011-03-22 03:53 · Score: 1
  
  Of course they are, but they make one's butt wiggle so appealingly, and reduce the speed at which a hapless lady can flee unwanted attention so well.
  (as a woman I own a pair, but they're only an inch and a half high and loose enough to kick off if I really need to book it).
  
  --
  Uh, "if it looks roughly mouse-shaped according to my infra-red sensitive pit, eat it"? --Chris Burke 09-08-10
64. Re:How much offset? by Raenex · 2011-03-22 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  I think they make women look ridiculous, and it pains me to see them walking around uncomfortably. Sneakers and jeans are plenty sexy for me -- if the girl's cute. Heels can't change looks.
65. Re:How much offset? by StikyPad · 2011-03-22 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  It does when you're talking about the standard (or former standard) meaning of the word, as the GP was. At least, I'm pretty sure he wasn't discussing politics... maybe I'm wrong.
  
  --
  https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
66. Re:How much offset? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  then you'll see a line of 300lbs IT guys blocking the window. situation solved
Sears Tower by torstenvl · 2011-03-21 10:09 · Score: 5, Informative

The building is now and forever will be called the Sears Tower. No locals call it the Willis Tower. No non-locals should either. It's a landmark and a piece of architectural history. Like the headline says, it is "Chicago's." In this sense, it will always belong to the public, and the ability of some random foreign insurance firm to finagle some temporary naming rights will never change that.
1. Re:Sears Tower by shadowrat · 2011-03-21 10:10 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I read the summary and thought, "WTF is this willis tower? Is it somehow bigger than the sear's tower?"
2. Re:Sears Tower by hedwards · 2011-03-21 10:13 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Naming rights on a building after it's completed is completely stupid. One of our local buildings has been renamed several times, and you find people referring to it by all of those names, even though the most recent naming is back to what it was originally and was nearly a decade ago.
  Personally, I refuse to call it anything other than the Sears Tower, just because I think it's asinine to rename a world renowned landmark.
3. Re:Sears Tower by snsh · 2011-03-21 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  what are you talking about? willis?
4. Re:Sears Tower by bigsexyjoe · 2011-03-21 10:18 · Score: 1, Interesting
  
  If anything, it should be called the Wesley Willis Tower, afterthe great Chicagoan Wesley Willis.
  
  --
  Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free
5. Re:Sears Tower by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  Yippie Kai-Yay Motherfuckers!
6. Re:Sears Tower by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 10:26 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Little known fact for our non-Chicagoan readers:
  Willis Tower, formerly Sears Tower, was originally known as the John Hancock Tower
7. Re:Sears Tower by Labcoat+Samurai · 2011-03-21 10:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  And this is what's annoying. Reputable news sources will feel an obligation to use the official name, while at the same time likely realizing that no one wants to call it that. Ends up being divisive. It'd be nice if more news sources would take a stand and just use the old name. It'd be a nice way to express how futile it really is to sell naming rights to an iconic structure or location.
8. Re:Sears Tower by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 10:28 · Score: 0
  
  The building is now and forever will be called the Sears Tower. No locals call it the Willis Tower. No non-locals should either.
  That's funny, I came in to say the exact same thing.
9. Re:Sears Tower by jhoegl · 2011-03-21 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  what are you talking about? willis?
  .... tower.
  
  Oh thats right, I went there.
  Still funnier than Bob Saget
10. Re:Sears Tower by Locke2005 · 2011-03-21 10:31 · Score: 1, Troll
  
  Funny, I feel the same way about Mount McKinley despite the fact it was renamed Mt. Denali in the Seventies.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
11. Re:Sears Tower by milkmage · 2011-03-21 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  the correct spelling is
  "wut choo talkin' 'bout"
12. Re:Sears Tower by Chris+Burke · 2011-03-21 10:47 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  And here I always thought Chicago's John Hancock building, which was built first, was known as the John Hancock.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
13. Re:Sears Tower by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 10:48 · Score: 0
  
  Really? I thought it was called "Ron White's big ol' fuckin' building".
14. Re:Sears Tower by Hatta · 2011-03-21 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  I've been up there. When it's windy it really does rock over Chicago.
  
  --
  Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
15. Re:Sears Tower by gknoy · 2011-03-21 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  By definition, nerds pedantically correct people's statements for the sake of accuracy (of minutiae, or to show off knowledge). Being different is a side effect of other people generally not caring about correctness in detail. :)
16. Re:Sears Tower by countertrolling · 2011-03-21 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Naming rights on a building after it's completed is completely stupid.
  <Not always>
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
17. Re:Sears Tower by spun · 2011-03-21 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  Funny, the native Athabaskans felt the same way when white men named it McKinley despite the fact that it was called Denali before conquering invaders ever saw it. But I suppose that you feel the winners get to make the names, eh? In that case, I guess the Athabaskans must have won, because it's called Denali now.
  This is nothing at all like a major landmark being renamed by a megacorporation. In fact, renaming Denali to McKinley is akin to renaming the Sears Tower to Willis Tower. Changing McKinley back to Denali would be like changing Willis Tower back to Sears Tower.
  
  --
  - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
18. Re:Sears Tower by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 11:02 · Score: 0
  
  So... do assholes sarcastically deride people's statements for the sake of personal inadequacies, or just for the sake of being assholes?
19. Re:Sears Tower by SydShamino · 2011-03-21 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  Bob Saget redeemed himself in The Aristrocrats. He's a dirty, dirty man.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
20. Re:Sears Tower by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2011-03-21 11:07 · Score: 1
  
  So... do assholes sarcastically deride people's statements for the sake of personal inadequacies, or just for the sake of being assholes?
  Does it matter? We're noisy because others are noisy.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
21. Re:Sears Tower by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 11:19 · Score: 0
  
  I think the point is that the other poster's correction was promoting inaccuracy, hence the question about being different.
22. Re:Sears Tower by Chris+Burke · 2011-03-21 11:23 · Score: 1
  
  This is nothing at all like a major landmark being renamed by a megacorporation. In fact, renaming Denali to McKinley is akin to renaming the Sears Tower to Willis Tower. Changing McKinley back to Denali would be like changing Willis Tower back to Sears Tower.
  Heh. I'm having a vision of 40 years in the future of someone complaining that the iconic Willis Tower of Chicago is having it's name bastardized and changed to Sears of all things. The nerve!
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
23. Re:Sears Tower by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 11:24 · Score: 0
  
  Reputable news sources will feel an obligation to use the official name, while at the same time likely realizing that no one wants to call it that.
  More like advertising driven news sources who know which side their bread is buttered on will recognize bought-and-paid-for promotions.
24. Re:Sears Tower by Surt · 2011-03-21 11:25 · Score: 1
  
  They do it because they suffer from untreated OCD.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
25. Re:Sears Tower by martin-boundary · 2011-03-21 11:29 · Score: 1
  
  The building is now and forever will be called the Sears Tower. No locals call it the Willis Tower. No non-locals should either.
  
  Oh yeah? We'll just have to see about that.
  Yippee-ki-yay, motherfuckers!
  Bru^H^H^H Roy Rogers.
26. Re:Sears Tower by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 11:41 · Score: 0
  
  I'll always call it the Sears Tower too. In fact, if they called it the Sears Tower in the headline, I wouldn't have been half as confused when I read "tallest US building", thinking (isn't that the Sears Tower? Oh, wait they renamed it.).
  But I don't link in Illinois. I'm from WI.
  And "Willis Tower" always makes me think of Die Hard.
27. Re:Sears Tower by chill · 2011-03-21 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  You forgot the new nickname... "Big Willie"
  
  --
  Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
28. Re:Sears Tower by DarkVader · 2011-03-21 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not a Chicago local, and that particular building is the Sears Tower.
  The company that owns it can call it whatever they want in private, but everybody else needs to publicly correct them every time they do it in public.
29. Re:Sears Tower by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 13:55 · Score: 0
  
  I'm with you bother.
  In New York the Pan Am building became the Snoopy building and everyone just started saying "Grand Central" since they decided not to bulldoze it and all.
  When will people learn to stop naming shit after thing's that are not dead yet, like Citi Field (Shitty field), Sears Tower, etc. at least you have the John Hancock building and all, sounds like a nice place to die from cocain.
30. Re:Sears Tower by CheeseTroll · 2011-03-21 15:02 · Score: 1
  
  True, but Sears ditched Chicago years ago for the northern 'burbs. I thought they should have re-named it the "Chi-Tower" (but now that I typed that out I suppose too many idiots would pronounce that with a short "i", which is less cool).
  
  --
  A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
31. Re:Sears Tower by ackthpt · 2011-03-21 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  I've been to the Sears Tower. I've walked around it. It's quite an impressive building. This Willis Tower, can someone give me directions as to where to find it? Every time I'm in Chicago I can't find a building taller than the Sears Tower. It's truly one of the great mysteries of the 21st Century.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
32. Re:Sears Tower by evanism · 2011-03-21 16:51 · Score: 1
  
  But I suppose that you feel the winners get to make the names, eh? In that case, I guess the Athabaskans must have won, because it's called Denali now.
  Just like Iraq and Afghanistan. ;)
  
  --
  Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
33. Re:Sears Tower by EETech1 · 2011-03-21 18:07 · Score: 1
  
  Oh my god I know! I was never able to look at him the same way again!
34. Re:Sears Tower by boxwood · 2011-03-21 18:46 · Score: 1
  
  Uh that just proves it even more stupid. It should be Astros Field and should never have been renamed to Enron Field to begin with.
35. Re:Sears Tower by countertrolling · 2011-03-21 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  Astros wouldn't work either. Sports teams are more transient than homeless people. In fact, there you go, name it after the guy sleeping on the nearest bench. He'll probably still be there when they tear it down to make a parking garage for the new stadium across the street.
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
36. Re:Sears Tower by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 03:26 · Score: 0
  
  It should have remained Enron field. My understanding is that a lot corruption was/still involved with that field.
Great by Locke2005 · 2011-03-21 10:09 · Score: 1

"...could grow up to 2 MW in size..." And how much power doest the building consume?

--
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
1. Re:Great by hedwards · 2011-03-21 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  That power is already used. So, unless this blocks enough light that people have to start turning on lights because of it, it's a gain. Which is to say it'll reduce the amount of electricity that the building uses.
2. Re:Great by Locke2005 · 2011-03-21 10:23 · Score: 1
  
  The point is, wouldn't making more efficient buildings have a better payback than slapping solar cells on the side of a sealed glass cage?
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
3. Re:Great by Rob+the+Bold · 2011-03-21 10:30 · Score: 2
  
  The point is, wouldn't making more efficient buildings have a better payback than slapping solar cells on the side of a sealed glass cage?
  Which choice would be more efficient in part depends if you're starting with a building or with an empty lot.
  
  --
  I am not a crackpot.
4. Re:Great by Jartan · 2011-03-21 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  The point is, putting solar cells on a building makes it more efficient.
5. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 10:35 · Score: 0
  
  Why not do both?
  You do not always have to do one thing and not the other...
6. Re:Great by Locke2005 · 2011-03-21 10:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Only if the net output of the solar cells over their projected lifetime exceeds the energy costs to manufacture them and affix them to the side of the building. This is a publicity stunt, when in fact revamping the environmental controls could potentially yield greater energy savings at lower cost. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be -- a good engineer looks for the most efficient means of accomplishing the objective. Slapping solar cells on the roof of a Prius technically makes it go farther on a gallon of gas, but the difference is so trivial that it doesn't justify the cost of the solar cells.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
7. Re:Great by Locke2005 · 2011-03-21 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  You should do the one that is most cost effective first.
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
8. Re:Great by AF_Cheddar_Head · 2011-03-21 10:47 · Score: 2
  
  If you read the article (yeah I know it's Slashdot) you would find out that these new windows also lower the solar gain reducing the need for cooling in the summer. So the building becomes more efficient in multiple ways.
9. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 10:53 · Score: 0
  
  What about heat in the winter? Chicago is damn cold, after all
10. Re:Great by perlchild · 2011-03-21 10:59 · Score: 1
  
  To say nothing of the
  
  If you want to have a tall building that consumes electricity, you can't say "produce it elsewhere"
  which I personally find precious. We should be putting solar power in by default, and using other sources if solar fails, period. Because all of the other sources are stored solar power that's been converted, using the original source makes more sense.
  Once we have one building doing this, we can have others.
  We can also stop the nonsense about putting most of the solar power in deserts. We need to start to have urban power generation that doesn't generate smoke pollutants. Solar is ideal for that.
11. Re:Great by spun · 2011-03-21 11:02 · Score: 2
  
  You haven't kept up to date on the dropping price of solar, and the rising price of anything non-renewable. Solar is a much more economical prospect nowadays. Have you been asleep for the past ten years?
  
  --
  - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
12. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 11:03 · Score: 0
  
  Only if the net output of the solar cells over their projected lifetime exceeds the energy costs to manufacture them and affix them to the side of the building. This is a publicity stunt, when in fact revamping the environmental controls could potentially yield greater energy savings at lower cost. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be -- a good engineer looks for the most efficient means of accomplishing the objective. Slapping solar cells on the roof of a Prius technically makes it go farther on a gallon of gas, but the difference is so trivial that it doesn't justify the cost of the solar cells.
  I have to reply to this because it's damn idiotic. The solar cells on the top of a Prius don't recharge the battery, nitwit, it runs a fan to keep the car cooler on hot sunny days.
13. Re:Great by Gadget_Guy · 2011-03-21 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  You should do the one that is most cost effective first.
  I can imagine that your earlier suggestion of being able to open windows would probably be impractical (possible dangerous) to retrofit onto a skyscraper that was not designed to support them (although I am a big fan of using ventilation instead of air conditioning). So what should they have done first, and how do you know that they haven't done it already.
  I was just about to hit submit when I came across a post by AvitarX that addresses this. It seems this is just he latest in a series of improvements made to the building. You were too quick to judge without getting all the facts.
14. Re:Great by Chris+Burke · 2011-03-21 11:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Only if the net output of the solar cells over their projected lifetime exceeds the energy costs to manufacture them and affix them to the side of the building.
  
  Which, since they are conducting an extensive remodel of the building to improve energy efficiency including replacing the single-pane windows anyway, they most likely will, that makes it a good decision.
  
  Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be -- a good engineer looks for the most efficient means of accomplishing the objective.
  Exactly, and that often means making use of multiple techniques in concert, including some smaller optimizations that nevertheless contribute to the overall objective, and ideally take advantage of changes you're already making. For example, you might see that one of the biggest improvements you can make to the building is to replace all the old poorly insulated windows with new efficient ones. And then you can look at whether or not in-window solar would be worth it in the context of having already decided to replace all the windows.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
15. Re:Great by h4rr4r · 2011-03-21 11:27 · Score: 2
  
  Only if the net output of the solar cells over their projected lifetime exceeds the energy costs to manufacture them and affix them to the side of the building.
  It does, get over it.
  lapping solar cells on the roof of a Prius technically makes it go farther on a gallon of gas, but the difference is so trivial that it doesn't justify the cost of the solar cells.
  Those are there to run the fans while the car is parked. This lowers the demand for AC when the user gets back in. AC uses lots of fuel, far more than the cost of the wee little panel over the life of the car.
  Try less pontificating and a little more education. How your comment got a +5 I will never know.
16. Re:Great by c6gunner · 2011-03-21 11:36 · Score: 1
  
  We should be putting solar power in by default, and using other sources if solar fails, period.
  Sure, but why stop there? Obviously it would make WAY more sense to have them grow their own food, too. Two floors out of every three should be farms! And, of course, they should process their own sewage by default. And weave their own curtains. And there should be a factory level for making TV's and computers. And maybe a forest and a pulp-mill on the roof, to create all those TPS reports from scratch.
  Yep, trade is for fools - a REAL building should be completely self contained!
17. Re:Great by Biogenesis · 2011-03-21 11:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Re: Energetics of solar panels. Modern panels "pay" for themselves about 10-15 times over.
  See Permanently dispelling a myth of photovoltaics via the adoption of a new net energy indicator
  In the case of a building which requires windows I would suggest only counting the solar cell manufacturing cost as the glass and installation cost happen regardless. Unless said building didn't require the windows to be replaced, in which case it's valid to count it.
  
  --
  ...just so Google finds it.
18. Re:Great by hrvatska · 2011-03-21 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Making the building more energy efficient and adding the solar cells are not mutually exclusive. Why can't other energy efficiency be implemented in addition to adding the solar cells? The article doesn't mention anything else that's been done for efficiency, but that doesn't mean that a lot hasn't been done or isn't in the works. In addition to generating electricity these cells will also lower cooling costs. It would have been nice if they could have provided an estimate of how much power will be saved through reduced cooling needs.
19. Re:Great by jedidiah · 2011-03-21 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Oh. So you've been to Hong Kong then?
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
20. Re:Great by h4rr4r · 2011-03-21 11:54 · Score: 2
  
  They are also far more insulating than the windows they replaced.
21. Re:Great by c6gunner · 2011-03-21 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  That's cute, but, in reality, Hong Kong is one of the worlds largest trade centers, and THE largest re-exporter on the planet. The value of imports and exports is larger than the nations GDP. It's a free-market traders wet dream, and the antithesis of a self-sustaining community.
22. Re:Great by angel'o'sphere · 2011-03-21 12:01 · Score: 1
  
  Only if the net output of the solar cells over their projected lifetime exceeds the energy costs to manufacture them and affix them to the side of the building.
  This break even in manufacturing we already have since over 25 years. A solar cell needs roughly 18 - 30 months to regain its production costs.
  angel'o'sphere
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
23. Re:Great by j-beda · 2011-03-21 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  We should be putting solar power in by default, and using other sources if solar fails, period.
  Sure, but why stop there? Obviously it would make WAY more sense to have them grow their own food, too. Two floors out of every three should be farms! And, of course, they should process their own sewage by default. ....
  Actually that wouldn't be a bad thing - when the building is the size of a small town or city one could certainly have a number of specialists doing all of those things. I think slashdot had an article about farms in scyscrapers a while ago but I can't be bothered to find it.
  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-rise-of-vertical-farms
24. Re:Great by psithurism · 2011-03-21 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  I think the crucial difference here is that transparent photovoltaic cells are going to be placed where glass used to be. Nobody would notice if their roof was covered in photovoltaic cells (or for that matter a vegetable garden or textiles factory as you suggested), but when you convert a used space to attempt to produce something you originally traded for, you have to do some extra cost benefit analysis.
25. Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 13:40 · Score: 0
  
  batteries loose their charge when left alone and leaving them dead is very bad for their life. The Prius should have solar cells.
26. Re:Great by pclminion · 2011-03-21 16:53 · Score: 1
  
  With this change, a net 2 megawatts less. "We're wasteful, so let's not try to do anything about it." Whoa, what?
27. Re:Great by taharvey · 2011-03-21 18:54 · Score: 1
  
  You realize that photovoltaics surpasses most other energy sources EROEI (energy return of energy investment).
  It is in the realm of 1:15 for silicon, and 1:30 for thin-film. Only wind beats these numbers. Coal is less, US drilled oil is WAY less. PV is even on par or better than LWR nuclear.
28. Re:Great by kryliss · 2011-03-22 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Like the Archeologies in Sim City 2000?
  
  --
  --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
What chu talkin about? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · 2011-03-21 10:10 · Score: 0

Willis tower?

--
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Used to be the "Sears Tower" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 10:11 · Score: 2, Funny

It used to be the Sears Tower until Willis (Todd Bridges) from Diff'rent Strokes died in a shootout in the lobby.... One of the Chicago mob mayors, Daily, I think then forcibly re-named the building against the owner's wishes and closed the municpal airport because another Willis, this time Bruce Willis was threatening to come in and blow up shit at THAT airport for another movie.
1. Re:Used to be the "Sears Tower" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 01:53 · Score: 0
  
  At least he took a break from sodomizing reporters with US Civil War museum displays.
first I was like... by demonbug · 2011-03-21 10:11 · Score: 1

"huh?"
And then I was like, "Oh! They're talking about the SEARS tower."
Also... it allows "diffuse daylight and horizontal light through." Does that mean I can only look directly out the window at things at the same level? What is the vertical viewing angle?
1. Re:first I was like... by somersault · 2011-03-21 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, they're lining the inside of the windows with iPhone 4s hooked up to cameras which are built into the solar cells so that you get a good view at all angles, at retina resolution.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
Old saying by snsh · 2011-03-21 10:12 · Score: 3, Funny

People who live in glass towers shouldn't sow photons.
1. Re:Old saying by jfengel · 2011-03-21 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  Ouch. Ouch. Ouch.
2. Re:Old saying by IrquiM · 2011-03-22 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  why not?
  
  --
  This is blinging
3. Re:Old saying by snsh · 2011-03-22 10:24 · Score: 1
  
  because it sort of rhymes
Will it deliver? by MaWeiTao · 2011-03-21 10:13 · Score: 1

Given how far north Chicago is, and the kinds of winters they get, I'm curious to know if it will be worth the effort. And it it will deliver on the energy claims. I'm curious to know what kind of power they'll get from that amount of surface area compared to the same installation somewhere in the southwest.
1. Re:Will it deliver? by shadowrat · 2011-03-21 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  I live in milwaukee, just an hour north of chicago. I can assure you we are well south of the arctic circle. We receive many hours of sunlight a day even in winter.
  
  Considering chicago's moniker, I would think they would be better off pursuing wind power though.
2. Re:Will it deliver? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 10:31 · Score: 1
  
  Chicago is called the "Windy City" because Chicago politicians lobbied long-and-hard for their world's fair a while ago -- think windbags. Not because of actual wind
3. Re:Will it deliver? by shadowrat · 2011-03-21 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  WHOOSH
4. Re:Will it deliver? by AvitarX · 2011-03-21 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  They are http://earth911.com/news/2009/07/01/sears-tower-retrofit-to-reduce-energy-use/
  The solar windows appear to be an afterthought, or more likely, they were replacing the windows anyway, and this just became possible.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
5. Re:Will it deliver? by shermo · 2011-03-21 12:06 · Score: 1
  
  Given that the solar panels will be vertical, being a long way north is a good thing.
  
  --
  Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
6. Re:Will it deliver? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 13:35 · Score: 0
  
  We haven't yet developed a wind power technology that you can clamp on politicians' faces, and THAT is where Chicago gets its moniker from.
7. Re:Will it deliver? by afidel · 2011-03-21 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  I know here in Cleveland the payoff period for solar cells even with net metering is longer than the warranty, but then half the cost is in installation and with this project they were going to be replacing the windows anyways so it's just the net installation cost difference between the normal replacement and the solar units that needs to be counted.
  
  Heck I looked into solar hot water but because of the hard freeze you either need a drainback system or a triple heat exchange system and both have costs greater than their expected lifetime payoff. For me it would make WAY more sense to give my buddy a low interest loan to install a solar hot water heater and other projects since he lives in Austin which is a much better environment for such things.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
8. Re:Will it deliver? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 18:12 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, I see you live in Chicago!
9. Re:Will it deliver? by Shotgun · 2011-03-22 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Heck I looked into solar hot water but because of the hard freeze you either need a drainback system or a triple heat exchange system and both have costs greater than their expected lifetime payoff.
  I'm waiting for someone to commercialize a heat-pipe design. Some permanently sealed copper tubes, 1/8th full of freon, terminate in a heavily insulated tank in the apex of your roof. When the sun is out, freon boils and rises to cool inside the tank. When the hard freeze is on, the freon sits in the bottom of the tube, drastically reducing the heat transfer. No moving parts, but the roof structure would have to be beefed up to support the tank.
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
s/sears/willis/g by Luyseyal · 2011-03-21 10:16 · Score: 0

I, for one, welcome our Wesley Willis towering overlord.
-l

--
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
1. Re:s/sears/willis/g by plover · 2011-03-21 14:29 · Score: 1
  
  I, for one, welcome our Wesley Willis towering overlord.
  What you towerin' over, Willis?
  Oh. Chicago. I get it.
  
  --
  John
2. Re:s/sears/willis/g by Luyseyal · 2011-03-22 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  Rock over London. Rock on, Chicago!
  -l
  
  --
  Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
In an unrelated story from the future... by orphiuchus · 2011-03-21 10:16 · Score: 1

All of the residents of the Willis Tower in Chicago were electrocuted to death today, and then the building burned down.
1. Re:In an unrelated story from the future... by Locke2005 · 2011-03-21 10:26 · Score: 0
  
  "What you talkin' 'bout Willis Tower?" -- Gary Coleman
  
  --
  I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
2. Re:In an unrelated story from the future... by RooftopActivity · 2011-03-21 10:28 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah they put one of the windows on backwards, so it stopped the visible light, but let through all the harmful radiation.
Wiring... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 10:17 · Score: 0

Article seems a bit "light" on details, how will each individual solar panel unit deliver its power output? Will each window frame end up being stuffed with wires and highly corrosion-resistant joins? It will be interesting from a practical engineering standpoint.
Jack Kent Cook Memorial Stadium by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 10:24 · Score: 0

Sigh...
I feel for you Chicago. You're on the list. Before we wipe "Willis" off your fine building though, we need to go DC and fire Dan, "let's pay too much for another aging veteran from a division rival" Snyder. Then we can put the name of the previous owner back on the Redskin's stadium.
Economics by EmagGeek · 2011-03-21 10:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

What is the cost, and how long will it take to generate enough power to recover that cost?
Also, how much taxpayer money is being spent on this?
1. Re:Economics by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 10:38 · Score: 0
  
  It is a 30% rebate from federal. Uncapped.
  Do not know what the city of chicago and the state of Illinos has.
2. Re:Economics by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 10:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In some senses, it doesn't matter. Pilot projects (assuming this is a pilot project--I don't know of any other place that's tried anything like this) ALWAYS cost more per unit scale. The goal is to gauge its efficacy. If it works well, then see how/whether it can be improved upon and implement it again. Vertical solar farms would be an interesting solution to the acreage issue.
3. Re:Economics by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 10:55 · Score: 0
  
  It's negative something the last I checked. But the last time I did that was when I lived there 5 years ago. I'm sure it's only gotten better.
  Guess not: http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/politics/illinois-state-budget-complete-suggest-spending-cuts-20110112
4. Re:Economics by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 17:22 · Score: 0
  
  Vertical solar farms would be an interesting solution to the acreage issue.
  Same reason that trees in the north are tall.
In Chicago? by frankgod · 2011-03-21 10:32 · Score: 1

Chicago seems like bad place for solar panels. It will only produce a decent amount of energy for a few months out of the year.
1. Re:In Chicago? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 10:47 · Score: 0
  
  Chicago seems like bad place for solar panels. It will only produce a decent amount of energy for a few months out of the year.
  Yeah, just like how it's raining in Seattle EVERY DAY.
Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by sdguero · 2011-03-21 10:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

According to this solar power website, Chicago only gets an average of 3.14 hours of sunlight per day:
http://www.gosolarcompany.com/pv-sizing-sun-hours.html

Seems like it would be a lot more efficient to put these on a high rise in Phoenix, with an average of 6.58 hours per day of sunlight. Then again, I'm not a marketing guy for Big WIlly, or "journalist" at inhabitat, so what do I know...
1. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by codeAlDente · 2011-03-21 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  That seems a little high, but maybe it's because clouds don't form so well when it's zero degrees outside.
  
  --
  He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
2. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 10:51 · Score: 0
  
  So, because it's more efficient to put them in Phoenix, nobody should build them in Chicago?
3. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by Chris+Burke · 2011-03-21 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  Sure it'd be more efficient to put them on high rises in Phoenix. Sadly, though, the Sears Tower would still be in Chicago, consuming all that energy. The solar panels are just one part of the retrofit designed to reduce the building's external power consumption. And regardless of how much better solar panels perform in Arizona instead of Chicago, as long as they produce enough power to pay for themselves before they need replacing, then it's a good idea.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
4. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by SydShamino · 2011-03-21 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps people in Arizona aren't as concerned about making their buildings self-sustaining. Or maybe they are and already have.
  
  --
  It doesn't hurt to be nice.
5. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by Dahamma · 2011-03-21 11:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but that's a yearly average. It uses a LOT more electricity for A/C in the summer, when the sunlight averages are much higher.
  In any case, I don't think anyone believes this is going to be a particularly cost effective project energy-wise (the installation and maintenance costs to install that many transparent solar panels 800 feet off the ground must be huge). But it is a huge marketing maneuver to make the tallest building in the United States run largely on its own solar power; kind of don't think random-office-building in Phoenix would have the same effect ;)
6. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by sdguero · 2011-03-21 11:15 · Score: 2
  
  Please show me where in the article it says these panels will "produce enough power to pay for themselves before they need replacing." I think the likely hood of that scenario is much greater somewhere with twice as much sunlight.
  
  I agree that this is part of a larger push to reduce the buildings power consumption, which is great for marketing to eco-consious tenants (pretty much everyone nowadays). However, I doubt the viability when something is this short on details. But hey, what are a couple thousand solar panels full of noxious chemicals right? Just a drop in the bucket compared to all the other crap we throw away... And it makes people feel good. Like recycling.
7. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by h4rr4r · 2011-03-21 11:18 · Score: 1
  
  You mean it will work as well as recycling? That is fantastic news. Aluminum and Glass recycling saves tremendous amounts of energy.
  Considering solar panels are generally guaranteed up to 25 years and I have seen some from the 80s brown but still working these sure as hell will pay for themselves eventually.
8. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by sdguero · 2011-03-21 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1444391672891013193#
9. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by Chris+Burke · 2011-03-21 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know that they will, but that's the criterion for judging if it makes sense to do it. Obviously it would be more likely with twice as much sun, but that doesn't mean it isn't net-positive here.
  As they're already doing like 50 "green" things to the tower, it wouldn't make sense to just throw this one on the pile for a trivial shift in perception, if it wasn't worth it economically.
  So, like I said, I don't know that it is worth it, but it is not impossible, and I'm certainly not going to take the lack of specific engineering figures in a news article to imply that it isn't.
  
  --
  
  The enemies of Democracy are
10. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by Surt · 2011-03-21 11:35 · Score: 1
  
  That would require the owners of the Willisears tower to run a massive amount of cable to get the power to their building, and you'd also have to work out the resistance losses.
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
11. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by h4rr4r · 2011-03-21 11:39 · Score: 1
  
  It might be, but why would the people in Chicago want to do that?
  How about you put some of these on a high rise in phoenix if you want.
12. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by h4rr4r · 2011-03-21 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  Penn and Teller are fun to watch, but they admit their show is for entertainment not education. This is just like how sometimes the daily show takes quotes out of context for comedic effect.
13. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by sdguero · 2011-03-21 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  And yet they still do a great job pointing out how the majority of recycling programs don't make any sense.
14. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by Em+Adespoton · 2011-03-21 11:58 · Score: 2
  
  I wonder how it compares to sticking a wind turbine on the roof?
  This IS the windy city we're talking about, after all.
15. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by h4rr4r · 2011-03-21 12:04 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, without some sort of actual statistics they are only giving their opinions of why that might be the case.
16. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by sdguero · 2011-03-21 12:18 · Score: 0
  
  Yay. A response with critical thinking. I was getting pretty disappointed in /. until your post.
17. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by Raenex · 2011-03-21 12:27 · Score: 1
  
  Penn and Teller are fun to watch, but they admit their show is for entertainment not education.
  Citation, please. I've watched plenty of their shows, and the spirit is clearly to uncover, well, bullshit. Of course they try to do it in an entertaining manner, but that doesn't mean they don't believe in what they are doing.
18. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by sdguero · 2011-03-21 13:27 · Score: 1
  
  The 29 minute video does contain some statistics (for instance, NYC spent $33 million a year on it's recycling program). But I doubt you watched it since your first reply came 17 minutes after I posted the link.
19. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by h4rr4r · 2011-03-21 13:32 · Score: 1
  
  I did not watch it since I have seen their programs before.
  How much would they have spent on disposal? How much did they make on selling the material? How many tons was that for 33 million? What are the numbers like when the mob is not involved?
20. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by amiga3D · 2011-03-21 13:52 · Score: 1
  
  There is no such thing as the mob, and we'll rub out anyone who says there is.
21. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 14:46 · Score: 0
  
  Then again, I'm not a marketing guy for Big WIlly, or "journalist" at inhabitat, so what do I know...
  You tell us what you know. Do you know, for example, how the cost (inc. environmental) of propping up a modern city in the middle of the desert compares to similar activity on the shores of the Great Lakes?
  I'll take my answer off the air. . .
22. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by afidel · 2011-03-21 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly, my company is involved in the largest ever commercial solar project but we get almost no press because solar farm installed on the roof of 200 malls isn't as sensational as the largest building in the US going mostly solar even though the 259MW of capacity if the project is fully built would be 2.5x the size of the largest single site solar power plant in existance today.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
23. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by afidel · 2011-03-21 15:13 · Score: 2
  
  Yeah but since 100% of world manufacturing capacity for PV is booked for the next couple years it might make sense to install them in areas where they will generate the most power.
  
  --
  There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
24. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 17:00 · Score: 0
  
  You're full of shit by way of conflating industrial recycling and consumer recycling.
  Consumer recycling is by and large economically unjustified -- sham is probably not too strong a word.
  Industrial recycling is economically profitable, especially for stuff like Aluminium that's relatively expensive to produce from ore. Calling it a sham is just being an ignorant douchebag.
25. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by slashdime · 2011-03-21 17:54 · Score: 1
  
  According to this solar power website, Chicago only gets an average of 3.14 hours of sunlight per day
  Of course they only get pi hours of sunlight per day. The other pi is on the other side of the earth!
26. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by boxwood · 2011-03-21 20:13 · Score: 1
  
  If you watched the video you'd see they make that exact point about aluminum. Their point was that recycling aluminum is profitable and because its profitable, companies will pay for things like used soda cans. Recycling things like plastic bottles and paper is not profitable so the government has to pay for it, and ultimately we have to pay taxes, therefore we are paying for this stuff to be recycled.
  So recycling aluminum = good. Recycling anything else? Some people say its good some people say its bad.
  I'm not sure about some of their arguments, and yeah its a show to entertain more than to inform. But if environmentalists were being completely honest, they would be doing research into whether or not recycling is actually good for the environment and getting hard data on it. It seems as though everyone simply accepts that recycling = good without any hard data to back it up.
27. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 22:02 · Score: 0
  
  Well, if Chicago only gets Pi hours of sunlight, at least the right company (Pythagoras Solar) has been chosen.
  (Pythagoras did little or nothing with Pi, but still seems appropiate)
28. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by h4rr4r · 2011-03-22 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  I am plenty willing to look at evidence, not tv shows.
  Recycling is not sham, it just does not in every case make money.
  Not everything has to make money.
29. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by kryliss · 2011-03-22 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  Nice chart, right off the bat I noticed no listing for Connecticut or Delaware (apparently those states don't get any sun) and they abbreviated KN for Kansas and NB for Nebraska, I quit reading after that.
  
  --
  --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
30. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by h4rr4r · 2011-03-22 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Defining good to the environment is hard to do. Making more landfills is sure not good for the environment. What we do know is consumer recycling is not profitable save for maybe a very small list of items.
31. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by sdguero · 2011-03-22 06:16 · Score: 1
  
  Haha. Thanks for reminding me how much those places suck.
  
  http://movieclips.com/Aa9B-waynes-world-movie-exciting-delaware/
32. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by sdguero · 2011-03-22 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah sure, whatever helps you get out of bed in the morning.
33. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by Surt · 2011-03-22 08:22 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, if we had a centrally planned economy like China, that's exactly what we'd do. (Well ... maybe .... central planning tends to make poor decisions).
  
  --
  "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
34. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by Shotgun · 2011-03-22 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  It doesn't compare well at all.
  The PV cells will block a significant portion of sunlight, helping to cool the building during the summer.
  The wind turbine would create an incredible lateral force, in addition to the lateral force the building is already absorbing from the wind. Worse still, this force would be located where it would create the most torque on the building foundations. Generating 2MW from a windmill at the top of the tower could very well bring the whole building down.
  Then you have the issue of windmills slinging ice in a highly populated area. I could see some locals getting somewhat irate at the thought of that.
  The next question: Why does it have to be an either/or proposition?
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
35. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by Em+Adespoton · 2011-03-22 11:24 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed -- they could do both.
  The type of turbine I was envisioning wasn't the "500 mills in the desert" variety -- some companies have started creating lateral turbines that position on buildings such that they take the lateral force and convert it to horizontal force (and electricity) at roof height. The end result is that there is some perpendicular torque to the building, but the turbines actually stabilize against perpendicular force. Also, these turbines are usually quite large, which means the rotational velocity of the blades is quite slow. I've stood under one and heard a slight deep thrum in heavy wind, but other than the noise, there shouldn't be much of an issue from the blades.
  Deicing is indeed a point however; they'd have to lose some of the energy in the winter to keeping it deiced. However, I'm sure that some of the latest airfoil tech could handle that purely through design implementation.
36. Re:Average hours of sunlight per day in Chi-town? by Shotgun · 2011-03-31 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to see how they do the force direction conversion. It's making my head hurt trying to envision how it could be done, but I've seen enough cool tricks to know that it just might be possible.
  As for the de-icing using the shape of the airfoil...good luck with that one. Aviation engineers have been hunting for that grail since about the time commercial aviation first started.
  
  --
  Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
  Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
phallic symbols going the way of billionerrors by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 10:51 · Score: 0

we'll be keeping our buildings more like our lifespans, short & sweet, thanks. also, shorter buildings do less damage when they collapse on us, or are covertly explode(a)d.
Wondering when "renovation" would start. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 11:06 · Score: 0

Larry Silverstein, WTC, Willis Towers, Chicago Terror Drills, asbestos, 2012, you may now remove your tinfoil hats.
Willis formerly Sears Tower by formfeed · 2011-03-21 11:32 · Score: 1

The building is now and forever will be called the Sears Tower.
eh right.
Locals talk about the Palmer house. Visitors go to the Hilton, that for some reason is called "Palmer House Hilton"
Locals might still talk about "Marshall Field". But the times when they supplied the police with cars to shoot demonstrators are long gone. For tourists it is just "that giant old Macy's".
For locals it might stay the Sears tower. But soon, tourists will ask locals to show them the giant Willi.
Your sibling posters are dead wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 12:45 · Score: 0

I research solar energy. You are correct. Despite advances in photovoltaics and rising energy costs otherwise, solar cells remain inferior. They cost too much to produce and do not last terribly long. We have yet to completely solve the heat problem (how to collect it, prevent it from shortening cell life, and reduce conversion efficiency). Meanwhile, their production yields awful pollution. You cannot both love the environment (your water table) and solar energy. The reality: nuclear is the only viable solution. But, oh me, oh my, radiation is so scary!
texting about some murderous dick is increasing by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 13:03 · Score: 0

yes, but not by us. we're gluing solar panels on our roof, to no(0) fanfare whatsoever.
2MW isn't enough by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-21 13:51 · Score: 0

Marty and Doc Brown need 1.21 Gigawatts
I've said it before and I'll say it again. by patjhal · 2011-03-21 15:08 · Score: 1

What you talkin bout Willis?
What about solar films? by InakaBoyJoe · 2011-03-21 17:16 · Score: 1

This is great if you want to buy whole new slabs of glass. But why isn't someone making a photovoltaic film that can be applied to windows, providing a nice light tint and generating electricity in the process? Sure, it would probably have to be based on amorphous tech and still pass some light through so the efficiency wouldn't be super great, but it would be a cinch to apply and if it could generate enough electricity to charge my mobile phone every day or run my wifi router, that would be great!
1. Re:What about solar films? by Chris+Pimlott · 2011-03-22 00:52 · Score: 1
  
  I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it turns out to be a really hard problem.
Sears Tower by AP31R0N · 2011-03-22 00:07 · Score: 1

It's the Sears Tower.
And it has higher useful office space than the Petronas Towers. Petronas is "taller" because of the decorative spires.

--
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
What about Detroit... by hesaigo999ca · 2011-03-22 00:52 · Score: 1

I heard Detroit was really bad with abandonned skyscrapers etc...could they not use it to convert most of the downtown unused area into a solar farm as well? From what I hear, it is pretty bad down there, they could use a boost to their local economy, this could create jobs for maintenance and also work contracts for construction workers....just a thought?
1. Re:What about Detroit... by kryliss · 2011-03-22 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah right. Detroit is probably the most corrupt shit hole in the entire world. Probably wouldn't be too far off in saying that a 9.0+ earthquake and Tsunami would do wonders for increasing Detroit's value/worth.
  
  --
  --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
2. Re:What about Detroit... by hesaigo999ca · 2011-03-23 00:40 · Score: 1
  
  Corrupt, as in the politicians?
  Please explain, I have a friend from there, and he never mentioned the problems being corrupted officials, he mentioned that anytime investors tried to invest to return the downtown into something worthwhile, they met with failure....I dont know how much of it is because people are not interested, and how much of it is because of corrupted people as you say, mind sighting references to what you speak of?
Great Idea - Could also help for emergency backup by poyntek · 2011-03-22 01:42 · Score: 1

Nice idea, I wonder if it will all be grid tied solar power, or if they will create some storage of solar power for emergency use in power outages? I made a much smaller solar backup system for my home office, that works great when I lose power. In fact, I used it last night when a storm knocked out the power. I still had lights, laptop, cell charger, FIOS connection and phone. It was cheap to make and pretty easy to setup. You can look at how I made it if you want... http://www.tech-adventures.com/2011/03/stay-powered-on-tech-devices-keep.html
Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 01:45 · Score: 1

You are misinformed.