Slashdot Mirror
Chicago's Willis Tower To Become Vertical Solar Farm
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
People who live in glass towers shouldn't sow photons.
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)
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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
Simply place a sign by the window: "Do not stand next to open window or you may get sucked off"
1. Please do provide some proof.
2. Stop making new puppet accounts Commodore.
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
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
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.
Chicago is actually named the "Windy City" thanks to their politicians, not their weather. Lots of cities are windier.
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.
They are also far more insulating than the windows they replaced.
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.