Slashdot Mirror


Film Turns Windows Into Solar Panels

itwbennett writes "At the Ceatec electronics conference in Japan this week, 3M is showing film that turns windows into solar panels. Although the product only generates about 20% of the electricity of a traditional solar panel, it will cost about half as much, is much easier to install, and takes up no additional space. 'An average person could go to the store, buy some of this, and then bring it home and install it themselves,' said Yasuhiro Aoyagi, a senior manager in the company's construction markets division."

186 comments

  1. about time... by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's about time someone found a good use for Windows.

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:about time... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 0

      LMFAO BIG TIME!

    2. Re:about time... by Deus.1.01 · · Score: 1

      How true, never saw the point of sunlight... *coder hiss*

      --
      My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
    3. Re:about time... by jabberw0k · · Score: 1

      But will the Windows get infected with malware?

    4. Re:about time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you fix your caps lock key, jerky?

    5. Re:about time... by x6060 · · Score: 1

      No, but the occasional bird will hit it.

    6. Re:about time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but darn the luck- It's pretty hard to find film anymore. Think how many rolls you'd need!

    7. Re:about time... by fredmunge · · Score: 0
      Sounds paneful

      No, but the occasional bird will hit it.

    8. Re:about time... by Cosgrach · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but a digital version is coming.

      --
      Why is it that most of the people that I encounter seem to have been shat from the Sphincter of Mediocrity?
    9. Re:about time... by msparker · · Score: 1

      Ouch.

    10. Re:about time... by Sleepy · · Score: 1

      Only if you stole their eggs...

    11. Re:about time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's ok I installed a firewall outside the window to keep everything out.

    12. Re:about time... by Rei · · Score: 1

      That would look bloody awesome. ;)

      --
      Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
    13. Re:about time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if anyone could find a good use for Apples..

      How to mod the above post: +5 Interesting, +5 Informative, +5 Funny, -5 Trolling, -5 Emotion Response for Steve Jobb's passing.

      Net Score: +5 Truth

    14. Re:about time... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      That would look bloody awesome. ;)

      Not really.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    15. Re:about time... by galanom · · Score: 1

      You killed my imagination :(

    16. Re:about time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you fix your attitude, jagoff?

  2. Average person rewiring their house? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

    An average person could go to the store, buy some of this, and then bring it home and install it themselves

    Only if the average person happens to also be an electrician, or at least someone knowledgeable enough to plug a small power plant into their house's electrical system without ending up a "Dumbass Killed Tonight In Apparent Electrical Fire" headline on their local news.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Abstrackt · · Score: 2

      I imagine that if/when this tech is available at the hardware store there will be companies selling borderline-foolproof kits.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    2. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by localman57 · · Score: 2

      plug a small power plant into their house's electrical system

      A very very small power plant. TFA says it's enough to "Charge an iPhone". Assuming you're charging over USB, an iPhone pulls a max of 500ma at 5V, or 2.5 watts. Not enough energy to warrant upconverting it to AC, given that there's efficiency losses there. Given that you can only charge your iPhone under the best of circumstances, this seems like yet another not-market-viable solar technology. But, ya gotta start somewhere. Maybe they'll make it better. None the less, the applications are on windows, most of which aren't oriented to maximize direct sunlight angle anyways, so it's probably even worse in application than they're talking about here.

    3. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by amorsen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually it is dead easy these days. You buy an inverter which plugs into any socket. It doesn't support "island mode", so if the grid power fails, the solar power goes out too.

      They are not universally legal, so check the local laws. They are about as safe as anything gets when electricity is involved.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    4. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Funny thing, people generally prefer bigger windows on the sunny sides of their houses...what with the natural 'light' thing and all :)

      While they won't be angled outside of vertical in most cases, it is an interesting use of an existing space to produce power. Much like the solar shingles that already exist.

      Enough of these things that make existing space dual use and pretty soon it becomes a significant input to the power supply with little effect compared to installing solar panels on top of the roof or in the yard. Google's solar trees are another example of making something dual use to provide power. (Parking plus solar panels and the cars are cooler due to shade further reducing energy usage to cool them when people drive away.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    5. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by localman57 · · Score: 2

      Also interesting... If it is indeed, 2.5 watts, that's 1/400 of a killowat. If your window generates that for an hour, you get 1/400th of of a kilowatt-hour. At 10 cents per kWH, you earn roughly 1/40th of a cent worth of electricity per hour. Even if you get 8 good hours out of the thing a day, it takes 5 days to generate a penny worth of electricity...

    6. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      I would like this on the windshield of my car to power a little fan to stop it from getting so hot when I park in the sun.

    7. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But covering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_Khalifa with them might generate a lot more

    8. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that logic you should keep your "average person" away from light bulb and wall sockets.

      This might be news to many of the microwave dinner operatives on Slashdot but a lot of folks are handy around the house.

    9. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by localman57 · · Score: 1

      They actually already make these. They're designed to fit on your window. You put this thing on the top of the window, and roll up the window until it's snug. The solar panels run a little fan that vents air out of the car, and a hole in the thing lets fresh air in. Whether this is actually better at cooling the car than just leaving the windows cracked is up for discussion...

    10. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Dzimas · · Score: 1

      This is low voltage stuff - you're not going to be tying it into the grid. Trouble is, I can't really see this being of any use in the real world, unless you happen to live in an off-grid mansion with massive south-facing windows and don't mind green opaque strips blocking the view. It makes more sense to mount a conventional panel with manual tracking that can be adjusted throughout the year and receives sunlight 24 hours a day. A simply charge controller, lead acid battery or two and an inverter can provide enough AC power to run a notebook computer. Of course, *why* you'd want to do this is something else entirely.

    11. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically, the ROI for this stuff is smug-ness.

    12. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ssuussh!! 20% (1/5) efficiency at half the price of a panel means 2.5x more expensive per watt capacity than solar panel. They forgot that in the summary too.

      Furthermore, windows are fixed while panels tend to rotate to get better exposure.

      To me it sounds like a gimmick rather than something useful.

    13. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by hierophanta · · Score: 1

      sunlight 24 hours a day? /snark

    14. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      sunlight 24 hours a day? /snark

      Thus snarks someone who is oblivious to the polar circle.

    15. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it's basically a must for iPod, iPhone and Prius owners,

    16. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I would like this on the windshield of my car to power a little fan to stop it from getting so hot when I park in the sun.

      You could just crack the window, and skip all material, production, shipping, installation, and environmental costs.

      It's like those fucking shitty commercials about how Toyota (I think it was Toyota) is making morons feel better because they put in a solar powered moon roof that did this, despite the fact that it would never, ever, in a thousand years offset its own cost.
      Or how they put in fucking smart vents in shitty relief tents in 3rd world countries.

      Over engineering shit for no reason when there either isn't a problem to begin with, or the existing solution is infinitely superior.

    17. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Computers also used to be really expensive and they didn't do much. It's all about the economies of scale. If it can be put into mass production, you'll someday just buy windows with this stuff already applied and it will be a useful source of supplemental power. And could be a life saver in the event of a grid failure. Either way it should, in the long run, reduce the overal energy cost.

      And as long as it's not a taxpayer funded initiative (including government subsidies), I'm all for it.

    18. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I think car windows are an ideal application of this technology: lots of people want them tinted anyway, so now they can get that and a solar battery charger all at once!

      I just wonder if this stuff can be stretched, since car windows tend to be curved in multiple dimensions.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    19. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Dzimas · · Score: 1

      It's the 21st century. You'd think /. would have edit functionality by now.

    20. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which still won't get sunlight 24 hours a day all year long :P

    21. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      You can already, this very day, buy solar power solutions at the big hardware stores, and no, the kits aren't foolproof unless your use is trivial. For instance, setting up a single-use circuit, like to power a freezer, isn't hard. (And incidentally, that -- powering fridge/freezer -- is a great use of solar and a good introduction to the technology.) But you still need to know which end of a screwdriver to hold and have some rudimentary understanding of electricity.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    22. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Rei · · Score: 1

      Nah, then people will just invent a better fool. ;)

      --
      Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
    23. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > Funny thing, people generally prefer bigger windows on the sunny sides of their houses...what with the natural 'light' thing and all :)

      > While they won't be angled outside of vertical in most cases, it is an interesting use of an existing space to produce power. Much like the solar shingles [wikipedia.org] that already exist.

      So, I have a house with windows facing south, and am at a northern latitude, so I really do get exposure for much of the day. That's not, as it turns out, where I put my solar panels (I have a solar installation I did myself) but it could have been.

      But I suspect that what most people are thinking of is the big picture window facing East or West, and the results are going to be disappointing.

      The solar shingles are a different thing -- their placement makes it more likely that they'll receive sunlight throughout the day, even though the angle might not be optimal.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    24. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Rei · · Score: 1

      It's even worse than that. By putting the panel on the roof, you've now also got a piece of glass up there that's much heavier than the roof around it. And whatever ripple effects that extra weight (and wiring harness) adds. Losses relative to weight (accel/decel and rolling) are the primary energy loss mechanisms in city driving, and are still a significant fraction during highway driving.

      --
      Next to my desk we have an Ire Extinguisher. Our boss is really assertive, so we like the idea of having it.
    25. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > Ssuussh!! 20% (1/5) efficiency at half the price of a panel means 2.5x more expensive per watt capacity than solar panel.

      BINGO! Sorry (whispered) bingo. As a substitute for a traditional solar panel installation, this stuff SUCKS. There are applications where it will be useful, probably in large commercial buildings with lots of windows. But if you're looking for a retrofitted home installation, do yourself a favor and get a real, permanently mounted solar array. They start at 60 watts, which is still too wimpy for realistic use, but you can start small if you want and build up the array over time to a significant fraction of your power usage.

      Trust me, unless you're Bill Gates, you don't *own* enough square footage for this film to provide any appreciable amount of the power you use. And at 2.5X the cost per watt of conventional arrays. What a BARGAIN. (Sorry... (whispered) what a bargain.)

      Cover your sun-facing windows with this stuff, and you might be able to charge your ipod. If that makes you feel good, go for it. When you're ready for *real* solar power, let me know.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    26. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by zennyboy · · Score: 2

      I live in Spain. In general (our house included) we have NO windows facing the sun...

    27. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      You could just crack the window, and skip all material, production, shipping, installation, and environmental costs.

      Whew, do you have similar objections to air conditioning as well? Any luxury has costs. Objecting that they don't offset their own costs is meaningless. The point is to make your car more comfortable when you get in.

      My car already has a sunroof that I can tilt up to let hot air rise out. It helps. But active circulation would be more effective.

    28. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      Is it common to have 'no' windows on the sunny side, or just have shades/overhangs to keep out the, I'm assuming, stronger sun?

      It's a fair point that in the tropics the sun might not be as welcome inside as in the more northern latitudes, and that it's angled much more vertically further lessening the usefulness of anything on a vertical window surface.
      BR I still think it's an interesting idea that has potential.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    29. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Toonol · · Score: 1

      By that logic you should keep your "average person" away from light bulb and wall sockets.

      I suspect that if power sockets were invented today, they would have a hard time getting approved for the general public.

    30. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And a lot of municipalities forbid this type of activity without having a license.

    31. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but this may make enough power to turn the built-in blower motor of the car's HVAC instead of having to put extra crap in it.

    32. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may be more of a well thought out decision than a labor/complexity issue. Consider: letting people edit their posts breaks the logical flow of conversations and breaks the meaning of moderations on the post. This would expose slashdot to malicious (or merely intellectually unscrupulous) behavior seen on other sites with editable posts. Losing an argument? Change it in place. Try new ways to troll. Start out with 'filler' posts designed to get modded up, then replace later with your 'real' post - which may be an advertisement, a troll, or just anything else that you think would not otherwise be modded up high enough to be visible to most readers. Reverse it, too: if you get modded down, replace it with something generic and reasonable and then get meta-modded back up. And so on.

      All these issues could be addressed, but each way of fixing them would have side effects. At the easiest and very least, for example, having an edit automatically revert all moderations has still wasted the time of everyone who moderated the original and everyone who responded to the original; multiply this by the number of edits. (At the worst, it would lead to people trolling with impunity, since they could undo the troll mod and start fresh until the entire thread is old and locked). Or we could, you know, just use the now-mandatory post preview feature, and make a new post if we screwed up.

    33. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by zennyboy · · Score: 1

      No windows as most houses are square blocks, so no overhangs...

    34. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      Fools are like bacteria that way: 99.9% of them aren't a problem, it's the 0.1% that slips through that you have to worry about.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    35. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      (BTW, I didn't RTFM yet, if at all.)

      I agree with you, and was going to make fun of this... But it still may be a useful technological improvement.. Unless they go all Solyndra on us, it will get cheaper over time. (OK, that's a bad joke, there may be technological advances in the Solyndra technology too... and I even cut out an editorial showing that the government has paid & lost FAR more money on other investments, including oil.)

    36. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Eskarel · · Score: 1

      That sort of depends on whether this is the base cost of the unit or the cost including installation. Installation of solar panels isn't exactly cheap, and they're only really an option if you happen to have a roof to put them on. There's also questions of what kind of materials are used in the manufacture of these things and a whole bunch of other factors.

      If these things are cleaner to produce and cheaper to install, they could be a good deal, even if the base panel itself costs 2.5x more.

    37. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by kenh · · Score: 1

      Cars generate bucket-loads of excess, unused electricity - what would you really gain from gluing this to your car windows? You'd be better served by carrying a battery pack and charging it in your car while you drive IMHO...

      --
      Ken
    38. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Car batteries discharge if the car isn't driven regularly, so people have to hook them up to trickle chargers. This would build a trickle charger into the window tint.

      Besides, its no more impractical than it would be on a house, anyway!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    39. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      I grew up in a small coutnry town where my father was one of the few local electrical contractors and was also a volunteer ambulance man. Based on some of the stories he used to tell me, people as a general rule don't show electricity nearly enough respect.

      I have this theory, that because people can see water leaking, they don't think twice about calling a plumber. But because they can't see electricity leaking it doesn't occur to them to call an electrician before they tinker with things they really don't understand.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    40. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    41. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      An average person could go to the store, buy some of this, and then bring it home and install it themselves

      Only if the average person happens to also be an electrician, or at least someone knowledgeable enough to plug a small power plant into their house's electrical system without ending up a "Dumbass Killed Tonight In Apparent Electrical Fire" headline on their local news.

      then they'll also have to sell a idiot-proof-plug-into-house-electrical-system kit.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    42. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      It's also worthless:
      "Aoyagi said a square meter of the material can generate about 5 volts at 7 watts under peak conditions"

      7 watts per square meter? 1 kwh (1000 watts a hour) costs roughly 10 cents. It'd take 142 hours for this thing to make 1000 watts, almost 18 days assuming 8 hours per day are "peak conditions" (unlikely). Unless these panels are under $1 per square meter it'd be better just to keep paying the electric company since it'd take 6 months just to save $1 on your electric bill.

      Also what is "5 volts at 7 watts?" That doesn't even make sense, that's like saying "The new Prius can travel 50 miles at 50mpg". It's volts x amps = watts, tell me the watts and you've told me all I need to know.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    43. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      At ~7W peak, I doubt you'll be feeding this back into your house's electrical system...

    44. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 1

      uh...you design the overhang into the structure, you know like the porch roof covers the front door? You do the same with windows to keep unwanted sunlight out.

      The new green designs even have retractable shades that cover in hot times and let sun in during cooler times.

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    45. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Moekandu · · Score: 1

      Ya know, I think they're selling this all wrong.

      They should pitch it as a window coating that has a far better thermal performance than triple pane windows, does not require replacing your existing windows and costs a fraction of said replacement.

      Oh yeah, and it will charge your cellphone too. With a lot of windows, a bunch of cell phones.

      --
      Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes genius. -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
    46. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Strangely, my local hardware store stocks small solar panels used for charging batteries or other devices already. Idiot proof solar power has been here since solar calculators ... although yes, wiring into the grid is harder, that need not be how its done.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    47. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Aldhibah · · Score: 1

      "receives sunlight 24 hours a day" - are you suggesting an orbital platform for your hypothetical off-grid mansion?

    48. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      (BTW, I didn't RTFM yet, if at all.)

      I agree with you, and was going to make fun of this... But it still may be a useful technological improvement.. Unless they go all Solyndra on us, it will get cheaper over time. (OK, that's a bad joke, there may be technological advances in the Solyndra technology too... and I even cut out an editorial showing that the government has paid & lost FAR more money on other investments, including oil.)

      Solyndra managed to extract half a billion dollars from the alternative energy bubble before dissolving. That is quite an accomplishment in this economic climate. Whether or not Solyndra had viable technology is beside the point. Solyndra is just more empirical confirmation of P. T. Barnum's commentary on the birth rate...

    49. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Many electronic components (not devices necessarily, components, like CPU chips, etc) require rather rigid voltage levels to keep them from letting out the magic smoke. Rating these as being able to supply 5V/7W is entirely consistent, although usually it would be 7W @ 5V.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    50. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      I work as an electrician's helper one summer while in high school. I helped in the reconstruction of a house that burned down because the owner ran his own wiring. In the US, most house wiring is run with a cable made up of two plastic wrapped wires and an unsheathed ground wire, all wrapped in an additional plastic sheath. The homeowner ran the wire by nailing it to the houses wooden frame. He didn't put a nail in the wood and bend it over the frame, which has been known to cut the sheath and short the wires. He put the nails THROUGH THE CABLE!!

      You CAN'T fix stupid.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    51. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by operagost · · Score: 1

      I can't believe he actually got the correct wire in the first place. I've heard of folks buying two conductor, 16 gauge LAMP CORD and running it IN THE WALLS to add an outlet.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    52. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An average person could go to the store, buy some of this, and then bring it home and install it themselves

      Only if the average person happens to also be an electrician, or at least someone knowledgeable enough to plug a small power plant into their house's electrical system without ending up a "Dumbass Killed Tonight In Apparent Electrical Fire" headline on their local news.

      What if it is connected to a battery charger? No need to plug it into your electrical system. Solar powered battery chargers for cell phones and batteries (small batteries, like AA and AAA) are already sold in some convenience stores.

    53. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Did you even read my parenthetical comment? The government has lost FAR more money on other "investments", including in oil & coal.

    54. Re:Average person rewiring their house? by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      The first house I co-owned in conjunction with a bank, was wired with 2-wire, cotton wrapped wires. Leading edge stuff for its time 8*)

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  3. Obligatory.... by fredmunge · · Score: 0

    ...and the linux version will be much more powerful and configurable

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

      while gaming fps suffers :-(

    2. Re:Obligatory.... by DaVince21 · · Score: 1

      ...Except on Minecraft. :-)

      --
      I am not devoid of humor.
  4. Finally by lorinc · · Score: 1

    So finally we can turn a useless Microsoft product into some energy generator...

  5. Sun Shade by malignant_minded · · Score: 2

    "The film blocks or absorbs about 80 percent of visible light and over 90 percent of infrared light, so it also acts as a sunshade"

    Thats pretty dark. Now you don't have to live in the basement

    1. Re:Sun Shade by localman57 · · Score: 1

      If you want to block 80 percent of visible light, why exactly did you have a window installed there in the first place? Just asking. Wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't ask...

    2. Re:Sun Shade by JMJimmy · · Score: 1

      Great for hot climates not so much for cold ones. But 5v 7w for a metre of the product? Might be able to power the lights in your house... but then of course you're blocking the natural light to use artificial light? The only application I can see that would make this practical would be tinting on a car... but I think 80% light blocking is too high for many regulated areas.

    3. Re:Sun Shade by padraic2 · · Score: 1

      It would be better if this film was retractable like a true shade - on a hot summer day, when one's not home, this could be keeping the house cool by not letting light in.

    4. Re:Sun Shade by SomePgmr · · Score: 2

      Well if you're generating that power and keeping your AC from kicking on, you could be looking at a win.

    5. Re:Sun Shade by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      If you want to block 80 percent of visible light, why exactly did you have a window installed there in the first place? Just asking. Wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't ask...

      Yeah, most people live in places where they decided where the windows would be installed.

    6. Re:Sun Shade by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      I'd love that on the west windows of my home. Odds are high I'd probably save more in cooling costs during the summer than I would in generating electricity. Come to think of it, I should really just install window tinting on those windows, how it is that I've never thought of this before is a mystery to me.

    7. Re:Sun Shade by raygundan · · Score: 2

      We have shade screens that block 90% of the visible light coming into our house, and surprisingly, it doesn't look dark at all. (But it cut a HUGE chunk off our utility bills.)

    8. Re:Sun Shade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I installed light blocking window screens. They block 90% of the light. Saves lots of cooling and I can see my monitor and outside at the same time.

    9. Re:Sun Shade by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Seriously. It blocks as much light as putting up a full blown solar panel that covers 80% of my window, but only produces a fourth as much power.

      So let's do the math. A typical solar panel has anywhere from 6% to 20% efficiency. Let's generously assume that this is 20% of the efficiency of a fairly good one, so... sat 4% efficient. 4% of the energy from the sun turns into power.

      Now sunlight is about 93 lumens per watt. CFLs only produce about 75 lumens per watt. So even if you had 100% efficient capture of sunlight, the lamps would produce only 81% as much light.

      Multiply. This means that for every 100 lumens of light that would ordinarily come into your window, 20 lumens pass through the film. 4 lumens become electricity, and 81% of that, or about 3.24 lumens, is available by the time you convert it back to light. Thus, the total lumens available between the sun and the artificial lighting powered by the solar panel film would be 23.24 lumens.

      So assuming that, like most houses, the amount of light you get in the room from sunlight is barely adequate even without this film, then you would need to replace 80 lumens for each 100 lumen window that you cover, at an efficiency of 3.24 lumens per window, which works out to just shy of 25 windows to replace the light provided by a single window. Assuming (for simplicity) that the rooms in your house all have about the same number of windows, this means that you would need a house with 25 unused rooms just to break even.

      I can't imagine how you could possibly save enough money on cooling to be make up for the added lighting costs at a paltry 3.24% best-case light-to-light conversion efficiency. It's just not significantly better than draping a thick blanket over the outside of the window and blocking out the sunlight altogether, but doesn't block as much heat as the blanket.

      An 80% tint is just insanely dark—darker than the darkest I've ever seen on any building—that's like pimpmobile window tinting dark. Now if you have an electric car and you want your windows darkly tinted, then maybe, though I suspect an 80% tint is illegal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Not that you care when you're driving along in your tricked-out electric pimpmobile, but.... No, wait....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    10. Re:Sun Shade by Leebert · · Score: 1

      Aside from what others said, windows are often demanded by building code for emergency egress purposes.

    11. Re:Sun Shade by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      That's interesting. You can actually see through my current solar array, if you squint a little. It's not completely opaque. And it actually produces 100% of the power of a solar array, not just 20% as does this film.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    12. Re:Sun Shade by guabah · · Score: 1

      An 80% tint is just insanely dark—darker than the darkest I've ever seen on any building—that's like pimpmobile window tinting dark. Now if you have an electric car and you want your windows darkly tinted, then maybe, though I suspect an 80% tint is illegal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Not that you care when you're driving along in your tricked-out electric pimpmobile, but.... No, wait....

      Perfect for when I open my stripclub.

    13. Re:Sun Shade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends where you live.

      As the previous poster pointed out, in some localities 20% of visible light is still a lot of light, especially in summer. In this part of Australia in summer you can have a blind pulled all the way down and enough light leaks through to easily find your way around a room. Plus a lot of large public buildings have been built with little thought to orientation to the sun; plenty of big windows pointing due West. I can see this being a goer for retrofitting such places. If it provides enough energy to drive small exhaust fans, that would probably be enough to make it viable for home owners in hot locations as well.

    14. Re:Sun Shade by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      Most of the year we leave the drapes closed at our place (southern Australia), in summer it's to keep out the heat, in winter it's because it's still dark when I leave for work in the morning, and is dark again when I get home.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    15. Re:Sun Shade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blocking 80% of visible light isn't very dark at all, because of the non-linear way we perceive light. That's only just over 2 EV stops on a camera.

    16. Re:Sun Shade by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      You're not familiar with how bright the sun is, are you?

      A reference I've used before at Engineering toolbox lists even an overcast day at 1000 lux, equivalent to the lighting required in an OR. Normal interior light levels are 1/4 of that, and full daylight is 10x brighter yet.

      Removing 80% of full daylight is not so bad, assuming you don't live in a ship with tiny portals to the exterior.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    17. Re:Sun Shade by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      In my original post, everywhere I said "lux", I should have said "average indoor lux", i.e. if a window is of a size that it provides an average of 100 lux illumination indoors. It was not intended to suggest that the sun provides only 100 lux.

      You're talking about 1,000-10,000 lux outdoors. In places where you have solid glass (e.g. IL1 at Apple), sure, cutting out 80% of the light probably wouldn't be a show stopper. In a typical home, however, the amount of light that comes inside is a small fraction of that even with clear windows because you neither have a glass ceiling nor solid glass walls.

      Recall that perceived brightness is lux per square foot. Outdoors, 1,000 lux seems bright because it is shining on everything. Now shine it on only a few square feet of a room near the window. The rest of the room has only reflected light. Even for a 12x12x8 room with an 8x6 window, the sun is covering only fifty or sixty square feet of floor out of a 144 square foot floor, or well under half the floor. By the time you reflect this around the entire room, you're probably getting only a few percent of the exterior illumination unless your building is all glass and/or mirrors. You're talking about adding another 80-90% cut on top of that. This means you will almost certainly have to use lighting during the day where you otherwise would not have.

      I live in a house with lots of (nearly clear) windows (covering almost half of each exterior wall, plus some skylights). Even with the shades open, in full sun, the lighting indoors is only adequate, not bright by any means. If I cut 90% of that light out, it would be nowhere near adequate even in full sun.

      If cutting out 80% of the light were a good idea, I would expect buildings to be doing this frequently. By contrast, if anything, the trend for the past decade has been to increase the number of windows and skylights to bring in more natural light, not less, because 40% of an average commercial building's electrical costs come from lighting alone. (Source: Velux)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  6. Half the price for twenty percent the efficiency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where is the other 30% of my money going? I assume the "costs half as much" is considering installation costs, and the space taken up by solar panels on my roof is vertical space...

  7. Corporate Sellout by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sooo a researcher came up with a similar (or same....) product which you could literally paint on to a surface and it was dirt cheap! A few years later 3M comes out with fancy plastic strips of the stuff and it will cost 1/2 as much for 1/3 to 1/4 the efficiency. Nice to see the $/watt ratio isn't being allowed to shrink /SARCASSSSSSMMMMMMMM

  8. Am I the only one... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... who misread this as "Film turns Windows Into Solaris"...

    1. Re:Am I the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My first thought was, "That would be one impressive movie"

    2. Re:Am I the only one... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Yes...

      But it's still funny.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:Am I the only one... by Larryish · · Score: 1

      Rule 34, gentlemen.

  9. one question... by Zargg · · Score: 1

    Excellent idea, I wouldn't mind a new house with built in window shades that generate some power, but I have one question I didn't seem to see the answer to... How do you get convenient access to the power generated by a houseful of these shades? They say an average person could install it, but I don't see average people wiring these up themselves.

    1. Re:one question... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Excellent idea, I wouldn't mind a new house with built in window shades that generate some power, but I have one question I didn't seem to see the answer to...

      How do you get convenient access to the power generated by a houseful of these shades?

      They say an average person could install it, but I don't see average people wiring these up themselves.

      The easiest way would probably for it to have an outlet attached to the film panel, rather than trying to wire it into your house electrical system.

  10. install it themselves? by roc97007 · · Score: 2

    > 'An average person could go to the store, buy some of this, and then bring it home and install it themselves,'

    This is really a selling feature? Anyone can go to amazon.com, buy any one of a number of solar panel kits, get it delivered to their home, and install it themselves, with the panels inclined correctly to maximize exposure to the sun (unlikely using existing windows, which have different design considerations) and get the full output of a solar panel, not just 20%, and never have to leave their home. (Speaking from personal experience.)

    Mind you, it might be interesting to build a house designed to maximize the use of the technology, for instance, big skylights that are also solar panels. But a film for existing windows? There are better solutions.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    1. Re:install it themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'An average person could go to the store, buy some of this, and then bring it home and install it themselves,'

      This is really a selling feature? Anyone can go to amazon.com, buy any one of a number of solar panel kits, get it delivered to their home, and install it themselves, with the panels inclined correctly to maximize exposure to the sun (unlikely using existing windows, which have different design considerations) and get the full output of a solar panel, not just 20%, and never have to leave their home. (Speaking from personal experience.),

      And if Superman replaces his windows with panels from Amazon, he can still see through them.

    2. Re:install it themselves? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Did you read my entire article before responding?

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    3. Re:install it themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how exceedingly short sighted
      or have you not noticed those ridiculously large buildings in major metropolitan areas that are covered in tempered glass?

    4. Re:install it themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While there are many people who could install their own solar kits, "an average person" is reluctant to operate a screwdriver and would have trouble leveling a shelf, let alone climbing on top of their house, attaching an outdoor mounting system (without making their roof leak) and aligning solar panel on two axes. If it requires anything more than a step stool, a hammer, and tape the average person is not going to install it themselves.

      Also many people (and businesses) live in buildings that they don't own or are otherwise not allowed permanently modify even if they were willing and technically capable. Finding a solution that allows them to retrofit an existing structure without violating their lease/zoning/etc. seems worthwhile.

    5. Re:install it themselves? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > or have you not noticed those ridiculously large buildings in major metropolitan areas that are covered in tempered glass?

      So... are you volunteering to install it yourself? Can I tape it? Sounds like a youtube classic in the making.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    6. Re:install it themselves? by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      I dunno... anything that increases the electricity producing square area has to be good, even if that area is often in the shade. As long as this stuff is cheap, I don't really see a down side.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    7. Re:install it themselves? by gknoy · · Score: 1

      It's easier to install in your house (or apartment) windows than something which requires you to climb up on your roof.

    8. Re:install it themselves? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Ok, I may have an unfair advantage here because I just installed a solar system in my own home, and I may have prepped for it a little too much, reading up ahead of time and studying the pros and cons of various types of installations.

      So, how do you think a solar power system works? You put a film on the windows and magically the power appears in your house? Like, via bluetooth?

      There are a lot more pieces than that. The film, whatever it is, has wires attached, the wires have to go somewhere, hopefully in a way that doesn't get your homeowner's association pissed off, and finally find their way inside some part of the house (entering in some weatherproof fashion) to an appropriately sized charge controller, which charges a fuckton of batteries which also have to be somewhere in the house in a proper enclosure with ventilation, which in turn power an appropriate sized inverter, (you did work backwards from your power needs, didn't you?) which produces the actual power, which then has to be routed somewhere useful. There's a lot of wiring and drilling holes into walls and maybe even breaking down drywall, running wires, installing panels, and then re-sheetrocking, tape, mud, paint.

      And that's not counting more exotic systems (like what I put in) that run separate 12 volt (more efficient use of battery power) and 110 volt circuits with two sets of outlets and a bunch of those funny 12 volt lightbulbs you usually only see at RV supply houses.

      It's a big deal. The actual solar panels are the easy part. My teenage daughter assembled half of ours while I assembled the other half, and the frame was already canted at an angle that was Good Enough for where we were putting it. (Your mileage may vary with latitude.) Takes one (1) tool -- a crosshead screwdriver. It's the rest -- the wires and batteries and electronics -- that's a headache.

      So, no. If the expectation is that this film stuff makes it easier for someone too stupid to hold the correct end of a screwdriver to set up their own solar power system, there's going to be a lot of disappointed customers.

      Mind you, I can see the use of this stuff in certain situations, but sadly, until they figure out the Unicorn Magic connection between solar panels and your wall socket, there's going to be no substitute for (a) knowing what the hell you're doing, or (b) hiring it out.

      Not dissing the product, just the expectation that it somehow magically makes it trivial for Fred and Ethyl Mertz to have solar power. It doesn't.

      Incidentally, you *can* contract the whole thing, rather easily. Many home improvement superstores now will sell you complete solutions, including installation. And as usual, a savvy person can do it significantly cheaper on their own. And it isn't even that tough to learn. (I didn't know crap about solar power before I started.) But the key word is "learn". It's not magic, at least not yet.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    9. Re:install it themselves? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I'm not arguing against the product, I'm arguing against the contention that it makes the product easy for mechanically-stupid people to set up a solar power system. In reality, the panels are the easy part. Scroll up to my longer article in this same thread.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    10. Re:install it themselves? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but again, the panels are such a small part of the total amount of work that it's like arguing over the kind of hubcaps you'd put on a car you're building by hand. (*There's* our car analogy!) Scroll up to my longer article in the same thread for more information.

      Caveat: I'm not an expert, but I have installed a solar power system in my home.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    11. Re:install it themselves? by kenh · · Score: 1

      20% as efficient as "conventional" solar panels, cost 1/2 as much - let's see, that works out to 2.5x more expensive than a conventional solar panel per unit of power. In other words, it takes 5 meters of this film to generate the same amount of power as 1 meter of "conventional" solar panels would generate...

      --
      Ken
    12. Re:install it themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh? Where I'm from, there's a fair number of solar panels being installed, and a LOT of them are at ground level. While there are more rooftop installations, I would say the overall panel number between ground level and rooftop is 50/50, because the people putting them on the ground are installing more panels.

    13. Re:install it themselves? by Unipuma · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you read the article mentioned in the summary, you'll see that the film also acts as a sunshade, and is initially meant for official buildings. Imagine all those glass towers that modern architecture is all about, having as a double function also electricity production.

      Provided the film can be made cheap enough, you don't need to worry about the ideal angle, since the prime purpose of this invention is not power generation, but is adding power generation as an additional feature to the normal function of glass (providing a way to look outside).

      So in that light, yes, the previous poster did make a valid remark.

    14. Re:install it themselves? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Most panels installed on buildings do not track the sun, they are fixed. Installing panels means either getting up on the roof or losing some of your garden. If I could cover my south facing windows with these things and save some money on my electricity bill I'd definitely want to do it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:install it themselves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Falling off roofs is the leading cause of solar-power related deaths. Seriously, solar power is competing with coal in deaths-per-TWh because of this. Still, I'd be more inclined to put regular solar cells against my walls (at ~30% efficiency loss due to the inclination).

    16. Re:install it themselves? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      I did read the FA, and I understand that. As the title of my response indicates, (not to mention the body of my response) I was responding to the contention that mechanically inept people would prefer this solution to standard solar panels for private dwellings. See other articles in this same thread. Again, I was answering the contention that this was appropriate for non-technical people to install themselves in dwellings in which they live. I don't know how many other ways I need to say it.

      So no, in the context of my reply, the previous poster made a non-sequitur, unless we've gotten so hyper sensitive here that we are reading into criticism of a single incorrect marketing point the condemnation of an entire technology.. He was answering a criticism that I had not made. Although, hyper-sensitivity and "green" technologies appear to go hand-in-hand for reasons not entirely clear to me. Shall we go cry for the trees now? And thank the Earth Mother that the pollution from the manufacture of CFLs is occurring in China and not here?

      I have installed the solar panel system used at my house. I know what is involved. My point was and continues to be that the assembly and positioning of the solar panels is among the least of the tasks of setting up such a system. (an intellectually dishonest person would ignore this paragraph) My teenage daughter assembled the frame and attached about half the panels while I attached the other half. It's the wiring, charge controllers, batteries, more wiring, inverter, more wiring, and how to merge that into the current grid-powered system that's the laborious part. I get the impression sometimes that many of the people hysterically clamoring for solar power have never actually touched a solar panel. [1] Money, mouth, proximity.

      [1] Well, maybe those solar ipod chargers sold at ThinkGeek. But they are toys, and you could reduce your carbon footprint orders of magnitude more by not buying the ipod in the first place. Which is another story.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  11. Return on investment by ickleberry · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Normal solar panel takes 10-15 years to pay for itself. If it only produces 20% of a normal panel it won't be worth it unless it costs about 20% of a normal panel

    1. Re:Return on investment by MrTester · · Score: 2

      With normal solar panels you have to pay someone nearly as much as they cost to install them. These you can install yourself. That can cut the true total cost in half right there.
      TFA also states that it takes less sunlight to power these than traditional cells, so while they are less efficient, they will generate power for more of the day and on more days.

    2. Re:Return on investment by goffster · · Score: 1

      The only savings I could see were if the windows were in full sun and caused your place
      to heat up in summer. So the film might save some more in terms of cooling bills.

    3. Re:Return on investment by linatux · · Score: 1

      Might still work for me - I need to tint the windows on my bus/motorhome. Having a film that does this AND produces electricity would be a big bonus.

    4. Re:Return on investment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Normal solar panel takes 10-15 years to pay for itself. If it only produces 20% of a normal panel it won't be worth it unless it costs about 20% of a normal panel

      They cost half the price and when you factor in installation they are probably slightly more than traditional panels. Also with subsidies it's usually 3 to 7 years for payback. The real problem is given the small surface area and the low power density covering all your south facing windows won't have much impact on your power bills. They said one would charge a cell phone which means with all your south facing windows covered if everyone charges their cell phones at the same time the power is free. The office building example seemed more interesting than for the average home. Sounds more like a feel good product than anything practical. It'd be more interesting if you had a glass fronted house but the sad joke is if you did this for passive solar heating the energy saving may be a wash since you'd loose most of your solar heat.

    5. Re:Return on investment by joshuac · · Score: 1

      As someone has pointed out with some simple estimated values, you'll generate about a penny worth of electricity every 5 days. Or about $11 worth after 15 years...

    6. Re:Return on investment by ProfessorPillage · · Score: 2

      Assuming no subsidies anywhere along the production/sales/installation process making the solar panels feel artificially cheap.

      And what about the subsidies that make conventional electricity feel artificially cheap?

      Nor counting losses converting power to storage and back again to match energy demand that doesn't coincide with peak production.

      Solar production tends to match up pretty well with peak demand. Better than, say, regular power plants.

      ...or just use the usual tactic, ratchet up the subsidies a little more to further hide the underlying inefficiencies.

      You're right, it's only fair to subsidize energy from fossil fuel sources. You know, real energy.

    7. Re:Return on investment by wintersdark · · Score: 1

      Normal solar panel takes 10-15 years to pay for itself. If it only produces 20% of a normal panel it won't be worth it unless it costs about 20% of a normal panel

      It's not either/or. Maybe you already have solar panels on your roof, and want more? This increases your own power generation without, say, replacing your windows with solar panels. Sure, they are less efficient, but they also allow light to pass through allowing them to be used where traditional panels cannot be.

      --
      Meh.
    8. Re:Return on investment by Demonantis · · Score: 1

      I could see them being used in high end cars so that they never have the battery die. There are probably other instances where durable portable solar panels are desired. This would spur the R&D needed to bring the cost down until they would be used in house windows.

    9. Re:Return on investment by roc97007 · · Score: 2

      Ok hang on.

      I'm not a big fan of solar power, I think solar solutions are *way* oversold, but there are cases where they pay for themselves immediately.

      I had an issue where a new building on my property needed power. I had the city come out and mark where all the utilities were, so I could trench it myself and only have to hire out running the actual electrical and wiring it into the panel. (Which I could also do, but I'm not licensed so it'd put me in a legal grey area...)

      So I pick my path, and start digging the trench, and run into a pipe that wasn't on the city's plat map. It's obviously a wet pipe (water, sewage or drainage) and it's only 18 inches down, and it combines with the other utilities to make it impossible to trench from the new building to the existing house without crossing a utility. In my area, electrical MUST be buried 24 inches down and MUST NOT cross under a wet pipe. (It's ok for electrical to cross *over* a wet pipe as long as it's 24 inches below ground.)

      This resulted in making it impossible to run electricity to the building in any way I could afford. So I started looking into alternatives. Wind power was out, as wind is noisy and I have neighbors nearby. But solar looked like it would work.

      So I planned it out and (this is the point) to my utter amazement, the cost of the solar kit was *less* than the total cost of labor to wire the building into the house. Of course, I had to assemble and wire it myself, but I'm willing to trade sweat equity for having to hire contractors, and I learned valuable information useful to design a larger installation for the main house.

      So, I understand what you're saying, but in some cases, the savings, especially for a new installation, can be immediate, if total cost (not just the cost of power) is factored in.

      Consider: If you wire just one circuit to solar, and put your freezer and fridge on that circuit, you only have to save your food a couple times during major power outages before you've paid for the installation.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    10. Re:Return on investment by joshuac · · Score: 0

      You're right, it's only fair to subsidize energy from fossil fuel sources. You know, real energy.

      I never said it was "only fair to subsidize energy from fossil fuel sources".

      You're right though, fossil fuels (for example) are an actual energy source when compared to typical current photovoltaic solar panels which use more energy to produce than they'll generate over their lifetime (and that's before the conversion losses). The typical solar panel you see on a rooftop is really more a coal burning panel.

      Nothing against research into solar energy, just when you find people deploying with current technology onto their rooftops (or window panes) and announcing their "helping the environment" or that they have a "carbon neutral" energy source or that what they're doing makes economic sense is laughable.

    11. Re:Return on investment by rsborg · · Score: 1

      The only savings I could see were if the windows were in full sun and caused your place
      to heat up in summer. So the film might save some more in terms of cooling bills.

      Even roof-mounted photovoltaic cells reduce summer heat... think about it, all that energy hitting your roof, previously converting into mostly heat + some reflected light, replaced by photovoltaics that now convert mostly into electricity and some heat. With a much higher efficiency rate and larger surface area, the roof-mounted ones may "cool" your house better than the window ones do.

      Nowadays, most new houses are outfitted with Low-E or Super-Low-E (ie, argon sandwich) glass that insulates pretty well.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    12. Re:Return on investment by ProfessorPillage · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're right though, fossil fuels (for example) are an actual energy source when compared to typical current photovoltaic solar panels which use more energy to produce than they'll generate over their lifetime (and that's before the conversion losses). The typical solar panel you see on a rooftop is really more a coal burning panel.

      Now you're making things up. According to NREL, back in 2004, the time needed to generate the amount of energy used to produce solar panels was about 3-5 years or less, depending on the type of panels ( http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf ). The financial payback time (time to recover the dollar cost through savings on your bill) without subsidies is longer because you're paying for more than manufacturing energy, and because the competing technologies are both subsidized and are also larger, more established industries.

      According to Murphy & Hall ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1749-6632.2009.05282.x ), the EROI for PV is 6.8. That means it takes one unit of energy from somewhere else to result in 6.8 units of electricity from the panels. Compare that to natural gas, which has an EROI of 10, which means it takes 1 unit of energy from other sources to get enough gas out of the ground to burn for 10 units of energy. This comparison doesn't take into account that the "energy returned" is in the form of a finite resource you have to burn in the case of gas. In other words, with 1 unit of natural gas, you can generate 6.8 units of electricity by using it to build PV, or you can get around 0.4 units of electricity by burning it in a turbine, after deducting the amount needed to get another unit of gas out of the ground. For comparison, the same source says that nuclear power has an EROI of 5-15, and coal is higher at 80. Again, this doesn't take into account that you're using the fuel itself.

      Nothing against research into solar energy, just when you find people deploying with current technology onto their rooftops (or window panes) and announcing their "helping the environment" or that they have a "carbon neutral" energy source or that what they're doing makes economic sense is laughable.

      In terms of environmental impact, grid-tied solar power makes sense with today's technology (or 10-year old technology for that matter). In terms of dollar cost for putting it on residential roofs, maybe you don't save money without the subsidies. For the window film, who knows.

      Solar panels are not carbon-neutral, but they generate about 90% less greenhouse gas emissions than the conventional plants they displace, which are primarily coal- and gas-fired.

    13. Re:Return on investment by tragedy · · Score: 2

      The notion that solar cells produce less power than they take to make is pretty outdated if it was ever true to begin with. Look at
      this pdf from the DOE. The only kind of solar cells that dogma might actually apply to are high efficiency ones used for applications where cost-effectiveness isn't the point, but rather absolute effectiveness.

    14. Re:Return on investment by aphelion_rock · · Score: 2

      Normal panels are typically less than 20% efficient, so if these panels are only 20% of that then these panels are less than 4% efficient. - A lot of work for not much power.

    15. Re:Return on investment by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Except that these block enough light and tint the light that comes through to effectively eliminate a window from your house. So, you might as well cover your window with a solar cell shutter instead.

    16. Re:Return on investment by kenh · · Score: 1

      No, it will just take 50-75 years to pay for itself... But I'm sure, with adequate funding from the US Gov't 3M will get that cut in half!

      --
      Ken
    17. Re:Return on investment by dbIII · · Score: 2

      typical current photovoltaic solar panels which use more energy to produce than they'll generate over their lifetime

      Well, if you never take them out of the box and keep them stored in the dark that's going to happen.

      The really amusing thing here is the poster above submitted his rubbish via a computer that is now affordable due to vast energy savings over the last few decades in the production of silicon wafers. One guess as to what silicon solar cells are made from.

    18. Re:Return on investment by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      I had this exact debate with a good friend recently. When i pointed out that solar panels actually degrade with time, that their output lowers with time, and that the math gets a little more complex, he didn't quite believe me.

      I seem to recall one solar power company saying their panels can be expected to generate 50% of their original power levels after 20 years. That's not nearly as terrible as the turnover rate in smart phones, but its still worth factoring in as you mention.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    19. Re:Return on investment by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      You're right, it's only fair to subsidize energy from fossil fuel sources. You know, real energy.

      I never said it was "only fair to subsidize energy from fossil fuel sources".

      You're right though, fossil fuels (for example) are an actual energy source when compared to typical current photovoltaic solar panels which use more energy to produce than they'll generate over their lifetime (and that's before the conversion losses). The typical solar panel you see on a rooftop is really more a coal burning panel.

      Nothing against research into solar energy, just when you find people deploying with current technology onto their rooftops (or window panes) and announcing their "helping the environment" or that they have a "carbon neutral" energy source or that what they're doing makes economic sense is laughable.

      Indeed. People want to *feel* like they are doing something positive, even if what they are doing has no demonstrable benefit. This gap between desire and and reality is one of the drivers of the luxury market, and it leaves room to profit for both business and government. Alternative energy sources should be marketed as a luxury for people with enough disposable income to indulge their desires on a regular basis. But then it should be *taxed* for the luxury it really is, and not subsidized. Subsidies for luxuries are simply stupid, as Solyndra proved in spectacular fashion.

    20. Re:Return on investment by tragedy · · Score: 1

      The thing is, solar cells really don't take more energy to make than they'll produce in their service life. Not by a pretty huge margin. That's an old myth. It's possible it was true at one time of certain types of solar cells, but it just isn't true today. So please stop trying to accuse other people of being some kind of smugly superior snob when it's actually you that's trying to be smugly superior. People who put up solar cells on their home really are making a sensible long-term investment. It makes sense environmentally and financially, even though the financial aspect takes a lot longer to kick in than the environmental aspect.

      As for Solydra, it looks like they had a federal loan, which is different from a subsidy. It means that they were loaned money, as most businesses are, it was just the government who loaned them the money in this case. They've gone bankrupt, but only chapter 11 so far, not chapter 8, although it looks like their position as a political football will drive them completely out of business even if they could have otherwise saved themselves through a reorganisation. In any case, their creditors will seize their assets and try to recover what they can. Unfortunately, since their assets probably mostly consist of manufacturing facilities, and the US doesn't do manufacturing any more (at least, not of anything new) there probably won't be much of a return. Of course, it's one relatively small failure in an otherwise successful failure, but since there's an election coming up, that's going to be ignored by a lot of people. It also looks like their chief problem was competing with conventional solar cells made in China and the falling price of silicon manufacturing which is driven in part by Chinese federal loans to their own manufacturers. So, overall, I'm not sure what lesson Solyndra is supposed to have proved in a spectacular fashion. That China has the political will to dominate manufacturing and the US doesn't? Not to take federal loans because normal business failures will be criminalised and treated as a great scandal by political axe-grinders? Never to attempt to develop and market new technology intended to fill a particular price point niche because that niche could abruptly vanish?

  12. Cost will come down? by tp1024 · · Score: 1

    Come down from what level? No price is mentioned. No date is mentioned when the product will be delivered.

    To keep a short story short: Come back once the vapor has desublimated.

    1. Re:Cost will come down? by kenh · · Score: 1

      Half the price of conventional panels - we're using natural constants, not actual values.

      --
      Ken
  13. Half of a big number is still a big number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Solar panels are quite expensive, with at least a ~10 year payback. But at least they last 25+ years. A system that is 40% as cost efficient will need to last even longer, and it's hard to see any window film making it through 25 years. Plus you can orient panels at approximately the right inclination. There's not much you can do with the orientation of your windows.

    Maybe there's an application here for small system for locations off the grid, but honestly, a small panel seems like a better deal.

  14. Awesome by Moheeheeko · · Score: 1

    Now keep those damn kids and their baseballs away from my windows!

  15. Film Turns Windows Into Solar Panels by supersloshy · · Score: 1

    ...Coming to a theater near you! Rated NC-17 for violence and disturbing sexual imagery.

    --
    "Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
  16. Take that Linux! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See? Windows is much better for the environment. No one turns Linux into solar panels.

  17. Blinds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not create a version that can be applied to blinds. That way when you want the sun, you get the sun, and when you don't, you capture the energy from the sun.

    If you create the blinds yourself, the cable that runs the side of the blinds could be used to transport the power between each blind and if you added a motor, you could have automatic blinds (possibly with a timer).

  18. Half the price is still too much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Half the price and 20% of the output of a typical solar panel? Doesn't make sense. So now it only costs you $10K but it will take 50 years to pay for itself.

  19. Sounds like solid math to me! by C_Kode · · Score: 1

    80% less for only half the price? I'm sold! ...wait, wut?

  20. Film Turns Windows Into Solaris by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ5sL5niW2w

  21. economics fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So costs half as much for 20% of the output. or in other words is about 150% less economically viable than normal solar panels.

  22. Stupid idea by Hentes · · Score: 1

    If you convert light to electricity that means it won't pass through the window, thus destroying it's original function. You will end up using the generated electricity to power the lightbulbs.

    1. Re:Stupid idea by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. If you use compact fluorescent bulbs, then you're generating about the same amount of light without the heat, so overall, you save.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    2. Re:Stupid idea by Hentes · · Score: 1

      Those bulbs need 18W each, this panel generates max 7W/m^2 so maybe in a glass office building in summer it could work.

    3. Re:Stupid idea by galanom · · Score: 1

      How would you stalk at the girl next door with windows that don't allow the light come in?

  23. uneconomical by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

    The payback on normal solar panels is already in the 10-15+ year category for most installs. This tech costs 150% more on an output basis, so 25-40 year ROI? of windows are also far more prone to being broken then a solar panel installed on your roof hmmm think I will give this one a pass.

  24. This could breachs the space-time continuum!!! by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

    Combining Larry Elson with Steve Ballmer would form s material that could rend the very substance of space-time itself!!! Stop this madness before the universe is destroyed!!! There are some things that mere mortals should not even contemplate!!!

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  25. 80% is high visibility ?? by MycoMan · · Score: 2

    Paragraph 2 says: "still allows for high visibility."

    Paragraph 6 says: "The film blocks or absorbs about 80 percent of visible light"

    I am not an engineer - but can you actually prevent 80 % of visible light from getting through and really claim there is "high visibility" ?

    1. Re:80% is high visibility ?? by publiclurker · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall that people tint their car windows to a comparable level in California, to it's at least good enough for that.

    2. Re:80% is high visibility ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The human perception of light is logarithmic. 20% of broad daylight is still broad daylight. Actual darkness is out in a long tail.

    3. Re:80% is high visibility ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      does your sunglasses prevent you to see trough them? how much do they block of visible light?

    4. Re:80% is high visibility ?? by rocket+rancher · · Score: 2

      Paragraph 2 says: "still allows for high visibility."

      Paragraph 6 says: "The film blocks or absorbs about 80 percent of visible light"

      I am not an engineer - but can you actually prevent 80 % of visible light from getting through and really claim there is "high visibility" ?

      Indeed you can. In order to see clearly, humans need only a fraction of the visible light of a typical sunny day. During the day, your pupils are contracted, allowing relatively little of the available light to hit your retinas; you would be blinded by the glare if your pupils allowed all available light in. Blocking eighty percent of the light on a clear day at noon still leaves a lot of light, more than enough to see clearly with. Your pupils would simply dilate enough to compensate.

    5. Re:80% is high visibility ?? by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      As I posted elsewhere, sunlight is very bright.

      Blocking 80% of 107,500 lux is still brighter than the 100-150 lux recommended for workspaces.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
  26. Film Turns Windows Into Solar Panels... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and turns OSX into Moon Doors.

  27. Films convert things by AwesomeMcgee · · Score: 1

    Next up: Film turns Linux into date preventer

  28. Windowx XP? by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

    Or Vista?

  29. Average? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . 'An average person could go to the store, buy some of this, and then bring it home and install it themselves,' said Yasuhiro Aoyagi, a senior manager in the company's construction markets division."

    Define Average

  30. Possible greenwashing by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    I heard about this and started to do the math.
    " Aoyagi said a square meter of the material can generate about 5 volts at 7 watts under peak conditions, and can operate under far less sunlight than it takes to power a conventional panel, so it will be active for more of the day."
    Picture one meter^2 that is not a small area people.
    Next under peak conditions?
    Peak conditions means point south if you are in the northern hemisphere and at an angle that is equal to your latitude. Most windows are vertical so unless you live at one of the poles you are not going to be close.
    So let's say you will average half that and you have 10 meters of windows facing in the right direction and since your angle probably sucks. So let's be really generous and say that you will average half of that peak for 8 hours on a hot summer day. So we are talking about 35 watts for 8 hours. Or enough to run maybe one laptop.
    Sky scrapers will have less window area on average per person and will have the problem of shadows unless they are the only building in the area.
    Now the blocking IR is really cool and if it is cheap enough then it might be worth it just for that. Maybe make cooling windows where the glass powers a small Peltier cooler that chills the inside of the window while heating the outside. Triple glazed of course.
    One of those things that sounds cool but I do not see the math working out well unless it is just super cheap.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  31. In related news... by Alsee · · Score: 1

    I've invented a solar panel that's 20% the size of a traditional solar panel, produces 20% of the power of a traditional solar panel, and I'm selling it at half the price of a traditional solar panel!

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  32. Car window tinting by mug+funky · · Score: 1

    this stuff would be perfect as a contingency to leaving your lights on... let the car sit for a while and it'll charge the battery enough to start the engine.

  33. In related news ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... I'm working on a way to get my dog's nose to apply this. I'll be rich!

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  34. Stained glass windows? by westlake · · Score: 1

    So.

    A link to an article about windows without any pictures.

    As a homeowner, I need to know how much light this will block, how much heat this will block. I need to know how the color and "texture" of the light will change.

    Upholstery is expensive.

    Flooring and carpeting are expensive. Wall coverings and window treatments are expensive.

    Is the transparency good enough not to significantly impair a view for which I have paid a great deal of money?

    1. Re:Stained glass windows? by jqpublic13 · · Score: 1

      Flooring and carpeting are expensive. Wall coverings and window treatments are expensive.

      Is the transparency good enough not to significantly impair a view for which I have paid a great deal of money?

      Do you spend a lot of time staring into your home from the outside?

      --
      Non calor sed umor est qui nobis incommodat.
  35. Useless on homes by aXis100 · · Score: 1

    Apart from a few special cases, this going to be mostly useless for well designed houses - main windows facing the equator with a small verandah.

    In summer - when the sun is strong - you dont want to sun to be hitting your windows as it will cause unwanted heating. The small verandah blocks this because of the high elevation of the sun.
    In winter - when the sun is weak - you want as much light into the house as possible to supplement heating. The low elevation of the sun gets past the verandah, but if the solar panels are absorbing some of that it will just drive up heating costs.

  36. Fake specific numbers hiding a fuzzy lie by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The numbers are going to vary depending on how much grid electricity costs where you are, how much electricity you use, how much sun you get, which panels you use, how much 12V DC stuff you run, how much you run through an inverter and which inverter you have. I probably left a few things out - batteries for one thing but not all installations have them.
    Since reality is so hard to pin down you have to ask yourself where the confidence of the above post comes from. Is it ignorance and just parroting some specific case? Or is some petty little agenda being pushed to put those greasy engineers and smelly hippies in their place as mere consumers instead of rocking the boat? Either way the above poster IMHO deserves contempt.
    Two decades ago some solar panels in the right place paid for themselves on installation if they cost less than getting a line in from the grid. It's not just about being green.

    1. Re:Fake specific numbers hiding a fuzzy lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the Netherlands solar panels cost about 1.80 Euro's/Wp including roof mounting systems, inverters and cables. Even in our regularly clouded piece of this rock, pay-back time is about 8 years without any subsidizing because of our high (consumer) electricity prices. The funny thing is, there is no pay-back time, there is a actually a pay-back date! Because prices are still rocketing towards zero: http://solarbuzz.com/sites/default/files/facts_figs/modules_trend_09.png Next year, the pay-back time will be 7 years, etc.

  37. Window placement is an issue by Tweezak · · Score: 1
    The layout of older homes probably won't let owners take advantage of this. Many homes were designed with few if any windows that are in direct sunlight. The south facing wall in my house has no windows at all. In northern hemispheres homes are often designed so that south facing windows are beneath long eaves that block the high midday sun during the summer months but are short enough to let the sun warm the floor (often tile) inside the windows during the winter when the sun is low in the sky.

    It's kind of too bad that the market for this will probably be very limited and it likely will not be successful.

  38. No thanks, I'd prefer my window to let in light. by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

    This stuff absorbs 80% of the visible light that hits your window. That might be fine in places where the sun shines very intensely - it's about the same transparency and very dark sunglasses. However, I would not want this on my windows during already-dark New York winters!

  39. Combine with SmartGlass by oberhaus · · Score: 1

    The film already blocks 80% of visible light, but it would be complete if it was combined with electrochromatic windows.

  40. Self-defeating to dim your window? by Seor+Jojoba · · Score: 1

    Windows let light in, which you'd otherwise use electricity to generate. Although the film is see-through, it must reduce the amount of incoming light. I'm not an expert, but wouldn't the effectiveness of the film increase proportionately to the amount of light it absorbed without passing through? It seems like a window is not the best place to put a solar collector, even if it is easier than installing on a roof or other surfaces.

  41. Re:No thanks, I'd prefer my window to let in light by Seor+Jojoba · · Score: 1
    Yeah, but you could use the collected electricity to power your light bulbs!

    (Just kidding.)

  42. I'm sure. by anethema · · Score: 1

    How exactly would the average person go to the store, get some, and install it themselves?

    Are they going to run the wire to the charge controllers? They are probably in the basement with the batteries, so as with most solar you're looking at a fairly major install. Except in this case it is on the windows so the wires are coming from every part of the house.

    How about set their battery banks up properly ? Plan them out for winter vs summer in terms of sun time per day.

    How about grid-tie ? Otherwise you're stuck with battery for some stuff, grid for others.

    So MAYBE they could be trusted to stick it to the window. But then what? A solar install is a lot more than screwing down a solar panel.

    --


    It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
  43. You guys are missing the big story here by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Although the product only generates about 20% of the electricity of a traditional solar panel, it will cost about half as much, is much easier to install, and takes up no additional space.

    This guy has invented a film that takes up no additional space — it's two-dimensional! It must be horribly dangerous to install, imagine the paper cuts. Sinclair Molecule Chain, eat your heart out.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  44. Multilayer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If my calculations are correct (and they usually are) ... just install 5 layers of these to gain equal power production compared to a traditional solar panel!

    Now, where's my Nobel!

  45. video of this product being put an hour before noo by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    Film at 11.

    Thanks, I'll be here all day...

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw