UCLA Develops Transparent, Electricity-Generating, Solar Cell Windows

70% ? by Skarecrow77 · 2012-07-23 03:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

so, like about as transparent as your shower door with some soap scum on it? 30% obfuscation seems like a lot...

Re:70% ? by Chuckstar · 2012-07-23 03:52 · Score: 5, Informative

Transparency is merely how much of the light gets through. What you are talking about is translucency (i.e. scattering). There's no indication from the article that there is significant scattering. It would just look like you had tinting on the window.
Re:70% ? by Skarecrow77 · 2012-07-23 03:53 · Score: 2

ah my mistake.
Re:70% ? by rhsanborn · 2012-07-23 03:54 · Score: 3, Informative

There is a photo in the article. It's more like tinting your windows.
Re:70% ? by Orsmo · 2012-07-23 03:56 · Score: 1

Blocking 30% of visible light doesn't mean obfuscating what's on the other side. It means simply letting less light through. Think lightly (30% is lightly) tinted windows, not soap scum on the shower door.

--
-- Begin thoughtfuly, end insensitively.
It has more impact that way.
Re:70% ? by Spectre · 2012-07-23 03:56 · Score: 5, Informative

Transparency is merely how much of the light gets through. What you are talking about is translucency (i.e. scattering). There's no indication from the article that there is significant scattering. It would just look like you had tinting on the window.
And not very much tinting, either. 70% transparent would just look like glass, if you didn't have something to compare it to. Even 90% tinting (10% transparent), as long as it is reasonably uniform at different color transmissions, doesn't interfere with vision at all ... sunglasses block more light than that!

--
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
Re:70% ? by Gr8Apes · 2012-07-23 04:01 · Score: 2

70% transparent is noticeable, but generally a nice amount, especially on south/west facing windows.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:70% ? by Chuckstar · 2012-07-23 04:28 · Score: 1

I think his point was that if you were inside a building that all the windows had the exact same 70% transparency, you'd have a hard time answering the question "is there tinting on this window". Whereas if someone said "here's two windows" and one was 70% and one was 90%, you'd be able to totally tell the difference. We're just not that good at detecting the difference between "full daylight" and "70% of full daylight", unless we're directly comparing the two.
Re:70% ? by Rei · 2012-07-23 04:30 · Score: 4, Informative

Given that untinted window glass is in the 80-90% range, 70% isn't bad at all.
Remember that you don't perceive brightness linearly. Its several orders of magnitude brighter outside on a sunny day than it is in a very well-lit room inside, but it doesn't feel that way. Think of how many light bulbs you'd need to have to match 1000W/m^2, factoring in also that even fluorescent and LED bulbs lose the lion's share of their energy as heat.

--
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Re:70% ? by Art+Challenor · 2012-07-23 04:30 · Score: 1

You have to wonder if a high R-Value wall with "traditional" solar panels, correctly oriented, along with LED monitor "windows" and daylight LED (or CFL) bulbs would be more energy efficient.

With LED monitors you could pick your location to match your mood. Summer in the Caribbean and winter in the Alps!
Re:70% ? by Chuckstar · 2012-07-23 04:30 · Score: 1

BUT, 70% might be low enough that when you walked outside and saw how bright it really was, you might think to yourself "oh, yeah... definitely that was tinted in there".
Re:70% ? by v1 · 2012-07-23 04:33 · Score: 1

I was just thinking this sounds like a nice way to get some power from your tinting. But I wonder how useful it is in reality? And attaching wires to a roll-down window will increase mechanical complexity and add will eventually wear out the wires leading to the window or whatever track mechanism you're going to use to transfer power.
I assume this has been tested to work with safety glass? And you can't tint your front or rear windows legally. Probably would make getting a window replaced significantly more expensive when the neighbor kid gets careless with his pellet gun.

--
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Re:70% ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 04:57 · Score: 0

Probably would make getting a window replaced significantly more expensive when the neighbor kid gets careless with his pellet gun.
Maybe your neighbour's kid will learn after you decide that maybe you should be more careful with your fists after your window is shot out.
Re:70% ? by WillDraven · 2012-07-23 05:09 · Score: 1

How barbaric! Don't you know that these days we threaten and harass our neighbors with lawyers, not violence!~

--
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Re:70% ? by Soluzar · 2012-07-23 05:13 · Score: 1

"And you can't tint your front or rear windows legally."
Are you thinking of car windows? It's the only way this comment makes any sense to me.
Re:70% ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 05:14 · Score: 0

He may just have gotten confused by the depth of field of the picture and the focusing on the cells. Kidding.
Re:70% ? by cpu6502 · 2012-07-23 05:42 · Score: 2

Would be more effective to get rid of the windows entirely (or shrink them to tiny size), since there is more energy LOSS through the window than any other part of the house. Thousands of kilowatt-hours of heat (or cool) leak through glass via conduction. Meanwhile the embedded-solar would only generate a few hundred. Overall a huge net loss.

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:70% ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 09:03 · Score: 1

so, like about as transparent as your shower door with some soap scum on it? 30% obfuscation seems like a lot...
Note to self: never shower at Skarecrow77's house...
Re:70% ? by T+Murphy · 2012-07-23 09:12 · Score: 1

By the way, you might want to throw out your soap-scum-encrusted glasses and get a proper pair of sunglasses.

--
My webcomic
Re:70% ? by Gr8Apes · 2012-07-23 13:45 · Score: 1

That would be before or after you've poured a small amount of sugar into the tank of their Ferrari?

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:70% ? by fustakrakich · 2012-07-23 14:55 · Score: 1

Would be more effective to get rid of the windows entirely...
Yes, replace them with outdoor cameras and hang flat screen TVs on the wall. Play nature sounds (if you can find any that aren't copyrighted) on the speakers for added effect.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:70% ? by justforgetme · 2012-07-23 18:19 · Score: 1

Actually I was in a lecture on photography that referred to that. Now if we only could make the windows blur out the things I don't like to see......

--
-- no sig today
Re:70% ? by justforgetme · 2012-07-23 18:22 · Score: 1

Simulated windows only work when you are stationary. once you move the illusion dissipates and you only perceive them for what they really are (failed mind controlling devices designed with the disillusioned hopes of making you work harder) from then on.

--
-- no sig today
Re:70% ? by WOOFYGOOFY · 2012-07-24 05:37 · Score: 1

Windows have what's known as a VT rating or visible transmittance rating. Just a plain pane of glass 3-4 mm thick has a VT of about 90-93%. Two such panes bring it down to 80-86%, and that's without any other kind of coating or anything else. Some windows on the market today have a VT of just 15%, and people still buy them . To most people at VT of about 60% looks clear. 30% on this technology would give a 70% VT if nothing else reduces it.

made in China by zeroryoko1974 · 2012-07-23 03:53 · Score: 0

Chinese probably already copying the plans, and will undercut any American made product by as much as it takes to put them out of business

Re:made in China by sumdumass · 2012-07-23 04:01 · Score: 1

Don't worry, Some politicians will request a new stimulus package because throwing money in the air has worked so well so far. We will end up funding those Chinese with money we borrowed from them in the process _again_.
Re:made in China by zeroryoko1974 · 2012-07-23 08:44 · Score: 0

And then we will elect those same politicians again and again

exclamation marks look terrible here by CalRobert · 2012-07-23 03:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Want to sound like a fourth grader shilling their science project? Use exclamation marks in your summary.

Re:exclamation marks look terrible here by Chris+Burke · 2012-07-23 04:45 · Score: 2

Thanks! I was wondering how they found me out at the 4th grade science fair.

--

The enemies of Democracy are

XSUNX Research by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 03:55 · Score: 5, Informative

Disclosure: I am not an investor or employee.

The company XSUNX has been doing this for a few years with Copper Indium Gallium Diselenide (as a competitor to Silicon and which theoretically is supposed to be better for the environment), generating thin film solar power that you can see through. Their first generation was a smoky amber glass with slight distortion; their current generation film is more like a tinted window.

Re:XSUNX Research by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 04:08 · Score: 0

That's a really catchy and marketable name there. For both the company name and the product. XSUXX CIGD!!! BUY IT!!!
Call it something like "Tinted Miracle Film with 50% more Electron-Migration Power" instead. Like hair care products, people buy that marketing crap all the time.
Re:XSUNX Research by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 08:19 · Score: 0

XSUNX is the stupidest name for a company, ever.
Every juvenile japanophile or pothead on the internet has a handle like "xXx420HEMPIONEERxXx" or "~XXxEvilSexyKefkaxXX~". "XSUNX" fits right in.
I don't know why we are in this period of having stupid, trendy, or "unique" naming schemes for companies.

Does it come in styles for Automobiles by mitcheli · 2012-07-23 03:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

I could use some for my Prius...

--
Select from tblFriends where interesting >= 4;

Re:Does it come in styles for Automobiles by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 06:33 · Score: 0

I'd like to see this couplee with something that could capture the heat energy trapped inside my car during our 100+ degree weather and convert that to electricity as well.
If it is hot enough to melt speaker grills (seen that happen) surely something can be done with that energy as well.

Tell me slashdot... by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-07-23 03:58 · Score: 0

..why this is impractical and won't ever work.

Re:Tell me slashdot... by gregulator · 2012-07-23 04:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

It is impractical because the cost to manufacture the solar cell is much mroe expensive than the energy it will create over the lifetime of the cell. (*assuming it is like every other solar product.)
It WILL work when the cost of the solar cell goes down; or when the cost of every other source of energy rises.
Re:Tell me slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 04:07 · Score: 1

This is impractical and will never work.
Re:Tell me slashdot... by Baloroth · 2012-07-23 04:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

Not true, if TFA is to be believed:

"Our new PSCs are made from plastic-like materials and are lightweight and flexible," he said. "More importantly, they can be produced in high volume at low cost."
Of course, I'll believe that when I see the bill. However, if it works as they say about the only downside is that you won't get as much heat during cold winters through the windows. That's actually about it. Oh yeah, and they are polymers so they may require oil to be produced (maybe, not sure and don't care enough to find out). Maybe some Slashdoter could get worked up about that or something.

--
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
Re:Tell me slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 04:11 · Score: 1

Same old bullshit about the cost to manufacture solar cells... No, it doesn't cost more to manufacture than you get back over the lifetime of the cell. And that's before you consider that the cell should last 25 years (and probably a lot longer) and the cost of electricity in 25 years may be following rather sharper price curves than you'd like.
Re:Tell me slashdot... by Rei · 2012-07-23 04:36 · Score: 1

In fact, the data that I've seen shows that one type of solar cell (CIGS) can actually *increase* in power output over time. Unlike with silicon cells, where there's a small (usually tapering off) loss over time, the "damage" from ionizing radiation can help remove defects in CIGS cells, functioning as a slow annealing stage.

--
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Re:Tell me slashdot... by Tyr07 · 2012-07-23 05:09 · Score: 1

There's solar equipment to power houses that will provide a return on the investment on current power prices in 5-10 years, like expensive 10k+ units.
These are from profit companies, if they were not profitable, they would not be in business.
Based on economics, this implies that solar cells do actually generate more power than they consume over the lifetime of the cell.
Not all cells or technologies right now naturally, but your generalization cannot be applied to all forms of solar technology.
Re:Tell me slashdot... by mwlewis · 2012-07-23 05:28 · Score: 1

As far as being profitable, does that include the impact of government subsidies (e.g., tax credits)?

--
JOIN US FOR PONG!
Re:Tell me slashdot... by undefinedreference · 2012-07-23 05:35 · Score: 1

Because you just turned little Timmy's baseball mishap into a much more expensive repair. Five of the ten years you need to recoup your costs, tweaker Billy breaks your window to steal your stuff. Window washer Joe uses a dirty rag to clean your window and leaves it hazy/scratched. There are many reasons it would be less-than-practical. Unless it is as cheap as window tinting and/or included in every window made, the cost risk almost certainly exceeds the value of the energy harvested.
Re:Tell me slashdot... by Tyr07 · 2012-07-23 05:36 · Score: 1

No, that chain runs too deep ;)
But, if using renewable energy such as solar technology to power processes to create solar technology...then?
Re:Tell me slashdot... by mwlewis · 2012-07-23 05:42 · Score: 1

Depends on the return on investment. Even if the return is positive, there may be more efficient ways to deploy that capital. At least until the technology matures enough to become competitive with alternatives. Of course, the glut of natural gas is pushing that point into the future right now.

--
JOIN US FOR PONG!
Re:Tell me slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 05:48 · Score: 0

I can't keep windows in tact for 25 years. I have children, neighbors with children and a lawnmower.
Re:Tell me slashdot... by xstonedogx · 2012-07-23 06:13 · Score: 1

The reduced heat in the winter is probably offset by the reduced heat in the summer (for those using AC), but...
You will also have 30% less light coming through your windows. It's going to get dark inside your house earlier in the evening, requiring you to turn on lights.
Using a transparent (or even opaque) film on the siding makes a lot more sense to me.
Re:Tell me slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 06:24 · Score: 0

It will not be 30% less light because normal windows do not allow 100% light through. It will be at most 20% less light. Having to turn on lights 5 minutes sooner isn't likely to suck up huge amounts of additional power.
Re:Tell me slashdot... by Chuckstar · 2012-07-23 07:21 · Score: 1

This is much more interesting for commercial building use than for the home. At home, you're better off shading your windows and just using less AC. Once you get above tree height the math goes the other way. Cover as much of the facade as possible, including vision glass, with photovoltaics. They're already using both transparent and non-transparent photovoltaic on tall building facades.
Re:Tell me slashdot... by jpapon · 2012-07-23 08:44 · Score: 1

I think you're overselling how often windows in a house get broken. I haven't had a window break in any house I've lived in for at least 10, if not 20 years. Not to mention, these are plastic, so they are probably harder to break than glass.

--
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
Re:Tell me slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 08:51 · Score: 0

As other have pointed out, untinted windows are 80-90% transmissivity, and human brightness perception doesn't work linearly. It's not anywhere near as big an issue as you're thinking.
Besides, a big use for this is probably going to be large, window-covered skyscrapers. Think about those. Their windows often have lower transmissivities already, and your "film on the siding" wouldn't work well for them.
Re:Tell me slashdot... by fl!ptop · 2012-07-23 09:44 · Score: 1
..why this is impractical and won't ever work.
Off the top of my head, I can think of a few reasons this won't work in my house during the summer, when the sun is most plentiful and we have the least amount of overcast days where I live:
- Because now I have to cut down all the trees that shade my house and help keep it cool in the summer
- Because none of my unshaded windows face the East/South/West.
- Because the awnings that block the hot summer sun on windows that aren't shaded by trees will have to be removed, meaning the interior of my house will be hotter, meaning the a/c will run more.
--
When you recognize love in another and realize how precious it is, everything else seems so insignificant.
Re:Tell me slashdot... by GameboyRMH · 2012-07-23 10:43 · Score: 1

Oh not this bullshit again. That was for space-grade solar panels as used on satellites, not all solar cells.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:Tell me slashdot... by undefinedreference · 2012-07-23 11:29 · Score: 1

True, I haven't seen children playing like they used to, particularly in urban and suburban areas for at least 15-20 years. When I was a kid we played outside a lot, in spite of my interest in computers and early hobby programming, and I'd estimate that 2-4 windows were lost to mishaps on my street every year. That doesn't count criminal activity, which breaks quite a few.
Plastic is still easier to scratch.
Re:Tell me slashdot... by undefinedreference · 2012-07-23 11:32 · Score: 1

This makes perfect sense.
Where I live (top floor of a condo tower), there's not much that ever touches the outside of my windows. Even inside there's not much that could fall and break one. The biggest issue is birds running into them, which happens far more often than you might imagine.

Its not slow glass by toygeek · 2012-07-23 03:58 · Score: 1

So I'm not interested.

--
Nobodies Prefect
Tidbits for Techs Technology Blog

Incandescent bulbs return? by vlm · 2012-07-23 04:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

produces energy by absorbing mainly infrared light instead of traditional visible light

Unclear how much energy you get in exchange for adsorbing 30% of the visible light and probably all the IR. However, if its a lot of light, it might be worthwhile to dip old fashioned incandescent bulbs into this goo. Rather optimistically, if it can generate more than 40% of the nameplate wattage by adsorbing all the IR and 30% of the visible, then you'd get ahead by recycling that power back into the grid. Not a perpetual motion machine, because 70% of the visible is still leaking out the lampshade, but it would be like the world's weirdest phosphor basically eating IR photons and emitting visible photons.

This does bring up the interesting point for unshaded windows, if it eats 30% of visible light, that merely means you need 30% more ultra-low-R value window area, or 30% more lightbulbs inside to brighten the room back up. So its not going to work well for windows in rooms where the drapes are always open and people are always inside. Great idea for my garage or bedroom (why do those have windows, anyway?) terrible idea for my office / kitchen / living room. Solar panel covered shutters seem like a good idea for the garage and bedroom... if the panels are rockin don't come a knockin or whatever.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger

Re:Incandescent bulbs return? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 04:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

Bedrooms have windows so you have at least two escape route in case of fire.
Re:Incandescent bulbs return? by blueg3 · 2012-07-23 04:33 · Score: 1

It can't be more efficient than using light sources that don't emit the IR radiation in the first place.
If a room is well-lit by windows, you don't need any additional window to remain well-lit. A 30% reduction in light for something that's well-lit, particularly by daylight, is not really noticeable. (Rather, you can only tell if you have both available for comparison. If you reduced the transmission of your windows by 30%, your eyes would simply adjust.)
Re:Incandescent bulbs return? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 04:46 · Score: 0

This does bring up the interesting point for unshaded windows, if it eats 30% of visible light, that merely means you need 30% more ultra-low-R value window area, or 30% more lightbulbs inside to brighten the room back up. So its not going to work well for windows in rooms where the drapes are always open and people are always inside. Great idea for my garage or bedroom (why do those have windows, anyway?) terrible idea for my office / kitchen / living room. Solar panel covered shutters seem like a good idea for the garage and bedroom... if the panels are rockin don't come a knockin or whatever.
I was with you on the first paragraph ... but you lost me here.
To assume that 30% more lightbulb would be required is to assume that the current lighting provided by the sun is precisely the correct amount, and any more/less would be a problem. It's not. In fact, during these summer months, my living room is too damn bright. A 30% tint would be a godsend.
Re:Incandescent bulbs return? by jfengel · 2012-07-23 04:54 · Score: 1

Generally, daylight produces more light than you get from light bulbs. Your eyes adjust so you see just as well either way, but most of the light is unnecessary and eventually devolves to heat.
That heat is useful in cold climes, and obviously this device will be most useful in sunny places. At that, it might even help cool the room as well as producing electricity.
Re:Incandescent bulbs return? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 05:45 · Score: 0

I thought bedroom windows were for spying on people?
Re:Incandescent bulbs return? by vlm · 2012-07-23 06:02 · Score: 1

Bedrooms have windows so you have at least two escape route in case of fire.
A door would be cheaper and better insulated than any window.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Incandescent bulbs return? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 06:04 · Score: 0

produces energy by absorbing mainly infrared light instead of traditional visible light
Unclear how much energy you get in exchange for adsorbing 30% of the visible light and probably all the IR. However, if its a lot of light, it might be worthwhile to dip old fashioned incandescent bulbs into this goo. Rather optimistically, if it can generate more than 40% of the nameplate wattage by adsorbing all the IR and 30% of the visible, then you'd get ahead by recycling that power back into the grid. Not a perpetual motion machine, because 70% of the visible is still leaking out the lampshade, but it would be like the world's weirdest phosphor basically eating IR photons and emitting visible photons.
Yeah, you could do that. Or you could just use a spherical capsule with a film reflecting IR back onto the filament and passing visible, like they've been doing for years? Google HIR or IRC....
Re:Incandescent bulbs return? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 06:18 · Score: 0

However, if its a lot of light, it might be worthwhile to dip old fashioned incandescent bulbs into this goo.
Have you ever touched an incandescent light when it is on? Since this is a plastic, I would assume it would melt right off, even if you could work out the whole 'light uses AC, generator makes DC' issue while maintaining the cost advantage.
Nice thought, but I just don't see that working. I like incandescent too because they are instant on, (I have yet to find a florescent that actually works like this) works in all temperatures (from -40 in winter for outside lights, florescent come on VERY slow in winter) to ovens (plastic casing on florescents and LEDs would melt), and do not have directionality (the LEDs I got did not shine peripherally, we had to put a CFL in the LED chandler for the kitchen or else the corners were dark).
Overall, I like the IDEA of the other lights, the electrical savings should be nice, but they just don't seem to have that 'it just works' factor.
Re:Incandescent bulbs return? by AchilleTalon · 2012-07-23 06:35 · Score: 2

If efficiency is comparable to other cells, a good efficiency would be around 25%. Also, IR light is lower in the energy EM spectrum. I don't know how important it could in that case, we do not have much information about these new panels.
In cold climates, these panels may not be a good idea since instead of reflecting IR, it absorbs it. So, a part of the energy spent to heat the building will feed these panels instead of heating the inside. Again, we need more data to compare both alternatives.

--
Achille Talon
Hop!
Re:Incandescent bulbs return? by gtbritishskull · 2012-07-23 06:52 · Score: 1

Posting to undo butterfinger mod.
Re:Incandescent bulbs return? by mattack2 · 2012-07-23 07:49 · Score: 1

A door would be cheaper and better insulated than any window.
What if there's a fire by that door? (Do you mean multiple doors?)
Is a door really better insulated when there's usually a crack below the door (and it's likely not perfectly sealed on the other edges too)? It seems like most outside doors aren't insulated well.
Re:Incandescent bulbs return? by T+Murphy · 2012-07-23 09:38 · Score: 1

Absorb and adsorb are two different things, they are not interchangable (however they are similar). If something absorbs water, it means it draws water into it, while if it adsorbs water, it means it holds the water to its surface. Either phenomena would result in the material picking up the water, so the end result is more or less the same. Unless you're sure you mean adsorb, just use absorb to refer to one object taking in another.

That said, if adsorb really is the technically appropriate term here, I would be interested in learning more.

--
My webcomic
Re:Incandescent bulbs return? by Stormthirst · 2012-07-23 12:39 · Score: 1

They are if you're Rick Santorium
Re:Incandescent bulbs return? by Neil+Boekend · 2012-07-23 18:05 · Score: 1

if you could work out the whole 'light uses AC, generator makes DC' issue while maintaining the cost advantage.
Incandescents work perfectly on DC. You other argument was important though.

Nice thought, but I just don't see that working. I like incandescent too because they are instant on, (I have yet to find a fluorescent that actually works like this)

fluorescents are slow, true. Try Leds for the instant-on places (like the bathroom, it's hard to aim in the dark), if your house wiring is good enough. Do you really need instant on in the living room? That blinding brightnes at the moment you flip the switch? I'd hate it. I love my slow dimmable fluorescents for those applications.

works in all temperatures (from -40 in winter for outside lights, fluorescent come on VERY slow in winter)

There are low temp fluorescents. They still contain a significant amount of mercury (normal fluorescents don't. The 1 milligram they have is neglectable). LEDs might help there to.

into ovens (plastic casing on fluorescents and LEDs would melt),

True. That's the only place I still have an incandescent light.

and do not have directionality (the LEDs I got did not shine peripherally, we had to put a CFL in the LED chandler for the kitchen or else the corners were dark).
Fluorescents can help you there. They shine all around. Leds are getting there, but I don't know if they are (haven't had to replace one in a while. Philips has LED candle shaped ones. I'd advise those in a chandelier.

Do you really need one type of bulb in all cases? If the power in your house is any kind of decent then these bulbs will last 5 times what the incandescents did. This means you don't have to have as many spares. If one breaks, insert the spare of that type that you do have (regardless of light output) and get a new one the next time you are at the shop. This'll happen once a year or so (if your power is decent) so the few days of to much or to little light in that one corner is no problem IMHO.

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Re:Incandescent bulbs return? by Rei · 2012-07-23 22:11 · Score: 1

Well, as mentioned elsewhere, you're limited not just by the standard issues of solar cells, but also by more relevant entropy limits. If your solar cell is being hit by ambient radiated heat IR and is radiating IR in the same range, it's impossible to generate power without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Even though it's not technically a heat engine, you can treat a solar cell as an indirect heat engine subject to the limits of Carnot's theorum (as Carnot's theorum is simply a direct consequence of the limits of entropy between two temperature wells - if you can exceed it, you can create perpetual motion with an efficient heat pump that restores heat to the hot well).
Thankfully, the filament in incandescent bulbs is ~2750K, which means it's technically possible to get up to almost 90% efficiency without violating the laws of thermodynamics. Of course, real-world cells won't give you that, as you note. Not to mention that that assumes you're capturing all of the visible light, too!

--
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
Re:Incandescent bulbs return? by t14m4t · 2012-07-24 07:38 · Score: 1

Incandescent bulbs are hot from heat, not IR. There's a lot of IR, as well, which may make this kind of coating worthwhile; but, the heat will still radiate.

--
67.5% Slashdot Pure I guess I need to work on that.... :)

This is awesome! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 04:03 · Score: 0

This is a groundbreaking advancement. As long as they're efficiency and cost are comparable to traditional solar panels this will go a long way towards weening us off of fossil fuels. If the weight can be kept down it could also be a nice boon to electric (or even combustion) cars and trucks.

Efficiency? Cost? by hattig · 2012-07-23 04:05 · Score: 1

So you could install these in your car, and keep your battery topped up at all times, *and* have tinted windows...

If these are as cheap as they say they are, then even if they aren't very efficient, it could be worth installing them on suitable windows, especially in offices.

But until they can put figures to efficiency and cost, it's just self-promotion using a promise of something, rather than the thing itself. Tell me when I can buy a 10m roll of "70% Transparent Energy Film" that I can cut to shape and install.

Re:Efficiency? Cost? by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-07-23 04:13 · Score: 1

Even if solar is far away or never will become a primary energy source it makes a great backup or supplementary source of power. I live in a house that is covered almost entirely with shade except for a portion of my garage. That small portion of garage is another to charge up a dozen of my DC gadgets.
It's not a lot, but it is something. Think of the exposure to sunlight that cars have on the road. Yes... if you can get enough juice out the material it could top off you battery nicely.
Re:Efficiency? Cost? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 04:22 · Score: 0

Efficiency is not an issue is it. No matter what they do, no solar tech will ever get better than 20% efficient. http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/invention/pscrl.pdf
Re:Efficiency? Cost? by hattig · 2012-07-23 05:20 · Score: 1

Apparently this film is 4% efficient. So if it's perfectly placed you'll be getting 40W during sunlight hours per m^2, compared to 200W from a 20% efficient panel.
So efficiency is an issue when you have ~4m^2 of south facing windows. Better off sticking it on the roof instead, that's more like 10m^2 and a more favourable angle. But only if the cost is dirt cheap, and I'm talking hundreds, not thousands.
Re:Efficiency? Cost? by Belial6 · 2012-07-23 05:36 · Score: 1

The question I would have is if it can produce enough electricity to power an LCD film put over the same window. Slap a battery into the window casing, and you have self powered windows that don't need curtains.
Re:Efficiency? Cost? by gbjbaanb · 2012-07-23 07:42 · Score: 1

it's all relative. The problem with traditional solar panels is there's a limited area you can place them - typically on the roof, and often at an angle to get the most sunlight, thus reducing the number of panels further.
But if you look at most office blocks, they're practically all glass. Even at 1/5th efficiency of traditional panels, if you can put at least 5 times as much area of them in, then you will get more power out. Ratio of window to roof on a modern skyscraper towerblock is a lot more than 5:1.
But, you have to factor in the cost of the film too - if it costs $1m per sq foot, then you won't be using much of it. It would have to cost enough to recoup the outlay in generated power over a few years to be commerically worthwhile. For example, 10 years to recoup investment is probably too long as I doubt they'll last.
Re:Efficiency? Cost? by Rei · 2012-07-23 22:26 · Score: 1

Efficiency is not an issue is it. No matter what they do, no solar tech will ever get better than 20% efficient
Fascinating, because just from a quick Google search I find a company selling~30% efficient solar cells today, and that Sharp is at 43.5% in lab cells. I swear I've seen cells in the 30%s being sold commercially (albeit at very high prices), but I forget which company it was.

--
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."

Re:More liberal bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 04:07 · Score: 4, Funny

Do you know what's even more plentiful and cheaper than fossil fuels? Poor people. We should be burning them instead.

Make it controllable by Hentes · 2012-07-23 04:11 · Score: 1

If this stuff could be further developed so that you would be able to turn it on and off like smart glass it would be a good alternative of shades, generating electricity from excess light. Trying to only convert IR light is a clever idea, but the electricity you get from that isn't much, you are much better off putting a panel on the roof.

Spy product by vlm · 2012-07-23 04:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

So if I replaced a section of optical fiber with this stuff, it would look on the OTDR like the worlds most uninteresting little bump (oh look, sloppy winding in the splice case results in a minor bump, eh who cares) and I could detect the electrical field... Sounds like a optical tap design.

Of course a beam splitter would probably be a lot simpler, but supposedly there does not exist a beamsplitter design that doesn't inherently create what amounts to multipath that "looks like a beamsplitter" on a OTDR so simply doing something weird when you're tapping might help avoid detection.

The only undetectable optical tap I can think of is chilled-PMT based... I think that would be fairly undetectable if done right.

I haven't directly hands on done fiber since early 90s so I'm not sure. Probably fiber work is much like IT and CS, there is nothing new, just recycled old ideas along a baseline of slowly increasing speeds.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger

Re:Spy product by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 06:09 · Score: 0

I thought the ordinary method of covert tapping was to bend a fibre just sharp enough to leak a detectable signal?

Insulation Properties by Quantus347 · 2012-07-23 04:12 · Score: 2

If it is absorbing mostly on the infrared spectrum, I bet it would help keep your house pretty cool on those hot sunny days.

--
Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...

Re:Insulation Properties by ISoldat53 · 2012-07-23 09:05 · Score: 1

I wonder if it is cool to the touch?

UV by hendrikboom · 2012-07-23 04:15 · Score: 1

If it could have used UV instead of infrared, we could have energy-generating sunscreen!

Re:UV by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 04:36 · Score: 0

Regular glass blocks UV rays already. If this is coated on the inside to resist the elements as well as to be connected electrically, that's not going to work at all.
Re:UV by amorsen · 2012-07-23 09:47 · Score: 1

If it could have used UV instead of infrared, we could have energy-generating sunscreen!
Already exists. You can make electricity from the sun with titanium dioxide, probably the most common component of sunscreen. Alas, not very much power so far. Some researchers are hoping to improve that.

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?

Obvious response by cellocgw · 2012-07-23 04:17 · Score: 1

When first shown such a window, aren't we all going to say " I see what you did there" ?

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

Price? by Bill+Hayden · 2012-07-23 04:17 · Score: 1

The key issue with solar has always been price. It seems forever on the cusp of having a positive ROI, but it never actually breaks through. Hopefully the use of plastic as opposed to crystals will bring the cost way down.

--
Protect your browser with the Force Safe Search add-on

Re:Price? by na1led · 2012-07-23 04:27 · Score: 1

This is for Rich People who want to live off the grid, and brag how they are so eco-friendly. The rest of us will always be dependent on power from the grid.

--
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Re:Price? by mattack2 · 2012-07-23 07:54 · Score: 1

You don't need to be "off the grid" to have solar. In fact, having solar tied to the grid makes the most sense nowadays (IMHO).
If you generate enough solar, you can still be zero net usage from the grid, but the grid is your "battery", so you still have power at night for example without your own energy storage.
If you're using the power at night, it's (1) cheap, and (2) you're basically using the baseload power that was being generated anyway.
Generating during the day, you're generating power at the most expensive rates.
So even if you're not getting rid of power plants, you're at the very least reducing the need for new power plants.
(I don't have solar, BTW, but intend to after I buy a house.)
Re:Price? by amorsen · 2012-07-23 09:52 · Score: 1

Solar module prices improve almost 10% a year right now and have for a few years. If we can get perhaps 5 more years out of that trend, solar will get cheap enough that demand skyrockets.

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?

Old... by solidraven · 2012-07-23 04:18 · Score: 1

I saw something similar at some lame environmentalist convention I was forced to attend a few years ago...
Way to claim you innovated something when you really didn't!

Re:Old... by MickyTheIdiot · 2012-07-23 04:21 · Score: 1

If you don't care about environmentalism then why go to a "lame environmentalist convention"?
Re:Old... by Thud457 · 2012-07-23 04:39 · Score: 1

If you don't care about environmentalism then why go to a "lame environmentalist convention"?
obviously he's a demented fan of a wild, untrimmed thatch

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Re:Old... by solidraven · 2012-07-23 08:12 · Score: 1

Read the part "forced". You're not always free to choose what to spend your time on.

Re:More liberal bullshit. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 04:19 · Score: 0, Insightful

No giving Mitt ideas, please.

Points for popularly misnaming the function? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 04:19 · Score: 0

If it absorbs heat (IR) and turns it into energy, it's not a Photo-voltaic device, it's a thermo-couple. Calling it a solar cell is an attempt to align with the fervor over PV cells. This product is neither apparently using visible light or cells. Populist science reporting is the only thing worse than populist science.

Re:Points for popularly misnaming the function? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 04:31 · Score: 0

If it absorbs heat (IR) and turns it into energy, it's not a Photo-voltaic device
Let me stop you there before you embarrass yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

it's a thermo-couple. Calling it a solar cell is an attempt to align with the fervor over PV cells. This product is neither apparently using visible light or cells. Populist science reporting is the only thing worse than populist science.
Oh dear...
Re:Points for popularly misnaming the function? by jandar · 2012-07-23 04:33 · Score: 1

If it absorbs heat (IR) and turns it into energy, it's not a Photo-voltaic device, it's a thermo-couple.
Absorbing IR light instead of visible light doesn't turn it into a thermo-coupled device. The article says "photoactive plastic cell" so it's clearly a photo-voltaic device.
Re:Points for popularly misnaming the function? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 04:50 · Score: 0

IR is not heat.
IR light is merely one of the ways that heat can be transferred. It's still PV if the light being captured happens to be outside the visible spectrum.

Why? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 04:20 · Score: 0

I can either put ~20% effecient panels on my roof with massive otherwise totally unused surface area.

Or I can choose to turn my relatively tiny windows into solar panels with 4% effeciency at added cost of no longer being able to see out of them clearly.

I think this is great and all and certainly could have some niche applications but is not really something most people would want to buy.

Re:Why? by TheCarp · 2012-07-23 04:56 · Score: 1

Two things:
1 skylight. Now get the efficiency of a roof top solar panel... with electricity.
2. Blocking IR is huge for windows. We have a few south facing windows with no shade... just blocking IR through them would be huge (I have thoiught of it before too). Especially in the summer, every unit of energy that I don't have to extract and remove with the AC units is money saved.
Anything on top of that, even a little extra electricity (maybe enough to operate the blinds?) is gravy.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Re:Why? by hattig · 2012-07-23 05:04 · Score: 1

One costs $20k, the other (hopefully) costs $2k. Problem with window coatings is that you tend to get windows replaced every so often, so you might not get the long-life of the rooftop mounted solution. Nothing stopping you mounting this on your roof instead.
You'll still be able to clearly see out of the windows with this solution, you wouldn't notice the tinting unless you have an uncoated window nearby, and it apparently doesn't blur/diffuse incoming light.
Re:Why? by ZeroSumHappiness · 2012-07-23 05:15 · Score: 2

3. Twenty story buildings generally have more glass space than roof space.
4. You could put 20% efficient panels on your roof, put 4% efficient film on your windows, or both.
Re:Why? by Chuckstar · 2012-07-23 07:31 · Score: 1

Especially if you'd be tinting the windows anyway. If you can make this stuff for not much more than regular window tinting, then it might end up way ahead of photovoltaics on the roof.
The questions would be (i) how much more expensive than regular tinting, (ii) how much more/less heat ends up in the building versus tinting (this stuff may be more efficient or less efficient at keeping summer heat out of the building than straight tinting) and (ii) what's the cost of the additional wiring you'd need (as you wouldn't wire it directly into the building distribution, you'd at least have it on the other side of circuit breakers from the loads). You could potentially build wiring right into the mullions, though. That could make wiring pretty cost effective.

For large glass buildings? by webdog314 · 2012-07-23 04:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Depending on the efficiency, it might be an interesting choice for something like one (North or South) side of a large glass building, effectively giving you a large solar array for windows that you were going to put in anyway.

Re:For large glass buildings? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-27 04:31 · Score: 0

I am a little surprised that I had to come this far down for the first post of someone who gets the point.

Transparent titanium? by QilessQi · 2012-07-23 04:27 · Score: 1

Another breakthrough is the transparent conductor made of a mixture of silver nanowire and titanium dioxide nanoparticles

Sounds nifty, but I'm still holding out for transparent aluminum. :-)

--
Koans and fables for the software engineer

4% by mattr · 2012-07-23 04:27 · Score: 2

"With this combination, 4% power-conversion efficiency for solution-processed and visibly transparent polymer solar cells has been achieved."

Okaay...

Re:4% by Eightbitgnosis · 2012-07-23 05:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

As apposed to the great results we're getting from the 0% efficiency models? For most cases these aren't replacements for traditional solar panels, but rather a supplement.

These could be particularly useful on large skyscrapers
Re:4% by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 05:24 · Score: 0

Yeah, skyscrapers and large-scale agricultural greenhouses (replacing non-greenhoused land) are the main use cases. Plants can still grow under this, so you could have dual-purpose land, with a longer growing season (due to being turned into a greenhouse), but maybe not as great as a standard large-scale greenhouse.
Re:4% by Anonyme+Connard · 2012-07-23 07:50 · Score: 1

4% of a free energy is still infinite efficiency.
The true question is the same as for other solar cells : what are the production price and the total power output during the life span of these cells?
Re:4% by DarthVain · 2012-07-23 08:10 · Score: 2

Really depends how much that 4% costs.
If the windows are a lot more expensive don't expect much conversion (pardon pun).
Also the ease of use. If hooking up 4% worth of power to your home and/or the grid is expensive, also do not expect much conversion. (batteries, inverters, wiring, smart meter, etc... is it really worth doing all that for a handful of watts?)
If you want conversion, make it economical and easy.
Re:4% by jpapon · 2012-07-23 08:54 · Score: 1

I don't think a greenhouse would work very well if you stripped out most of the IR from the incoming solar radiation. I think your plants would complain... those leaves love them some IR.

--
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
Re:4% by Neil+Boekend · 2012-07-23 18:18 · Score: 1

Glass already blocks out most of the IR. The plants don't seem to have any trouble with that.
In fact that is one of the ways a greenhouse works. Light enters through the glass, hits the ground (covered with black plastic or dark earth) is converted to IR and radiates out from there. Some of it will hit the plants, some of it will miss and hit the glass. The glass reflects most of it back again. Some of that reflected IR will hit the plants, some will hit the plastic/earth and warm it, and so on.

This way the temperature in the greenhouse can be controlled to a greater extent: In the middle of the summer the floor is covered with white plastic, which reflects the light back out. (minor variations are done with the windows, as opening and closing them can be done automatically).

--
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Re:4% by jpapon · 2012-07-24 04:35 · Score: 1

Actually, from what I understand, greenhouses work because glass is transparent to short-wavelength IR (close to the visible spectrum), but reflects long-wavelength IR (close to microwave). When the short wave IR hits the plants and ground, it gets absorbed and emitted as longer wavelength, which is then trapped inside by the glass.
That's why you can control temp by covering the ground with a white reflective surface; the absorption and re-emission doesn't happen - the short wavelength IR is simply reflected back out.
Point is, if you remove the short wavelength IR by converting it to electricity, I imagine the whole thing won't work nearly as well.
Anyways, what you said proved my point as well:

The glass reflects most of it back again. Some of that reflected IR will hit the plants, some will hit the plastic/earth and warm it, and so on.

If you replace the glass with a plastic that absorbs the IR, then it won't bounce around inside the greenhouse... and the whole thing won't work.

--
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
Re:4% by mattr · 2012-07-25 13:33 · Score: 1

No, it is 4% efficiency. You mean it makes sense if it is cheap as dirt. Could be.

4% conversion efficiency by gestalt_n_pepper · 2012-07-23 04:28 · Score: 1

Whee.

--
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.

And like every other solar announcement by killmenow · 2012-07-23 04:32 · Score: 0

This breakthrough in solar power technology will be available & affordable for you in 10 years.

+10

+10

+10

ad infinitum

Re:And like every other solar announcement by Eightbitgnosis · 2012-07-23 04:40 · Score: 2

Solar's getting cheap as hell these days. I've seen residential solar panels at $0.82 a watt
Re:And like every other solar announcement by hattig · 2012-07-23 05:14 · Score: 1

I've seen residential solar panels at $0.82 a watt
What does that even mean?
$0.82 per watt generated, over its lifetime? per year? Fixed price per peak Watt-hour at time of purchase?
$820 to get a 1kWp solar array sounds cheap, and you need all the equipment to connect the panels to your home supply, etc. In the UK the prices are (from one website I've just Googled and found): "A 2kWp to 4kWp Home Solar system will cost between £5,000 and £8,000 depending on system size; however, through tax free Feed-in Tariff earnings of up to £900 each year, this can be recovered within 10 years."
Re:And like every other solar announcement by Eightbitgnosis · 2012-07-23 05:31 · Score: 1

I was talking about peak watt output
Re:And like every other solar announcement by Belial6 · 2012-07-23 05:53 · Score: 2

Solar is already available and affordable for many uses. I expect a calculator (If I ever own a dedicated unit again) to run off of solar power. Solar yard lighting is also heavily used because it is widely available and affordable. Solar for road signs in remote areas, and emergency call boxes are also the norm.

30 years ago, photovoltaic panels were an oddity. Your average person never saw them. Today, they are everywhere. You can't walk through a Walmart without seeing them all over the place for sale.
Re:And like every other solar announcement by SoftwareArtist · 2012-07-23 06:51 · Score: 1

Why is it that every time a story is posted about a new solar technology, someone replies to say, "We keep hearing about new solar technologies, but they won't make it onto the market for years." Wrong! All these new solar technologies you keep hearing about are making it onto the market. That's one of the reasons solar prices have been dropping like a rock in recent years.

--
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Re:And like every other solar announcement by BeanThere · 2012-07-24 04:21 · Score: 1

That was actually butt-obvious from the context already (especially to anyone who has spent more than three seconds ever checking out solar panel pricing). IMHO you didn't really need to clarify that, just to satisfy some pedantic egotist trying to demonstrate their superiority by pretending your use of units was confusing to anyone 'clued up'.

If it blocked UV instead by dorzak · 2012-07-23 04:34 · Score: 2

Blocking UV would have some benefits as well.

I seem to recall IR it is blocking is also a major part of heat transference. There could be some definite savings on cooling bills throughout the sun belt/southwest.

Anybody else reminded of the Heinlein stories where Solar panels took off when they started generating energy from the full range of cosmic radiation bombarding the Earth? Led to commuter roads in "The Roads must roll".

Re:If it blocked UV instead by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 08:08 · Score: 1

Regular glass blocks UV pretty well already.
If you have thick enough windows, not much UV is getting through.

Cooling by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 04:37 · Score: 0

Might save on building cooling as well if it filters out IR radiation

Re:More liberal bullshit. by Reverand+Dave · 2012-07-23 04:43 · Score: 1, Funny

YOU ARE MOM?

--
I got here through a series of tubes

Yeah, that gives me a great idea! by Rei · 2012-07-23 04:47 · Score: 1

We'll just make a heat reservoir and hook it up to a heat pump that pumps in heat from outside with a COP of well-greater-than-1, and we'll surround the reservoir in highly efficient IR-absorbing panels, which will capture almost all of the energy, driving the heat pump and yielding energy to spare. Perpetual motion! Take that, laws of physics!

Whether you're dealing with a physical "engine" or not, Carnot must be obeyed, because if he's not, a high-COP heat pump can pump in more heat against the gradient than is needed to generate the power. So obviously there's going to be real limits on waste heat energy recovery using solar panels to absorb infrared, just like waste heat recovery using any mechanism.

--
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."

Conservation is oppression by cryfreedomlove · 2012-07-23 05:05 · Score: 1

I'm a supporter of efforts like the development of these windows. The biggest difference in this world between the haves and the have nots is access to affordable energy. If you get that, you get clean water, refrigeration, air conditioning, transportation, etc.

This is why I am in favor of technology developments that focus on energy generation. I'm against using state power to artificially drive conservation because most of the time that really means making access to energy more expensive. The end result of that sort of conservation means that only rich people will have access to energy and the gaps between rich and poor will get wider. No thanks.

Re:Conservation is oppression by Belial6 · 2012-07-23 05:56 · Score: 2

Beyond that, conservation alone is a dead end. It is an acceptance that we are going to run out, and we just want to make the party last one more day.
Re:Conservation is oppression by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-26 07:32 · Score: 0

If you promote conservation, those poor people can have access to clean water, refrigeration, air conditioning, transportation, etc while spending less on energy. The cost of technology (knowledge) goes down but the cost of energy does not.

Re:More liberal bullshit. by tmshort · 2012-07-23 05:06 · Score: 1

They're being saved for Soylent Green...

Re:More liberal bullshit. by Reverand+Dave · 2012-07-23 05:32 · Score: 1

The really sad part about these is that they are made entirely out of fossil fuels. Not really.

--
I got here through a series of tubes

Solar car roof windows? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 05:35 · Score: 0

Would they work as sunroof wdo's on an electric car? The summer sun here in NV is so fierce you could probably drive the Indy 500 after a one day charge in the parking lot while you're at work.

Re:More liberal bullshit. by daem0n1x · 2012-07-23 05:48 · Score: 1

Attaboy! We don't need no commie wimpy treehuggin potsmokin eurotrash abortionist lesbian solar windows. We can get all the energy we need from burning tires!

Finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 05:49 · Score: 0

My green house can now generate more energy than my outhouse!!!

Re:More liberal bullshit. by gman003 · 2012-07-23 05:49 · Score: 1

They're even renewable!

Wonderful concept... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 05:58 · Score: 0

They came up with these wonderful devices called double- or triple-paned windows, with amazing coatings that counter the loss of energy from inside the house.....years ago, if you read anything besides opinion columns.

Re:Wonderful concept... by cpu6502 · 2012-07-23 11:17 · Score: 1

Okay then explain this image where triple-paned windows in buildings are leaking heat like a sieve:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Passivhaus_thermogram_gedaemmt_ungedaemmt.png

--
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Re:Wonderful concept... by docmordin · 2012-07-23 12:07 · Score: 2

From the units posted on the graph, the windows in the Passivhaus are emitting radiation consistent with a 1-2C increase in temperature (or, rather, the difference between 37/39.2F and 41F), while those for the traditional structure are consistent with a ~4C increase in temperature (or, rather, the difference between 37/39.2F and 46F). (Compared to double-pane, low-E, R-3 (U-factor 0.3) windows, triple-pane windows (typically R-5/U-factor 0.2) can reduce average heat loss through the window by more than 30 percent, when compared to R-3 windows in residential buildings situated in northern climate zones.) To say that the windows in the Passivhaus are leaking heat like a sieve is specious.

There's a few people doing similar by mcmonkey · 2012-07-23 06:09 · Score: 2

Similar work is being done at MIT.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/transparent-solar-windows-0415.html

For the folks wondering what 70% transparent windows look like, I think the small glass pictured in that article is 65% transparent. Certainly good enough for ambient lighting in an office.

Re:More liberal bullshit. by coldsalmon · 2012-07-23 07:12 · Score: 0

This is a terrible idea, and you should be ashamed of yourself. The human body does not combust readily enough to be used as a source of fuel. Even with current refining technology, the energy required to refine a human body into fuel would be greater than the energy yielded. The one exception is your Mom, whose refined subcutaneous fat could power a city the size of San Diego for a year.

Re:More liberal bullshit. by evilRhino · 2012-07-23 07:16 · Score: 1

Why burn them when you can hook them up to a machine running an earth-like simulation?

Re:More liberal bullshit. by mattack2 · 2012-07-23 08:00 · Score: 1

There was actually a recent episode of the Straight Dope podcast (which is just reading the weekly column) that covered this. It was a followup to a recent episode that doesn't seem to be available in the feed anymore..

The main feed is:
http://straightdope.infoble.com/rss.xml

Followup: How much energy is wasted hauling around U.S. body fat? 4/28/12

Haven't I... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 08:21 · Score: 0

seen this before? I remember some Japanese company showcasing transparent solar cells some few years ago....

The oil industry's already on that ... by Krishnoid · 2012-07-23 08:47 · Score: 1

Vivoleum is in the works, complete with commemorative candles.

Want to sound like a snob? by DaFallus · 2012-07-23 09:13 · Score: 1

Want to sound like a fourth grader shilling their science project? Use exclamation marks in your summary.

I'm not sure if the summary has been changed since you posted, but here is what I currently see:

A team from UCLA has developed a new transparent solar cell that has the ability to generate electricity while still allowing people to see outside. In short, they've created a solar power-generating window! Described as 'a new kind of polymer solar cell (PSC)' that produces energy by absorbing mainly infrared light instead of traditional visible light, the photoactive plastic cell is nearly 70% transparent to the human eye â" so you can look through it like a traditional window.

I count a single exclamation mark in the summary. I also only a see a grand total of one exclamation in any of the linked articles (this paragraph is copied verbatim in the summary). Assuming the summary hasn't changed, I have no idea why you were modded +5 Insightful (at the time of this post) for a trivial, and overall worthless complaint that really adds nothing of value to the discussion.

However, if the summary has been edited, then I apologize for my rudeness.

--
No one cares what your captcha was

Houston TX, USA

Why must it always be one way or the other? by JSBiff · 2012-07-23 10:04 · Score: 1

It's really not that complicated. If it's cheap enough, and produces enough power, it will be useful for some people, but will probably not replace Grid Power (though it may help reduce consumption of Grid power, which is generally a win). For other people, because of their circumstances, it will not be so useful.

Therein lies the great, simple truth that most advocates on both sides of the argument ignore.

Solar power (and wind power) isn't a 100% solution for our national energy needs. That doesn't mean it can't play a useful role in reducing use of gas, coal, oil/diesel.

As an example, I live in an apartment. I have east facing, large windows which would be a great place to install some thin-film PV. However, I would only do that if the price wasn't so high that I can't recover the costs in about a year or two or three, because I might not be living in this apartment next year. I might be able to sell the PV to the next occupant of the apartment, or to some other person, even if I can't fully recover the costs through my own use.

But, best case scenario, I reduce my monthly power bills by maybe a few percent during the spring and fall months. I imagine if the film produces a pretty good amount of power, I would be able to run my computer, monitor, and speakers off the power it generates, charge my mobile phone, and perhaps run a ham radio from it.

I'm probably not going to run the fridge, AC, or apartment lighting from it.

high-rise heat by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-23 10:15 · Score: 0

i would imagine that the target market for these is high rise buildings with extensive use of glass. In a high rise you rarely need heating because all of the heat stays in the building and is transmitted up. I would imagine that these will only be used for the upper stories anyways, so the loss of heat from solar radiation may in fact be a big gain!

Re:More liberal bullshit. by mug+funky · 2012-07-23 14:25 · Score: 1

wouldn't that be fossil fuel that's not being released into the atmosphere, but rather captured and stored as a solar cell? seems like a good idea to me.

Re:More liberal bullshit. by fustakrakich · 2012-07-23 14:44 · Score: 2

We should be burning them instead.

We are

I wonder if we can make a window that absorbs bomb blasts (In some places there's more of that than sunlight.) and generates electricity.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”

"Electricity-generating solar cell windows"? by sixtyeight · 2012-07-24 00:59 · Score: 1

"Electricity-generating solar cell windows"?

As opposed to solar cells that that generate, say, xenon and mummy dust?

--
The Wolfpack Project: BitCoin + Crowdfunding = Political Accountability

Re:More liberal bullshit. by Reverand+Dave · 2012-07-24 02:34 · Score: 1

I more referring to the fact that should these actually be manufactured using fossil fuels that it would kind of obviate them as a replacement for them since the simple construction of them would be counterproductive to the whole "not using fossil fuels" line of solar power. Thanks for ruining it Professor Killjoke.

--
I got here through a series of tubes

efficiency by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-25 09:30 · Score: 0

What is the solar conversion factor and efficiency of solar energy to electricity. that is the question

Would this turn a window into a microphone?! by jaymemaurice · 2012-07-25 18:19 · Score: 1

If the window is generating electricity and the window will vibrate slightly from the sound waves in the room, will such vibrations change the efficiency slightly causing the audio to be in the power output?!

--
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone

Slashdot Mirror

UCLA Develops Transparent, Electricity-Generating, Solar Cell Windows

163 comments