5 ms·

Transparent Solar Panels Will Turn Windows into Green Energy Collectors

23 points by hmhrex 7y ago

vkou 7y ago
1. Utility solar will always be cheaper then distributed solar. 2. The biggest limiting factor on renewable adoption is cost. 3. We will never run out of space to put solar panels. The last thing I need is a pile of extensive, over-complicated, version 1.0 technology and all of its electrical wiring, etc crammed into my windows.
- gumby 7y ago
  > Utility solar will always be cheaper then distributed solar. And mainframes will always be cheaper than distributed computing. I believe the economics favor the utility approach now and for the immediate future but would be reluctant to put my money on always/never
  - vkou 7y ago
    1. Mainframes are cheaper then distributed computing. We call them 'the cloud' these days. If pointless things like solar windows become cheaper then utility solar, then utilities will just build farms of solar windows. You know what's easier then installing a solar window in a house wall? Installing one at ground level, without worrying about walls. Instead of having a handyman drive for 50 minutes, and then spend two hours tearing apart my house to install 6 windows in it, they could have him install an array of 90 of them in one day at a utility site. Hell, he won't even need to make sure that they don't leak.
    - gumby 7y ago
      This was the argument against PCs too. And in the late 70s I was already using cloud computing (MIT lispms and PARC systems like grapevine) that were not using mainframes. The economics seemed clear, but a variety of path dependence and economy of scale issues meant the mainframe survived quite a while (and is still going strong, but isn't dominant). But we are doing more edge computing than ever before with supercomputers in every pocket, game consoles and the like. I have also worked in distributed solar. That's why I understand that the existing utility model still has a long way to run. Where I disagree is that there might be an inherent advantage.
- newnewpdro 7y ago
  > 1. Utility solar will always be cheaper then distributed solar. Utilities are often privatized monopolies these days, that's not at all a safe assumption. Look what happened with California and Enron. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron#California's_deregulation_and_subsequent_energy_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron#California's_deregulatio...
  - amluto 7y ago
    Also, look at the hilariously high cost of electricity in PG&E territory. If you can deal with storage and peak loads, on-site generation is competing with 20-40 cents / kWh charged by PG&E, not the vastly lower prices that PG&E pays for generation.
    - newnewpdro 7y ago
      Downed PG&E transmission lines are also implicated in causing fires in the state, just another argument in favor of decentralized, on-site generation.
  - vkou 7y ago
    And look at what happened to SolarCity, and similar firms. That space is unable to operate profitably, despite large federal subsidies. It also has no shortage of scammy ownership/loans-for-your-solar-install model, is a bad investment for most homeowners, and doesn't even answer the hundred-thousand-dollar-per-home question of peak energy storage. (Or how it can operate in a world where you are on an even playing field for selling power to the grid as the utility.) The home solar industry makes most power utilities look both efficient and competent.
- aqme28 7y ago
  > The biggest limiting factor on renewable adoption is cost. Often the biggest cost for a solar project is the installation. If they somehow make these windows roughly as easy to install as a regular window, this could actually be a very economical approach.
chrisco255 7y ago
Office towers seem like a natural fit for this and have a huge surface area to collect solar energy from! Hope this makes it out of the lab and into commercial buildings in quick fashion.
driverdan 7y ago
This is blogspammed PR that gets it wrong. This is a research project that is nowhere near production with many "ifs". Vertical surfaces don't make a lot of sense for solar since they get limited exposure. They'd have to be incredibly cheap to make financial sense. Research like this comes out every day. 90% of the time it's not possible to make it practical.
- goshx 7y ago
  Even if this doesn't end up being practical, people should get to know about them, right?
- amluto 7y ago
  A large fraction of the cost of solar is installation — the panels are actually a minor expense in most rooftop installations. So using windows, which are being installed anyway, isn’t all that crazy. It will work best on a South-facing window at a high Northern latitude or vice versa.
  - krageon 7y ago
    > the panels are actually a minor expense in most rooftop installations I have had the questionable delight of seeing a specification made for a rooftop installation recently, so I know this is not universally true (even if you use an older type of solar panel, which is cheaper).
    - amluto 7y ago
      The online price of the panels on my roof is under 1/3 of the total cost of the system. The inverter and related hardware is much less than that.
- syntaxing 7y ago
  Totally agree. Took an HVAC course during my grad years and there's specific standard and regulations windows adhere to for houses to prevent over heating or cooling which means the view factor to the sun is usually way below optimal. I'm willing to bet the net energy required to cool a house during the summer is negative if you try to place the windows that is more solar optimal. But I can see this working for cities with tall buildings. But there will be new technology required to wire all these together properly for a building scale.
mabbo 7y ago
Just from a physics point of view, I have a hard time believing this. Isn't a large portion of the energy coming from the sun photons in the visible wavelengths? If the solar panel is transparent, it's allowing those photos through and not collecting energy. Or am I wrong, and most of the energy is in the non-visible range?
- vbuwivbiu 7y ago
  most of it is in the blue i think, but from the surface of the earth this range is scattered so the next peak is in the green-yellow. I'm sure there's UV we could capture with windows
izzydata 7y ago
My house has 4 walls and a roof to cover solar panels in before it makes sense to make my windows solar panels. Unless it is one of those skyscrapers where the entire exterior is glass.
jwcacces 7y ago
What is up with this site that disables selecting text and the right click menu?
- jolmg 7y ago
  F12 > Console, then run: document.onmousedown = null document.body.onselectstart = null document.ondragstart = null document.onselectstart = null document.oncontextmenu = null
FennNaten 7y ago
This lacks data. We'd need to know the efficiency, life expectancy and energy production cost of the cells in order to know if this is really interesting. If you need more energy to produce the cells than the amount they'll provide throughout their lifetime, it's not worth it. Sure, it looks cool, but it's too soon to publicize.
znpy 7y ago
Many negative comments. While this might not yield the desired results right now it’s still good that different approaches are being explored and evaluated. Also, as for many things (think gorilla glass) the right application might not be the one for which this technology has been developed originally.
aaron695 7y ago
I just don't understand why a person would think this is possible? Every window in the house has to be wired? Windows are to allow energy in, not stop it, that's called a wall. Obviously a wall makes more sense. But then you'd have to realise a roof makes even more sense and the whole idea doesn't make sense. So you can't talk about walls. I don't get people brains. Something like double glazing is a huge energy creator. It's a simple tech and works and also reduces noise which is a know health hazard. But I guess it's harder for people to get excited about?

23 points by hmhrex 7y ago

vkou 7y ago

1. Utility solar will always be cheaper then distributed solar. 2. The biggest limiting factor on renewable adoption is cost. 3. We will never run out of space to put solar panels. The last thing I need is a pile of extensive, over-complicated, version 1.0 technology and all of its electrical wiring, etc crammed into my windows.

gumby 7y ago
> Utility solar will always be cheaper then distributed solar. And mainframes will always be cheaper than distributed computing. I believe the economics favor the utility approach now and for the immediate future but would be reluctant to put my money on always/never
- vkou 7y ago
  1. Mainframes are cheaper then distributed computing. We call them 'the cloud' these days. If pointless things like solar windows become cheaper then utility solar, then utilities will just build farms of solar windows. You know what's easier then installing a solar window in a house wall? Installing one at ground level, without worrying about walls. Instead of having a handyman drive for 50 minutes, and then spend two hours tearing apart my house to install 6 windows in it, they could have him install an array of 90 of them in one day at a utility site. Hell, he won't even need to make sure that they don't leak.
  - gumby 7y ago
    This was the argument against PCs too. And in the late 70s I was already using cloud computing (MIT lispms and PARC systems like grapevine) that were not using mainframes. The economics seemed clear, but a variety of path dependence and economy of scale issues meant the mainframe survived quite a while (and is still going strong, but isn't dominant). But we are doing more edge computing than ever before with supercomputers in every pocket, game consoles and the like. I have also worked in distributed solar. That's why I understand that the existing utility model still has a long way to run. Where I disagree is that there might be an inherent advantage.
newnewpdro 7y ago
> 1. Utility solar will always be cheaper then distributed solar. Utilities are often privatized monopolies these days, that's not at all a safe assumption. Look what happened with California and Enron. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron#California's_deregulation_and_subsequent_energy_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron#California's_deregulatio...
- amluto 7y ago
  Also, look at the hilariously high cost of electricity in PG&E territory. If you can deal with storage and peak loads, on-site generation is competing with 20-40 cents / kWh charged by PG&E, not the vastly lower prices that PG&E pays for generation.
  - newnewpdro 7y ago
    Downed PG&E transmission lines are also implicated in causing fires in the state, just another argument in favor of decentralized, on-site generation.
- vkou 7y ago
  And look at what happened to SolarCity, and similar firms. That space is unable to operate profitably, despite large federal subsidies. It also has no shortage of scammy ownership/loans-for-your-solar-install model, is a bad investment for most homeowners, and doesn't even answer the hundred-thousand-dollar-per-home question of peak energy storage. (Or how it can operate in a world where you are on an even playing field for selling power to the grid as the utility.) The home solar industry makes most power utilities look both efficient and competent.
aqme28 7y ago
> The biggest limiting factor on renewable adoption is cost. Often the biggest cost for a solar project is the installation. If they somehow make these windows roughly as easy to install as a regular window, this could actually be a very economical approach.

chrisco255 7y ago

Office towers seem like a natural fit for this and have a huge surface area to collect solar energy from! Hope this makes it out of the lab and into commercial buildings in quick fashion.

driverdan 7y ago

This is blogspammed PR that gets it wrong. This is a research project that is nowhere near production with many "ifs". Vertical surfaces don't make a lot of sense for solar since they get limited exposure. They'd have to be incredibly cheap to make financial sense. Research like this comes out every day. 90% of the time it's not possible to make it practical.

goshx 7y ago
Even if this doesn't end up being practical, people should get to know about them, right?
amluto 7y ago
A large fraction of the cost of solar is installation — the panels are actually a minor expense in most rooftop installations. So using windows, which are being installed anyway, isn’t all that crazy. It will work best on a South-facing window at a high Northern latitude or vice versa.
- krageon 7y ago
  > the panels are actually a minor expense in most rooftop installations I have had the questionable delight of seeing a specification made for a rooftop installation recently, so I know this is not universally true (even if you use an older type of solar panel, which is cheaper).
  - amluto 7y ago
    The online price of the panels on my roof is under 1/3 of the total cost of the system. The inverter and related hardware is much less than that.
syntaxing 7y ago
Totally agree. Took an HVAC course during my grad years and there's specific standard and regulations windows adhere to for houses to prevent over heating or cooling which means the view factor to the sun is usually way below optimal. I'm willing to bet the net energy required to cool a house during the summer is negative if you try to place the windows that is more solar optimal. But I can see this working for cities with tall buildings. But there will be new technology required to wire all these together properly for a building scale.

mabbo 7y ago

Just from a physics point of view, I have a hard time believing this. Isn't a large portion of the energy coming from the sun photons in the visible wavelengths? If the solar panel is transparent, it's allowing those photos through and not collecting energy. Or am I wrong, and most of the energy is in the non-visible range?

vbuwivbiu 7y ago
most of it is in the blue i think, but from the surface of the earth this range is scattered so the next peak is in the green-yellow. I'm sure there's UV we could capture with windows

izzydata 7y ago

My house has 4 walls and a roof to cover solar panels in before it makes sense to make my windows solar panels. Unless it is one of those skyscrapers where the entire exterior is glass.

jwcacces 7y ago

What is up with this site that disables selecting text and the right click menu?

jolmg 7y ago
F12 > Console, then run: document.onmousedown = null document.body.onselectstart = null document.ondragstart = null document.onselectstart = null document.oncontextmenu = null

FennNaten 7y ago

This lacks data. We'd need to know the efficiency, life expectancy and energy production cost of the cells in order to know if this is really interesting. If you need more energy to produce the cells than the amount they'll provide throughout their lifetime, it's not worth it. Sure, it looks cool, but it's too soon to publicize.

znpy 7y ago

Many negative comments. While this might not yield the desired results right now it’s still good that different approaches are being explored and evaluated. Also, as for many things (think gorilla glass) the right application might not be the one for which this technology has been developed originally.

aaron695 7y ago

I just don't understand why a person would think this is possible? Every window in the house has to be wired? Windows are to allow energy in, not stop it, that's called a wall. Obviously a wall makes more sense. But then you'd have to realise a roof makes even more sense and the whole idea doesn't make sense. So you can't talk about walls. I don't get people brains. Something like double glazing is a huge energy creator. It's a simple tech and works and also reduces noise which is a know health hazard. But I guess it's harder for people to get excited about?