5 ms·

Seems pretty silly to not absorb visible light, given that that's where solar energy is peaked. I don't really see the point of this.

sp332 13y ago
Did you see this part? placed on windows, sunroofs, smartphone displays and other surfaces to harvest energy from the sun. It can turn surfaces that need to be transparent into solar cells. And for windows, the visible energy is already being put to good use, reducing the need for interior lighting.
- shawkinaw 13y ago
  Yes, I understand. I'm just questioning whether it's worth the effort trying to collect solar energy in these scenarios.
  - mitchty 13y ago
    It will provide power that never existed, additionally it makes things like windows be a less of a heat source for things like air conditioners to pump back out. I don't know if its economical yet (nothing product wise available) so it is somewhat premature to even speculate if it is or isn't worth the effort. The idea is sound however to take advantage of unproductive real estate.
    - shawkinaw 13y ago
      Fair enough. But there's so much unproductive real estate that could get full-spectrum solar cells put on it, and generate a lot more power per unit area. I just think there's a lot of lower-hanging fruit.
      - mitchty 13y ago
        Agreed, just pointing out that we don't know what we don't know with this technology. Say its cheap, might as well take advantage of the opportunity. I doubt any one methodology will be the best approach, and even if it isn't cheap now, maybe it will be in the future. Eh, whatever, beer time!
    - mapt 13y ago
      "Economical" is the sum total of the problem with solar. "Lack of space to put the panels" is not a problem at all - even in densely populated city centers there are rooftops galore; everywhere else, the cost of panels far exceeds the cost of land. So it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
      - D9u 13y ago
        I'd say that the cost of efficient PV array systems is a real issue which currently exists. Unfortunately the article doesn't say much about the costs of these new cells. In my area (Latitude 20 deg. N.) solar begins paying for itself after only a couple, or more, years depending on the type of system. Obviously, one wouldn't choose to power heavy inductive load appliances with solar power, but for small items such as electronics and lighting, even refrigeration, solar makes more sense than paying $0.47 per KWh. Then there are reliability issues inherent to municipal power grids... When my neighbors experience a power outage my home is not affected, and to me this alone is worth the price I paid for my stand-alone solar power system.

sp332 13y ago

Did you see this part? placed on windows, sunroofs, smartphone displays and other surfaces to harvest energy from the sun. It can turn surfaces that need to be transparent into solar cells. And for windows, the visible energy is already being put to good use, reducing the need for interior lighting.

shawkinaw 13y ago
Yes, I understand. I'm just questioning whether it's worth the effort trying to collect solar energy in these scenarios.
- mitchty 13y ago
  It will provide power that never existed, additionally it makes things like windows be a less of a heat source for things like air conditioners to pump back out. I don't know if its economical yet (nothing product wise available) so it is somewhat premature to even speculate if it is or isn't worth the effort. The idea is sound however to take advantage of unproductive real estate.
  - shawkinaw 13y ago
    Fair enough. But there's so much unproductive real estate that could get full-spectrum solar cells put on it, and generate a lot more power per unit area. I just think there's a lot of lower-hanging fruit.
    - mitchty 13y ago
      Agreed, just pointing out that we don't know what we don't know with this technology. Say its cheap, might as well take advantage of the opportunity. I doubt any one methodology will be the best approach, and even if it isn't cheap now, maybe it will be in the future. Eh, whatever, beer time!
  - mapt 13y ago
    "Economical" is the sum total of the problem with solar. "Lack of space to put the panels" is not a problem at all - even in densely populated city centers there are rooftops galore; everywhere else, the cost of panels far exceeds the cost of land. So it's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
    - D9u 13y ago
      I'd say that the cost of efficient PV array systems is a real issue which currently exists. Unfortunately the article doesn't say much about the costs of these new cells. In my area (Latitude 20 deg. N.) solar begins paying for itself after only a couple, or more, years depending on the type of system. Obviously, one wouldn't choose to power heavy inductive load appliances with solar power, but for small items such as electronics and lighting, even refrigeration, solar makes more sense than paying $0.47 per KWh. Then there are reliability issues inherent to municipal power grids... When my neighbors experience a power outage my home is not affected, and to me this alone is worth the price I paid for my stand-alone solar power system.