I haven't had a chance to watch the video, but I question the thinking in various parts of this article. The first thing that hit me was: Cell phones? Sure, th

I haven't had a chance to watch the video, but I question the thinking in various parts of this article. The first thing that hit me was: Cell phones? Sure, they don't need a lot of juice so a tiny patch of solar could power them. BUT there's 2 problems: These panels work on UV and infrared. Unless your phone owner spends a lot of time outdoors, he won't be exposing his phone to that kind of radiation, neither of which is found (significantly) indoors. Second, where do people carry their phones? Where the sun doesn't shine - I'm referring to their pockets, of course. I wonder about the efficiency of window panes on buildings too: UV and infrared are in short supply when the sky is overcast, whereas visible doesn't dip nearly as much. So this is low-efficiency technology capturing light that's mostly restricted to sunshiny days? I still think it makes a heck of a lot more sense to simply slap "normal" PV on the roof, or possibly the walls around the windows. This looks gimmicky to me and I'm not sure the author understands the technology.