Outfit your windows with transparent solar panels?

by
Anonymous Coward
in science on (#GTCK)
Despite the immense potential of solar energy, at present, roof-mounted photovoltaic panels are able at best to capture about 20% of the available energy. And that despite research that has led to gains! To improve energy generation, you either increase solar panel efficiency, or increase their coverage. Enter a Silicon Valley startup named "Ubiquitous Energy."

Ubiquitous Energy produces transparent solar cells using an organic chemical process they call "Clearview Power Technology." They claim their panels cost less than traditional tech and can be built 1000x thinner than a human hair. The system captures ultraviolet and infrared light and lets the rest pass through as it would normally.

National Geographic has a look at the technology here.

Is this an important step forward in solar power generation, or does adding windows to the mix constitute a gimmick? How do we get people more interested in solar energy?

[Ed. Note: the article image chosen here is of an invisible solar panel placed over the entirety of the text.]
Reply 16 comments

Borderline (Score: 2, Informative)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2015-08-08 14:01 (#GTCR)

Editor here: as submitted, this was probably a blatant product pitch, but I worked it a bit and decided to publish because the subject matter of innovative approaches to solar interests me (and because the link goes to National Geographic instead of some corporate site).

Solar is cool.

Re: Borderline (Score: 1)

by hyper@pipedot.org on 2015-08-08 14:47 (#GTFY)

It is a worthy idea. How many highrise buildings could benefit from this...just imagine if a city could sustain its own energy grid or at least greatly offset energy use

Expensive, less efficient, and very limited (Score: 3, Informative)

by kwerle@pipedot.org on 2015-08-08 16:18 (#GTP6)

Claimer: I work as a programmer for SolarCity.

I'm in favor of all things solar. And if it ain't from SC, too bad for us.

These things are less than 10% efficient. In general your roof points at the sun more than your windows do. For most buildings, there is a lot more surface area of roof than of windows. I'm always amazed at how much of a solar install is complicated because of wire management and things that are subtly not about the panels themselves - and I imagine doing those things on the roof is easier than in a window.

So, yeah, I'm all for research and finding other solar/wind/whatever solutions - but solar on the roof is here and now. If your power bill is more than $100/month, you're a pretty good candidate for solar. If it's significantly more, then you're a great candidate. If it's less, then you still may be. Look into it.
Is this an important step forward in solar power generation, or does adding windows to the mix constitute a gimmick? How do we get people more interested in solar energy?
I think that the best way to save the planet is to make money doing it. And that's SC's proposition - save you some money, keep ourselves in business, and do that in a way that scales to the whole world. 'Cause if there's no profit in it, it's going to be mighty hard to convince everyone to do it. But if it makes financial sense to everyone involved and it doesn't screw up the planet, maybe we can make some progress.

Re: Expensive, less efficient, and very limited (Score: 2)

by fnj@pipedot.org on 2015-08-09 16:14 (#GWYP)

Buildings vary a great deal. One World Trade Center has one hell of a lot more window area than roof area. So does the Empire State Building.

Re: Expensive, less efficient, and very limited (Score: 1)

by kwerle@pipedot.org on 2015-08-10 15:40 (#GZNR)

Buildings vary a great deal. One World Trade Center has one hell of a lot more window area than roof area. So does the Empire State Building.
Yes, and if you're going to be building a glass skyscraper then this is something you'll want to think about once they have move beyond 9 square inches of surface area.

But for most of us, panels on the roof are a good solution at the present.

How about cars? (Score: 3, Interesting)

by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-08-09 17:54 (#GX4R)

Sounds like a great idea for car windshields... They're clear so should be street-legal, they block the infrared light responsible for much of the heat, they block the ultraviolet light that hurts your eyes and makes you squint, and they also float-charge your battery while you're parked in the sun, or maybe even turn an exhaust fan. A little less load on your alternator would improve gas mileage by a hair.

Only big problem with the idea is windshields get damaged and need to be replaced somewhat frequently, so the solar tech needs to be cheap enough that it doesn't quadruple the cost.

Re: How about cars? (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-08-09 22:42 (#GXM6)

Frequently? I have never had to replace a windshield. My cars have lasted for 5 and 11 years.

Re: How about cars? (Score: 2, Funny)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-08-10 02:04 (#GXXB)

A truly powerful anecdote. But according the Internets "13-14 million windshields are replaced each year". Lower figure is 7.5 million. I imagine that doesn't necessarily even include the millions of windshield repairs (not replacements). I've had it done 2 or 3 times.

Your mileage may vary. But your anecdote (and mine) aren't worth anything.

Did I fully explain that your anecdote is meaningless?

Also, the poster wrote "somewhat frequently".

Re: How about cars? (Score: -1, Flamebait)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-08-10 02:37 (#GXZ0)

Now I am wondering how long your front teeth last for...

Re: How about cars? (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-08-10 18:47 (#H067)

There are ~250 million passenger vehicles in the US. Assuming that each replacement was on a different car (which they are not) that's only about 5% being replaced. That's not even "somewhat" frequently.

Re: How about cars? (Score: 1)

by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-08-10 20:00 (#H0C9)

5% per year is plenty frequent. That's a 50/50 chance over 10 years. If you've got two cars, make that a 100% chance you'll need to replace one of them in 10 years. And none of this is including all the years people drive around with a cracked/chipped windshield before replacing it. That's not long enough of a horizon for solar panels, which should last 30+ years, easily.

Re: How about cars? (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-08-11 13:59 (#H2N3)

That's not how probabilities are calculated.

Re: How about cars? (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-08-10 20:33 (#H0EY)

Really depends where you live. Where I am now, replacing wind-shields every couple of years is pretty normal. Either that, or drive around with huge cracks and a bunch of chips in them.

Re: How about cars? (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-08-10 23:03 (#H0VA)

Right. We actually have decent roads here. It is possible for a car to live and die with the original windshield.

Re: How about cars? (Score: 1)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2015-08-10 20:40 (#H0FB)

That's my opinion too. If it does no more than provide free juice for charging your gadgets while you drive, hey, it's a win, probably. Same goes for skyscrapers: as long as their sides are just sitting there providing no benefit, hey! Go for it. Run a little cost-benefit analysis to see how it works out, and go.

First thought: GreenHouses (Score: 0)

by Anonymous Coward on 2015-08-18 01:29 (#HP91)

The whole thing is transparent and they have high energy needs, so this would be ideal for them. Ditto for skyscrapers, as mentioned by others. Even at 10% efficiency (or less!), if the price point comes down enough, it will be just that much less energy that must be bought from the outside.

If they get REALLY cheap, this could be good in areas that get a lot of sun in winter, but it's low to the horizon so the light comes in the windows all day. The Russians and Chinese should be jumping on this since the Siberian High does just this, but even here in the Sonora Desert, the sun is low enough in winter that this could be a big deal if they're made cheap enough, even if the efficiency sucks.