You know what's even better than putting solar panels on windows? (Score: 2, Funny) by booleanlobster@pipedot.org on 2015-12-08 04:37 (#X01Z) Putting them on the wall! You no longer need to purposely cripple your panel by making it transparent to 70% of the energy in solar spectrum!You know what's even better than putting solar panels on the wall? Putting them on the roof! That way you can lay them flat to catch the sun better.You know what's even better than putting them on the roof? Putting them on the ground! That way you can put them on sun-tracking mounts, and easily walk around and make repairs/replacements as needed.You know what's even better than putting them on the ground? Putting them on the ground in the desert! That way you don't need to pay for expensive city real-estate.But that's what all the BIG BORING companies keep trying. Let's do the window thing! That sounds fun! Re: You know what's even better than putting solar panels on windows? (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-12-08 13:35 (#X1B0) Putting them on the wall! You no longer need to purposely cripple your panel by making it transparent to 70% of the energy in solar spectrum!Common solar panels are only 20% efficient, anyhow. If these will work, and can be made at reasonable prices, they're not crippled at all. Things like skyscrapers, which need as much electricity as they can get, don't have any "wall" space that isn't transparent.You know what's even better than putting solar panels on the wall? Putting them on the roof! That way you can lay them flat to catch the sun better.Only at near the equator do solar panels laying flat "catch the sun better." The further away from the equator you go, the steeper the angle you need and the more efficient vertical mounting will be.Putting them on the ground! That way you can put them on sun-tracking mounts, and easily walk around and make repairs/replacements as needed.Rooftop is far better, as you're utilizing otherwise wasted and nearly-free real-estate. They should last for 30+ years before needing "repairs/replacements" and going up to a roof doesn't add much expense.You know what's even better than putting them on the ground? Putting them on the ground in the desert! That way you don't need to pay for expensive city real-estate.Except the city real-estate was provided free by the property owner, while the desert real estate had to be purchased, environmental studies done, endangered animal habitat relocated/mitigated, etc. And even in the US, transmission from the deserts up to northern population centers is far too inefficient and wasteful, not to mention requiring huge up-front costs to build it out. The use case is even worse for other countries, who may not have any big empty deserts.
Re: You know what's even better than putting solar panels on windows? (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-12-08 13:35 (#X1B0) Putting them on the wall! You no longer need to purposely cripple your panel by making it transparent to 70% of the energy in solar spectrum!Common solar panels are only 20% efficient, anyhow. If these will work, and can be made at reasonable prices, they're not crippled at all. Things like skyscrapers, which need as much electricity as they can get, don't have any "wall" space that isn't transparent.You know what's even better than putting solar panels on the wall? Putting them on the roof! That way you can lay them flat to catch the sun better.Only at near the equator do solar panels laying flat "catch the sun better." The further away from the equator you go, the steeper the angle you need and the more efficient vertical mounting will be.Putting them on the ground! That way you can put them on sun-tracking mounts, and easily walk around and make repairs/replacements as needed.Rooftop is far better, as you're utilizing otherwise wasted and nearly-free real-estate. They should last for 30+ years before needing "repairs/replacements" and going up to a roof doesn't add much expense.You know what's even better than putting them on the ground? Putting them on the ground in the desert! That way you don't need to pay for expensive city real-estate.Except the city real-estate was provided free by the property owner, while the desert real estate had to be purchased, environmental studies done, endangered animal habitat relocated/mitigated, etc. And even in the US, transmission from the deserts up to northern population centers is far too inefficient and wasteful, not to mention requiring huge up-front costs to build it out. The use case is even worse for other countries, who may not have any big empty deserts.