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 booleanlobster@pipedot.org on 2015-12-09 05:49 (#X3X4) Common solar panels are 20% efficient because we have tuned the bandgap to about 1.1-1.4 eV, which is the right spot to catch as much energy from solar radiation as possible for a single-junction cell. If you exclude visible light, you are left with the sides of this, which are awful."Doesn't convert or even block the peak of the spectrum" is a massive handicap for a solar panel. The panels designed without that restriction will always be vastly cheaper per watt.Why would you use solar panels at high latitude? That's another intentional handicap. Put them where the sun actually shines, maybe?The panels themselves might last for a long time, although we don't exactly have the manufacturing data to back that up. But even if they do, there's casing and transformers and grid connections and mechanical mounts, all of which break and need maintenance. If you are on a roof, that's fine. If you are on the side of a skyscraper, it's more expensive.There are plenty of southern population centers to supply with cheap, dumb, efficient, boring solar panels. Let's do that Re: You know what's even better than putting solar panels on windows? (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-12-09 12:25 (#X4SN) If you exclude visible light, you are left with the sides of this, which are awful.Your graph shows a tremendous amount of power available in the infrared. I don't see a problem.In addition, HEAT reduces panel efficiency. So allowing lots of unused light right through will offer a small improvement in efficiency, by itself.Why would you use solar panels at high latitude? That's another intentional handicap. Put them where the sun actually shines, maybe?Because billions of people live at high latitudes. They need energy, too. Power lines over running thousands of kilometers have huge losses. We haven't gotten superconductors to work quite yet, and even if we did, the up-front construction costs would be huge.there's casing and transformers and grid connections and mechanical mounts, all of which break and need maintenance. If you are on a roof, that's fine. If you are on the side of a skyscraper, it's more expensive.The "transformers and grid connections" wouldn't be located on the sides of the skyscraper (perhaps in the dropped-ceilings), so no additional maintenance burden there. The "mounts" already exist to hold windows in place, and window washers are already routine, so no additional expenses there. There will be just a little more expense in routing electrical lines from the panels, which wouldn't be required with plain windows.There are plenty of southern population centers to supply with cheap, dumb, efficient, boring solar panels.Nothing wrong with that, but it's not as if these efforts will somehow slow or stop the production of traditional PV panels. People in less-than-ideal conditions for existing solar panels would like to get some of the benefits, too, and there's no reason to stop them.
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 booleanlobster@pipedot.org on 2015-12-09 05:49 (#X3X4) Common solar panels are 20% efficient because we have tuned the bandgap to about 1.1-1.4 eV, which is the right spot to catch as much energy from solar radiation as possible for a single-junction cell. If you exclude visible light, you are left with the sides of this, which are awful."Doesn't convert or even block the peak of the spectrum" is a massive handicap for a solar panel. The panels designed without that restriction will always be vastly cheaper per watt.Why would you use solar panels at high latitude? That's another intentional handicap. Put them where the sun actually shines, maybe?The panels themselves might last for a long time, although we don't exactly have the manufacturing data to back that up. But even if they do, there's casing and transformers and grid connections and mechanical mounts, all of which break and need maintenance. If you are on a roof, that's fine. If you are on the side of a skyscraper, it's more expensive.There are plenty of southern population centers to supply with cheap, dumb, efficient, boring solar panels. Let's do that Re: You know what's even better than putting solar panels on windows? (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-12-09 12:25 (#X4SN) If you exclude visible light, you are left with the sides of this, which are awful.Your graph shows a tremendous amount of power available in the infrared. I don't see a problem.In addition, HEAT reduces panel efficiency. So allowing lots of unused light right through will offer a small improvement in efficiency, by itself.Why would you use solar panels at high latitude? That's another intentional handicap. Put them where the sun actually shines, maybe?Because billions of people live at high latitudes. They need energy, too. Power lines over running thousands of kilometers have huge losses. We haven't gotten superconductors to work quite yet, and even if we did, the up-front construction costs would be huge.there's casing and transformers and grid connections and mechanical mounts, all of which break and need maintenance. If you are on a roof, that's fine. If you are on the side of a skyscraper, it's more expensive.The "transformers and grid connections" wouldn't be located on the sides of the skyscraper (perhaps in the dropped-ceilings), so no additional maintenance burden there. The "mounts" already exist to hold windows in place, and window washers are already routine, so no additional expenses there. There will be just a little more expense in routing electrical lines from the panels, which wouldn't be required with plain windows.There are plenty of southern population centers to supply with cheap, dumb, efficient, boring solar panels.Nothing wrong with that, but it's not as if these efforts will somehow slow or stop the production of traditional PV panels. People in less-than-ideal conditions for existing solar panels would like to get some of the benefits, too, and there's no reason to stop them.
Re: You know what's even better than putting solar panels on windows? (Score: 1) by booleanlobster@pipedot.org on 2015-12-09 05:49 (#X3X4) Common solar panels are 20% efficient because we have tuned the bandgap to about 1.1-1.4 eV, which is the right spot to catch as much energy from solar radiation as possible for a single-junction cell. If you exclude visible light, you are left with the sides of this, which are awful."Doesn't convert or even block the peak of the spectrum" is a massive handicap for a solar panel. The panels designed without that restriction will always be vastly cheaper per watt.Why would you use solar panels at high latitude? That's another intentional handicap. Put them where the sun actually shines, maybe?The panels themselves might last for a long time, although we don't exactly have the manufacturing data to back that up. But even if they do, there's casing and transformers and grid connections and mechanical mounts, all of which break and need maintenance. If you are on a roof, that's fine. If you are on the side of a skyscraper, it's more expensive.There are plenty of southern population centers to supply with cheap, dumb, efficient, boring solar panels. Let's do that Re: You know what's even better than putting solar panels on windows? (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-12-09 12:25 (#X4SN) If you exclude visible light, you are left with the sides of this, which are awful.Your graph shows a tremendous amount of power available in the infrared. I don't see a problem.In addition, HEAT reduces panel efficiency. So allowing lots of unused light right through will offer a small improvement in efficiency, by itself.Why would you use solar panels at high latitude? That's another intentional handicap. Put them where the sun actually shines, maybe?Because billions of people live at high latitudes. They need energy, too. Power lines over running thousands of kilometers have huge losses. We haven't gotten superconductors to work quite yet, and even if we did, the up-front construction costs would be huge.there's casing and transformers and grid connections and mechanical mounts, all of which break and need maintenance. If you are on a roof, that's fine. If you are on the side of a skyscraper, it's more expensive.The "transformers and grid connections" wouldn't be located on the sides of the skyscraper (perhaps in the dropped-ceilings), so no additional maintenance burden there. The "mounts" already exist to hold windows in place, and window washers are already routine, so no additional expenses there. There will be just a little more expense in routing electrical lines from the panels, which wouldn't be required with plain windows.There are plenty of southern population centers to supply with cheap, dumb, efficient, boring solar panels.Nothing wrong with that, but it's not as if these efforts will somehow slow or stop the production of traditional PV panels. People in less-than-ideal conditions for existing solar panels would like to get some of the benefits, too, and there's no reason to stop them.
Re: You know what's even better than putting solar panels on windows? (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-12-09 12:25 (#X4SN) If you exclude visible light, you are left with the sides of this, which are awful.Your graph shows a tremendous amount of power available in the infrared. I don't see a problem.In addition, HEAT reduces panel efficiency. So allowing lots of unused light right through will offer a small improvement in efficiency, by itself.Why would you use solar panels at high latitude? That's another intentional handicap. Put them where the sun actually shines, maybe?Because billions of people live at high latitudes. They need energy, too. Power lines over running thousands of kilometers have huge losses. We haven't gotten superconductors to work quite yet, and even if we did, the up-front construction costs would be huge.there's casing and transformers and grid connections and mechanical mounts, all of which break and need maintenance. If you are on a roof, that's fine. If you are on the side of a skyscraper, it's more expensive.The "transformers and grid connections" wouldn't be located on the sides of the skyscraper (perhaps in the dropped-ceilings), so no additional maintenance burden there. The "mounts" already exist to hold windows in place, and window washers are already routine, so no additional expenses there. There will be just a little more expense in routing electrical lines from the panels, which wouldn't be required with plain windows.There are plenty of southern population centers to supply with cheap, dumb, efficient, boring solar panels.Nothing wrong with that, but it's not as if these efforts will somehow slow or stop the production of traditional PV panels. People in less-than-ideal conditions for existing solar panels would like to get some of the benefits, too, and there's no reason to stop them.