Transparent solar cells that could power skyscrapers

by
in hardware on (#WX4Z)
story imageResearch has boosted solar panel efficiency over time. But some scientists argue that to truly take advantage of the sun's power, we also need to expand the amount of real estate that can be outfitted with solar, by making cells that are nearly or entirely see-through, i-e transparent cells.

A Silicon Valley start-up named "Ubiquitous Energy" has succeeded in creating such transparent solar cells. ClearView is a transparent solar cell that can coat any surface, including displays and windows, to harvest ambient light and generate electricity. Ubiquitous Energy has redesigned the solar cell to selectively transmit light visible to the human eye while absorbing only the ultraviolet and infrared light and converting it into electricity.
Read more from...

That doesn't seem to mesh with their goal of completely eliminating the need for batteries in small consumer gadgets and even smart phones, as LED lighting doesn't emit ultraviolet or infrared, and there isn't always a window nearby. Still a potentially revolutionary technology in other applications, but unfortunately it's in the very, very early stages of development.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/ubiquitous-energy-transparent-solar-power-timeline/

Re: Or (Score: 1)

by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-12-10 18:21 (#X9QM)

I'm not sure I get the distinction between protecting forest ecosystems and desert ecosystems.
Compare the density of plant and animal life in a desert, with a forest. Deserts are necessarily sparse, and so you can develop far more desert land while doing much less damage. Since development isn't going to stop, the LESS destructive method is preferable.
I can tell you there are lots and lots of plants in the "mostly-empty" desert.
We won't run out of creosote bushes.
The whole idea of protecting individual animals and plants is that all species play a role in the ecosystem
Actually the popularity of the endangered species act is all about people wanting to preserve their childhood, and the animals they remember. The smaller and less significant the animal, the less public interest in protecting them. In truth, many species go extinct all the time, their impact on the ecosystem is low, and nearly nobody cares when it happens. It's only when large animals disappear that people bat an eyelash.
taking one species out threatens others in ways that are often unpredictable.
That sounds a little too much like the fear-mongering mantra of anti-chemical/vaccine/GMO/nuclear groups to me. The ecosystem of Arizona didn't collapse when the Santa Cruz Pupfish (Cyprinodon arcuatus) went extinct. In fact, can you point to ANY ecosystems that collapsed as the result of a few minor plants or animals going extinct? Particularly when we're talking about one endangered minor sub-species of an animal that's otherwise doing fine, it's hard to justify all the expensive efforts to preserve it. And in the deserts, too, there are state and federal parks and preserves which will provide sanctuary for endemic species.
Post Comment
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Shorts, cow, dog, foot, dress and head: how many body parts in the list?