If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Phys Org2)   Scientists invent highly transparent solar cells for windows. Spokesman Paul Moller says takeover of solar power just 10 years away, they just need a few investors   (phys.org) divider line 88
    More: Obvious, electricity, solar energy, conversion efficiency, green buildings, solar cells, visible spectra, photovoltaics, electrical current  
•       •       •

4520 clicks; posted to Geek » on 22 Jul 2012 at 11:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-22 05:58:49 AM
Still waiting

i1189.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-22 06:05:26 AM
This settles it, our species is awesome.
 
2012-07-22 07:19:30 AM
The oil, natural gas, coal, and electric corporations will never let this hapen. Sigh.
 
2012-07-22 07:40:58 AM
Great choice of spokesman.
 
2012-07-22 07:50:11 AM

labman: Great choice of spokesman.


is your sarcasm detector on the fritz?
 
2012-07-22 08:25:19 AM
That's great, but don't roofs usually get more sunshine than windows?
 
2012-07-22 09:46:53 AM

Happy Hours: That's great, but don't roofs usually get more sunshine than windows?


And the ones on the roof are close to 4 times more efficient, but think bigger... Glass office tower bigger.

The article mostly talked about device applications anyway, so we are a long way out from building applications.
 
2012-07-22 11:42:04 AM
Nice, but of course they will be exceedingly inefficient. There are not very many photons in the infrared region.
 
2012-07-22 11:42:41 AM
Isn't the whole point of the solar cell to absorb light? Solar power is cool and all, we should definitely be making more use of it than we are. But the best bet right now is something like the bloom box. Basically a natural gas energy cell. And natural gas is fairly easy to make, too.
 
2012-07-22 11:43:31 AM
Haha suck it linux users, no support for you!
 
2012-07-22 11:49:23 AM
Moller did sell the hell out of Supertrapps, I'll give him that. They pretty much had the street/dirt 4 stroke market cornered by the time Kerker bought them out.
 
2012-07-22 11:50:49 AM
4% efficiency is not likely to get it done.
 
2012-07-22 11:51:25 AM

Katolu: The oil, natural gas, coal, and electric corporations will never let this hapen. Sigh.


If they use petroleum to produce these polymers then this could be the biggest thing to happen for the oil industry. Imagine every window in the work brought to you by the oil industry.
 
2012-07-22 11:55:25 AM

Katolu: The oil, natural gas, coal, and electric corporations will never let this hapen. Sigh.


Yeah, just like the coal companies never let oil happen in 1859.
 
2012-07-22 12:02:09 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Katolu: The oil, natural gas, coal, and electric corporations will never let this hapen. Sigh.

Yeah, just like the coal whale companies never let oil happen in 1859.


FTFY. Oil was not a competitor to coal at the time. Still isn't, for that matter.
 
2012-07-22 12:05:39 PM

Torsoheap: 4% efficiency is not likely to get it done.


That's about what it is for plants.
Of course, they make up for it in volume.
 
2012-07-22 12:07:35 PM

Honest Bender: Isn't the whole point of the solar cell to absorb light? Solar power is cool and all, we should definitely be making more use of it than we are. But the best bet right now is something like the bloom box. Basically a natural gas energy cell. And natural gas is fairly easy to make, too.


TFA says it converts IR, not visible. Hopefully there is enough InGaAs to make a lot of these. Then there will be a whole sub-industry to convert the DC to synced 60Hz, but do it in a way that is small and unoffensive to the eye since these could conceivable be on every window.
 
2012-07-22 12:15:49 PM
Katolu:
The oil, natural gas, coal, and electric corporations will never let this hapen. Sigh.

It's always pretty funny when I read things like this, because the people who make that sort of claim don't seem to know that there are more than enough companies of all sorts that can make it happen - and they're usually the same companies as the one you seem to think have such amazing power.

It's like that whole "the oil companies won't let alternative fuels develop thing: Who do you think would be distributing the "new" fuels? A bunch of nobodies who come up with the tech, or the multi-billion-dollar industry that already has a massive infrastructure designed to haul around flammable liquids and gases?

An efficient and easily-installed solar power system would be stacked up by the pallet at Home Depot for the weekend handymen - if someone could make one that's really that good. The problem isn't the solar cells - it's all of the other stuff, like installation and power management. Right now, it costs more to install a system (with wiring and battery storage) than it does to make the cells...
 
2012-07-22 12:18:14 PM

Honest Bender: Isn't the whole point of the solar cell to absorb light? Solar power is cool and all, we should definitely be making more use of it than we are. But the best bet right now is something like the bloom box. Basically a natural gas energy cell. And natural gas is fairly easy to make, too.


Damn straight, my coworkers hate to agree...
 
2012-07-22 12:24:51 PM
I invented a car that runs on bald eagle heads.
 
2012-07-22 12:37:20 PM

Hollie Maea: Quantum Apostrophe: Katolu: The oil, natural gas, coal, and electric corporations will never let this hapen. Sigh.

Yeah, just like the coal whale companies never let oil happen in 1859.

FTFY. Oil was not a competitor to coal at the time. Still isn't, for that matter.


Exactly, and neither is electricity for what fossil fuels can do. But you have to admit oil has more energy density and oil powered warships did displace coal fired ships. Churchill did that.

I'm just trying to show that there is no vast shadowy conspiracy preventing solar energy from "taking over". It just can't compete on any level with what oil has. It never will, unless you build solar-powered coal conversion plants. Hello 100$/gallon gasoline.
 
2012-07-22 12:45:34 PM

Torsoheap: 4% efficiency is not likely to get it done.


It's a big step up from the current 0% efficiency.
 
2012-07-22 12:54:11 PM

Honest Bender: Torsoheap: 4% efficiency is not likely to get it done.

It's a big step up from the current 0% efficiency.


If it is as cheap as regular glass then yes. Otherwise it is way down on the totem pole.
 
2012-07-22 12:55:24 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Hollie Maea: Quantum Apostrophe: Katolu: The oil, natural gas, coal, and electric corporations will never let this hapen. Sigh.

Yeah, just like the coal whale companies never let oil happen in 1859.

FTFY. Oil was not a competitor to coal at the time. Still isn't, for that matter.

Exactly, and neither is electricity for what fossil fuels can do. But you have to admit oil has more energy density and oil powered warships did displace coal fired ships. Churchill did that.

I'm just trying to show that there is no vast shadowy conspiracy preventing solar energy from "taking over". It just can't compete on any level with what oil has. It never will, unless you build solar-powered coal conversion plants. Hello 100$/gallon gasoline.


I think the original jab was more related to the actions of oil companies against the early development of electric cars. A good example of this is Chevron's ownership of patents relating of NiMH batteries. Chevron wanted to make money on them in a way that would not harm their petroleum business. To do this they limited the size of NiMH batteries. That is why NiMH took off in the rechargeable battery market, but went nowhere with cars. There was clearly demand for it. The Toyota Prius used NiMH, but in order to work around the patent rules they literally had to make their battery packs out of dozens of little batteries. This was not necessary because of engineering - they could have used massive cells - instead they were hampered by the weight of many individual cells and additional complexity of correcting voltage.
 
2012-07-22 01:29:33 PM

Hollie Maea: Honest Bender: Torsoheap: 4% efficiency is not likely to get it done.

It's a big step up from the current 0% efficiency.

If it is as cheap as regular glass then yes. Otherwise it is way down on the totem pole.


I'm an engineer. You're complaining about marketing.
 
2012-07-22 01:34:54 PM

Katolu: The oil, natural gas, coal, and electric corporations will never let this hapen. Sigh.


Why not? They are still in the business of selling power. Doesn't matter to them how they sell it. Can you make solar panels for free in your back yard? Where will you get them from?
 
2012-07-22 01:43:30 PM

Katolu: The oil, natural gas, coal, and electric corporations will never let this hapen. Sigh.


Even if we stopped using Oil to power things (i.e. zero petrol usage and the like) Exxon and BP and all the others would still be rolling around in money and making more hand over fist. Half of these green tech seems to make use of polymers and other assorted plastics... which use oil.

For the likes of those companies the future looks exceptionally bright.
 
2012-07-22 01:43:51 PM
Here's what I don't get: if the solar cells neither absorb nor reflect sunlight (and they must not, because if they did then they wouldn't be transparent), then how are they able to absorb energy from it?
 
2012-07-22 01:50:07 PM

Millennium: Here's what I don't get: if the solar cells neither absorb nor reflect sunlight (and they must not, because if they did then they wouldn't be transparent), then how are they able to absorb energy from it?


They do absorb light. Infrared light. This is light you don't see, hence the transparency (well, 70% transparency)
 
2012-07-22 01:51:28 PM

Hollie Maea: Quantum Apostrophe: Katolu: The oil, natural gas, coal, and electric corporations will never let this hapen. Sigh.

Yeah, just like the coal whale companies never let oil happen in 1859.

FTFY. Oil was not a competitor to coal at the time. Still isn't, for that matter.


Holy revisionism batman!
 
2012-07-22 02:01:36 PM

cirby: Katolu:
The oil, natural gas, coal, and electric corporations will never let this hapen. Sigh.

It's always pretty funny when I read things like this, because the people who make that sort of claim don't seem to know that there are more than enough companies of all sorts that can make it happen - and they're usually the same companies as the one you seem to think have such amazing power.


Climatologists now control a 250 billion a year budget globally. They dominate the liberal media where for example the BBC presents climatism as an undeniable fact. Every academic institution in the western world now puts a warming-scare spin on their papers and most political parties in US and EU put it in their manifesto. State education now indoctrinates this BS into the heads of children. You cannot work in TV, journalism, research or politics without agreeing to this stuff. Massive tracts of land are covered in wind turbines, while ordinary people are being driven into energy poverty by the millions. All the money is going from taxpayers to climatology businesses, corrupt politicians and land-owners, and there's no means-testing, so this represents a regressive tax on the poor to subsidise the rich and powerful.

What were you saying about amazing power again?
 
2012-07-22 02:05:22 PM

madgonad: Quantum Apostrophe: Hollie Maea: Quantum Apostrophe: Katolu: The oil, natural gas, coal, and electric corporations will never let this hapen. Sigh.

Yeah, just like the coal whale companies never let oil happen in 1859.

FTFY. Oil was not a competitor to coal at the time. Still isn't, for that matter.

Exactly, and neither is electricity for what fossil fuels can do. But you have to admit oil has more energy density and oil powered warships did displace coal fired ships. Churchill did that.

I'm just trying to show that there is no vast shadowy conspiracy preventing solar energy from "taking over". It just can't compete on any level with what oil has. It never will, unless you build solar-powered coal conversion plants. Hello 100$/gallon gasoline.

I think the original jab was more related to the actions of oil companies against the early development of electric cars. A good example of this is Chevron's ownership of patents relating of NiMH batteries. Chevron wanted to make money on them in a way that would not harm their petroleum business. To do this they limited the size of NiMH batteries.


I'm pretty sure the courts would not allow Chevron to enforce their patent that way. There have to be reasonable licensing terms.

Don't you think the fact that no suitable batter has actually been invented yet might be important?

Or do you just always reason that "bad thing -> corporation's fault" in all situations like some sort of simplistic automaton.
 
2012-07-22 02:05:27 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Hollie Maea: Quantum Apostrophe: Katolu: The oil, natural gas, coal, and electric corporations will never let this hapen. Sigh.

Yeah, just like the coal whale companies never let oil happen in 1859.

FTFY. Oil was not a competitor to coal at the time. Still isn't, for that matter.

Holy revisionism batman!


That's not revisionism. Petroleum put the whaling industry out of business, not coal.
 
2012-07-22 02:08:07 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Climatologists now control a 250 billion a year budget globally.


This caught me off guard, usually this kind of derp comes helpfully packaged in green text.
 
2012-07-22 02:09:35 PM
About fuggin time.
 
2012-07-22 02:10:31 PM

StoneColdAtheist: THE GREAT NAME: Hollie Maea: Quantum Apostrophe: Katolu: The oil, natural gas, coal, and electric corporations will never let this hapen. Sigh.

Yeah, just like the coal whale companies never let oil happen in 1859.

FTFY. Oil was not a competitor to coal at the time. Still isn't, for that matter.

Holy revisionism batman!

That's not revisionism. Petroleum put the whaling industry out of business, not coal.


Coal may have survived, but oil is and was most definitely a competitor in the most important sector. To claim otherwise is ridiculous politically-motivated revisionism (reminds me of the attempts to talk down the importance of the global cooling scare of the early 70s)

By the way, speaking as an atheist myself, I think you should change your moniker, as you have clearly embraced the religion of Gaia.
 
2012-07-22 02:11:34 PM
This looks like it could have some really cool applications on car windows and sunglasses in terms of the tinting provided (granted, for sunglasses you'd still want polarized plastic or glass underneath).
While 4% doesn't seem that good, if it's installed over a large enough area (sliding glass door? large windows) and is cheap enough, it could be a really economical way to power electronics. (yes, I too would love to see exactly how much power per square foot it could generate, but graduating college means I no longer have access to the actual publications with more in-depth analysis :-/ ).
 
2012-07-22 02:22:47 PM

theorellior: THE GREAT NAME: Climatologists now control a 250 billion a year budget globally.

This caught me off guard, usually this kind of derp comes helpfully packaged in green text.


The World Bank reports 126 billion US$ for carbon trading alone in 2008. Government funding in EU states is in the tens of billions in each country. Hell WWF alone took 238 million in revenues in 2011, and that's just one of the international NGOs.
 
2012-07-22 02:24:14 PM
Standard new panels are about 15% efficient, and generate about 275w. This, the same size, would be about 75w.
 
2012-07-22 02:28:29 PM

Torsoheap: 4% efficiency is not likely to get it done.


We're talking about an infinite rain of photons from the sky. 4% efficiency will "get it done" until someone invents 4.01% efficiency for the same application.

I mean, 1% interest on your savings account sucks, too. But I don't think you'd object to getting 1% of Warren Buffett's net worth, for free, forever.
 
2012-07-22 02:29:43 PM

sno man: Standard new panels are about 15% efficient, and generate about 275w. This, the same size, would be about 75w.


Do they generate these outputs all the time, or just when there is direct, unoccluded sunlight landing on them perpendicularly and without having passed through too much atmosphere?
 
2012-07-22 02:31:10 PM

semiotix: Torsoheap: 4% efficiency is not likely to get it done.

We're talking about an infinite rain of photons from the sky.


You might be. Some of us remain in the realms of reality, however.
 
2012-07-22 02:33:04 PM

sno man: Standard new panels are about 15% efficient, and generate about 275w. This, the same size, would be about 75w.


But you can't put standard cells on the entire exterior of a high rise. 4% efficiency plus a little tint plus filtering the IR portion of the spectrum, which I'd think would reduce cooling costs a bit, is pretty darn good. Assuming reasonable lifespan and installation costs, etc.
 
2012-07-22 02:35:12 PM
There's a reason why I have a certain threadshiatter Farkied as "FFS".
 
2012-07-22 02:35:59 PM

THE GREAT NAME: sno man: Standard new panels are about 15% efficient, and generate about 275w. This, the same size, would be about 75w.

Do they generate these outputs all the time, or just when there is direct, unoccluded sunlight landing on them perpendicularly and without having passed through too much atmosphere?


Doesn't need the perfect conditions you imply, but yea, they work better the more sun they can get. A simple tracking array will put out pretty steady power most of the day. Clouds diminish output, and night time kinda hits hard on the numbers too.
 
2012-07-22 02:36:41 PM

Millennium: Here's what I don't get: if the solar cells neither absorb nor reflect sunlight (and they must not, because if they did then they wouldn't be transparent), then how are they able to absorb energy from it?


Hollie Maea: Nice, but of course they will be exceedingly inefficient. There are not very many photons in the infrared region.


Not compared to the wavelengths that traditional photovoltaics use, no. But think of a glass skyscraper in, say, Houston. These buildings cost an arm and a leg to keep cool. To cut down on the A/C bill, these windows are already smoked, probably more than 30%, actually. So, if you could do this building-wide, you'd be harvesting the "heat me up" to create electricity that would otherwise be costing you electricity.

Now, who knows if this is the company that's going to make it a thing, or if there isn't an obvious next step that will make v.2.0 44% efficient. But there's really no such thing as a bad innovation in solar power.
 
2012-07-22 02:37:35 PM

ChubbyTiger: sno man: Standard new panels are about 15% efficient, and generate about 275w. This, the same size, would be about 75w.

But you can't put standard cells on the entire exterior of a high rise. 4% efficiency plus a little tint plus filtering the IR portion of the spectrum, which I'd think would reduce cooling costs a bit, is pretty darn good. Assuming reasonable lifespan and installation costs, etc.


A point I kinda made up at the top of the thread but with office buildings.
 
2012-07-22 02:38:02 PM
I would like to see far more money going to research solar power and other green power options. We know that someday we will run out of fossil fuels. Maybe not today, not tomorrow, but it will happen.
 
2012-07-22 02:43:06 PM

semiotix: Millennium: Here's what I don't get: if the solar cells neither absorb nor reflect sunlight (and they must not, because if they did then they wouldn't be transparent), then how are they able to absorb energy from it?

Hollie Maea: Nice, but of course they will be exceedingly inefficient. There are not very many photons in the infrared region.

Not compared to the wavelengths that traditional photovoltaics use, no. But think of a glass skyscraper in, say, Houston. These buildings cost an arm and a leg to keep cool. To cut down on the A/C bill, these windows are already smoked, probably more than 30%, actually. So, if you could do this building-wide, you'd be harvesting the "heat me up" to create electricity that would otherwise be costing you electricity.

Now, who knows if this is the company that's going to make it a thing, or if there isn't an obvious next step that will make v.2.0 44% efficient. But there's really no such thing as a bad innovation in solar power.


Yea, when you start adding up the potential efficiencies, more light, so less lighting. less solar heating , so less air cooling, all the side effects easily add to the efficiency.
 
2012-07-22 02:49:28 PM

sno man: ChubbyTiger: sno man: Standard new panels are about 15% efficient, and generate about 275w. This, the same size, would be about 75w.

But you can't put standard cells on the entire exterior of a high rise. 4% efficiency plus a little tint plus filtering the IR portion of the spectrum, which I'd think would reduce cooling costs a bit, is pretty darn good. Assuming reasonable lifespan and installation costs, etc.

A point I kinda made up at the top of the thread but with office buildings.


And that's what I get for reading posts without paying attention to the authors. I blame lack of sleep and stupid quantities of coffee.
 
2012-07-22 02:54:53 PM
NAME did some rough calcs.

Consider a block of apartments. Let's say each one averages 500W of energy usage (corresponds to electric bill of $500 per year). Apartments exist on all four sides, so consider four apartments NSEW, we need 2KW.

The windows are vertical, so for the sun to hit them noticably it must be some way from vertical. Horizontally, it could hit one face, or it could be split across two, but weaker. Let's say we get one side illuminated at half the sun's full intensity (optimistic I think). The apartment's window area may be 4m*6m, so this is 24/2 or 12KW of light. 4% sens gets us 0.48KW. But these conditions only apply for about 8 hours each day (4 in morning, 4 in afternoon). So average is 0.16KW. But it won't work so well in the winter, maybe for an average we should adjust to 0.12KW. That's assuming no clouds. Clouds vary by location, so we get a range I would say of 0.05 (mostly cloudy) to 0.10KW (rarely cloudy).

So we could get 2.5-5% of the required power from this and although I have factored in many issue, that still feels optimistic Certainly, wind-farm utilisation rates are much lower than was forecasted.

Then someone builds another tower block that puts you in their shadow! Litigation time!
 
2012-07-22 02:56:36 PM

sno man: THE GREAT NAME: sno man: Standard new panels are about 15% efficient, and generate about 275w. This, the same size, would be about 75w.

Do they generate these outputs all the time, or just when there is direct, unoccluded sunlight landing on them perpendicularly and without having passed through too much atmosphere?

Doesn't need the perfect conditions you imply, but yea, they work better the more sun they can get. A simple tracking array will put out pretty steady power most of the day. Clouds diminish output, and night time kinda hits hard on the numbers too.


If these things are windows, they aint' tracking.
 
2012-07-22 02:57:33 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Hollie Maea: Quantum Apostrophe: Katolu: The oil, natural gas, coal, and electric corporations will never let this hapen. Sigh.

Yeah, just like the coal whale companies never let oil happen in 1859.

FTFY. Oil was not a competitor to coal at the time. Still isn't, for that matter.

Holy revisionism batman!


Don't be ridiculous. For the first several decades of the oil boom it was refined into kerosene for lighting, replacing previous whale oil lighting. Today oil is used almost completely for transportation while coal is used primarily for electricity. When vehicles become electrified, then they will be competitors. This isn't revisionism, this is third grade history.
Go read "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin then maybe you can contribute to the conversation.
 
2012-07-22 02:57:57 PM

ivelostfaithinhumanity: I would like to see far more money going to research solar power and other green power options. We know that someday we will run out of fossil fuels. Maybe not today, not tomorrow, but it will happen.


3/10 for resorting to "things run out".
 
2012-07-22 03:00:23 PM

Brontes: Honest Bender: Isn't the whole point of the solar cell to absorb light? Solar power is cool and all, we should definitely be making more use of it than we are. But the best bet right now is something like the bloom box. Basically a natural gas energy cell. And natural gas is fairly easy to make, too.

TFA says it converts IR, not visible. Hopefully there is enough InGaAs to make a lot of these. Then there will be a whole sub-industry to convert the DC to synced 60Hz, but do it in a way that is small and unoffensive to the eye since these could conceivable be on every window.


That's done downstream. I've done many solar projects and you expose the solar cells in this case while putting the battery/capacitor system and dc/ac converters in a hidden "black box" in a location like a maintenance or telecom room, with wires connecting the cells and the black boxes.
 
2012-07-22 03:02:44 PM

semiotix: Now, who knows if this is the company that's going to make it a thing, or if there isn't an obvious next step that will make v.2.0 44% efficient. But there's really no such thing as a bad innovation in solar power.


I agree that there are no bad innovation in solar power, but I have to protest the v 2.0 prediction. 4 percent is about the physical maximum for an IR panel.
 
2012-07-22 03:05:02 PM

THE GREAT NAME: semiotix: Torsoheap: 4% efficiency is not likely to get it done.

We're talking about an infinite rain of photons from the sky.

You might be. Some of us remain in the realms of reality, however.


Eh, the technicalities here lie in semantics. The rate (energy density of sunlight) is limited, while for all intents and purposes, the supply is unlimited. Like some cell phone data plans.

/not arguing.
 
2012-07-22 03:06:18 PM

Hollie Maea: THE GREAT NAME: Hollie Maea: Quantum Apostrophe: Katolu: The oil, natural gas, coal, and electric corporations will never let this hapen. Sigh.

Yeah, just like the coal whale companies never let oil happen in 1859.

FTFY. Oil was not a competitor to coal at the time. Still isn't, for that matter.

Holy revisionism batman!

Don't be ridiculous. For the first several decades of the oil boom it was refined into kerosene for lighting, replacing previous whale oil lighting. Today oil is used almost completely for transportation while coal is used primarily for electricity. When vehicles become electrified, then they will be competitors. This isn't revisionism, this is third grade history.
Go read "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin then maybe you can contribute to the conversation.


None of what you say refutes the argument that oil was a competitor, and that the "evil coal corporations" did not do "evil things" to obstruct it.

All you are saying is that oil was first used in niche markets before it's price dropped to eventual levels. Nothing surprising about that.

Your next move will be to try and shift the goal posts, won't it. I'm getting a good sixth sense about the debating fallacies of people such as you..
 
2012-07-22 03:06:46 PM

THE GREAT NAME: sno man: THE GREAT NAME: sno man: Standard new panels are about 15% efficient, and generate about 275w. This, the same size, would be about 75w.

Do they generate these outputs all the time, or just when there is direct, unoccluded sunlight landing on them perpendicularly and without having passed through too much atmosphere?

Doesn't need the perfect conditions you imply, but yea, they work better the more sun they can get. A simple tracking array will put out pretty steady power most of the day. Clouds diminish output, and night time kinda hits hard on the numbers too.

If these things are windows, they aint' tracking.


These things aren't windows yet. What we do have is often installed on a tracking platform to improve performance. Sorry for referencing the real world there, just trying to "remain in the realms of reality, however."
 
2012-07-22 03:10:52 PM

Perennially Distracted: (yes, I too would love to see exactly how much power per square foot it could generate, but graduating college means I no longer have access to the actual publications with more in-depth analysis :-/ ).


Four percent efficiency means a peak output of 40 watts/square meter or 3.7 watts per square foot.
 
2012-07-22 03:15:37 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Hollie Maea: THE GREAT NAME: Hollie Maea: Quantum Apostrophe: Katolu: The oil, natural gas, coal, and electric corporations will never let this hapen. Sigh.

Yeah, just like the coal whale companies never let oil happen in 1859.

FTFY. Oil was not a competitor to coal at the time. Still isn't, for that matter.

Holy revisionism batman!

Don't be ridiculous. For the first several decades of the oil boom it was refined into kerosene for lighting, replacing previous whale oil lighting. Today oil is used almost completely for transportation while coal is used primarily for electricity. When vehicles become electrified, then they will be competitors. This isn't revisionism, this is third grade history.
Go read "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin then maybe you can contribute to the conversation.

None of what you say refutes the argument that oil was a competitor, and that the "evil coal corporations" did not do "evil things" to obstruct it.

All you are saying is that oil was first used in niche markets before it's price dropped to eventual levels. Nothing surprising about that.

Your next move will be to try and shift the goal posts, won't it. I'm getting a good sixth sense about the debating fallacies of people such as you..


Your grasp of the future is about as good as your grasp of the past. Goalposts are remaining where they are, and you are remaining an ignorant fool.
 
2012-07-22 03:17:52 PM

theorellior: There's a reason why I have a certain threadshiatter Farkied as "FFS".


No kidding, the link was showing 60 comments but I was only seeing 42 of them, figured that's who it was. I miss the mild eccentricities of the yesteryear ones like Nicksteel, not this new breed of beyond obvious types.
 
2012-07-22 03:37:05 PM

THE GREAT NAME: We're talking about an infinite rain of photons from the sky.

You might be. Some of us remain in the realms of reality, however.


Eeeeeasy there, big fella. Is your point that there aren't literally infinite photons hitting the earth, or anything, for that matter? Counting only the energy that hits the ground--not the ocean, not the clouds, not the being absorbed by the atmosphere, not powering photosynthesis, etc.--it's conservatively about 3,000 times the planet's present energy budget. Of which even these boutique special-application cells could capture 4%. In which case, just let me know when energy demands in your reality get 120 times bigger than they are now.

Of course, no one's actually talking about blanketing 1% of the earth's land surface with the wrong kind of solar cell for the job. Unless of course our $250,000,000,000.00 grant from the Dept. of Evil comes through.
 
2012-07-22 03:38:11 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Coal may have survived, but oil is and was most definitely a competitor in the most important sector. To claim otherwise is ridiculous politically-motivated revisionism (reminds me of the attempts to talk down the importance of the global cooling scare of the early 70s)


Um, no. Stop talking out your ass.

www.xroilprice.com

Coal use by sector...

www.coalcrusher.org

By the way, speaking as an atheist myself, I think you should change your moniker, as you have clearly embraced the religion of Gaia.

I outed myself as an atheist for nearly 60 years, How you doin'?
 
2012-07-22 03:40:25 PM

Hollie Maea: I agree that there are no bad innovation in solar power, but I have to protest the v 2.0 prediction. 4 percent is about the physical maximum for an IR panel.


I'm sure you're right. My point was that I don't know or care if this precise formulation carried to market by these exact guys is going to be the next killer solar app. If you start getting that specific we get into the whole HURRRR SOLYNDRA debate.
 
2012-07-22 03:53:44 PM

THE GREAT NAME: State education now indoctrinates this BS into the heads of children.


This is the thing I have the greatest problem with and it's not something new to happen with this current drama either. Now setting aside the random bollocks that in 2012 we have oil, an ozone layer haven't entered another ice age NOR has the multitude of rockets sent in to orbit destabilised our planets orbit all of which were fortold all of which were 100% unchangeable events of which nothing could be done other than to sit back and await the inevitable demise of the species... this school based indoctrination leads to well this sort of bullshiat:

It is impossible to want a move to greener methods of energy production whilst not being overly fussed about the finger pointing yet stating such opinions WILL garner a child like "with us/against us" response. Happens all the time on Fark.

The rampant desire to indoctrinate people from an early age in to the current way our species will die does us more harm than good in the long run; more so when older people come around and call bullshiat on it.

After all, nobody here drives to work anymore. We ran the planet totally out of oil in 2000.
 
2012-07-22 04:18:44 PM

THE GREAT NAME: Climatologists now control a 250 billion a year budget globally.


At least make your bullshiat vaguely plausible.
 
2012-07-22 04:22:40 PM

Hollie Maea: THE GREAT NAME: Hollie Maea: Quantum Apostrophe: Katolu: The oil, natural gas, coal, and electric corporations will never let this hapen. Sigh.

Yeah, just like the coal whale companies never let oil happen in 1859.

FTFY. Oil was not a competitor to coal at the time. Still isn't, for that matter.

Holy revisionism batman!

Don't be ridiculous. For the first several decades of the oil boom it was refined into kerosene for lighting, replacing previous whale oil lighting. Today oil is used almost completely for transportation while coal is used primarily for electricity. When vehicles become electrified, then they will be competitors. This isn't revisionism, this is third grade history.
Go read "The Prize" by Daniel Yergin then maybe you can contribute to the conversation.


Have you ever heard of "railroads"? Did you know they ran on something other than diesel and/or electricity?
 
2012-07-22 04:22:47 PM

semiotix: Hollie Maea: I agree that there are no bad innovation in solar power, but I have to protest the v 2.0 prediction. 4 percent is about the physical maximum for an IR panel.

I'm sure you're right. My point was that I don't know or care if this precise formulation carried to market by these exact guys is going to be the next killer solar app. If you start getting that specific we get into the whole HURRRR SOLYNDRA debate.


Well, we'll see. In interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I work at a company that makes traditional monocrystalline silicon solar panels. I wouldn't consider transparent PV devices to be a competitor since there is no real overlap between the two. But considering the hard physics ceiling that ANY transparent PV device would run into, they really would have to be about as cheap as regular glass to become used widely (the fact that they would usually not be able to be set at an ideal angle further hurts them. Also they wouldn't actually help much at all with cooling, since glass is already mostly opaque to IR--heating occurs mostly by visible light travelling through glass, being absorbed on surfaces and re-radiated as IR.
 
2012-07-22 04:25:16 PM

Vaneshi: We ran the planet totally out of oil in 2000.


Hey, look! A moron who doesn't understand what "Peak Oil" actually means. Do yourself a favor and spend the next 20 minutes looking at a normal curve. Maybe some insights will penetrate your skull
 
2012-07-22 04:51:28 PM

Katolu


The oil, natural gas, coal, and electric corporations will never let this hapen. Sigh.

img17.imageshack.us
 
2012-07-22 06:26:12 PM
newspaper.li

This is that green energy that Obama has been promoting.
 
2012-07-22 06:40:18 PM
They always say it is just 10 years away - or is that the joke?
 
2012-07-22 06:43:04 PM

Hollie Maea: semiotix: Hollie Maea: I agree that there are no bad innovation in solar power, but I have to protest the v 2.0 prediction. 4 percent is about the physical maximum for an IR panel.

I'm sure you're right. My point was that I don't know or care if this precise formulation carried to market by these exact guys is going to be the next killer solar app. If you start getting that specific we get into the whole HURRRR SOLYNDRA debate.

Well, we'll see. In interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I work at a company that makes traditional monocrystalline silicon solar panels. I wouldn't consider transparent PV devices to be a competitor since there is no real overlap between the two. But considering the hard physics ceiling that ANY transparent PV device would run into, they really would have to be about as cheap as regular glass to become used widely (the fact that they would usually not be able to be set at an ideal angle further hurts them. Also they wouldn't actually help much at all with cooling, since glass is already mostly opaque to IR--heating occurs mostly by visible light travelling through glass, being absorbed on surfaces and re-radiated as IR.


I think you'd have to set them in some sort of double pane arrangement or in a laminate sandwiched in the middle with some sort of film to keep the light cool

I wonder if it's able to be formed like regular glass? Imagine an automotive windshield, rear window, etc with that sandwiched in there, then mount those in hybrids/electrics

/this would likely make replacing windows a biatch to pay for when they get cracked
 
2012-07-22 06:44:05 PM

MBA Whore: They always say it is just 10 years away - or is that the joke?


it's a common range for speculative ventures to guess at when the technology as envisioned would be fit for production and possibly available for the lesser public
 
2012-07-22 08:51:39 PM

MBA Whore: They always say it is just 10 years away - or is that the joke?


It's kinda like asking a sub-contractor when they are available... always 6 weeks.
or how long 'til they are finished...2 weeks.
/yea it is a joke... not an especially funny one...
 
2012-07-22 10:43:39 PM
This thread needs more MrSteve007.
 
2012-07-22 10:45:53 PM

Mad_Radhu: This thread needs more MrSteve007.


Eh, let him have the time off, maybe he's out cruising in a mustang somewhere
 
2012-07-22 11:52:05 PM
You know - if this generates enough power, it could very well be on a future version of Google Glass ... or car windows ... or home skylights ...

I like this ...
 
2012-07-23 12:50:33 AM
"The UCLA team describes a new kind of polymer solar cell (PSC) that produces energy by absorbing mainly infrared light"

So... one would assume these cells absorb infrared light pretty well. After all, that is what would be required to produce(convert) any meaningful energy from them.

That would mean these cells(or rather the materials they are made from) have another use... defeating infrared cameras. Put this material in a combat suit, and your enemies with their infrared scopes won't see you coming. Put them in your walls and ceilings, and the DEA won't see your grow lamps.

The thickness used may need to be thicker than what they are producing for solar cells, but in theory that should work.
 
2012-07-23 03:28:15 AM

semiotix: Hollie Maea: I agree that there are no bad innovation in solar power, but I have to protest the v 2.0 prediction. 4 percent is about the physical maximum for an IR panel.

I'm sure you're right. My point was that I don't know or care if this precise formulation carried to market by these exact guys is going to be the next killer solar app. If you start getting that specific we get into the whole HURRRR SOLYNDRA debate.


Those graphs have been debunked.
 
2012-07-23 03:33:11 AM

Hollie Maea: Vaneshi: We ran the planet totally out of oil in 2000.

Hey, look! A moron who doesn't understand what "Peak Oil" actually means. Do yourself a favor and spend the next 20 minutes looking at a normal curve. Maybe some insights will penetrate your skull


Ahh - more revisionism. The point is, a few years ago climatists and eco loons were not talking about "peak oil". That is a recent invention. Back then they really were saying oil would run out by 2000. I remember being taught this in Chemistry class in the 1980s.

Liars always invent a new lie then try and claim that's always what they were saying. Doesn't wash any more.
 
2012-07-23 03:35:23 AM

MBA Whore: They always say it is just 10 years away - or is that the joke?


The whole thing is a joke - on the believers - who (laughably) think they're atheists!
 
2012-07-23 07:25:25 AM

SevenizGud: I invented a car that runs on bald eagle heads.


i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-07-23 07:36:37 AM
That school's got great ideas coming out the Yang Yang.
 
2012-07-23 11:50:26 AM
If you put this in car windows, would it absorb the infrared that radiates back out of the car surfaces and gets trapped by windows? In other words, would it keep the car from getting so hot in the sun?
 
2012-07-23 12:18:57 PM

Hollie Maea: Vaneshi: We ran the planet totally out of oil in 2000.

Hey, look! A moron who doesn't understand what "Peak Oil" actually means. Do yourself a favor and spend the next 20 minutes looking at a normal curve. Maybe some insights will penetrate your skull


Peak Oil? You mean the substance that we ran out of in 2000, why would I research a substance we can no longer get on this planet. You're being silly.

Deal with it. Your propaganda from previous eras has arrived, you're full of bullshiat and you know it. Enjoying the ice age? What's life like now that Earth is a rouge planet drifting through the universe with no star to orbit due to the moon launches? Did you wrap up properly this fine sunny (how can it be sunny with no star?) day due to the Ozone layer vanishing without a trace?

All of these things have, if the propaganda is to be believed, happened. So unless you're lying through your teeth we're all dead already and have been for over a decade.
 
2012-07-24 12:52:52 AM

loonatic112358: Mad_Radhu: This thread needs more MrSteve007.

Eh, let him have the time off, maybe he's out cruising in a mustang somewhere


Heh, dang! I'm too late. After taking my house off-grid earlier this month, I've been traveling off-grid lately.

Spent the past week hiking glaciers in the Alaskan Yukon.
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
/spent the weekend before that summiting Mt. Rainier
//and before that, a motorcycle roadtrip to Yellowstone
 
Displayed 88 of 88 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report