Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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)   You can now own the smuggest eyesore in your neighborhood   ( phys.org) divider line
    More: Interesting, Electricity-generating solar greenhouses, Fruit, Photovoltaics, magenta glasshouses, Photosynthesis, magenta luminescent dye, self-sustaining greenhouses, Wavelength-Selective Photovoltaic Systems  
•       •       •

3843 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Nov 2017 at 2:38 PM (2 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



33 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-11-05 12:47:27 PM  
78.media.tumblr.comView Full Size
 
2017-11-05 01:36:02 PM  
Wow subby -- you're as much a smug little mohawk sporting bigot I encountered at the sushi joint I was at a couple nights back who tried to pinhole me as a person for being "an iPhone User"

More and more people are learning not just to cook, preserve and prepare food, but also how to cultivate it.
There's been a big upswing in the number of houses in urban areas such as SF, Oakland and LA that now have chicken coops or are starting to focus more on growing produce items such as tomatoes, lettuce, cabbages instead of lawns or decorative shrubbery. And it's not to be smug, but to eat, share and enjoy. And many communities have one or more neighborhood farms or gardens where they grow produce and members can partake in it's output

So frankly, I see this as a very cool deal. This Greenhouse gives average home owners an even better range of produce capable of being grown, since it affords a protected and regulated environment, plus it can fit in most backyards and can supply green energy to your house

Maybe one of the issues keeping Green Energy & Renewable Resource solutions from more wide spread adoption is the number of ignorant assholes running their mouths with constant insults green energy solutions and the people that use them every time something new comes out. It's sheer ignorance that serves only to put people off these solutions or supporting them because of the social stigma and negativity you and people like you put on it
 
2017-11-05 01:53:11 PM  
magenta greenhouses are eyesores

i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2017-11-05 02:40:52 PM  
If these panels were available commercially, I'd use them. Nothing wrong with red, subby.
 
2017-11-05 02:47:23 PM  
SOLD.
 
2017-11-05 02:52:07 PM  
Surely Steve Jobs' ghost is nodding in approval at subby's bold "aesthetics over all other considerations" stance.  I mean, who the hell wants improved energy independence if it's going to be ugly?
 
2017-11-05 02:52:32 PM  
i0.kym-cdn.comView Full Size


/gardener
//subby can f*ck off
 
2017-11-05 03:12:12 PM  
I was curious how only using a portion of the spectrum could be more efficient. That seems wrong so I Googled.

I think the answer is that is that the entire plastic panel collects light, but the actual photovoltaic cells are thin strips (pictured below). So it's more efficient per unit area of photo cell area.

"The transparent portion of the greenhouse roof serves to extend the solar collection area of the opaque PV cells, by absorbing some of the incoming solar radiation at certain wavelengths, and transmitting that energy laterally within the dyed plastic. "

img.fark.netView Full Size

  
Their paper:


Wavelength-Selective Solar Photovoltaic Systems: Powering Greenhouses for Plant Growth at the Food-Energy-Water Nexus
 
2017-11-05 03:16:12 PM  
I'm sure being smug is the only reason anyone would want to save money on both electricity and groceries. Top it off by being environmentally friendly in a couple of ways and anyone who would want this must be smug. Why else would anyone want to save money and help the environment a little bit? The notion of such madness is just not imaginable except in terrible and smug people.

Seriously, where did the movement to demonize common sense improvements like this come from, and why did they work on certain, possibly stupid, people (see submitter)?
 
2017-11-05 03:18:46 PM  
The Wavelength-Selective Photovoltaic systems (WSPVs) technology behind this is really cool.  I wonder what the chemoluminescent magenta dye is specifically. Good stuff subby.
 
2017-11-05 04:08:19 PM  

rudemix: where did the movement to demonize common sense improvements like this come from


The extractive fuel industry.

A few years ago, I heard a radio ad somberly warning: "We don't need to use less oil--we need to use more oil." I thought it was a joke, but, nope, it was from Big Oil. They pay Rush Limbaugh and Fox News large sums of cash to demonize solar and wind energy. Then morons like subby nod their heads and jerk their knees, and here we are.
 
2017-11-05 04:10:00 PM  
I guess we can rule out that he lives in an HOA.
 
2017-11-05 04:14:27 PM  

rudemix: I'm sure being smug is the only reason anyone would want to save money on both electricity and groceries. Top it off by being environmentally friendly in a couple of ways and anyone who would want this must be smug. Why else would anyone want to save money and help the environment a little bit? The notion of such madness is just not imaginable except in terrible and smug people.

Seriously, where did the movement to demonize common sense improvements like this come from, and why did they work on certain, possibly stupid, people (see submitter)?


A shot in the dark, but my guess it was people taking the joke on South Park about a small number of people driving a Prius being smug (a similar phenomenon to some BMW drivers being a-holes) to mean anyone that shows any bit of consciousness for environmental issues are automatically smug
 
2017-11-05 04:41:21 PM  
What's smug about this? Seems pretty awesome to me.
 
2017-11-05 04:49:46 PM  
Dad's cousin had an oil well in his front yard.  Produced something like four barrels a year.  He just liked the idea of the thing, I guess.

/ 1960s
// Had a big ranch
/// Don't judge us too harshly.
 
2017-11-05 05:02:03 PM  

a particular individual: rudemix: where did the movement to demonize common sense improvements like this come from

The extractive fuel industry.

A few years ago, I heard a radio ad somberly warning: "We don't need to use less oil--we need to use more oil." I thought it was a joke, but, nope, it was from Big Oil. They pay Rush Limbaugh and Fox News large sums of cash to demonize solar and wind energy. Then morons like subby nod their heads and jerk their knees, and here we are.


sadly there are people that get all NIMBY about solar and wind. farking morans.
 
2017-11-05 05:24:27 PM  

sinko swimo: sadly there are people that get all NIMBY about solar and wind. farking morans.


FFS, why?
 
2017-11-05 05:24:56 PM  
Am I the only person to read this and think "GROW OPERATION"?
 
2017-11-05 05:37:00 PM  

jaytkay: I was curious how only using a portion of the spectrum could be more efficient. That seems wrong so I Googled.

I think the answer is that is that the entire plastic panel collects light, but the actual photovoltaic cells are thin strips (pictured below). So it's more efficient per unit area of photo cell area.

"The transparent portion of the greenhouse roof serves to extend the solar collection area of the opaque PV cells, by absorbing some of the incoming solar radiation at certain wavelengths, and transmitting that energy laterally within the dyed plastic. "

[img.fark.net image 364x600]
  
Their paper:

Wavelength-Selective Solar Photovoltaic Systems: Powering Greenhouses for Plant Growth at the Food-Energy-Water Nexus


I found the same paper and came here to share it, you lousy 2-hour aheader.

Anyway, your read of it is correct.  The dye they use is luminescent and gathers and "re-shines" (my word) extra light that didn't directly hit the standard photovoltaic cells onto those cells.  It concentrates light on the cells.

My concern is longevity.  Organic dyes generally have a problem with photostability, i.e. they break down over time, especially in exposure to ultraviolet light.  The perylene dyes "are among the most photostable dyes reported to date" according to other studies, so maybe it's not a waste of research time.

I have to admit the first thing I pictured was a very faint pink "red" green house after 5 or 10 years.
 
2017-11-05 05:38:23 PM  

Fast Talkin Fanny: Am I the only person to read this and think "GROW OPERATION"?


No.  I believe that was kinda the point of the research.

NEXT!
 
2017-11-05 05:47:25 PM  
Subby here.

I am certain my sister in law is going to get one of these when she hears about them.  She has a smugness about all things new, or environmental, or electricity generating, and this will be no different.  Anyone that gets a greenhouse in the future will be judged by when they got it and what features it had.

And in her nice semi-wooded lot, filled with cedar and stone and slate, it's going to look like hell set down right in the middle of the front yard, because that's where the sun hits.

I will report back when I am proven correct.
 
2017-11-05 05:48:10 PM  

Mugato: sinko swimo: sadly there are people that get all NIMBY about solar and wind. farking morans.

FFS, why?


For wind, some say turbines kill birds.  Others say they are sight and sound pollution.

For solar thermal and solar PV, some say it's ugly.  More thoughtful ones question the efficiency, even going as far as to assert that a solar panel's manufacture may consume more hydrocarbons and emit more CO2 than it will offset in its lifetime (a dubious claim, especially as economies of scale engage).

For the people biatching about aesthetics, I say "Fark'm".  People are already making strides in "pretty" and I've always loved the sight of windmills.  Plus there are so many other ugly and uglier man-made constructs in our daily lives, that I find the aesthetic argument to be complete BS.

For the people biatching about sight and noise pollution from wind turbines, there has been found to be a very strong correlation between hate of windmills and not being paid to have some on your property.
 
2017-11-05 06:05:52 PM  

SansNeural: Mugato: sinko swimo: sadly there are people that get all NIMBY about solar and wind. farking morans.

FFS, why?

For wind, some say turbines kill birds.  Others say they are sight and sound pollution.

For solar thermal and solar PV, some say it's ugly.  More thoughtful ones question the efficiency, even going as far as to assert that a solar panel's manufacture may consume more hydrocarbons and emit more CO2 than it will offset in its lifetime (a dubious claim, especially as economies of scale engage).

For the people biatching about aesthetics, I say "Fark'm".  People are already making strides in "pretty" and I've always loved the sight of windmills.  Plus there are so many other ugly and uglier man-made constructs in our daily lives, that I find the aesthetic argument to be complete BS.

For the people biatching about sight and noise pollution from wind turbines, there has been found to be a very strong correlation between hate of windmills and not being paid to have some on your property.


Those are all pretty lame reasons unless the CO2 thing is true. If a bird flies into one it's a dumb bird and something was going to get it anyway. And I'm fairly sure that the Venn diagram of people who are against wind energy and animal lovers rarely intersect.
 
2017-11-05 06:40:04 PM  

rudemix: Seriously, where did the movement to demonize common sense improvements like this come from, and why did they work on certain, possibly stupid, people (see submitter)?


I'd say there are two factors.  First, there are insufferably smug jackholes out there that will take every opportunity to tell anyone within earshot how they compost, and since switching to solar they're saving soo much money, and the government should just hurry up and ban fossil fuels already, and isn't a shame that everyone can't be as enlightened as they are, and oh my gosh you're still driving a gas-powered car?  Don't you care about the environment?  Why are you trying to destroy the Earth with your evil, fossil fuel powered ways?

Then you have the conservative media taking a lot of money from oil and gas companies and running a lot of pro-oil/pro-gas advertising and going out of their way to never say anything positive about clean, renewable energy.

The end result is a segment of the population whose only real exposure to clean energy are smug assholes and propaganda.
 
2017-11-05 06:53:39 PM  

Teufelaffe: Why are you trying to destroy the Earth with your evil, fossil fuel powered ways?


When they say things like that they're insinuating that even if the entire country got rid of pollutants, we still have countries like China.
 
2017-11-05 07:15:31 PM  
Yeah, I'd buy one.
 
2017-11-05 07:16:05 PM  

Mugato: Those are all pretty lame reasons unless the CO2 thing is true. If a bird flies into one it's a dumb bird and something was going to get it anyway. And I'm fairly sure that the Venn diagram of people who are against wind energy and animal lovers rarely intersect.


The argument also ignores animals killed by other means of production. Sure, a *thunk* and a puff of feathers is more dramatic than keeling over from pollution, but the bird is still dead.
 
2017-11-05 08:44:43 PM  

Mugato: Those are all pretty lame reasons unless the CO2 thing is true. If a bird flies into one it's a dumb bird and something was going to get it anyway. And I'm fairly sure that the Venn diagram of people who are against wind energy and animal lovers rarely intersect.


Even the birds that avoid the blades can be killed, in fact.

The turbine produces a pressure gradient that can collapse the lungs of birds when the wind is high enough.
 
2017-11-05 10:31:08 PM  

Cry Hentai And Release The Tentacles of War!: Even the birds that avoid the blades can be killed, in fact.

The turbine produces a pressure gradient that can collapse the lungs of birds when the wind is high enough.


Birds use a lot of energy.  Energy we could use to reduce greenhouse gasses.
 
2017-11-06 03:49:50 PM  
The fact that the roof of the greenhouse looks brightly colored means that a lot of light is being wasted, unused by either the PV panels or the plants inside.  If the light is being put to work by any method or combinations of methods, then the roof should appear dark.
 
2017-11-06 04:07:15 PM  

flondrix: The fact that the roof of the greenhouse looks brightly colored means that a lot of light is being wasted, unused by either the PV panels or the plants inside.  If the light is being put to work by any method or combinations of methods, then the roof should appear dark.


Their research says that the PV solar cells are getting more photons than plain old facing the sun and the plants don't seem to mind the loss of some blue and green wavelengths of light.

Oh, jeeze... I'm sorry.  I just realized TFA is almost two whole pages long.  I can't expect you to read all that.  Sorry.
 
2017-11-06 06:50:42 PM  

SansNeural: flondrix: The fact that the roof of the greenhouse looks brightly colored means that a lot of light is being wasted, unused by either the PV panels or the plants inside.  If the light is being put to work by any method or combinations of methods, then the roof should appear dark.

Their research says that the PV solar cells are getting more photons than plain old facing the sun and the plants don't seem to mind the loss of some blue and green wavelengths of light.

Oh, jeeze... I'm sorry.  I just realized TFA is almost two whole pages long.  I can't expect you to read all that.  Sorry.


And you are not understanding what I am saying.  If the roof of the shed appears bright, photons are bouncing off and not going into either the solar cells or the plants.
 
2017-11-06 07:33:42 PM  

flondrix: SansNeural: flondrix: The fact that the roof of the greenhouse looks brightly colored means that a lot of light is being wasted, unused by either the PV panels or the plants inside.  If the light is being put to work by any method or combinations of methods, then the roof should appear dark.

Their research says that the PV solar cells are getting more photons than plain old facing the sun and the plants don't seem to mind the loss of some blue and green wavelengths of light.

Oh, jeeze... I'm sorry.  I just realized TFA is almost two whole pages long.  I can't expect you to read all that.  Sorry.

And you are not understanding what I am saying.  If the roof of the shed appears bright, photons are bouncing off and not going into either the solar cells or the plants.


I was being very snarky earlier and also I have nothing vested in this research.  BUT... their point was to steal *some* of the light that would have hit the plants and other stuff in the greenhouse and channel it laterally via light pipes of sorts to smallish PV cells.  Then see (a) if they can get more juice from the PV cells compared to their normal exposed area production and (b) see how the plants did.  Apparently the cells got more juice and the plants were mostly happy to grow.

Now neither TFA nor the research paper (linked above) speak much on the luminescence of the dye outside of saying they "transmit" some of the light energy to the solar panels.  They both say the dye is "bright" magenta, which I took to mean its appearance (e.g. light blue vs dark blue) rather than that it was glowing.
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report