Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Solar Power From Home Curtains

Posted by samzenpus on Wed Jul 02, 2008 07:27 PM
from the don't-let-the-cat-climb-them dept.
kaliann writes "With the push for more sustainable energy, easy DIY kits for alternative energy sources are likely to become quite popular in the coming years. We may see some big improvements in our ability to 'green up' if these photovoltaic curtains become widely available."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Geoffrey.landis (926948) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @07:32PM (#24038415) Homepage
    they only produce power when the curtains are closed.
    • by MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @07:38PM (#24038467)

      they only produce power when the curtains are closed.

      Right... Right, like you're sitting there posting your comments on Slashdot wiht all the curtains drawn.

    • by xstonedogx (814876) <xstonedogx@gmail.com> on Wednesday July 02 2008, @07:45PM (#24038535)

      I don't see the problem. During the summer, the curtains should be closed to block out some of the heat from the sun. During the winter, allowing the sun to heat your home is a more efficient use of that energy anyway.

      • by peragrin (659227) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @08:54PM (#24038995)

        Exactly.

        Combine this with either solar hot water heater on our roof, or even more photovoltaic cells, possibly a 2 kw wind turbine and suddenly 50% of you average home power is being used by green energy.

        The coming energy crisis isn't going to be solved by any one thing, but dozens of small sub systems that work together. they don't have to be massive farms or fields either. just 30-50% of your home electricity is enough to offset the demand.

        • by afidel (530433) on Thursday July 03 2008, @12:29AM (#24040093)
          Solar water heaters simply make no sense if you live in an area that hard freezes (a large percentage of the US). The designs that can cope with significantly cold temperatures for sustained periods cost about $3K plus specialized installation and they still require energy to power their pumps to fill the reservoir since it has to be drained daily during freezing periods. I REALLY wanted it not to be so, because I love being green when it makes sense and it would drop about $100-200 per year off my gas bill at current prices.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        If you are trying to cool with curtains you want white curtains.

      • Home Design Basics (Score:4, Interesting)

        by westlake (615356) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @10:05PM (#24039375)
        During the summer, the curtains should be closed to block out some of the heat from the sun. During the winter, allowing the sun to heat your home is a more efficient use of that energy anyway.

        This assumes that your house is oriented properly and that your windows are large.

        In northern climes, windows exposed to the north and to the prevailing winds tend to be small. Windows to the south tend to be big. You want that southern light and heat in winter. Home Design Basics [homepower.com]

        Curtains are an element in interior design. They have colors, they have folds, they have textures. That does not make for an efficient collector. Your wife may have other plans for that window.

      • Serious flaw (Score:5, Informative)

        by goombah99 (560566) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @09:03PM (#24039055)

        Actually I think they will save more power with the curtains open than closed.

        I'm shooting from the hip here but looking at the picture I expect there's a serious flaw here. The Curtains look black so they are absorbing a lot of light energy. We know they are highly inefficient. So they mainly heat your house.

        SO in summer time you will pay more in cooling costs than you gain in electricity. Either that or be warmer. Logically you want the drapes outside where they would be amiently cooled.

        Now if you draw the blinds and thus it gets darker and you need to turn on a light well. So much for any gains.

        Finally most houses are designed to have their windows shaded more or have an oblique incidence in summer time. Thus during the time of maximum sun, and warmth you get the least electricity.

        In winter time when the solar flux is less and there will be fewer hours of daylight the direction of incidence will be better. But chances are you'd like the light.

        The drapes have no thermal mass so they act like the worst kind of traum wall where they heat up and cool down quickly. No thermal damping.

        Seems like archecturally this is a bad idea from the get go regardless of how the solar fabric technology improves. Maybe in northern canada or something it makes sense.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          The article goes on to say that the curtains can be placed on the roof too. From the Article...

          ==Kennedy and her team have calculated that by covering just 10 percent of a roof area in Porto, Portugal, solar curtains could provide as much as 70 percent of the average electricity used by a typical household each day.==

          This article said many things that made it sound totally stupid.
            • Re:Cooling the Roof. (Score:5, Informative)

              by xalorous (883991) on Thursday July 03 2008, @01:30AM (#24040319) Journal

              Study some heat transfer principles. Depending on their reflectivity, these curtains may cause the roof to absorb MORE heat than the roofing does.

              Ideally, solar installations for home use will not transfer heat directly into the house. A curtain laying directly on the roofing surface will absorb some light and create some electricity. However, light and heat that is not reflected will absorb and the greater part will transfer through to the house a large amount of heat. A smaller portion will radiate from the house.

              Solar panels are typicaly elevated above the house. The air gap allows the panels to be cooled by airflow.

              The actual news here is that they can create solar fabric. I'm sure they can design a roofing system that will use the material to generate electricity while the system maintains an air and water seal and reflectivity of the largest part of the sun's energy.

        • Re:Serious flaw (Score:5, Informative)

          by niiler (716140) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @10:29PM (#24039485) Journal

          This is a non-issue. When I was in Spain over a couple of summers, most houses had black-out shades, and many of them were dark in color. Few Spanish houses had AC, so everyone just draws their shades during the day while they are at work, but also during siesta (think nap time). You'd be amazed how much cooler it was with the shades down than with the shades up.

          That said, I realize that in the US we don't have siesta, but we do have a ton of work-aholics who don't spend much time at home during the day. I would be more concerned with the reflection from the glass diminishing the efficiency of the curtains. Perhaps putting them on the roof *would* be a good idea.

        • Re:Serious flaw (Score:4, Interesting)

          by NitroWolf (72977) on Thursday July 03 2008, @12:28AM (#24040081) Homepage

          There's also the problem of the fact if you have modern, quality windows (think Schuco triple paned / krypton filled type), the solar radiation getting through the window is so dramatically reduced as to make the solar panels useless. I know this because I use to charge some small electronics via a solar panel in the window. After installing new windows, the panel no longer gets enough solar energy to drive a current and thus no charging. I have to open the window or put the panel outside.

          Another clue was the fact that some of my plants died for lack of sun, even though they got what appeared to be the same amount of light as they did previously.

  • by GigaHurtsMyRobot (1143329) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @07:33PM (#24038419) Journal
    Does the carpet match the drapes?
  • I doubt it... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @07:38PM (#24038469)

    With the push for more sustainable energy, easy DIY kits for alternative energy sources are likely to become quite popular in the coming years.

    Two words. Doubt it. There are all kinds of ways to save money, but most people don't do them. To put it into a computer perspective, how many people do you know upgrade RAM? Out of that many how many do them themselves? How many people upgrade a CPU? How many people salvage CD-ROM drives from old computers? How many save old cases and build computers in them? Very few I would think. Same thing with these, they are a way to save money, but for most people they will just complain about high oil prices, try to get a raise, petition for an increase in minimum wage, repeat. These will be about as popular as running BSD on your toaster. You can do it, it might be cool, but most people don't see the need.

    • You've clearly never been to a Michael's [michaels.com], Or a Joann's [joann.com]. The market for anydamnthing that can be used for sewing projects is absolutely HUGE. And, having spoken to plenty of the folks in such stores (after all, I publish a DIY manifesto poster, so I care about this stuff), I've found that many of them make things like curtains at least in part with an intent of saving money. And, interestingly enough, even when they discover that their projects are costing more than something mass-produced from China that th
    • Re:I doubt it... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TooMuchToDo (882796) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @09:52PM (#24039319)
      1) I've replaced all my bulbs with compact florescents.

      2) I've replaced all the bulbs at both my parents' houses with compact florescents.

      3) I've put smart strip outlets on my entertainment center in the living room, and the tv/dvd/roku box in the bedroom so everything is only on when the TV is on.

      4) I've replaced desktops in the house with laptops (big energy saver there)

      5) My favorite: I converted an old diesel generator to run on biodiesel/waste vegetable oil/etc. It's set to run in the morning about 30 minutes before I get up. It's coolant runs through a heat exchanger to preheat my water to about 100-120 degrees for the shower (in the event it's not running, a tankless hot water heater does the work). The power is fed back into my utility.

      Some of us are trying the best we can =)

    • Re:I doubt it... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Eivind (15695) <eivindorama@gmail.com> on Thursday July 03 2008, @01:55AM (#24040403) Homepage

      People don't even do it when it's a trivially easy task that they perform regularily anyway.

      Take modern light-sources as opposed to incandescent ones. A typical bulb migth live for 2000 hours, cost $1, and consume 60W. A modern replacement (that screws directly into the same socket) migth live for 8000 hours, cost $10 and consume 15W.

      At current electricity-prices it SHOULD be a complete no-brainer.

      $1/2 + 1000 * 0.06 * $0.15 = $9 (for each 1000 hours of light)

      $10/8 + 1000 * 0.015 * $0.15 = $3.50 (for each 1000 hours of light)

      It's one third the price, basically.

      It's also more environmentally friendly (ok, so you DO need to return the used bulbs responsibly), creates less extra heat in the summer, and thus reduces your AC-bill somewhat.

      And it literally costs you NO time at all. When the old bulb burns out you need to put in a new one ANYWAY. And putting in a modern one instead of an old-fashioned one is a similar task, one ain't harder than the other.

      Nevertheless, hundreds of millions of old-fashioned bulbs burn in USA today. It's sad, really.

      • Re:I doubt it... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by CodeBuster (516420) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @08:43PM (#24038933)

        One other thing -- how come I've never seen, anywhere, the idea of putting a hydroelectric turbine in a sewer line?

        I once worked in a office full of civil engineers so perhaps I can answer that question, here goes...

        There is one point that should be understand right off the bat and that is that any time a generator is introduced into a system where current, water, sewage, or energy flows freely a load is induced upon the system and the total energy outflow is reduced (i.e. the velocity of the outflow is slowed by the generator as the generator converts that energy into electricity or perhaps a water wheel is turned in which case some of the energy of the outflow is being converted directly into mechanical work). I realize that this is a very rough description of the physics, but would the thermodynamics geeks please cut me some slack? Thanks.

        Now, the typical sewer lateral (the pipe from your home or building to the main in the street) has an average fall of 1/2 percent over the distance that it travels to the main or just enough to ensure that the raw sewage makes it all the way to the main without backing up in your lateral. It might be possible to introduce some sort of turbine in there but there several problems:

        1) Raw sewage tends to be sludgy with lots of trash, hair, and other assorted junk that is just perfect for chocking or clogging your turbine (this might be less of a problem if you are only talking about the outflow from your home, but it is still an issue).

        2) As previously mentioned there is barely enough fall to ensure that the sewage makes it all the way to the main without obstructions (and the turbine is an obstruction) so any back pressure will back up your sewage.

        3) Digging a ditch for your lateral with greater average fall is possible but the main sewer line is only so much deeper than the street surface so practically speaking how much extra slope could you fit into the distance between your home and the street? Probably not enough to increase velocity substantially and thus not enough extra energy to convert to electricity with a turbine.

        4) Greater slopes mean higher velocities and ultimately higher pressures and higher pressure pipes and turbines are always more expensive (just ask the guys who run oil and natural gas pipelines). In fact, they used to hydraulically mine [wikipedia.org] gold in California using pressurized jets of water at lethal force from slopping troughs over long distances into ever narrower pipes fed from upstream rivers and streams.

        To sum up: There is not enough useful energy to extract from your out flowing sewage over the distance from your home or building to the sewer line in the street to make the generator worth a crap (pun intended), it would probably just back up your sewage lateral and even if you had a very large property there probably isn't enough difference in slope between your toilet and the street to build up enough energy to make it worthwhile unless you have a very large property and your house is built on top of a hill our mountain. There is also the problem that toilet flushes are very sporadic in most residential situations so even more energy will be lost to spinning up the turbine on each flush as opposed to keeping a spinning turbine going. Basically, in most cases it just wouldn't be worth it.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)


            The problem I see is mostly that somebody needs to start manufacturing such turbines, complete with standard output to a battery

            No, the problem is there's an incredibly tiny amount of energy in the water from a toilet flush falling 30 feet.

            energy joules = m(kg)*h(m)*g(9.8 m/s)

            = (3.8*3) * 30/3.28 * 9.8
            = 1021 joules.

            a kilowatt hour is 3,600,000 joules. so we're talking about 1021/3600000, or .00028 kilowatt hours. My power costs about .10/kilowatt hour, so one flush is equal to $0.000028. If you flush 4 ti

                • by RustinHWright (1304191) on Thursday July 03 2008, @01:13AM (#24040261) Homepage Journal
                  Well, actually, downspouts are what the folks I know are looking at first. In fact, just last night I shared a few drinks with one of the folks in the local downspout disconnection program and we talked about this a bit. Keep in mind, though, that I live in one of the rainiest places in North America and even here, even focusing on industrial buildings with flat roofs, everybody I know who is working on it is having trouble making it pay.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        one air conditioner
        It's summer there isn't it? A website I just found recommends nearly 3 kilowatts of power to cool my bedroom, my computer's MAXIMUM power consumption is 0.55 Kilowatts. Turn of your Aircon, it will fix your bill problems better than using a crappy laptop.

        This does highlight the fact that photo voltaic gizmos tend to get quite hot so using photo voltaic curtains seems to me to be a bad idea since air conditioners burn way more electricity than these curtains can feasibly provide any ti
      • You people really need to get out more. DIY is one of the biggest trends in the industrialized world. Let me suggest an exercise: go to Barnes & Noble or some other megacorp outlet and just bloody well look at the number of DIY-oriented magazines out there. Now I agree that many of them are, to some degree, "aspirational". I used to work for This Old House Magazine so I know this all too well. But plenty of people actually do customize things in just these ways. While you've got one of these magazines i
  • by credd144az (1078167) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @07:42PM (#24038501)
    Summer months in the Desert: Closing drapes helps keep heat out, solar technology helps to power the Air Conditioner.

    Non-summer months everywhere else: Close the curtains to power the lights that you need because the curtains are closed.
  • by AmiMoJo (196126) <mojo&world3,net> on Wednesday July 02 2008, @07:53PM (#24038605) Homepage

    The killer app for renewable energy will be to get the cost down.

    Once it makes economic sense for me to go green, I will, but in the mean time much as I want to save the planet and everything I have bills to pay :-(

    • by Anonymous Coward

      The trend is the other things will become more expensive. So you will pay, do not worry.

      • You could always greenroof part or all of it and, at the least, superinsulate that way, not to mention perhaps having fresh munchies if you have easy access to it. I'm also seeing more and more people phasing this kind of approach in by getting a fifty or hundred dollar panel that is connected to a battery charger and little by little switching to battery-powered devices, including using it to charge their laptops. The toxics from most batteries are an obvious downside, but it's still a good start for some
  • Great (Score:4, Funny)

    by ZarathustraDK (1291688) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @07:59PM (#24038645)
    Now I just have to block out the sun to get light in my room.

    If only there was an easier way...
  • by CrazyJim1 (809850) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @08:00PM (#24038659) Journal
    I know we're at a point where solar is looking like a good investment. Still... Isn't it easier for a solar contractor to just make large solar power plants to supplement the grid than worrying about the specifics of installing home to home?

    I'm all for the day when I can offset my electricity bills a small amount because I have my house decked out in solar material... I'd rather just have cheaper electricity though especially in the near future. Plugin, hybrid cars are going to start sucking on the power grid. If we don't add more solar or nuclear plants to the grid, we could see an electric shortage in the form of higher prices for one.

    Oh and I'm still bummed about the study the government is doing to make sure solar is environmentally friendly. I mean, isn't the waste output from coal plants harmful to the environment? If we had the option to cut that waste back, aren't we helping the environment?

    Anyway, the future looks bright to me. The US economy is holding even though it has taken some hits. If we can just get to a new era in surplus solar energy, we can get into some really interesting solutions to getting off oil. Some people think it will be hydrogen. Some people think it will be electric cars. I'm not sure which is going to take off in the long run. I think it is going to be hybrids that make the most initial impact because they don't have the limitations of the electric car's maximum range. For electric cars to have a long range, gas stations will have to be refitted with a tool to swap out battery arrays. Hydrogen faces a similar challenge in that it'd need special fill up stations too. Plug in hybrids work off traditional gas stations.

    I like Nanosolar's approach because it is so high tech and also economically feasable. Still low tech solar options such as parabolic mirrors to focus sunlight and run steam turbines could be good at first. I think we have a lot of unused land on Earth, and the faster we can cover it, the faster we can have surplus energy. Surplus energy makes transportation costs go down so you can travel all that you want even if you're poor. And even more interesting is that surplus energy lowers the cost of transporting food, so impoverished people can be supplied better. Oh yeah, and surplus energy also means that everything is cheaper so people have more disposable income which incidentally, also helps poor people.
    • by iamhigh (1252742) * on Wednesday July 02 2008, @09:26PM (#24039185)

      I think we have a lot of unused land on Earth, and the faster we can cover it, the faster we can have surplus energy.

      Great attitude. I am no environmentalist or anything, but even I realize that humans have already had a HUGE impact on Earth. The Fish and Wildlife Service [fws.gov] reports 1238 endangered species in the US alone.

      I agree that solar power is great, but how about we try to use existing surfaces such as high rise buildings, as someone else mentioned. How about those hybrids use solar car sun shades to charge the battery while your at work? I think a little thought would be better than just sucking the earth dry.

    • by willy_me (212994) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @10:38PM (#24039517)

      For electric cars to have a long range, gas stations will have to be refitted with a tool to swap out battery arrays.

      While this is true for batteries, I do not believe that batteries will power the future electric cars. Do a wikipedia search for Supercapacitors [wikipedia.org] to see what is on the horizon. They are not yet perfect but MIT has demonstrated capacitors that offer 1/4 of the storage capacity of Li-Ion batteries.

      There are many advantages to using capacitors in place of batteries - mainly due the the greatly reduced internal resistance. First, the charge time is reduced to under 10min. Second, when used in a hybrid vehicle, one does not encounter the loss associated with "charging" the batteries so regenerated power can actually be reused. Thirdly, they will not go bad like batteries. They are typically rated for ~10000 charge cycles. There are also many other reasons why these new capacitors are desirable - just read the wikipedia link.

    • It's always funny to me how so many slashdotters are rabidly enraged at just about every large corporation in fields they understand, such as Microsoft, the ISPs, the music, movie, and television companies, but are so quick to assume that monolithic, corporate-controlled and/or government-controlled solutions are the best approach to things outside their expertise.

      Trust me folks, General Electric and the other companies who end up in charge of most huge power stations are even more corrupt and untrustworth

      • by RustinHWright (1304191) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @11:44PM (#24039861) Homepage Journal
        and don't lump everybody in together. I don't know what part of Fox "News" you get your information from, but speaking as an environmentalist and the son of an actual environmental scientist (yaknow, a real doctorate and everything), most of us out here in the reality-based consensus are more than willing to see all sorts of installations go in. In fact, the big party I went to last night had to work around the huge steel frames being built by some real world environmentalists I know to put in a few kilowatts of solar at a farm not too far away. And the rocket stove [wikipedia.org] workshop currently underway in our building. And the several vehicles being stripped out and rebuilt as electrics or biofuel-optimized.

        Again, I don't know what world you're living in, but there are millions of us who are getting this stuff done as fast as we can, including plenty of real companies like Sequential, with stock and everything, who are making quite a nice living selling biodiesel and are already tying up every rational source of supply they can get their hands on. Oh, and those of us who understand things like cellulosic sources never thought that corn-based approaches were ever anything but yet another bit of agribusiness welfare.

  • it's true! (Score:3, Informative)

    by ILuvRamen (1026668) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @08:03PM (#24038679)
    I have a window with a pretty bad shade and too thin of curtains in my room. After waking up when the sun rises instead of 10:30-ish like normal too many days in a row, I got some black rodeo fabric that lets absolutely no light through and VHB taped it to the wooden frame around my window. Now it's totally black but I leave it on all day and whenever I need to open my window, that fabric feels about 100 degrees and the air trapped behind it is about the same. And that's with my shade closed! If I left it open, black fabric alone could absorb a ton of heat energy. So I think solar curtains would work great.
  • by FudRucker (866063) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @08:12PM (#24038741)
    why not make roofing material photovoltaic = kills two birds with one stone...
  • Worthless article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by joocemann (1273720) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @08:15PM (#24038769)

    Unless they post the watts/hr it can produce under normal conditions. Its like seeing a car in a car lot without a price on it... You just keep on rollin. Seeing this 'form of energy coolness' seems worthless without some type of qualitative evidence. I want to see the watts/curtain/hr.

  • Don't you think... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by yancey (136972) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @09:33PM (#24039223)

    Does anyone else think it strange that we use power-consuming devices to illuminate the interior of our houses and other buildings when we built them with a large covering over the top that blocks out the daylight by design? Seems it might, just possibly, be a bit more practical to design them so we don't block out the light in the first place. We westerners consider ourselves "high tech". Ha! An advanced technology would use daylight directly during the day and store the excess for use at night.

  • Junk (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Confused (34234) on Thursday July 03 2008, @01:09AM (#24040253) Homepage

    Stupid idea, the whole gimmick.

    If you want to do solar power, better do it properly and mount decent solar cells in a place where it really can generate power (eg on the roof in the right direction with the right inclination).

    The idea of those curtains is just stupid, because you dole out good money to get some crappy cells which end up being mounted in a bad place.

    If you happen to live in a hot area, it would be far more ecological if you invested in some proper shading that the load on the air conditioning can be reduced. That saves more that those stupid curtains will ever produce. For the money saved, get decent cells on the roof.

    If you live in a cold area - usually with only few hours of good sunlight - the curtains are even more stupid, because they produce even less. Invest in good double or triple glazing to keep the heat in and catch the few sun-rays you get to heat the room.

    To sum it up, this junk gimmick is exactly what home shopping TV would try push to ride the eco-wave. Do the environment a favor and forget about that stupid idea.

    • Re:Hey. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Cyvros (962269) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @07:52PM (#24038599)
      Actually, RMIT (a tertiary institution here in Australia) recently announced that one of their new buildings will be solar-powered thanks to the glass on the buildings [news.com.au]. From the article: blah blah blah "with an outer skin of 16,000 sand blasted glass cells, some of which will be photovoltaic solar power collectors to help shade and power the building."
    • Re:Hey. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by hkmarks (1080097) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @07:59PM (#24038647)

      I have to admit, solar shutters make more sense.

      This wouldn't be bad as a DIY project for a sun-facing wall that gets too much light, though. Or a porch, to power the porch lights (like a solar lantern, but bigger).

      Obviously not the solution for everyone. I, for one, have a tree to the south, which would likely displease the new solar curtain overlords.

      What would be a cool application for solar fabric is a canopy (say, for an outdoor market). That could provide shade while powering lights or electronics (like cash machines) in the stalls. Or self-lighting party tents.

    • Re:Hey. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SeaFox (739806) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @08:04PM (#24038689)

      Why curtains?

      1. Because most people already have windows in their living space, and
      2. use curtains or blinds to block them at certain times.
      3. Curtains wouldn't require any extra installation hardware if the existing rod is strong enough,
      4. They wont make the outside of your house look ugly.
      5. They would be more portable than a solar panel installation on the roof.

      Is that enough?

      Why not something that's, you know, outside where the sun can get it.

      And hail, errant footballs, vandals...

      Glass blocks light, light that can't be seen.

      They still let in plenty of light than can be used for generating solar power according to my calculator.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Who, tell me, who thought this was a good idea? Why curtains? Why not something that's, you know, outside where the sun can get it.

      *raises hand tentatively*

      I rarely open some of my curtains (the street-facing ones), for privacy reasons most of the year and for thermal reasons in the hotter months. They face north-ish, which means that since I'm in the southern hemisphere they'd be perfect for a solar collector with low cost and reasonable efficiency.

      Glass blocks light, but it will also protect these materia

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      If you convert the energy in electricity, you won't heat yourself up. Though if you DO use it to heat up your house, well... you've never lived up north eh? When its getting awkwardly close to -40 degrees outside on a sunny day, I definately don't want to keep my house from warming up. Heating can make my power bill goes up quite a bit.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Your argument is called the "perfect solution fallacy", as well as being a strawman. You point out that solar panels on homes will not obviate the need for a power grid and power plants. Well, nobody (who's reasonable) is arguing that they will, at least not in the foreseeable future. So there's the strawman. Clearly solar panels on homes will not completely and by themselves solve the energy problem. Despite that, we should still use them, because we need lots of solutions to the energy problem, not o

        • by RustinHWright (1304191) on Wednesday July 02 2008, @11:59PM (#24039921) Homepage Journal
          Your math and your understanding both need some work. First of all, nobody is suggesting just randomly putting PV everywhere to "fix everything". While the average may make PV look like a bad idea, if you live in, say, Phoenix, Arizona, where there's plenty of sun year-round, PV works just fine.

          As people keep having to point out, nobody is presenting one form of sustainable power generation as some sort of panacea. Where it's windy, use wind; where currents and tides are strong, use hydro; where it's sunny, use PV, where there's trash land, grow switchgrass; and so on. And even beyond this, per capita demand is a result of many behaviors that people like me are working to change. It's not just about power generation. It's about all kinds of changes [typepad.com] from better insulated houses to more mass transit, to eating more food that's grown locally. (Food is actually the biggest energy cost for many Americans.) This doesn't require moving into a teepee and living on uncooked twigs. It's possible to live very elegantly and very comfortably indeed in a sustainable way. We just need to make the changes that make that possible.

    • by NitroWolf (72977) on Thursday July 03 2008, @12:54AM (#24040197) Homepage

      Nasch already took care of some of your illogical arguments... but you've made other assumptions that are just plain wrong or at best outdated.

      20% efficiency on a solar panel is not uncommon. In fact, you can buy 28% efficient solar panels (as long as you don't live in the US *grumble*). Over their lifetime, of course that rate is going to fall, but it will still remain a bit above 20%.

      Given time, that efficiency is only going to improve. Both of these factors right there shoot your 600M^2 theory to shit.

      Using you and your family as an example, your average 1.4KW usage could be dramatically reduced without impacting your quality of life in an appreciable manner. I know this is so because I've done it myself. It takes some will power and awareness of what power you are actually using, but it can be done fairly painlessly. You can start by replacing your incandescent bulbs with CFL or better yet with LEDs. One of the largest single power draw in a home is from all the light bulbs. Reducing that can cut your monthly average quite a bit.

      You need to turn off stuff you aren't using. Putting things into standby is not turning them off... in fact, many appliances and electronic gadgets don't even HAVE an off switch, they go into standby. So that means you have to unplug them. That's a pain in the ass. However, a simple solution to this is to plug everything you use for a particular activity into a power strip... when you're done, turn the power strip off. This overcomes the leeching power used by wall-warts, as well as gadgets and electronics that go into standby mode. Yes, you may have to wait a few seconds longer for something to power up, but it's not a huge deal.

      Another big energy saver is to replace your windows. If you have contractor grade windows in your house, you are leaking energy like a sieve. Replacing your windows with high quality double or triple paned, krypton filled windows with insulated frames will save you a TON of money and energy for cooling and heating.

      Do you have an ancient refrigerator? If so, it's probably drawing 2 to 3 times the amount of energy a modern refrigerator uses (or more if it's REALLY old). Might be worth it to replace it.

      Do you leave your computer on at night? Turn it off, or at least put it in standby. My system, at idle, draws about 600w, when it's in standby it drops to about 30w. That's a HUGE savings on a month or yearly basis. If you're on Slashdot, chances are you've got multiple computers - I think you see where that's going. If you're using an old computer as a Linux router or something we are all fond of doing - stop. Old computers are incredible power hogs. A cheap wireless router that you can load new firmware onto will suck a fraction of the power, produce a fraction of the heat and noise. It's nice to think you're recycling your computers, but it's costing you more than they are worth in power per year, for sure.

      There's lots of things you can do to reduce your power consumption. You can take your 1.4kw to 800kw fairly easily I suspect. That almost halves your 600M^2, coupled with the fact that you can buy efficient PV panels, now you only need about 200M^2. The average house has that much roof space that's likely suitable.

      Even if you don't, as long as you are offsetting some of your power needs, it goes a long way to helping bring about a more energy efficient future.

      Is it going to be uncomfortable? Probably a bit, but not cripplingly so, and once the "new" way sets in, it will seem silly that we didn't do it a long time ago.