Chicago's Willis Tower To Become Vertical Solar Farm

An anonymous reader writes "The tallest building in the United States is set to become a soaring vertical solar farm, as Pythagoras Solar just launched a project to emblazon the building's glass façade with transparent photovoltaic panels. The new windows, dubbed high power density photovoltaic glass units, are a clever hybrid technology that lays a typical monocrystalline silicon solar cell horizontally between two layers of glass to form an individual tile. An internal plastic reflective prism directs angled sunlight onto the solar cells but allows diffuse daylight and horizontal light through. The high-profile project will begin on the south side of the 56th floor and could grow up to 2 MW in size — which is comparable to a 10-acre field of solar panels."

Re:Sears Tower

[shadowrat]

I read the summary and thought, "WTF is this willis tower? Is it somehow bigger than the sear's tower?"

Re:Sears Tower

[hedwards]

Naming rights on a building after it's completed is completely stupid. One of our local buildings has been renamed several times, and you find people referring to it by all of those names, even though the most recent naming is back to what it was originally and was nearly a decade ago.

Personally, I refuse to call it anything other than the Sears Tower, just because I think it's asinine to rename a world renowned landmark.

Re:Sears Tower

[Labcoat Samurai]

And this is what's annoying. Reputable news sources will feel an obligation to use the official name, while at the same time likely realizing that no one wants to call it that. Ends up being divisive. It'd be nice if more news sources would take a stand and just use the old name. It'd be a nice way to express how futile it really is to sell naming rights to an iconic structure or location.

Re:Great

[Locke2005]

Only if the net output of the solar cells over their projected lifetime exceeds the energy costs to manufacture them and affix them to the side of the building. This is a publicity stunt, when in fact revamping the environmental controls could potentially yield greater energy savings at lower cost. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be -- a good engineer looks for the most efficient means of accomplishing the objective. Slapping solar cells on the roof of a Prius technically makes it go farther on a gallon of gas, but the difference is so trivial that it doesn't justify the cost of the solar cells.

Re:Economics

[Anonymous Coward]

In some senses, it doesn't matter. Pilot projects (assuming this is a pilot project--I don't know of any other place that's tried anything like this) ALWAYS cost more per unit scale. The goal is to gauge its efficacy. If it works well, then see how/whether it can be improved upon and implement it again. Vertical solar farms would be an interesting solution to the acreage issue.

Re:How much offset?

[Dasher42]

When you consider the inefficiencies of powering it through the grid, going through miles and miles of resistance on the wire, you're going to offset much more than 2MW. Bringing the energy source onsite is a smart move.