Solar Power From Home Curtains 239
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."
But they only produce power-- (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
they only produce power when the curtains are closed.
Not necessarily. They may produce 1 to 10% when they're open - unless the curtains are completely hidden from the window.
Serious flaw (Score:5, Informative)
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)
==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)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the material is strong enough, it could be used in a Yurt, where the fabric is the wall.
That could be fantastic if you think about an easy to build shelter that powers its own electronics inside.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Serious flaw (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
You discount for the fact that not all people are at home at all times.
If I'm not at home, I want my house to remain cool with as little energy spent as possible. That means that if those curtains are put outside windows (or maybe fashioned into blinds of some sort), they both prevent heat entering and produce electricity.
Also, if you put them on windows, it does not mean that windows have become your primary energy source, so it's either electricity or light. It's more like "create power in your spare tim
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A couple of points:
"...more in cooling costs than you gain in electricity"
How do you know how much electricity is being made? I didn't see that in the article.
"Logically you want the drapes outside where they would be amiently cooled."
Logically that is something you want to do now, because even white curtain absorb and trap some heat. So while this is a good idea, it's not a factor with just solar. It's outside this equation, if you will.
"Now if you draw the blinds and thus it gets darker and you need to tu
Re:But they only produce power-- (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But I live in the basement you insensitive clod!
Re:But they only produce power-- (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory Bugs Bunny quote (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:But they only produce power-- (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:But they only produce power-- (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:But they only produce power-- (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
why is it people are so ready to believe every so called green product? this curtain idea is so obviously flawed it's amazing anyone is buying it as real in the first place.
for a start, you do realise this is about the worst way to collect solar power? 2nd, claiming it can produce 70% of our power need is a total lie - base load people, learn what it is.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you are trying to cool with curtains you want white curtains.
Home Design Basics (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are a lot of comments of "great, close the curtains during the day to generate electricity that you then need to power the lights - because the curtains are closed during the day!".
These are valid comments, but closing the curtains during the day (and missing out on the light) still makes sense during the week, for a large part of the population in the Developed World. In many (most?) households, the adults will be at work during the day and the kids at school. Lots of hours of sunlight where nobody i
I have only one question... (Score:5, Funny)
I thought it was common knowledge that (Score:2)
huh? (Score:2)
I keep my curtains open during the day. I thought was usually the case?
Passive solar heating.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now you're supposed to close them. But you'll have electricity to run... uh, a light or two.
Overheard in 2015 (Score:2, Funny)
I doubt it... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I salvage all sorts of stuff, but not really to save money as much as spare the costs I don't have the money for.
I'm saving money using a laptop instead of my desktop which uses about 2.3 times as much power. It's not to go green, I just almost had a heart attack when I saw my electric bill was 173 dollars for the month and I'm still past due putting me at 368.
I didn't think one computer, one air conditioner, and 2 lightbulbs that are hardly on would have cost so much. Oh, and a fridge. And two ceiling fans
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Well then they will only be really popular with geeks then. Most of us want those DIY projects that save energy and cut down on costs. How many of us geeks have friends and family that would be willing to pay us to put up those curtains for them, most likely the same ones that want us to remove viruses from their computers.
On the other hand (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Just to point out, Solar panel drapes are probably the worst idea for saving power. First of all if you open the drapes you don't collect power. When will you want to open them? On sunny days! How much will they cost? If they are anything like normal panels they will currently take about 20 years to break even cost wise. And that calculation is based on having solar panels soaking up every minute of available sunshine. Also you generally need direct sunlight on cells, not just reflected light. What about th
Re:I doubt it... (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
From a business perspective, it doesn't matter if the curtains actually provide enough electricity to validate their use, but that purchasers THINK they're "going green" by buying them. The company making these curtains only really cares about the marketability of their product.
The truth is, you'd be much better off plastering these curtains to the roof or side of your house than hanging them up as curtains, but any product that requires real effort to "go green" isn't going to be as marketable as easy, hap
Re:I doubt it... (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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.
If you read more of his post . . . (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Which is still a tiny number.
But if you have a multifamily residence like an apartment b
Re: (Score:2)
In short, the fire and moving back west and getting my product line built has kept me from those two but they're both, as it happens, back on my tasklist for the next few weeks.
Re:downspouts as power source (Score:4, Interesting)
toilet tank (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah. But the oposite is also true;
Sometimes you -want- to reduce the pressure in a pipeline carrying water. That is typically the case in mountaineous regions where the water comes from a high lake. For example, where I grew up housing was spread-out from about 600 feet to 0 above sealevel whereas the drinking-water came from a lake at 3000 feet.
This requires pressure-reducers, infact several of them, because 3000 feet worth of pressure is MUCH more than you want to have in your drinking-water-supply
There are many, many good options. Exactly. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Most people don't even replace their lightbulbs with more energy-efficient ones. And that's a 1-minute job. (zero-extra if you do it the next time the bulb burns out anyway)
Also, you're ignoring the PAYBACK time. It doesn't matter if something is easy to install if buying it costs more than it could ever earn you back. It's a loss. Doubly so if producing it costs more energy than it'll save/create.
Typical home-biking may produce 100W when it's in use. Few bikes are in use more than 3 hours/week. So you'd pr
DIY is far from just a geek thing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Two ways to look at this... (Score:5, Funny)
Non-summer months everywhere else: Close the curtains to power the lights that you need because the curtains are closed.
Call me when it's cheap (Score:5, Interesting)
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 :-(
You got it reversed (Score:3, Insightful)
The trend is the other things will become more expensive. So you will pay, do not worry.
Re: (Score:2)
Greenroof. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Great (Score:4, Funny)
If only there was an easier way...
I don't buy that we have a land shortage. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I don't buy that we have a land shortage. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Oh and I'm still bummed about the study the government is doing
> to make sure solar is environmentally friendly.
I think you are missing the entire point of the enviromental movement. Not your fault really since their stated goals are misinformation. They TALK about alterantive energy. But spot the recurring pattern in what they actually DO.
Solar? As you observed, the second anyone actually tries to get licensed for a large scale installation the whinging about some poor snail (frog, bird, etc) t
Do us all a favor . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:I don't buy that we have a land shortage. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Problems with concentrated power generation (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Solar is wasteful. It takes an acre of panels to generate 1 MW and the land is used up. It takes 0.08 acres for a wind turbine, generating between 1.5 MW and 2.5 MW, and the land can still be used for grazing, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh and I'm still bummed about the study the government is doing to make sure solar is environmentally friendly.
Depending on the type of solar panel, there are a lot of nasty chemicals used in making them, and more still that have to be safely disposed of when it's time to replace the panel. Did you think that elves spun them out of moon-beams?
it's true! (Score:3, Informative)
roofing shingles or roofing tiles (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:roofing shingles or roofing tiles (Score:5, Interesting)
As with seemingly everything, it's already been done [google.com].
Unisolar has been making these shingles [altersystems.com] for years. Maybe others are too now. I don't know much about them, just read about em online.
-Matt
Discontinued (Score:2)
PPI (Price Per Inch) seems a bit steep too, but I'd have to check my comparisons.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm just going based on my sometimes unreliable memory (and maybe pure speculation) here but unless there has be some change in technology: 1) The efficiency of PV cells tends to decrease as their temperature increases, so having panels which allow for some type of airflow behind them which offsets their 'heat magnetism' sh
Worthless article (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine every time you closed your curtains, you were capturing enough solar energy to power your laptop.
I don't think they realize how little power a laptop uses. Can we get in "number of laptops" the power usage of a refrigerator or water heater?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
watts/hr
A Watt is already energy per time. Maybe be you meant Wh/h?
Well this seems silly. (Score:2)
The main reason you'd keep your curtains closed on a sunny day is to keep your house from warming up. Solar panels, unlike curtains, do not reflect sunlight so your house is going to heat up quite nicely (ie: they convert most of it into heat). Well at least that's what I understand of how solar panels work.
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.
Ugly (Score:2)
Don't you think... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
large covering over the top that blocks out the daylight by design?
Actually, it doesn't block out daylight by design, usually. It blocks out rain, for instance. Also, many buildings have multiple floors.
There's also these things called "windows" (it's not just an operating system!) which allow sufficient sunlight to come through to avoid the need for artificial lighting when possible (again, with multiple floors, it's not always possible).
Some buildings also have lightwells. But there's indeed a lot of prog
solar screens (Score:2)
Alot of southern states encourage the use of solar screens to block a great deal of the sun's energy from getting into the house. The drapes would get significantly less energy with this type of screen. I like the idea of "little" improvements to reduce energy consumption, I just don't think this one qualifies. It reminds me of people who supersize the fries and then get a diet coke with that.
How about photovoltaic pavement instead? (Score:2, Interesting)
There'd be something ironic about plugging an EV into the road for power... -Randy
Re: (Score:2)
If you have some magic photovoltaic cells that can be used as pavement and survive the wear and tear of daily traffic and still produce a good amount of power, it might work.
But as far as I know, no such thing exists, so this idea is about as good as the fart-collection undies to store the methane at the source and provide bio-gas energy.
Junk (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hey. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hey. (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Is that enough?
And hail, errant footballs, vandals...
They still let in plenty of light than can be used for generating solar power according to my calculator.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shutters have most of the problems I gave in my original post. [rolleyes]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
*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)
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
Re:Oh, the myth of Solar. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I strongly question your "average" of 7200kwh/month for the average american. My family of 3 (so.. by your math we should be using 21600kwh/mo?) uses about 900kwh/mo during the peak summer months of july and august. Most of the year we use 3-400kwh/mo. We live in a regular american home, 2500sq ft, central ac, fridge, water heater, the whole shebang. Watch TV whenever we want on 1 or 2 42" plus TVs.
In short, we are not energy conservationists by any stretch. Sure we have CFLs in all our light sockets..
Re:Oh, the myth of Solar. (Score:5, Informative)
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.