Film Turns Windows Into Solar Panels 186
itwbennett writes "At the Ceatec electronics conference in Japan this week, 3M is showing film that turns windows into solar panels. Although the product only generates about 20% of the electricity of a traditional solar panel, it will cost about half as much, is much easier to install, and takes up no additional space. 'An average person could go to the store, buy some of this, and then bring it home and install it themselves,' said Yasuhiro Aoyagi, a senior manager in the company's construction markets division."
about time... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only if you stole their eggs...
Re: (Score:2)
That would look bloody awesome. ;)
Average person rewiring their house? (Score:2)
An average person could go to the store, buy some of this, and then bring it home and install it themselves
Only if the average person happens to also be an electrician, or at least someone knowledgeable enough to plug a small power plant into their house's electrical system without ending up a "Dumbass Killed Tonight In Apparent Electrical Fire" headline on their local news.
Re: (Score:3)
I imagine that if/when this tech is available at the hardware store there will be companies selling borderline-foolproof kits.
Re: (Score:2)
You can already, this very day, buy solar power solutions at the big hardware stores, and no, the kits aren't foolproof unless your use is trivial. For instance, setting up a single-use circuit, like to power a freezer, isn't hard. (And incidentally, that -- powering fridge/freezer -- is a great use of solar and a good introduction to the technology.) But you still need to know which end of a screwdriver to hold and have some rudimentary understanding of electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, then people will just invent a better fool. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Fools are like bacteria that way: 99.9% of them aren't a problem, it's the 0.1% that slips through that you have to worry about.
Re: (Score:2)
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein
Re: (Score:3)
plug a small power plant into their house's electrical system
A very very small power plant. TFA says it's enough to "Charge an iPhone". Assuming you're charging over USB, an iPhone pulls a max of 500ma at 5V, or 2.5 watts. Not enough energy to warrant upconverting it to AC, given that there's efficiency losses there. Given that you can only charge your iPhone under the best of circumstances, this seems like yet another not-market-viable solar technology. But, ya gotta start somewhere. Maybe they'll make it better. None the less, the applications are on windows
Re: (Score:2)
While they won't be angled outside of vertical in most cases, it is an interesting use of an existing space to produce power. Much like the solar shingles [wikipedia.org] that already exist.
Enough of these things that make existing space dual use and pretty soon it becomes a significant input to the power supply with little effect compared to installing solar panels on top of the ro
Re: (Score:2)
> Funny thing, people generally prefer bigger windows on the sunny sides of their houses...what with the natural 'light' thing and all :)
> While they won't be angled outside of vertical in most cases, it is an interesting use of an existing space to produce power. Much like the solar shingles [wikipedia.org] that already exist.
So, I have a house with windows facing south, and am at a northern latitude, so I really do get exposure for much of the day. That's not, as it turns out, where I put my solar
Re: (Score:2)
I live in Spain. In general (our house included) we have NO windows facing the sun...
Re: (Score:2)
It's a fair point that in the tropics the sun might not be as welcome inside as in the more northern latitudes, and that it's angled much more vertically further lessening the usefulness of anything on a vertical window surface.
BR I still think it's an interesting idea that has potential.
Re: (Score:2)
The new green designs even have retractable shades that cover in hot times and let sun in during cooler times.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ya know, I think they're selling this all wrong.
They should pitch it as a window coating that has a far better thermal performance than triple pane windows, does not require replacing your existing windows and costs a fraction of said replacement.
Oh yeah, and it will charge your cellphone too. With a lot of windows, a bunch of cell phones.
Re: (Score:2)
> Ssuussh!! 20% (1/5) efficiency at half the price of a panel means 2.5x more expensive per watt capacity than solar panel.
BINGO! Sorry (whispered) bingo. As a substitute for a traditional solar panel installation, this stuff SUCKS. There are applications where it will be useful, probably in large commercial buildings with lots of windows. But if you're looking for a retrofitted home installation, do yourself a favor and get a real, permanently mounted solar array. They start at 60 watts, which is s
Re: (Score:2)
(BTW, I didn't RTFM yet, if at all.)
I agree with you, and was going to make fun of this... But it still may be a useful technological improvement.. Unless they go all Solyndra on us, it will get cheaper over time. (OK, that's a bad joke, there may be technological advances in the Solyndra technology too... and I even cut out an editorial showing that the government has paid & lost FAR more money on other investments, including oil.)
Re: (Score:2)
That sort of depends on whether this is the base cost of the unit or the cost including installation. Installation of solar panels isn't exactly cheap, and they're only really an option if you happen to have a roof to put them on. There's also questions of what kind of materials are used in the manufacture of these things and a whole bunch of other factors.
If these things are cleaner to produce and cheaper to install, they could be a good deal, even if the base panel itself costs 2.5x more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think car windows are an ideal application of this technology: lots of people want them tinted anyway, so now they can get that and a solar battery charger all at once!
I just wonder if this stuff can be stretched, since car windows tend to be curved in multiple dimensions.
Re: (Score:2)
Cars generate bucket-loads of excess, unused electricity - what would you really gain from gluing this to your car windows? You'd be better served by carrying a battery pack and charging it in your car while you drive IMHO...
Re: (Score:2)
Car batteries discharge if the car isn't driven regularly, so people have to hook them up to trickle chargers. This would build a trickle charger into the window tint.
Besides, its no more impractical than it would be on a house, anyway!
Re: (Score:2)
It's even worse than that. By putting the panel on the roof, you've now also got a piece of glass up there that's much heavier than the roof around it. And whatever ripple effects that extra weight (and wiring harness) adds. Losses relative to weight (accel/decel and rolling) are the primary energy loss mechanisms in city driving, and are still a significant fraction during highway driving.
Re: (Score:2)
Whew, do you have similar objections to air conditioning as well? Any luxury has costs. Objecting that they don't offset their own costs is meaningless. The point is to make your car more comfortable when you get in.
My car already has a sunroof that I can tilt up to let hot air rise out. It helps. But active circulation would be more effective.
Re:Average person rewiring their house? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually it is dead easy these days. You buy an inverter which plugs into any socket. It doesn't support "island mode", so if the grid power fails, the solar power goes out too.
They are not universally legal, so check the local laws. They are about as safe as anything gets when electricity is involved.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
sunlight 24 hours a day? /snark
Thus snarks someone who is oblivious to the polar circle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I grew up in a small coutnry town where my father was one of the few local electrical contractors and was also a volunteer ambulance man. Based on some of the stories he used to tell me, people as a general rule don't show electricity nearly enough respect.
I have this theory, that because people can see water leaking, they don't think twice about calling a plumber. But because they can't see electricity leaking it doesn't occur to them to call an electrician before they tinker with things they really don't
Re: (Score:2)
An average person could go to the store, buy some of this, and then bring it home and install it themselves
Only if the average person happens to also be an electrician, or at least someone knowledgeable enough to plug a small power plant into their house's electrical system without ending up a "Dumbass Killed Tonight In Apparent Electrical Fire" headline on their local news.
then they'll also have to sell a idiot-proof-plug-into-house-electrical-system kit.
Re: (Score:2)
"Aoyagi said a square meter of the material can generate about 5 volts at 7 watts under peak conditions"
7 watts per square meter? 1 kwh (1000 watts a hour) costs roughly 10 cents. It'd take 142 hours for this thing to make 1000 watts, almost 18 days assuming 8 hours per day are "peak conditions" (unlikely). Unless these panels are under $1 per square meter it'd be better just to keep paying the electric company since it'd take 6 months just to save $1 on your electric bill.
Als
Re: (Score:2)
At ~7W peak, I doubt you'll be feeding this back into your house's electrical system...
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that if power sockets were invented today, they would have a hard time getting approved for the general public.
Sun Shade (Score:2)
"The film blocks or absorbs about 80 percent of visible light and over 90 percent of infrared light, so it also acts as a sunshade"
Thats pretty dark. Now you don't have to live in the basement
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to block 80 percent of visible light, why exactly did you have a window installed there in the first place? Just asking. Wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't ask...
Yeah, most people live in places where they decided where the windows would be installed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love that on the west windows of my home. Odds are high I'd probably save more in cooling costs during the summer than I would in generating electricity. Come to think of it, I should really just install window tinting on those windows, how it is that I've never thought of this before is a mystery to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from what others said, windows are often demanded by building code for emergency egress purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
Great for hot climates not so much for cold ones. But 5v 7w for a metre of the product? Might be able to power the lights in your house... but then of course you're blocking the natural light to use artificial light? The only application I can see that would make this practical would be tinting on a car... but I think 80% light blocking is too high for many regulated areas.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
We have shade screens that block 90% of the visible light coming into our house, and surprisingly, it doesn't look dark at all. (But it cut a HUGE chunk off our utility bills.)
Re: (Score:3)
Seriously. It blocks as much light as putting up a full blown solar panel that covers 80% of my window, but only produces a fourth as much power.
So let's do the math. A typical solar panel has anywhere from 6% to 20% efficiency. Let's generously assume that this is 20% of the efficiency of a fairly good one, so... sat 4% efficient. 4% of the energy from the sun turns into power.
Now sunlight is about 93 lumens per watt. CFLs only produce about 75 lumens per watt. So even if you had 100% efficient captu
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the year we leave the drapes closed at our place (southern Australia), in summer it's to keep out the heat, in winter it's because it's still dark when I leave for work in the morning, and is dark again when I get home.
Re: (Score:2)
That's interesting. You can actually see through my current solar array, if you squint a little. It's not completely opaque. And it actually produces 100% of the power of a solar array, not just 20% as does this film.
Am I the only one... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes...
But it's still funny.
Re: (Score:2)
Rule 34, gentlemen.
install it themselves? (Score:3)
> 'An average person could go to the store, buy some of this, and then bring it home and install it themselves,'
This is really a selling feature? Anyone can go to amazon.com, buy any one of a number of solar panel kits, get it delivered to their home, and install it themselves, with the panels inclined correctly to maximize exposure to the sun (unlikely using existing windows, which have different design considerations) and get the full output of a solar panel, not just 20%, and never have to leave their home. (Speaking from personal experience.)
Mind you, it might be interesting to build a house designed to maximize the use of the technology, for instance, big skylights that are also solar panels. But a film for existing windows? There are better solutions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not arguing against the product, I'm arguing against the contention that it makes the product easy for mechanically-stupid people to set up a solar power system. In reality, the panels are the easy part. Scroll up to my longer article in this same thread.
Re: (Score:2)
It's easier to install in your house (or apartment) windows than something which requires you to climb up on your roof.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but again, the panels are such a small part of the total amount of work that it's like arguing over the kind of hubcaps you'd put on a car you're building by hand. (*There's* our car analogy!) Scroll up to my longer article in the same thread for more information.
Caveat: I'm not an expert, but I have installed a solar power system in my home.
Re: (Score:2)
20% as efficient as "conventional" solar panels, cost 1/2 as much - let's see, that works out to 2.5x more expensive than a conventional solar panel per unit of power. In other words, it takes 5 meters of this film to generate the same amount of power as 1 meter of "conventional" solar panels would generate...
Re: (Score:2)
Most panels installed on buildings do not track the sun, they are fixed. Installing panels means either getting up on the roof or losing some of your garden. If I could cover my south facing windows with these things and save some money on my electricity bill I'd definitely want to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read my entire article before responding?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if you read the article mentioned in the summary, you'll see that the film also acts as a sunshade, and is initially meant for official buildings. Imagine all those glass towers that modern architecture is all about, having as a double function also electricity production.
Provided the film can be made cheap enough, you don't need to worry about the ideal angle, since the prime purpose of this invention is not power generation, but is adding power generation as an additional feature to the normal f
Re: (Score:2)
> or have you not noticed those ridiculously large buildings in major metropolitan areas that are covered in tempered glass?
So... are you volunteering to install it yourself? Can I tape it? Sounds like a youtube classic in the making.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I may have an unfair advantage here because I just installed a solar system in my own home, and I may have prepped for it a little too much, reading up ahead of time and studying the pros and cons of various types of installations.
So, how do you think a solar power system works? You put a film on the windows and magically the power appears in your house? Like, via bluetooth?
There are a lot more pieces than that. The film, whatever it is, has wires attached, the wires have to go somewhere, hopefully i
Return on investment (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
TFA also states that it takes less sunlight to power these than traditional cells, so while they are less efficient, they will generate power for more of the day and on more days.
Re: (Score:2)
The only savings I could see were if the windows were in full sun and caused your place
to heat up in summer. So the film might save some more in terms of cooling bills.
Re: (Score:2)
The only savings I could see were if the windows were in full sun and caused your place
to heat up in summer. So the film might save some more in terms of cooling bills.
Even roof-mounted photovoltaic cells reduce summer heat... think about it, all that energy hitting your roof, previously converting into mostly heat + some reflected light, replaced by photovoltaics that now convert mostly into electricity and some heat. With a much higher efficiency rate and larger surface area, the roof-mounted ones may "cool" your house better than the window ones do.
Nowadays, most new houses are outfitted with Low-E or Super-Low-E (ie, argon sandwich) glass that insulates pretty well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ok hang on.
I'm not a big fan of solar power, I think solar solutions are *way* oversold, but there are cases where they pay for themselves immediately.
I had an issue where a new building on my property needed power. I had the city come out and mark where all the utilities were, so I could trench it myself and only have to hire out running the actual electrical and wiring it into the panel. (Which I could also do, but I'm not licensed so it'd put me in a legal grey area...)
So I pick my path, and start digg
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it will just take 50-75 years to pay for itself... But I'm sure, with adequate funding from the US Gov't 3M will get that cut in half!
Fake specific numbers hiding a fuzzy lie (Score:4, Interesting)
Since reality is so hard to pin down you have to ask yourself where the confidence of the above post comes from. Is it ignorance and just parroting some specific case? Or is some petty little agenda being pushed to put those greasy engineers and smelly hippies in their place as mere consumers instead of rocking the boat? Either way the above poster IMHO deserves contempt.
Two decades ago some solar panels in the right place paid for themselves on installation if they cost less than getting a line in from the grid. It's not just about being green.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone has pointed out [slashdot.org] with some simple estimated values, you'll generate about a penny worth of electricity every 5 days. Or about $11 worth after 15 years...
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming no subsidies anywhere along the production/sales/installation process making the solar panels feel artificially cheap.
And what about the subsidies that make conventional electricity feel artificially cheap?
Nor counting losses converting power to storage and back again to match energy demand that doesn't coincide with peak production.
Solar production tends to match up pretty well with peak demand. Better than, say, regular power plants.
...or just use the usual tactic, ratchet up the subsidies a little more to further hide the underlying inefficiencies.
You're right, it's only fair to subsidize energy from fossil fuel sources. You know, real energy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're right though, fossil fuels (for example) are an actual energy source when compared to typical current photovoltaic solar panels which use more energy to produce than they'll generate over their lifetime (and that's before the conversion losses). The typical solar panel you see on a rooftop is really more a coal burning panel.
Now you're making things up. According to NREL, back in 2004, the time needed to generate the amount of energy used to produce solar panels was about 3-5 years or less, depending on the type of panels ( http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf [nrel.gov] ). The financial payback time (time to recover the dollar cost through savings on your bill) without subsidies is longer because you're paying for more than manufacturing energy, and because the competing technologies are both subsidized and are also larger, more
Re: (Score:3)
The notion that solar cells produce less power than they take to make is pretty outdated if it was ever true to begin with. Look at
this [nrel.gov] pdf from the DOE. The only kind of solar cells that dogma might actually apply to are high efficiency ones used for applications where cost-effectiveness isn't the point, but rather absolute effectiveness.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if you never take them out of the box and keep them stored in the dark that's going to happen.
The really amusing thing here is the poster above submitted his rubbish via a computer that is now affordable due to vast energy savings over the last few decades in the production of silicon wafers. One guess as to what silicon solar cells are made from.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that these block enough light and tint the light that comes through to effectively eliminate a window from your house. So, you might as well cover your window with a solar cell shutter instead.
Cost will come down? (Score:2)
To keep a short story short: Come back once the vapor has desublimated.
Re: (Score:2)
Half the price of conventional panels - we're using natural constants, not actual values.
Film Turns Windows Into Solar Panels (Score:2)
...Coming to a theater near you! Rated NC-17 for violence and disturbing sexual imagery.
Sounds like solid math to me! (Score:2)
80% less for only half the price? I'm sold! ...wait, wut?
uneconomical (Score:2)
This could breachs the space-time continuum!!! (Score:2)
80% is high visibility ?? (Score:2)
Paragraph 2 says: "still allows for high visibility."
Paragraph 6 says: "The film blocks or absorbs about 80 percent of visible light"
I am not an engineer - but can you actually prevent 80 % of visible light from getting through and really claim there is "high visibility" ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Paragraph 2 says: "still allows for high visibility."
Paragraph 6 says: "The film blocks or absorbs about 80 percent of visible light"
I am not an engineer - but can you actually prevent 80 % of visible light from getting through and really claim there is "high visibility" ?
Indeed you can. In order to see clearly, humans need only a fraction of the visible light of a typical sunny day. During the day, your pupils are contracted, allowing relatively little of the available light to hit your retinas; you would be blinded by the glare if your pupils allowed all available light in. Blocking eighty percent of the light on a clear day at noon still leaves a lot of light, more than enough to see clearly with. Your pupils would simply dilate enough to compensate.
Possible greenwashing (Score:2)
I heard about this and started to do the math.
" Aoyagi said a square meter of the material can generate about 5 volts at 7 watts under peak conditions, and can operate under far less sunlight than it takes to power a conventional panel, so it will be active for more of the day."
Picture one meter^2 that is not a small area people.
Next under peak conditions?
Peak conditions means point south if you are in the northern hemisphere and at an angle that is equal to your latitude. Most windows are vertical so unle
In related news... (Score:2)
I've invented a solar panel that's 20% the size of a traditional solar panel, produces 20% of the power of a traditional solar panel, and I'm selling it at half the price of a traditional solar panel!
-
Car window tinting (Score:2)
this stuff would be perfect as a contingency to leaving your lights on... let the car sit for a while and it'll charge the battery enough to start the engine.
In related news ... (Score:2)
Stained glass windows? (Score:2)
So.
A link to an article about windows without any pictures.
As a homeowner, I need to know how much light this will block, how much heat this will block. I need to know how the color and "texture" of the light will change.
Upholstery is expensive.
Flooring and carpeting are expensive. Wall coverings and window treatments are expensive.
Is the transparency good enough not to significantly impair a view for which I have paid a great deal of money?
Useless on homes (Score:2)
Apart from a few special cases, this going to be mostly useless for well designed houses - main windows facing the equator with a small verandah.
In summer - when the sun is strong - you dont want to sun to be hitting your windows as it will cause unwanted heating. The small verandah blocks this because of the high elevation of the sun.
In winter - when the sun is weak - you want as much light into the house as possible to supplement heating. The low elevation of the sun gets past the verandah, but if the s
No thanks, I'd prefer my window to let in light. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(Just kidding.)
Self-defeating to dim your window? (Score:2)
I'm sure. (Score:2)
Are they going to run the wire to the charge controllers? They are probably in the basement with the batteries, so as with most solar you're looking at a fairly major install. Except in this case it is on the windows so the wires are coming from every part of the house.
How about set their battery banks up properly ? Plan them out for winter vs summer in terms of sun time per day.
How about grid-tie ? Otherwise you're st
You guys are missing the big story here (Score:2)
This guy has invented a film that takes up no additional space — it's two-dimensional! It must be horribly dangerous to install, imagine the paper cuts. Sinclair Molecule Chain, eat your heart out.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent idea, I wouldn't mind a new house with built in window shades that generate some power, but I have one question I didn't seem to see the answer to...
How do you get convenient access to the power generated by a houseful of these shades?
They say an average person could install it, but I don't see average people wiring these up themselves.
The easiest way would probably for it to have an outlet attached to the film panel, rather than trying to wire it into your house electrical system.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. If you use compact fluorescent bulbs, then you're generating about the same amount of light without the heat, so overall, you save.