Do you think we'll see transparent solar on most of our buildings ... maybe even cars, laptops, and smartphones in the future? If you liked this video, be sure to check out Exploring Why This Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough Matters: hru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--KEwkWjADEA.html
Is it cool.if we talk about all the bad farms make. Aka chemical fertilizer pesticides and the bags they come in runoff from over use of water and well everything else. Thoughts.
A niche but effective application would be for greenhouses, which could use everything but the red and most of the blue in their selective-transmission panels. UV + green + IR conversion could probably provide almost all the power needed for fans, aquaponic pumps, etc.
Hey, as someone working in the field I kinda got edged on by some points you made ... you made it look like a very negative think, that the transparent modules can only produce roughly half the power as intransparent ones, though it cannot be any different, as for them to be transparent, they have to let the light pass and you only have one of too options, either you let it pass and therefor cannot collect its energy, or you absorb it, to collect its energy and therefor it cannot pass. So the lower efficiency is a trade off you have to take for the basic physics of it. Also your efficiency numbers for thin film was a little misleading, CIGS and CdTe, which are also thin film technologies have 17-18% efficiency for commercially available solar modules. Perovskite modules, which are also thin film and are not yet commercially available, have shown up to 17% efficiency. a-Si has indeed only 7-10%, but is also basically dead as a technology outside of the niche application Onxy Solar is using it for. Organic solar cells in the lab are now at 19% efficiency and also close to commercially processed solar modules of organic materials in the lab have reached now above 14% efficiency. Just some corrections that I hope are helpful.
I kept hearing, '... it is not as efficient as rooftop installations...' True, but you can do both. As long as transparent solar cells are efficient enough to pay back the costs in a reasonable amount of time, it is worth using now. And the more people who use them now, the more money will be put into research making them more efficient.
I think this is the true benefit. You can't put rooftop arrays on top of windows, because it would block all the light. The benefit of these is that even at low efficiencies, their payback time is quite quick, and they can be used in conjunction with rooftop arrays. If you have a 100m² roof, and 600m² of windows you can essentially double the space of the solar panels where you couldn't without the window system. This is huge because just like rooftop arrays which aren't impressive on their own, they become impressive when recognizing they can be used as micro grids to power individual buildings or local to the building systems.
But solar panels needs to be efficient, you know that is alpha and omega of them. It is VERY nice that dude in a video tells you, that cost will return in just 1-4 years. Thing he is not telling you is what is the cost of electrical installation managing those panels. That cost is 8 times more that panels themselves. No you just cannot connect all solar panels from the building together and they produce something - that idea is simply childish. These days you have flexible solar panels, they can be mounted anywhere (calculated to strings / power requirement) and being efficient just like old 20kg solar roof panels. Solar window at an efficiency of 1% is horrible idea. You know you can build a roof at an calculated angle and cover it entirely with solar panels, but that means you will produce ~ 40kWh/p in summer, consume 3kWh/p at best, which is useless. What about installing 6kWp of panels for summer, reduce your consumption and slap some batteries, maybe add few panels into your southern wall for winter to compensate low sun.
@@PSNDonutDude they are 1/2 as efficient and they do not get 1/4 the light (for the rooftop panels). then 100m2 rooftop panel will still make more power compared to 600m2 walls.
As a method of generating energy they're not efficient, but as a method of preventing heat from entering the building while also allowing light or even visibility means that they are significantly better as a window than a standard PV panel, then on top of those advantages it generates some electricity which makes it somewhat better than just IR reflective glass.
I can’t imagine they’ll make enough electricity to power the cooling for the heat they still let through, for something that would be used for an actual transparent windows.
@@float32 Next to a fully transparent window they would be immensely more efficient. Next to an IR reflecting window they might have a small amount of heat transfer through conduction, but considering heat pumps can be upwards of 400% efficient, I think the difference would be small enough to make them more efficient in total than reflective windows.
@@rexerator Yep. But if you could somehow get the building owner to put standard PV panels where all the windows are you could generate a ton more power. That's where they come in handy and what I was saying, they are see through meaning they can still function as windows and generate power meaning they would be a good option as long as they are financially viable. Also, keep in mind that skyscrapers would often be in a grid with a bunch of other skyscrapers meaning the lower sections of most skyscrapers out there probably won't have much direct sunlight. So you would only really be able to use some of the upper section of the tower for generation.
We have a glass company in Minnesota here, Sage glass, that makes a glass that can be shaded by using electricity to darken it. A side effect that they found with this glass is it can save major heating and cooling costs by absorbing and transferring heat in cold months or absorbing and radiating off heat in warm months. It's quiet amazing what we are seeing come out of glass.
The greatest advantage of transparent solar windows and solar roof tiles is that these aren't architecturally or aesthetically invading... unlike big solar panels hanged on a roof top. Even if overall less performant, these have non-negligible advantages. An 18th century patrimonial historic building could be easily convert to solar power without ruining it's look... skyscrapers could be convert without adding any additional wind drag... no risks to see someone stealing your solar panels... well, you'll literally see him coming if happen etc etc.
I wonder if 10% is efficiency is really a problem because it is 10% that would otherwise be heat that the AC does not have to take care of in the summer, so the effictive power saving + generation is closer to double 20% efficiency is already kind of competitive. but I guess people are comparing against tinted or low-e glass, so perhaps not.
What's the point in wasting money on inefficient solutions when you can just build a proper facility and use the efficiency gains to power your architecturally important building twice over for cheaper?
@@PedroRPFerraz point is that you could potentially double dip the surface area. They're already doing that in a sense. Matt has a video about combining PV and agriculture.
Yes but the workers in the green house will look really really funny. Even nicer would be is the panels contained one of those weird up converter chemicals that turned IR into red and down converters that turned far UV into blue. Both of those bands are not actually used by the plants and normal photocells.
I disagree with your comments on the efficiency "problem". The comparison shouldn't be transparent cells vs standard cells, but instead transparent cells vs standard windows.
Absolutely. If the cost is comparable anyway, then the only concern in the way of this being an obvious winning tech is how green their production is and what to do with those panels whose usable life has ended. Would an office built with these have to spend more money and energy swapping out the depleted glass than the panels are worth over that time? It sounds like the return on the initial installation is great, but I'd want some idea of what I was setting myself up for if it were my building.
@@UndecidedMF love your videos! The puns are the cherry on top. BTW, I would love to see this technology on cars to boost the range of EVs. Maybe for houses, they could paint this stuff on the inner walls of the house to increase surface area. Then when the sunlight shines through the window, you get power twice! Once from the window and again from the walls and ceilings. Just a thought.
Very interesting. The cost of the actual PV cells has dropped so low, that the glass is now a large factor in cost. The partially transparent glass is a clever double use of existing building materials. The more transparent options need more improvement, but have good potential.
A payback time of 1 year is *HUGE,* even 4 years is staggering. With the clear cost savings, I wonder how long it will be before these are not just optional, but required. Paired with the newer cheap batteries like the Iron Air Batteries, these are going to be a game changer.
As someone who grew up in Monterrey, I never imagined I'd hear my home-city mentioned in one of your videos, and I also didn't know that one of the buildings here was using such an innovative technology. That's awesome!
Raw efficiency and lifespan aren't the important questions. Rather, it's cost vs. performance, and opportunity cost. It doesn't really matter what the exact numbers are, as long as the panes provide at least as much benefit as other available options, at comparable expense. Make them cheap enough, and even 4-5% efficiency starts looking real good. You just need to make sure that all the important cradle-to-grave considerations have been factored in, e.g. support and operating costs, durability and replacement cycles, amount of expected solar insolation, local electric prices, etc.
It may be much less efficient compared to regular solar cells but it generates infinitely more power than the glass that would otherwise be there. Solar glass should be the only kind of window we install from now on.
That's a really narrow minded way to think about it. While this does produce usable electricity, it's a tiny amount compared to same investment of money in a normal solar panel array. Not to mention it's more fragile and nowhere near as weather resistant compared to the heat-strengthened glass that's used right now. Given how solar panels are a marginal payback technology right now even with tax subsidies this is a long way off from being economically viable.
@@iammeok the amount of times companies take a loss for long term sustainability. I’m sure we can conjure up the cost. Hell our government spent $2T on a war that didn’t go anywhere in Afghanistan. After seeing that fiasco, that’s when I learned expensive doesn’t exist, just relative
I've been following your channel for 2 months and i'm so impressed by the content you provide and the way you talk about it. Thank you so much for your exceptional work !
I really do appreciate you helping us keep a mental note as to check in on not necessarily the current efficiency of today's solar panel rating itself but an update on future prospects, innovative integration all while recognizing how freely open minded it too can still incorporate some big bright ideas.
A bit off topic but I kind of want stained glass solar windows now. It would be beautiful, useful, and still letting light through. Such glass on my phone would be pretty awesome too, it only needs to generate 15W to trickle charge a phone or tablet.
Love your content! I remember thinking about this concept years ago. I'm so glad it maybe coming to pass in my lifetime. I would love to participate in the use of this technology. I'm still amazed at the Tesla solar shingles and would love to have these installed on my roof. Next, solar siding for houses. What about using transparent solar panels that are installed over siding, not only making them solar but keeping them clean would be much easier than painting or power washing. Of course, I have no clue, but I'm sure the technology is already out there, if not in a mature state, but close to it. Power/energy availability would be unreal and available in so many areas where its not available now. How wonderful! If only....
I can imagine both types being usefull to build greenhouses. Partly transparent solar pannels would be great for plants that like a bit of shadow. Would also work great in dessert areas to make a cool greenhouse and use the electricity for desalination.
Several times you mentioned the lower efficiency of windows compared to rooftop installations as a downside, which ignores the simple possibility of, "why not both?"
Because these things cost far more than regular (tinted) windows. The difference in cost can be spent on building a proper solar installation which would produce far more electricity, ergo help preserving our environment more. There is no ecological or economical reason to do this...
Calls for "more efficiency" are usually people trying to keep us from getting off of the expensive habit of paying several hundred dollars a month so somebody else can make our electricity for us for a fee. As far back as 2008 it was practical to build a home that did not need off site power, at only a 20 to 30% additional cost to construct that house compared to a conventional new build. So for 30% more up front, you could live in a home with no monthly gas bill, no electric bill, even no water or sewer if you wanted. After a ten to fifteen year amortization the homeowner has broken even on the additional up front expense. From that point forward it's zero cost and only the occasional replacement costs like anything else a homeowner encounters like replacing a furnace, hot water heater or roof. But home builders need to build homes cheaper to make more money. They can't justify putting solar panels and a geothermal heat exchange on a home they can already sell for top dollar. They aren't going to sell the house for more, after all. The market drives that, where the home is, the schools, the comparable home prices, etc.
Several years ago, when Discovery still ran quality programming, they did a series of shows on what was needed to bring our infrastructure up to a good standard. The cost, then, was at least $3T. One of the episodes concentrated on solar energy. One company was working on solar cells that could capture several frequencies of light. The current cells only caught on frequency. By capturing energy from all frequencies, infrared thru ultraviolet, the cells efficiency would be vastly increased. Another company was working on cells that were printed onto a substrate using something like a ink jet printer. They estimated the cost would be under 10 cents per kW and these could then cover an entire roof.
Yet another fantastic video Matt! I have been thinking about solar panels being able to do this for decades and haven't seen any progress made. With the exception of that film you can put on glass that can capture moonlight as well as sunlight, there hasn't been anything exciting. Keep these awesome videos coming!
All of the favorable cost comparisons with traditional triple paned glass makes us wonder about the potentially huge replacement window market, after the efficiency issues are addressed. One area not discussed is the infrastructure required to harvest the electricity. When you consider wiring upgrades, inverter costs, regulatory approvals, this may not be a reasonable thing, even with homes already set up with solar panels and energy storage systems.
The use of thin film solar is very interesting, to cover a large portion of glassed buildings with thin film solar is a great field to gather additional energy.
I love the idea of solar windows on greenhouses. They don't need as much power to cool and heat as regular buildings as far as I know. For some farms and gardening businesses, they could be worth it if the panels degraded less slowly.
at some point in the future when these windows come down in price, sure. For now and the near future, they are around 10 times more expensive than regular glass, while providing very little electric energy. Put some standard PV panels next to the greenhouse instead. In short, if you want an energy-efficient greenhouse, this is not it.
@@tzenophile they’re talking about the 10% efficient ones, not the 1% efficient ones. That’s only half as efficient as a roof panel, but for the entire greenhouse coverage.
@@tzenophile of course at the current price none of it makes sense, it’s all R&D (and early adopter stuff for optics and subsidies). But in general, 10% efficiency solar windows would be worth it if they were competitive with triple glazing plus LCD dimming.
Greenhouses may be a good application for the partially shaded type if placed on the upper portions of the greenhouse. This will provide some much needed shade around noon. Rather than needing to resort to shade cloth we can provided shaded light and get a bit of power too. I may give it a shot when I build my 4 season greenhouse.
Greenhouses are currently the only sensible, large industry application here for this. You can even manipulate the wavelengths that you let through to maximize photosynthesis.
I doubt we'll see it in smartphones anytime soon. Not enough surface area and time spent in direct sunlight, especially as these transparent solar cells are less efficient. Could potentially work better with a normal solar panel on the back though, or possibly a combination on both sides. I've had similar sized battery packs with solar panels, though they still don't get much charge from solar and as such was more of a novelty.
On top of that OLED displays really don't like UV exposure. Consumer devices contain layers that absorb most of it before it reaches the organic substrate, but even then exposing displays to sunlight causes them to degrade a lot quicker.
@@iaadsi well, as you described it it seems that solar panel glass is perfect for OLED displays *because* OLED doesn’t like UV. The whole point of solar panel glass is, that it absorbs UV and IR light, which makes the OLED display more durable.
Sounds like massive over engineering for a problem that probably doesn’t actually affect anyone, since most people keep their phone in their pocket, not sitting in the sun.
Don't forget solar calculators work INDOORS! They don't need sunlight. All that idle time with a phone screen facing lights can almost keep a phone charged... at least as much as I use mine. Especially if you get rid of all the spy apps running in the background sucking up your battery life. If I were stranded without a phone charger, I'd rather have a phone that takes a full day to charge for a 5 minute phone call than no ability to charge at all.
@@WillieStubbs The chance of you ending up stranded without the ability to ask for a charger (or having the possibility to ask someone else to make a call) in everyday life is close to zero. And if you want to be on the safe side there is already much more effecient products like power banks or portable solar panels. The benifit to adding transparent solar on a phone is so negligable that you will never notice it. Like you said, it would be much more efficient just closing a few apps running in the background.
When I purchased new windows for my home, I paid extra to have a reflective film, to decrease heat coming in, so to me, lowered clarity and diffusion of some light is ideal. I would think most architects are anxiously waiting to be able to incorporate glass walls into every new building.
With Soft Cell Solar Technology, we can wrap every building, vehicle, etc, and generate energy. Konarka, out of New Jersey, was working on Solar Tape in the early 2000's. When I tried a Governor Run in Texas in 2010, I had an entire section of my Platform dedicated to this idea. Graphene is slowly becoming easier and cheaper to make, when we are able to mass produce it, it will do the same job, as good or better, with the additional properties of being 100x's stronger than steel and able to generate electricity from rain.
Amount of puns is blinding. In any case awesome video. Kinda interesting to see if this tech can be combined with self-shading glass to increase efficiency
Every bit of savings you can find to run your home or business is a plus. Having a window that let's light pass thru it and cuts your electricity bill down is a no brainer😊
You sold me. If I were a building owner, I would want those types of windows in my building. It would be nice to have a window efficiency that could pay for the windows in 10 years or less. This way, when it was time to change the windows, the cost of the new windows will already be paid for.
Great video, but one slight error. You won't see this on mobile devices as it'll induce net loss in power. Surface area is too small and the phone will end up using more energy to counter reduced transparency
simply using your cars sunroof as a simple battery tender would do wonders. parking bay covers would be a great use for these over something like a solar roadway because you block the paved area a LOT but with the cover you get full sun while providing shade to cars below, meaning they dont get as hot in the summer, so less AC blasting is needed to cool it down, leading to better fuel usage for everyone... add in that you can use the solar to offset the grocery store or whatever and you make a fairly large change to its environmental impact... picture an airport parking lot covered in semi transparent solar. add that to hangar roofs and as skylights in the terminals and you could make enough power to sell to the grid...
Much more promising than solar roadways. I'm personally cheap and don't mind having regular panels on my roof, but I live in a house where there is plenty of roof. Apart from cost and removing material from the regular solar panel market, there's definitely reason to put solar generation in a window instead of tint if it can generate some power.
I’ve been following this techs a while. It’s a bummer there hasn’t been increases in efficiency. One of the other things I’ve been following is energy generating shock absorbers to extend the range of EVs. Could you do a video on those?
Since the costs don’t seem to be much more than normal windows, I think using these instead of normal windows in a new building should be a no brained. Of course, was that just the price of the pv-window? If you add in all the wiring, converters and such, the economics might not pan out. In hot dry regions, the reduction of hearthstone enters the building make this more viable. Im for it. Go Team Solar!
I would be interested in seeing a transparent surface, a sort of "trans-steel" that would protect all these different panels and still let the harvest rays in to do their job. I see storms, hail, dust, flying objects putting some out of business. Even a screen buffer letting in a % would be useful for protection and slow down impact. Perhaps even using recycled plastics might be possible.
efficiency and price Matt, if all good it will explode, price needs to be affordable, return cost at reasonable time and give saving on energy. that's why all avenues should be explored - of course as always - government excluded, which is biggest obstacle. love stuff.
Fun Pun's Matt, Thank You! This feels like one more thing to add to the Systems Arsenal, just as solar paint might. Although not efficient yet and the ROI feels a bit dubious, the additive use could tip the scales slightly if Architecture could consider more innovation in shapes for collection. To me it's kind of like perpetuating the AC products for a 100+ year old grid for new construction or retrofit. They have done pretty well over the last 20-30 years on thermal efficiency...this may be further enhanced with shape and other building techniques. Problem to me is the population density, limiting architecture to highly vertical structures. As for roads and pavers...great but the current cost are about a $1M per mile and highly probable the cost would be considerably higher with a more carbon intensive front end, but worthy of consideration for the square area alone. One other thing to consider is the Lat/Long...not all live in the 23° zone, so alternate methods/per zone and or a distribution needs consideration, imho.
The onyx solar pavers reminds me of solar roads. Solar roads was calling for sidewalks, etc. The few applications of it, that I am aware of, were failures.
thats because solar roads was made by the couple who had very limited engineering experience and there roads were 'Smart' meaning they had loads of LEDs in them and failed a lot, in all they were gimmick that promised way too much. while onyx solar is a solar panel/glass maker manufacturer will all the infrastructure needed to make the product themselves also their just making colored glass that can genarate some power not a smart device fails in the outdoors within a months
Yeah, it'll still have to prove itself for longevity and after the solar roads mess we should be skeptical, but i am much more optimistic about these than I am the solar roads because at least these aren't trying to be the be all end all gadgetbahn of pavement, they are just glass with embedded solar tech, they aren't trying to cram computers and LEDs and heaters and what not into them, and they also don't seem to be trying to stretch claims about the weight it can hold with a figure that pretty much only allows light walking traffic and doesn't even come close to trying to claim you can drive on it
@@dustinm2717 Solar road ways/paths have and alway will be a scam. If you have a car drive over it, a person walking or even leafs on it, it stops generating electricity. You’re better off making a canopy for people walking so they haven’t got a walk in the Sun and that actually generate electricity efficiently. And without the risk of the panels overheating or getting broken.
I think one of the problems of looking at transparent not being efficient enough is you're missing then bigger picture. You can put solar generation ability on surfaces that wouldn't have had it before. I'm not saying they shouldn't strive to be more efficient. Another way to look at it if you're trying to cover the full energy needs of one building you can reduce the amount of traditional photovoltaic panels needed by having solar windows.
We plan semi tranparent solar pannels on our home extension. It will be the roof and the skylight in 1 and 'free' solar power to boot to power the HVAC or floor heating.
The key is to increase the efficiency harnessing the invisible light (IR, UV and all other wavelengths ) to 80% or better. I was wondering if the ''transparent coating'' in windows could be mixed with some kind of unharmful chemical to increase the output of energy - something that acts as an electrolyte like in the fuel cell technology - splitting hydrogen from water using the cathode and anode. Also, nothing prevents ''coating'' exterior walls with the same mix to harness the light shined over them, or make building walls as energy conductors. The same would apply to auto paints and anything that gets coated with this invisible sunlight-energy trapper. We are getting there at gigantic steps.... Great video..thanks for your selfless contribution to bring order and new angles of loving the planet.
I’d like to see this combined with “smart glass”, the LCD dimming layers. You could put such a layer on the inside side with the translucent 10% efficient windows, and gain the power savings from the “smart glass” heating/cooling optimisation while also generating some power for the building whether the window is shaded or not. Reducing energy demand while also further reducing power grid pull.
Well, as an Architect I am a bit frustrated that the basic design principles of orientation, adapting to the environment and the sizing of the windows make a huge difference in overall cost and liveability in housing. Unfortunately, city planners and regulations getting so complicated and they don´t think in a way to help lower co2 emissions, water usage and of course energy demands. On top of that, it is not always helpful to over-engineer everything but to design properly the house. Solar gains and all. love to see new developments. Wonder sometimes what kind of housing, industries, and overall city development will look like, when those technologies go through the roof.
Would need lots of testing, Just because it's not visible to our eyeballs it's reducing light to the plants, and those wavelengths that are being reduced might be useful to the plants. It's why you can't just get any plant as a houseplant and have it survive with home lighting. Besides the much lower return on solar energy, it seems much more useful to just separate the 2 unless you are extraordinarily tight on land (Which some countries are).
Awesome video.. These Types of Solar Panels would be used in a particular application, Much like Roof Top PV or BiPV (Building Integrated PV) .. In Theory you build an entire building that could generate Electricity utilizing all outer surfaces ... YES will see more of this Tech in the future !!
I may have missed it but it would have been good to point out that transparent and opaque PV aren't used in the same places. A transparent PV cell generates infinitely more energy than a regular window (which produces 0), while an opaque PV cell also produces 0 because it would never be installed in place of a window anyways. A better metric would be to compare how long it takes to offset the emissions involved in manufacture, or a simple payback time, cause ultimately that's one of the key reasons transparent PV would be used instead of regular glass
I agree that comparing electrical generation efficiency of transparent to opaque PV’s is not useful, due to non-overlapping use cases… least it is not useful unless the transparent overtakes opaque! The emission offsets is not as important as energy savings & payback for material. CO2 emissions are naturally recyclable, basically plant food, offering organic energy capture for us to use. The piece that bothers me is recycling the panel & glass materials. Does melting the glass back down and extract the nano particles take more energy than melting normal glass panes, for reuse? I am unhappy with the total lifecycle of materials, recycling must be considered, as I am watching formerly used solar panels get buried in old farmland with subdivisions built above them. The heavy metals in the next generation of vegetable gardens may be a man made natural disaster for the next generation.
@@BobIzam - “lifecycle assessment comparing transparent PV to windows” - yes, I believe you hit the nail on the head. Windows normally go into a landfill, which is upsetting, but window glass & pvc & wood & aluminum don’t normally result in poisoning land & water. Heavy metals in abandoned opaque PV manufacturing potentially create superfund sites, when cleanup is required, unlike an abandoned window factory. It is not clear to me if transparent PV offers similar sustainability risks with nano particles & heavy metals that opaque PV’s offer. Honestly, if transparent PV is more sustainable, from a recycling perspective, with no heavy metals, the lower efficiency should be better tolerated, or at least a recycle back to manufacture deposit should be paid into a bond to equal out the sustainability costs. Poisoning our land & water is a tangible concern, that is seemingly overlooked.
I think costs need to come down a bit, and the panels need to be removable for replacement and recycling before it becomes a mainstay of building designs.
Great Job, And It will only continue to improve ,,, Clean Green Efficient Energy ,They could do the same to some roads and E.V. cars and trucks could run for free
For mobile use (including vehicles) they'll definitely need to improve the transparency of the panels, for automotive use they'll need to make the panels at least as safe as current safety glass.. For office buildings not so much, except for the bigwigs in the "corner office". For both mobile and fixed installations, the power density and lifespan will need drastic improvement. That said, it _does_ look very promising especially for urban areas where most of the real estate for solar installations is vertical.
You make a deal of the efficiency but from the prices you quoted they are around the same as glass. That being the case and the fact that you are going to need the glass anyway then at that point the efficiency becomes somewhat academic. The panel is a requirement anyway and the fact that it is also providing useful energy in the process is an added bonus plus you still have the option of adding a roof top array as well.
One other small side benefit that would slightly offset the costs associated with solar windows is you would be able to omit the "low e" coating on the window since you would get the benefit of lower emissivity from the solar panels themselves.
Yes, this is promising. And, we should not see it in direct comparison to utility or residential solar. It's more about self sustaining systems. Can that window panel meet the electricity requirements for each room and then rooftop can be used to build a veggie garden? I mean if it is integrated and fits our agenda. We are winning...
I can see it used to hybridize agriculture and farm land while using it for solar power at the same time. The transparent solar panels can use electrolysis to create green hydrogen to use it for the production of ammonia used in fertilizers for the soil below, avoiding the use of tons of fossil fuels.
A transparent solar window would be good on any cars, even on combustion engines. The windows could be set to keep the car's battery charged, or even allow the spark the car needs when the alternator is not catching. Even better, if the alternator could be removed in place of a solar voltaic window that's always engaged, even while the car is turned off.
2 sqmeter of the current best solar panel (realistically what you can fit over the average car) would need several days parked under Arizona sun to charge an average lead battery and an entire month to provide the energy density of 1 single gallon of gasoline. The technology presented here may reduce heat load and power a circulation fan to reduce AC needs but that is about it.
There's a glaring omission to these companies comparisons in the fact that e-glass (a-la IR/UV rejection coatings) and aftermarket treatments are quite popular for new construction. Since transparent PV's work by absorption their energy gains really need to be compared to those, and I'm not sure they'd stack up favorably at this time (they definitely won't at small scales). There is also the lifecycle/cost issue, since e-glass is both simpler to make, and longer lived, I have no doubts it's the long term winner in cost/maintenance.... Most building owners are not going to be keen on scheduled replacement at that scale even if it does work out cheaper in the long run.
The efficiency that matters isn't Watts per square meter, it is Watts per dollar. I don't think even the producers of these know how much they will cost, but it is likely they can be made economically viable. I think the biggest potential is for large office buildings that are often built with huge glass windows for aesthetics, but then have to compensate for the solar heating with air conditioning. If the increased cost of the solar windows relative to glass is lower than the savings on air conditioning, you've already come out ahead, and all the power you generate is a bonus. And you can still put a traditional solar array on the roof too. The question that remains is whether they can make these at scale for a good price.
The big problem with transparent solar cells is that windows are typically oriented vertically, which is basically the worst possible orientation to make power. You get the worst power production during mid-day, where energy demand is very high. Couple that with the very low efficiency, and it's unlikely they would be viable economically or in terms of pollution offset by their energy production. Transparent glass that reflects all IR, or that uses the night-sky cooling effect, or both, to passively keep building cooler might be a lot more useful in terms of energy efficiency or pollution offset.
Please consider the possibilities of doing a program that ventures into using the more colorful (higher efficiency) glass panels in stained-glass types of designs. Artists could create beautiful scenes in large stained glass panoramas that would uplift the soul, while still letting light through, and producing energy. Even on a limited basis, imagine how it could glorify living and working spaces. Hope you'll consider proposing this to someone in the field!
What a fantastic idea. Once we're done expending the cost and resources into installing solar panels on our vertical windows we should consider solar roadways!
The abrasion and dirt on roadways make solar roads a useless concept, as there is plenty of space to install normal solar panels that dont have to withstand 18 wheelers for 20 years.
@@2MeterLP Someone has a hard time identifying sarcasm. While developing the technology of a transparent solar panel is an interesting idea, putting it to use on vertical windows is just plain silliness.........much like solar roadways.
I think transparent solar screens in cars and tech devices is a very long way off. Installing them on the sides of buildings is intriguing. Even with the reduced efficiency ,the increased real estate should still make them worth the investment. Combine then with traditional rooftop solar and I think we're in an even better position. The drawback of this technology is that it's not going to be efficient in dense urban environments where tall buildings cast deep shadows on each other. In those cases, I think only the buildings on the perimeter will really be using these, and older buildings may be difficult to retrofit due to laws governing "historic buildings" and such.
Ya, I used to be from North Shore, moved out west ~ Suits me better. But that being said, you have just introduced me to my new dream home !! Too bad it’s a McDonald’s ..... Growing up as a Lad in the woods outside of Boston, I loved what I called “Filtered Sunlight “ the kind that filters through the trees in the summer. So the concept to being is a living space wile I can get that filtered sunlight ~ & Privacy at the same time really floats my Boat thanks for the Video. Bye the way some parts of Cali get 100% sun every day 🙂for 7 months ... but im sure you are aware of that factoid ...💥
7:34 I see that in my city there are so many parking lots at local supermarkets in USA it's Much more space. So this roofs would be perfect. A regular parking lot is 2x4m which is 8m² which is round about 1,1kWp then the space where you have roads to the parking lots.
