They found the bare device retained 80% of its efficiency over 300 hours
Thats pretty bad. A regular PV panel would hit that level of degradation after about 20 years.
indoor light
Oh man I can use my lightbulbs to generate electricity? Dude this is going to make a killing!
Fuck the years of the three laws of thermodynamics! Now is the time of the three laws of robotics!
deleted by creator
Stick a PV panel in the window. You could do it right now. I don’t think its worth doing, but if you think this is a good idea there’s nothing stopping you.
There’s plenty of sensible efficient places we could stick more photovoltaics before its worth the resources chasing the tiny power output this is going to provide. Ultimately this is as silly an idea as solar freakin roadways for all the same reasons.
deleted by creator
Oopsy found the solar freakin roadways supporter
That’s like the most logical approach. I don’t care if it only charges a phone or keeps a few led lights on… Please keep the heat out.
Why not just put the solar panel next to the window so you don’t have to cover it at all? The more light a panel absorbes, the more efficient it is, which is kind of the exact opposite type of thing that you would want to cover a window with if you still want it to be a window. I’m not even going to bother addressing the inefficiencies of harvesting indoor light, other than to say it’s idiotic.
I mean, couldn’t you take a solar panel and make it like an awning above the window or something? Have a system where it can pull into the window to be flush with the building if you want.
You want to use solar panels to both collect solar energy AND provide shade to residents within the building? Sounds a bit too efficient for my tastes. Let’s put ugly brown tints on the windows instead and collect a fraction of the energy at 10x the cost.
That’s not a bad idea. Solar shutters could work also.
This seems more like an alternative to tinting films. So you can harvest the energy that would otherwise be lost.
The indoor light sounds pretty silly, I agree.
Do you think there is an appreciable amount of IR, near IR, UV light that it could be worth it? I’m out of date, are we good at harvesting near-ir in photovoltaics? I remember hearing or reading about some frequency upconversion material solutions but it’s been a while.
Another problem that comes to mind is the fact that you often want to reflect non-useful-to-vision light rather than absorb it (and heat up).
Is it required to absorb all light or just some spectrum or whatever that called?
Can we please stop pouring money into stupid ideas? Solar windows make as much sense as a water-soluble condom. It’s the kind of hair-brained shit I’d expect to see Elon touting. An invention that is the antithesis of its purpose, dreamed up and funded by some methed out moron surrounded by yes-men and brown-nosers who is so out of touch with the world that he doesn’t understand the innate purpose of the object, nor the application of the technology
At least they’re smarter than the solar roadways guy?
IDK. The solar roadway guy was a marketing genius. The ability to sell so many people on something so patently absurd is seriously impressive.
I think it all boils down to “hey boss, I patented this new technology!”, “great, let’s shove it down people’s throats, pour a bunch of money into getting this hyped in popsci magazines and online tech spaces, we’re gonna make hundreds of millions of dollars before anyone realizes what a dumb fucking idea this is.”
This is the nature of popsci journalism for sure. Combined with the startup funding (/grift, often) hype cycle… Ugly
One time I had a PR person from my school suit down in my office with me. He really wanted to hype oeut research. I was a wet blanket - probably overly so as I’m actually people-pleaser plus under-promise over-deliver which was incompatible.
I ended up kinda struggling and seeing how disappointment, almost annoyance, all I could say was ‘go talk to [my professor], he’s much better at this’
I feel ya. “This is above my paygrade. I’m getting to old for this shiiiet.” Kick it up to the boss.
I think you lack imagination. It all comes down to cost and convenience. Mounting something on the exterior is going to be a specialized process whereas getting new windows is relatively standardized. Then add to integration with the electrical system. Theoretically this could be like balcony solar. An electric plug under a window is not uncommon. So if the cost for a solar window is not that much more than a standard window to some degree. It would make sense. Its not a crazy thing to look into at all. Now granted might as well make the exterior frame collect solar as well if possible but again that might just end up being to expensive relative to surface area. Would be worth looking into though just like the window.
IT’S FACING THE WRONG WAY AND IT EITHER BLOCKS A LOT OF LIGHT WHICH MAKES IT A SHITTY WINDOW, OR IT DOESN’T, WHICH MAKES IT A SHITTY SOLAR PANEL. THE FUNCTION OF ONE APPLICATION IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE OTHER.
Caps because I can’t think of another way to make it more obvious than it was in my previous comment.
Soooooo how about: shutters
Already addressed.
I wonder why solar window shutters aren’t a thing.
Because the source of light is mostly up in the sky, and solar panels work best when they are mostly perpendicular to the direction the light is shining.
IMO solution is a ‘european tilt and turn’ window system with an inner window (tint or shade optional) and a solar panel shutter.
With drive motors and suntrackers for the luxury version.
Sounds like what you are suggesting is a standalone solar panel mounted on a sun tracking mount above a window? Still, it would be better and cheaper to just lay a solar panel out in the yard and then install a conventional window shutter.
Brosef, have you never been behind a tinted window? It’s not unusual to want to block all the light, plus, you’re not even seeing all the light.
E: intended to say “It’s not unusual to want to block some of the light”
G-dawg, have you considered that…
IT’S FACING THE WRONG WAY
Also, objectively you would end up spending more money for fancy solar windows to intentionally let those precious photons seep through.
The only place I could see something like this “working” would be in a predominantly glass-roofed building where the amount of light coming through the roof needs to be intentionally limited, and the location does not have space for a freestanding or conventional solar setup. That’s such an edge case usage that I can’t imagine why I’ve been hearing this same dumb idea for the last 20 years.
I’m not saying you’re wrong on the overall practicality.
Just that you’re loudness is unwarranted, based on it’s contents.
I don’t think you really know much about what you’re saying.
Also, feel like maybe I’m being a dick.
But, you did all caps so all is fair
Just that you’re loudness is unwarranted, based on it’s contents.
Been hearing the same shit about solar windows for the last 20 years. They fundementally don’t work. I literally cannot say it LOUD ENOUGH on ANY AND EVERY PLATFORM that people need to logically evaluate the technologies they are proposing.
If you think about solar windows for more than 10 second and come back with “that’s a cool idea, it will totally work!” then you either have a room temp IQ, or you are too young (or old) to be allowed outside unsupervised.
Bro you need to get out and meet some more photons
deleted by creator
I can see something like this as part of a system where we harvest energy from every possible surface if eventually becomes easy enough to produce and has a decent durability.
On some windows could make sense as permanent installations and on others they could be used as movable blinds.
I’ve been hearing about this for years. The fact that it never materialized is a sign that it probably doesn’t make sense economically.
Or because people want windows to let light into their homes?
Solar panels make sense on roofs, not windows
I’ve seen a large installation in person and they light plenty of light in, but aren’t quite clear so you can’t really enjoy the view out as you would with a normal window.
They would make good skylights in an office situation when you want natural light but don’t need to see out of them.
I sorta was thinking there are only so many windows in my place that we really look out for the view. talked to my wife and we agreed that we would be fine with a less than clear view for everything in our place outside of the balcony and the master bedroom.
The ones I saw were near an overpass and the headlights looked like a 1980s camera star filter. Or maybe what people with astigmatism see.
Boston’s logan airport has them in the newest terminal.
They work, but scatter light in a weird way and heat up the space dramatically. Granted that these are floor to ceiling 2 story windows, might have been hot either way, but can’t have reflective coating with solar.
Boston’s logan airport has them in the newest terminal.
Airports, famous for their efficiency and sensible economic policies.
Yes! Efficient window coatings are typically reflective or the light you don’t want. This is the opposite.
Nice in the winter, I suppose.
could the reflective coating be on the inner part of the window pointing outward? Which now makes me wonder if doing that would get the solar window to gather more energy.
The problem isn’t that IR light, and whatever else, are getting in. Presumably the solar panel captures it. The issue is that any light it collects becomes heat. Solar panels get really hot, because they’re absorbing as much light as possible. This should get slightly less hot, because it’s only absorbing some light, and letting some through, but any heat coming in will become heat, because none is reflected. Any that’s reflected won’t become electricity.
isn’t heat generated a factor of inneficency in the panel? I mean I completely get what you are saying and its a good point. its the any light it collects becomes heat that put the question in my mind. Im not trying to like argue your point. Just I think the one sentence can cause misunderstanding. All light turned into electricity should not cause heat.
I’m not an expert by any means. I think that any of the light that is used to generate electricity heats up the panel though. It has to. It can’t just be destroyed. Some of that becomes electrons moving, which I assume counts as heat physically too, since heat is a measure of motion.
Again though, I’m far from an expert. This was just my layman’s educated guess.
yeah all of that is energy loss. its why a 100% efficient panel is impossible and really why any electrical device is not 100% efficient. Its do to energy loss as heat.
Yeah, obviously. It’s a part of how it generates electricity though. It’s a core part of it absorbing the light. Yes, all heat leaving the system is lost energy, and this is true regardless of the format of energy generation and/or use. But if the PC panel isn’t heating up then it isn’t working, because absorbing the light makes the molecules more energetic, which is heat, and I think it’s part of the process of electricity generation.
It seemed like it was a layer inside the window. Almost like a vinyl tint layer, but with a fairly subtle pattern. It also made star filter type patterns on point lights like headlights.
Doesn’t make sense economically/for big corporations.
Forget solar roads, Solar WINDOWS!
This is awesome. I want em.
Imagine this 1W of energy at the cost of dead Congo teenager in mine that mined resources for this shit.❤️🔥❤️🔥
If the best counter argument for this is fictional, then i’m probably ok with it.
Do go on
If you put enough of them in series you could power a lightbulb to shine on them.
I’m confused, are you still talking about the dead Congo teenagers?
Did your prompt engineer not properly constrain your context model?
Indoor light part of this is silly, yes.
E: the headline, and this sentence in the article “and, unlike traditional silicon-based solar panels, has potential to generate energy from indoor light as its composition can be adjusted to better absorb indoor light’s specific wavelengths.” are doing the research no justice, which happens a lot. Are you keying in on that?
I was mostly making the infinite energy joke.
Assuming indoor lighting is modern, there shouldnt be much UV or IR to grab. So its taking visible light. will this grey out those frequencies/colors from the visual scene when looking thru as a window?
Absorbing frequencies of indoor light that indoor lights produce would up efficency of course, and you’d be capturing energy that would just become light polution.
But you would probably save money using reflective window cover and turning down the emitted power.
Im sure some applications would likely make sense tho.
solar roadways would do that, but better!
yeah but windows don’t get trode on.
Driving on solar panels seems bad for them.
but it’s so cyberpunk and cool.
want to see the youtube video where the guy claims it’s gonna produce billions of gigabytes of electricity for free?
Lol, gigabytes. I think autocorrect might have bit you.
i’m just being cheeky lmao
“for free” excluding the insane installation fee (including the economic hit from having to close all those roads while they are being installed) and the insane maintenance costs of keeping the ground under cars clean enough for the panels to be efficient?
It makes far more sense to replace all of the farmland that we are currently growing corn for ethanol on, with solar panels. Not only would the farmers be making free money, we would also generate more electricity than America currently uses.
You don’t even need to replace the farm land.
Such a solarpunk vibe for everything inside to be tinged orange from your windows power generation. Absolute shame that this isn’t really that useful just cool. No way a house with these would generate significant power
It wouldn’t really need to generate “significant” power. At least, not in terms of whole-home power. Something like this could easily generate and store enough power for an auxiliary system, something like overnight lighting. Basically the same principle as those solar lawn lamps, but for inside. Wire 'em all to a battery and a bunch of lights and light/motion sensors throughout the home, and you’ve got automatic nightlights that work even when the power’s out.
I have two sets of solar lights on my balcony that put out enough light to easily navigate by and it’s one of the things in my place that was truly “set and forget”. Having something passively collecting energy to use for later is nothing to sniff at
I mean, hey, solar powered calculators may have legitimately advance technology timelines.
Yeah exactly, not increadibly useful nothing groundbreaking but a very cool toy
I figure the key would be finding a way to make these cost less (including upkeep/replacement over time) than the marginal energy generation capabilities.
On that note, I’m sure there’s a reason besides “everyone else is too stupid to think of it” but I wonder why solar window shutters aren’t a thing.
I wonder why solar window shutters aren’t a thing.
Because the source of light is mostly up in the sky, and solar panels work best when they are mostly perpendicular to the direction the light is shining.
Since usually sun is up, panels on roof more efficient, solar panel window or panel on shutter is like panel on wall but worse because window and shutter can open and close. When panel on wall will make sense then maybe window and shutter will appear. I have the ability of more eloquence, but why many word when few word do trick?
Is that a purely cost effectiveness thing or is concentration of photons necessary for conversion? I guess I’m asking if these work through multiphoton absorption or just single photon? If it’s the first, is a lens array an option. Ignoring cost, that is (although it is impressive what can be done on the cheap)?
I’m sure these questions are solar 101 from 1935, but maybe you know!
It’s always a cost effectiveness thing when it comes to photovoltaic panels. Regarding the second question I’m not certain, the panel should be always producing some energy from the light it gets hit from, but the voltage needs to be beyond a certain threshold to be used. And since the voltage depends on the light intensity the positioning of the panel affects a lot the total power that can be actually used in a day. Lenses(?) and mirrors can improve the production but they have to be pointed to the panel, and since the sun moves they have to move too, and the mechanisms to make them move make the whole thing more complicated and probably expensive than simply buying a second panel. That said solar towers exist (look them up they look cool) but they don’t rely on photovoltaics but instead use the heat to boil water and pass the steam through a turbine to produce electricity.
Thanks homie - I think you’re right about cost effectiveness. I guess I also have in mind nothing is cost effective until it is. I’ve been reading a lot of sci fi.
My prior career was very optically based so some general concepts are field adjacent for me. So my interest is informed in a “knows just enough to be dangerous” kind of way
