A fully transparent solar cell that could make every window and screen a power source

  • metta

    Posts: 39107

    Mar 16, 2015 2:23 AM GMT
    A fully transparent solar cell that could make every window and screen a power source

    (from 2014)

    transparent-luminescent-solar-concentrat

    "the Michigan State researchers use a slightly different technique for gathering sunlight. Instead of trying to create a transparent photovoltaic cell (which is nigh impossible), they use a transparent luminescent solar concentrator (TLSC). The TLSC consists of organic salts that absorb specific non-visible wavelengths of ultraviolet and infrared light, which they then luminesce (glow) as another wavelength of infrared light (also non-visible). This emitted infrared light is guided to the edge of plastic, where thin strips of conventional photovoltaic solar cell convert it into electricity."

    http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/188667-a-fully-transparent-solar-cell-that-could-make-every-window-and-screen-a-power-source



    Near-Infrared Harvesting Transparent Luminescent Solar Concentrators

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adom.201400103/full

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adom.201400103/abstract
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2015 4:33 AM GMT
    Surely, anybody who passes through junior high knows that this headline is impossible?

    Why do they let tards blog and women drive?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2015 8:24 AM GMT
    mindgarden saidSurely, anybody who passes through junior high knows that this headline is impossible?

    Why do they let tards blog and women drive?

    He does mention in the article - Scientifically, a transparent solar panel is something of an oxymoron
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2015 10:20 AM GMT
    Science! The brilliance of man is only hindered by its greed. How long until petrol corporations buy out this technology?
  • Psiberzerker

    Posts: 31

    Mar 16, 2015 5:07 PM GMT
    If it's fully transparent, then it wouldn't absorb any photons. Also, a glass substrate is IR reflective, which eliminate those too. I think it's a good idea, with the caveat that the're even less efficient than higher albedo photovoltaics, and only in certain applications.

    However, this is a trickle charge, not a primary power source. The thing about sustainable energy is we're bathed in it, 24/7. Figure out how to draw, and store the charge separation of just random ions bumping into us from Brownian motion (No idea how to do that without an electrified surface) and you'd get more energy.

    The main problem with our energy is it's inefficient, so we need to use more of it, compounding the side-effects like pollution. This is a cost/benefit kind of material, in a skylight (South facing roof) it would likely pay for itself. A window under a covered porch maybe not. I imagine they're more expensive than higher efficiency PVs and inert glass panes, combined (Until economies of scale bring it down.) A windshield might be nice to run peripherals like the AC, but won't power the whole car.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 16, 2015 7:03 PM GMT
    jeepbstrd saidScience! The brilliance of man is only hindered by its greed. How long until petrol corporations buy out this technology?


    Probably about the same time they decide to fund further research into it than less forward thinking minds would do. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Psiberzerker

    Posts: 31

    Mar 16, 2015 10:06 PM GMT
    Petrolcorps have had plenty of time to buy out Photovoltaics. They haven't for the more efficient patents, I'd think this would be one of the last, because it's less direct competition.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2015 6:15 AM GMT
    Psiberzerker saidPetrolcorps have had plenty of time to buy out Photovoltaics. They haven't for the more efficient patents, I'd think this would be one of the last, because it's less direct competition.



    British petroleum ( BP) gave up on its solar program. If you have ever tried to power your house with solar or even a law mower or bike you would know why. Sunlight has very low energy density. Extend your hand to face the sun, feel its warmth. Now brush your hand with gasoline, light it. Now you know about energy density.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 17, 2015 1:21 PM GMT
    Actually, there have been houses powered by solar in the US (and Canada) for decades. Of course, they take a very different view of power use than most consumers, and don't use electricity for everything that others do.

    With a house properly designed for it, and the right discipline, it is *possible* in the right climate.

    Doctor9
  • Psiberzerker

    Posts: 31

    Mar 17, 2015 6:22 PM GMT
    [quote]If you have ever tried to power your house with solar or even a law mower or bike you would know why. Sunlight has very low energy density. Extend your hand to face the sun, feel its warmth. Now brush your hand with gasoline, light it. Now you know about energy density. [/quote]

    LOL, I'm designing a pedal-solar hybrid. I know all about energy density, what's the ratio of ED for Gasoline versus an Ammonia Fuel Cell across the entire system's mass? (Fuel, Tank, Engine/Motors, and drivetrain)? Okay, assume I don't know what I'm talking about because you don't know what I'm talking about. What's the energy density, per calorie for a pedal powered chain-drive? What's the minimum surface area to power (With current generation PVs) a 500lb solar vehicle at 35mph on the flat, level and calm (In an ideal vacuum, because drag is another unrelated factor.)?

    I run my home, this computer, and the outgoing part of the connection partly on Micro-Hydro-electric from my rooftop cistern, and solar-thermal pre-heater. Because I actually work with it, in the field, and in my daily life. So, you who say it can't be done, STFU to us who are actually doing it. Scepticism isn't Fact.
  • Psiberzerker

    Posts: 31

    Mar 17, 2015 6:24 PM GMT
    What part of anything I said about throughput, frequency band-block from reflection, transition efficiency, and placement of photovoltaics made you think I don't know what I'm talking about?

    Have you tried powering your home purely on petroleum? You can't, because it doesn't come to you. Ultimately you have to go get the gas, and pour it into the generator, so even then it's not purely petro-fueled. Now, what's the energy density of the net system, the pumps, pilelines, shipping, tanker trucks and your pickup to get the gas to your generator? (Not counting the calories that you contribute.)

    The net system, as far as out of pocket costs for Solar is catch the photons, and turn it into current. That's it. We don't have to get it, because it comes to us, pump it out of the ground, and ship it, because it doesn't have mass, nor get rid of the other products, because the only one, Heat dissipates. (Albedo, look it up if you have to, or ask me, and I'll tell you all about it.)

    I'm talking about a system, and application of components in that system, like where you'd put high throughput PVs so they eventually pay for themselves. The system in this case is your house, or car, or trike (A bike won't work, it has to balance with an unobstructed array. That's in application, again.)

    You're talking about a stat. 1 in the entire equation you need to run to calculate whether solar panes are right for you. That's the difference between Science, Engineering, and a blowhard on the internet. You have to understand the technology to use it, you only need 1 stat to try to discredit it.
  • Psiberzerker

    Posts: 31

    Mar 17, 2015 6:33 PM GMT
    Photons don't have mass, therefore, they do't have stats derived from mass, like Density, or Energy density. Sunlight is Free. We can't turn it off, clean fusion, right there. And wind, water, pretty much everything except Fission, and Geothermal is ultimately Solar. So's Fossil Fuels. What's the surface area of the dayside atmosphere, and the net albedo of all Greenhouse gasses combined?

    Energy Denisty isn't the only, nor even the most significant factor. It's the costs, plural, all of them per joule. Next come Efficiency. Energy Density, the Net ED of the entire system is a factor in net Efficiency, which is a factor of net Costs/Joulle.

    I submit that you don't understand Energy Density all that well. Maybe how to calculate it, but our problem is how we Apply it.
  • Psiberzerker

    Posts: 31

    Mar 17, 2015 7:01 PM GMT
    Your hand is a poor sensor for light. For one thing, unless you're black (Not of African decent, the actual color) most of it is reflected. That's why we have eyes, and those same photons are capable of destroying them with no more than a 7mm aperture, before they reflexively contract, because you just looked at the sun.

    So, nevermind the fact that light doesn't Have density, your trying to use your skin as a solar-thermal array does not invalidate the application of otherwise free energy.
  • Psiberzerker

    Posts: 31

    Mar 17, 2015 7:30 PM GMT
    (The WOT is because it's a complex subject you just tried to simplify.)

    In answer to your question, yes I did try to run my house on photo-voltaics. Instead, I did a rooftop cistern, micro/hydro (With pressure from heating water/vapor as a heat exchanger) and water-preheater, because I got better net cost/energy out of that, instead of giving up, and paying my power/gas bill. (It also happened to work with a lot of reused materials I had lying around, so I didn't have to buy a solar array.)

    These are not the solution, they're a component. Systems within systems, your windows will not power your house, but if you want a skylight between your rooftop Photovoltaic, and Solar/thermal arrays, then you can lower your daytime light bill because you don't have to use that energy to heat, and light your living room.

    That's the difference between a System, or oversimplifying the entire argument down to 1 stat, and an invalid analogy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 18, 2015 12:49 AM GMT
    Trees around houses save on energy for heating and cooling.

    Trees absorb greenhouse gases and generate oxygen.

  • Psiberzerker

    Posts: 31

    Mar 20, 2015 2:57 AM GMT
    Trees are photochemical cells. Or they have them, chloroplasts (Organelles if you want to get technical) but they also obscure your solar/windows. (Don't want to get too off topic too long, how moderated is this forum, anyway?)

    They also store energy. There's a Water Vapor that pops out with the free Oxygen, but the main thing is they make starches, cellulose, and more complex polymers. Wood, nice and carbonaceous, and you can concentrate the Energy Density somewhat by making Charcoal. Still not an ideal fuel.

    But.

    It's right there, and we lived for (A couple) hundreds of thousands of years burning it without too much trouble because it's Local Source. That's the trick, how many Barres of oil does it take to get 1 gallon of Gasoline to your car? (It's a long equation, and I would have to trace the exact logistic chain back to the pump it ultimately came out of.)

    That's the Carbon Footprint. Energy Density is only really an issue if you have to carry it, for instance in a car. There's also all the footprints of the stuff that comes out of the tailpipe, and shipping around Catalytic Converters to recycling them without all that going into the groundwater, anyway.

    I've been thinking about practical applications for this, and have to admit it wouldn't make a bad roof for a minimal home. (Usually called "Tiny Homes" I didn't name them.) High throughput, so lighting isn't as much of an issue, probably use the loft for storage, plants, or a Greenhouse.

    Greenhouses don't have a lot of energy load. Some, there's fans, timers if you want to automate, but the bandpass nature (See what I did there) means the Plants can catch what it lets through. And, you don't have to hook it up to the grid. Doesn't really matter what you grow in there, but I'd go for something high Cellulose to make M/ethanol (1 or 2 carbons per oxygen) and then gassify the charcoal.

    That makes Carbon Monoxide, which will run a converted engine. For power tools, no need to rough it. Because you don't have to drive to the gas-station. If you Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle it enough, it doesn't matter how clean it is, if the net emissions aren't as high, because you shipped it 7 times from, Kuwait to Missouri.
  • Psiberzerker

    Posts: 31

    Mar 20, 2015 3:01 AM GMT
    Skyscrapers. They take a lot of energy and modern ones are covered with glass. Oh look!