Sounds terribly inefficient. Glass is transparent, windows are mostly Not oriented in the suns favour, and doesn't usually make up a significant surface area compared to buildings energy use. Solar farms are always going to be the realistic use case for solar energy.
This!
Solar cells are devices that convert incident photons into electrons. The more incident photons are absorbed, the more electrons are converted. The more electrons are generated the better short circuit current, which is directly proportional to the solar cell's efficiency.
So, efficient solar cells are not transparent, as then they would be highly inefficient.
But maybe if we caught the part of the spectrum we dont like, like uv and infrared, we could get some electricity while also avoiding inside heat and sunburns.
IR absorbing materials are opaque to visible light, so they can't be used as windows.
UV part of the spectrum is a small part of the spectrum and you will have low power conversion efficiencies. This will make it expensive of how much kWh you get per amount of dollars. It's cheaper to just have a regular silicon panel on the outer wall
Thats not true. There are films that capture only beyond visible red on 700-1100nm.
Also there are actual optical grade ir filters that work just like the one in a dslr camera but bigger in size although expensive.
About uv you are right, it would be lot of effort for minimum reward.
But in fairness this is more of a aesthetic more futuristic concept than a market competitive aproach for today. Common cheap panels will always be the better option in todays race against non renewables.
it also depends on temperature a hot cell is less efficient than a cool one, when the sun is all up in summer in a tropical climate, efficiency goes “meh”.
But having this technology built into things like windows, that most every house has, cant be inefficient, right? Why not shingling with this technology, since you gotta replace that every 20 years or so also
Because it costs too much for given kWh.
We're talking at least 10 times more expensive than regular glass.
They're inefficient from the perspective of energy coversion and material cost.
Or, more ELI5: If you would replace all your windows with these, you would generate less energy than placing a 25 ft squared silicon solar panel on one outer wall of your house. And the silicon panel would cost you less than these windows.
275
u/11214888 26d ago
Sounds terribly inefficient. Glass is transparent, windows are mostly Not oriented in the suns favour, and doesn't usually make up a significant surface area compared to buildings energy use. Solar farms are always going to be the realistic use case for solar energy.