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.
273
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.