DailyTech - Sharp to Ship Solar Powered Glowing Glass in 2007

Submit News

Gadgets Sharp to Ship Solar Powered Glowing Glass in 2007
Purav Sanghani - August 1, 2006 3:34 PM

38 comment(s) - last by number999.. on Aug 5 at 10:14 PM

Glowing windows to make an appearance in 2007

If you look out your apartment window and see nothing but brick there may be a solution for the lack of natural light. Sharp has showed off a new technology that allows the capture and re-transmission of solar rays using solar panels in a form of glass.

The Sharp LumiWall is composed of 2 layers of glass with a thin film solar panel in between. The solar panel collects solar energy and conserves it until things get dark which is when the panel begins to glow. We could compare this to one of those glow in the dark plastic molds we used to find in boxes of cereal or even glow in the dark stickers. However, this is a much more advanced product.

Uses for LumiWall include a permanent shade, as the solar film is dark in the light, as well as a glow light source when it is dark. The product is still slightly transparent but for those that do not require a see-through window but do have a need for an abundant light source, this may be a possible solution.

Pricing on LumiWall products has not been announced but we doubt a bay window version can be picked up from your local Home Depot just yet. This glowing glass will be expensive and will most likely be marketed for industrial uses at first launch.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Car Windows

By Wegmans on 8/1/2006 4:09:06 PM , Rating: 2

I think it would be great if you could integrate these with car windows, perhaps supplying power to a fan that keeps your car cool when it is parked in the heat. Back windows are tinted anyway, so no visibility loss on that front.

RE: Car Windows

By therealnickdanger on 8/1/2006 5:05:58 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
perhaps supplying power to a fan that keeps your car cool when it is parked in the heat

That has been an optional feature on Mercedes Benz vehicles for some time now. I love solar powered anything. It's still expensive, but efficiencies are improving by leaps and bounds. It's such a no-brainer! Unlimited, clean, free energy from the sun! While it can cost anywhere from $25K-60K for a solar powered home (location, power needs, etc.), the thought of every home and business in the U.S.A. running off of solar energy makes me excited. Then toss in solar powered cell phones, laptops, MP3 players... Just give me gasoline for my car, everything else should be solar!

Parent

RE: Car Windows

By masher2

(blog) on 8/1/2006 6:08:49 PM , Rating: 2

> "Unlimited, clean, free energy from the sun! "

Its neither unlimited, nor clean, nor free. Quite a bit of industrial pollution is generated in the manufacture of solar cells. And since the cells degrade in sunlight over a matter of 3-30 years (with the more efficient cells degrading faster), they need to be replaced on a regular basis.

Futhermore, if you're trying to fully run a home off solar power, that requires batteries, or storage cells of some sort. More cost, more pollution.

Solar is highly effective on a limited basis, in certain circumstances. Attempting to use it for widescale power generation is still a pipe dream...unless you want to wallpaper an entire state with cells, at a cost (in both dollars and pollution) far higher than what we're paying today.

Parent

RE: Car Windows

By Wegmans on 8/2/2006 8:36:28 AM , Rating: 2

I would agree with everything you've said, and I'd also like to say that Solar is probably the least invasive alternative power that we have currently. The great thing is that in the near future, the cells will be installed during the construction of houses, thus limiting some of the negative consequences.

I've had a chance to chat with some people at Evergreen Solar (ESLR) and they believe that in the near future they will be able to engineer paint that has Photovoltaics within. Depending on the colors, your whole house could help generate power!

I firmly believe in the future of solar, even as a supplement to other means. Hopefully the manufacturing process will get cheaper and more efficient soon!

Parent

RE: Car Windows

By therealnickdanger on 8/2/2006 8:46:46 AM , Rating: 2

While I was hoping never to be on the receiving end of one of your posts, it's not so bad. I know it's still far from perfect, but it is still very cool... er, hot... I would argue that it is unlimited in the sense that the sun will last a lot longer than we will. Our ability to harness it may not be unlimited, but that's not what I meant.

Maybe you will confirm/deny this for me, but I was under the impression that photovoltaics have seen dramatic year-over-year improvements since 2001 in all areas of their production: efficiency, longevity, and waste byproducts. While I'm with you that we're no where near replacing coal/petrol, but I think we've moved beyond the "wallpaper stage".

Ford is using photovoltaics in more and more overseas plants to absorb (pun intended) energy costs. Naturally, Kyocera powers several of their own buildings using solar cells. Microsoft powers several of its offices with solar. A growing number (although still miniscule) of housing developments across the country are being designed with complete photovoltaic systems that provide enough energy to power the home and feed the grid. It has been quoted that as the demand for photovoltaics doubles, costs drop by 20%... it will just take time.

Parent

RE: Car Windows

By Wegmans on 8/2/2006 9:07:48 AM , Rating: 2

Photovoltaics have definitely seen improvements recently. Not only that, but as you could have guessed, the market for them has grown annually at around 30-40% One of the things we forget is that there are situations where houses or industries or whatever are too far from traditional power sources, and that’s where solar could fill the gap. With no moving parts to wear out, no emissions of any kind, and a limitless, readily available power source, PV meets the need for electricity in places and ways that other sources simply cannot.

Efficiency for PV cells is about 12-16%. Theoretically the highest amount of sunlight that could be harvested comes is around 30%. Attaining this level is only feasible for, say, NASA and requires exotic materials and complicated processing steps.

We’ll get there soon!

Parent

RE: Car Windows

By masher2

(blog) on 8/2/2006 9:24:36 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
Ford is using photovoltaics in more and more overseas plants to absorb (pun intended) energy costs. Naturally, Kyocera powers several of their own buildings using solar cells. Microsoft powers several of its offices with solar

All true...but you need to understand two things. Firstly, corporations often do such things not out of cost savings, but to be perceived as "environmentally friendly". Frankly, its good PR. So the simple fact that a business uses solar cells in its office does not imply the decision was cost effective.

Secondly, the cost equation can be skewed by power utilities, who often charge business users a much higher rate for peak usage in the hottest daytime hours. They may also give incentives or rebates to cut use, in order to avoid building new, enormously costly generating facilities. In this case, solar may be 'cost effective'...but on a very limited (and somewhat artificial) basis.

The essential problem of solar power is one of simple physics. Solar flux at earth surface can be as high as 1kw/m^2. That's at noon, on a clear non-cloudy day, at a location somewhat near the equator. If you account for angle of incidence, the day-night cycle, and a typical level of cloud cover, the average rate is under 200 w/m^2. A bit higher in Arizona, a lot lower in a place like Seattle.

Now factor in conversion efficiencies and (if you want a system that gives you power at night, or during heavy cloud-cover) losses from storage systems, and you're down to around 15 watts/square meter for commercially available cells. (again, a lot less than this for many areas of the US). Some of the most efficient cells made from exotic materials can do 3-4X better. We can't make them cheaply now, but lets assume we can in the future. That still leaves us only ~60 w/m^2...and a single blowdryer takes 1500 watts. In an area like NYC, you'd have to carpet an area far larger than the entire city to power it...and that's assuming the efficiency advances I mentioned.

In certain areas and certain limited applications, solar is now cost effective. As technology improves, its use will widen. But it will *never* replace heavy power generation...not unless we collect it from space, or we cover a few states with solar cells.

Parent

RE: Car Windows

By Wegmans on 8/2/2006 9:41:31 AM , Rating: 2

Right, I think for now we can be happy supplementing our power with solar. You are completely right about businesses wanting to have bragging rights about ‘being green.’ Large corporations, schools, universities, etc. are all the same and while the intent is there, it’s just not feasible to rely on solar. I do, however think that efficiency is higher than 15 watts per square meter; maybe twice that? It doesn’t really matter though because the difference is negligible when considering the ‘hairdryer’ factor you brought up. Then again, the people who would be employing solar in their houses might not be the kind of people who would use a hairdryer! The strange thing is that Germany has the largest market for PVs at around 40% yet they average far lower solar energy than a lot of other places.

Parent

RE: Car Windows

By masher2

(blog) on 8/2/2006 10:02:49 AM , Rating: 2

> "I do, however think that efficiency is higher than 15 watts per square meter; maybe twice that?"

I arrived at the figure from (Solar Constant/Surface Area of the Earth - Atmospheric Absorbance/Reflectivity) % PV cell efficiency. I'd be happy to show you the figures if you want. Using the total area of the earth automatically factors in the day-night cycle...if you consider daylight-hours only, obviously the figure is double that.

Parent

RE: Car Windows

By Wegmans on 8/2/2006 10:14:56 AM , Rating: 2

Yeah I just took a quick look at a map of the world with average solar energy on it and eyeballed a figure. I think it's not the exact output that matters here, its the fact that either way it's not enough energy to rely on.

Here's the thing. Companies producing PVs can probably up that figure higher than 15, but because the sun isn't up for 24 hours a day where people would use the cells, that's why the figure is lower?

Anyway maybe we can turn to lunar power; moon-driven tides, ocean currents, and waves generate more power than wind and offer more reliability than solar. No matter what we do it will take a huge investment!

Parent

RE: Car Windows

By masher2

(blog) on 8/2/2006 10:23:20 AM , Rating: 2

> Here's the thing. Companies producing PVs can probably up that figure higher than 15, but because the sun isn't up for 24 hours a day where people would use the cells, that's why the figure is lower?

That's part of it. Take a PV out to the desert at noon, and you might get 150 w/m^2. Angle of incidence and average cloud cover play a part in reducing it as well.

Parent

RE: Car Windows

By number999 on 8/5/2006 9:58:20 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
cost equation can be skewed by power utilities, who often charge business users a much higher rate for peak usage in the hottest daytime hours

Peak power not skewed by power utilities indiscriminately. Demand is much higher then and they charge accordingly. Solar power would be at its peak at this time and at peak rates, could offset solar's higher costs rather than using a smaller conventional generator for the same purpose. The fact is utilities must import power or use small generating facilities (gas or coal) to supply this peak power. They are not generally used otherwise because they are more expensive to run. I wouldn't call it artificial because this situation exists and will continue to exist as long as we use power the way we do in the typical diurnal pattern.

It is highly doubtful that solar could ever replace baseline generation, it's not constant and not continuous, but that doesn't mean it can't contribute significantly to the energy production mix.

Total costs not only include the base plant and the fuel and decomissioning but also the costs of the network and the maintenance of the whole thing. Solar is used to power parking meter ticket machines in the city. They are used for patio lights. They are used for remote communication towers in developed and developing nations. It's not only the power cost it's the maintainance and setup costs as well.

Typically, our economic systems and laws support the traditional infrastructure, production and distribution of energy and not the newer renewable and more distributed technologies. The laws should be altered to level this playing field. For example some utilities buy back unused power from small users while others won't.

Parent

RE: Car Windows

By number999 on 8/5/2006 8:52:02 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Quite a bit of industrial pollution is generated

Well it's the same type of pollution generated by all semiconductor production.

quote:
more efficient cells degrading faster

Don't know about that. Crystalline silicon cells supposedly have efficiencies around 30% and lifetimes minimaly around 25 years.

Parent

Zero Cost Homes

By knightoftears on 8/1/2006 5:44:04 PM , Rating: 2

I have read about zero cost homes being used in california and other places. All energy for heating and cooling is supplied by the solar panels, as well as the water being heated for showers, and the elextricity used by all appliances and electronics. the light bill is nearly zero dollars every month. One family's highest light bill was $6.00/month with the rest costing nothing over a years time..lol. Basically, if all power companies would implement this into packages and make them available to all homes everywhere, then it would be more cost effective for everyone. I can't wait for this to happen, if it ever does of course.

RE: Zero Cost Homes

By lemonadesoda on 8/1/2006 6:03:49 PM , Rating: 1

This family obviously doesn't watch much TV, doesn't like to drink ice-cold beer while watching, and most clearly doesnt have any kids playing console or PC games all day.

Parent

RE: Zero Cost Homes

By GhandiInstinct on 8/1/2006 6:44:51 PM , Rating: 2

Utopias? Right now people are interested in making money not saving money.

Parent

RE: Zero Cost Homes

By number999 on 8/5/2006 10:05:20 PM , Rating: 2

Actually people are interested in quick easy fixes and not long term strategy. In the long term you could probably save money but when the average family moves every 4-5 years, would you want to pay for the extra stuff? Which is too bad but it's human nature.

That's what gov't regulation should be for.

Parent

RE: Zero Cost Homes

By masher2

(blog) on 8/1/2006 7:21:02 PM , Rating: 3

> "...it would be more cost effective for everyone"

Spending an extra $100,000 on your home, along with paying additional equipment maintenance costs, just to save a few thousand a year isn't "cost effective" by any stretch of the imagination. The interest cost alone from the extra borrowing requires is much larger than the utility savings.

If such systems lasted far longer, and required less maintenance, they'd eventually pay off...but as it stands now, you need to replace them long before you break even.

Parent

RE: Zero Cost Homes

By GI2K on 8/1/2006 11:11:30 PM , Rating: 2

With $100,000 you could build a 10kW solar array and it would take like 1000 ft^2 of space.
People that think on this kind of energy usually build houses more energy friendly and need less energy. Some states also pay part of the bill.

Either way it’s not with solar energy that you’ll save any money.

Parent

RE: Zero Cost Homes

By number999 on 8/5/2006 10:12:53 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
$100,000 on your home

Vegas ZCH only $25 000 extra
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8852127/site/newsweek/...

Cost of one in Oklahoma $200 000
http://www.housingzone.com/article/CA6332828.html

And prices would go down as the technologies become more mainstream.

Parent

RE: Zero Cost Homes

By number999 on 8/5/2006 10:14:54 PM , Rating: 2

sorry needed to add houses are approx 1,650 sq. ft, 3 bedroom 2 bathroom.

Parent

Always daytime

By fxyefx on 8/1/2006 3:51:57 PM , Rating: 2

Sounds interesting, but is there a way to turn them off? Some people wouldn't want their windows to glow all night long... it could make sleeping difficult. : D

RE: Always daytime

By NagoyaX on 8/1/2006 4:31:53 PM , Rating: 2

If they could put a switch into it so i can contorl when the releases light, that would be great... Im all for using less non-renewable energy. I would be nice if the light it asorbed was tided into your house electrical supply as well, this way u can use the power anyway you see fit.

Parent

RE: Always daytime

By lemonadesoda on 8/1/2006 6:01:49 PM , Rating: 3

It's obviously been a long time since you visited a home store.

Go buy yourself a pair of curtains!

Parent

RE: Always daytime

By PrinceGaz on 8/2/2006 9:18:49 AM , Rating: 2

lolol

Parent

RE: Always daytime

By fxyefx on 8/2/2006 11:44:15 AM , Rating: 2

Good luck blocking out the light from a bunch of glowing windows with some curtains. : P Though I suppose it would create a cool atmosphere in the room...

Parent

RE: Always daytime

By MrPickins on 8/2/2006 12:17:37 PM , Rating: 2

If curtains can block the sunlight, I'm sure they can handle the much lower lumen output of these windows. ;)

Parent

solar is not the answer

By jmunjr on 8/1/2006 10:16:29 PM , Rating: 2

It's gonna take more than sunlight to come up with a low cost energy solution.. Changing the way people live and think is a start, but something along the lines of a Mr. Fusion might be the answer. If nature can convert food into energy, we will figure it out some day as well. I don't think that woudd be enough though.. Maybe geological energy of some sort, as well as wind, water, and more...

I still like Mr. Fusion though..

RE: solar is not the answer

By Wegmans on 8/2/2006 8:38:44 AM , Rating: 2

I think Mr. Geothermal is also pretty nice..

Parent

RE: solar is not the answer

By jskirwin on 8/2/2006 9:17:05 AM , Rating: 2

Ms. Conservation has become a real b**ch though. She used to be real easy (adding insulation, thermalpane windows, efficient appliances) but has become much tougher now. Mr. Fusion is a real flake. He's been making promises for years but has yet to demonstrate that he's a real "stand up guy."

Parent

RE: solar is not the answer

By vortmax on 8/2/2006 1:07:01 PM , Rating: 2

Mini-Cold fusion reactor in every home. That's the key. Maybe 100 years from now?

Parent

RE: solar is not the answer

By Aikouka on 8/3/2006 1:30:59 AM , Rating: 2

C'mon, js... I'm sure Zemeckis and Gale wouldn't lie to us... don't you think so? I'll wait for 2015 and find out ;).

Parent

Uses

By smitty3268 on 8/1/2006 4:12:28 PM , Rating: 2

This seems like it could be really useful for public places, like bus stops and park benches.

I don't really see how it would be used in residential homes though. Maybe a skylight?

RE: Uses

By Souka on 8/1/2006 4:31:00 PM , Rating: 2

I wonder how easy its to "Tag"

:)

Parent

Advanced product.

By redbone75 on 8/1/2006 3:58:42 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
We could compare this to one of those glow in the dark plastic molds we used to find in boxes of cereal or even glow in the dark stickers. However, this is a much more advanced product.

Lol! Ya think? I'd be just a little peeved if I'm paying top dollar for decades-old technology;)