Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PamW

(1,825 posts)
24. Exactly what I wanted to see...
Fri Jul 27, 2012, 12:19 AM
Jul 2012

The above post is exactly what I wanted to see. It documents what I suspected from the press release.

The power conversion efficiency for these solar cells are indeed very low at 4% efficiency.

Additionally, the solar cell function reduces the transparency, and hence light transmission properties relative to glass by about 34% ( 66% transmission ).

So there you have it in a nutshell. Of the incident photon energy, these cells give you 4% of your incident energy as electricity, and you pay for that with 34% reduction in light transmission.

It had to be something like that. There's NEVER a "free lunch" with energy. You can't "win" and the laws of physics never even let you break even. You just have to learn to live with that since there's nothing you can do about it. Yet so many are always looking for that "free lunch" which costs them more than it's worth.

PamW

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Awesome. silverweb Jul 2012 #1
Yes!!! This is great news! And lately great news is hard to find. jillan Jul 2012 #2
Use this for cellphone screens drm604 Jul 2012 #3
o.0 AtheistCrusader Jul 2012 #7
I don't understand your post. drm604 Jul 2012 #12
Even a 100% dedicated solar panel of that size is useless to keep your phone topped off. AtheistCrusader Jul 2012 #13
Then just explain that rather than posting some cryptic characters. drm604 Jul 2012 #21
cool. nt limpyhobbler Jul 2012 #4
GE will buy it and squash it. nm rhett o rick Jul 2012 #5
LOW EFFICIENCY!! PamW Jul 2012 #6
I'll take 20-25% AtheistCrusader Jul 2012 #8
These cells don't get 20% PamW Jul 2012 #15
I mean, I'll take 20% opacity. AtheistCrusader Jul 2012 #17
That's the point. It's not tranparent to infrared. Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2012 #9
WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! PamW Jul 2012 #14
"Word to the wise; don't try to contradict a PhD Physicist like myself" Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2012 #18
There were tons of PhD Physicists who were saying the sound barrier couldn't be broken. Nederland Jul 2012 #20
MYTH - "Old Wives Tale" PamW Aug 2012 #29
They talked about the "sonic wall" and a lot of pilots died trying to break through. Spitfire of ATJ Aug 2012 #30
Difficult vs Impossible PamW Aug 2012 #31
Why don't you go back even further. Some scientists claimed going over 60mpg Spitfire of ATJ Aug 2012 #32
Infra-red energies are less than the band gap PamW Jul 2012 #16
"None of the infra-red photons have enough energy to cross the band gap." Spitfire of ATJ Jul 2012 #19
Error! AtheistCrusader Jul 2012 #22
Perhaps you should take the time to read the actual paper (rather than the press release.) OKIsItJustMe Jul 2012 #23
Exactly what I wanted to see... PamW Jul 2012 #24
Most office windows are shaded anyways XemaSab Jul 2012 #25
But in the infrared? Exen Trik Jul 2012 #10
Again... PamW Jul 2012 #27
How efficiently do your windows produce electricity today? OKIsItJustMe Jul 2012 #11
The problem is... PamW Jul 2012 #26
"The problem is that you pay for the electric production with decreased light input to the room." OKIsItJustMe Aug 2012 #28
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»UCLA researchers create h...»Reply #24