digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Peel & stick solar panels installed in 35 minutes

triplepundit.com — A new solar panel designed for commercial roofs can be installed in just a few minutes.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • pafboy, on 05/09/2008, -6/+32Now I just need a Toyota Prius and some stick-on solar power
    • breckinshire, on 05/09/2008, -9/+1All I need is a Toyota Prius period.
      • hansonc, on 05/09/2008, -0/+10screw the Prius. I drive a Compressed Natural Gas Ford Ranger that I fill for $0.638/gallon and I don't have any non-environmentally friendly batteries to deal with.
        • RudeTurnip, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6Wow, where do you get that? I'm assuming it's specially made?
          • hansonc, on 05/09/2008, -0/+9I bought mine used off of Craigslist. Often they're fleet vehicles being sold off by local utilities but the most popular consumer CNG Car is the Honda GX. Check out CNGprices.com to see if you can find a filling station in your neck of the woods.
      • iharbinger, on 05/10/2008, -2/+1Good luck leaving the hell hole you live in, I doubt your ever going to find a gas station that services compressed natural gas.
    • Brainmodder, on 05/09/2008, -4/+3If only solar cells were 100% efficient...
      • hansonc, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2or the Prius were a plug in hybrid capable of using the solar panel power....
      • BOFH2, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1If only... I have to wonder if driving a gas automobile is better? I am not a believer in climate change or global warming by any means but get a clue.
        • iharbinger, on 05/10/2008, -0/+0thank god your an endangered species, or humanity itself would be one.
      • Berkana, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2Solar cells are up over 40% efficient now:
        http://www.soliant-energy.com/products.php
        The sun imparts energy upon the earth at an average rate of 1,366 watts per square meter; even at 40% efficiency, you'd get 546.4 watts per square meter of that panel; that's nothing to laugh at.
        • kendawg, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Close, it's 1366 watts outside the atmosphere, and more like 1000w/m^2 on earth - sometimes lower, depending on how clear the sky is. So you can get about 320-400 watts per square meter with the most efficient triple-junction cells we have today.

          As an aside, the sheets of photovoltaics in this articles are 3m^2 and produce 380 watts......that is about 12.8% efficient, typical for single-layer silicon.
    • redrighthand, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/08/solar-powe ...
    • Berkana, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2Even better than that Treehugger post from 2005 is the new Solar Prius hack:
      http://www.solarelectricalvehicles.com/products.sh ...
      It gets about 20 extra miles of all electric driving per day of sun exposure.
  • BCCStu, on 05/09/2008, -5/+4Really awesome idea!
  • oldhick, on 05/09/2008, -2/+25Not too shabby. I just finished installing solar hot water solution on my roof. I will definitely have to do some more research on this tonight.
    • NoCt1, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4says the oldhick.

      not knocking just love the comment name combo.
    • Tyr7BE, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2How well does that work, out of curiosity? And do you live in an area that gets a lot of sun?
      • kieranmaine, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2In the UK (a very unsunny place) I believe solar hot water system can reduce the amount of energy needed to heat your water by a fair amount. They definetly seem like a much better idea than going for photovolactics - a relative got some about a year ago and he seems quite happy with them.
      • grumpyrain, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Not as well as an area which gets a lot of sun - duh.

        My parents (in Sydney Australia) put up a roof mounted solar water heater about 20 years ago. Not expensive photovoltaics, just pipes of a heat transfer liquid underneath a perspex lens. It is also a typical off peak electric water heater. In summer, we used to switch it to solar-only and there was enough water for 6 of us. In winter, you would need to switch on the off peak booster, but even on cold days it did provide some hot water. Unfortunately, the solar bit of it is now broken so they leave the off peak booster on even in summer now.

        Put it this way. The sun that hits your roof is free. The electricity that comes through the wires is not. I would much rather use as much of the free stuff as feasible before putting my hard earned into the non free stuff.
    • gn0stik, on 05/09/2008, -3/+3You must live somewhere south of oregon's lattitude..
      • gn0stik, on 05/09/2008, -4/+5Judging by the fact that I got buried, I'm guessing no. What I mean is that I live in seattle, and I know I'm not about to drop that kind of dime on a seasonal power supply. We have eight hours of sunlight in the winter, if that. It makes no sense here.
      • mrsteve007, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Actually solar hot water works quite well in the Seattle area, as does solar electric.

        At least I know my 10kw solar array works well. http://www.jbdg.com/solar.html
    • Cglass, on 05/09/2008, -5/+2Solar hot water does NOT work, it is very unreliable and leaky at best. We had to pay quite a bit of money to fix it on many occasions then finally remove the stupid piece of crap =)
      • oldhick, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Damn.. I hope I don't have similar problems...
    • JoeDDaddy, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2I have the 50 gallon solar water heater on my roof in Florida, it works great I wish I had installed 2 panels for a family of 6. Save about 1 dollar a day on power.
      • michael43, on 05/09/2008, -5/+1Wow, In about 2,740 years you''ll be a millionaire.
        • JoeDDaddy, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Last time I checked my bank statement I was very close. Wife will never let it happen though. Smart arss
        • grumpyrain, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2... or in about 5 years time it has paid for itself and you are saving money.
  • akh4x0r, on 05/09/2008, -2/+8It's going to be interesting sees things like this become more widespread and eventually available to the everyday end user at a reasonable price. Once the average Joe sees this as a cheap option without a complicated setup, there's no stopping it.
    • HonestAbe, on 05/09/2008, -6/+4Not just "becomes available" but "generates enough power to be useful". These don't produce nearly enough energy.
  • Baronvontito1, on 05/09/2008, -8/+4Dugg for referencing Top Gun while on the subject of solar panels.
  • stonedthot, on 05/09/2008, -2/+5Shame I live in sunless Scotland, but really looks like this technology is about to hit mass market. This is a couple of years old http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story ... describes how they hit 40% efficiency, I assume its better/cheaper by now. The combination of improved efficiency and easy installation is finally going to make mass solar panel usage economically viable. After all, most people care about the environment but if it saves people money, thats when it really hits it big.
  • republicker, on 05/09/2008, -1/+19how much per cell?
    • HonestAbe, on 05/09/2008, -11/+5Looks like 2.25 kilowatt per roof, which is about the amount a single teapot uses to heat water.
      • donte, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5Dollars, not wattage. But the fact that the price wasn't mentioned and that they seem to be targeting business means we'll all still be pulling power from the grid for a little while longer.
      • gn0stik, on 05/09/2008, -6/+4You are an idiot.
      • Brainmodder, on 05/09/2008, -10/+2A KILOWATT USED TO HEAT A TEAPOT! ARE YOU MAD! THAT'S MORE THAN ENOUGH TO EVAPORATE ALL THE WATER TO STEAM AND MELT THE TEAPOT!
        srry for yelling.
        • cha5e, on 05/09/2008, -0/+8I googled "electric teapot" and this is the first one I found. 1500W = 1.5kW.
          http://www.englishteastore.com/chch677elkec.html
          • gn0stik, on 05/09/2008, -6/+1Again, appliances are measured in KWH, not KW. That does not mean 1.5kW Sustained power. If you stuck a multimeter on that thing, you'd know what I meant. It's probably closer to 25W sustained power.
          • Charlotte_Web, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5I haven't seen the price, but I'm gonna guess that this is a helluva big expense to generate the energy to run a single appliance.
          • KibibyteBrain, on 05/09/2008, -0/+7Thats wrong. kWh is a unit of energy, not power. 1Wh is the amount of energy dissipated by a 1 W load over an hour. A teapot really does use that much power, as such a low resistance load like the heating element it uses will do that. If you consider the very high thermal capacity of water you will realize it would take a lot of power to supply the energy needed to raise it to boiling in a timely fashion, or ever in an environment where it is losing energy due to heat transfer as well and therefore must reach a steady state temperature.
          • BlueSkyfish, on 05/09/2008, -1/+7It generates 2.5 kilowatts at a constant rate though. That gives you 2.5 Kilowatt hours per hour. Assuming an average of 12 hours of light per day, that gives you 10950 Kilowatt hours a year.

            The average American home in 2000 used 8,900 Kilowatt hours a year.
            http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/BoiLu.shtml
          • gn0stik, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1Alright, I stand corrected, I dunno what I was thinking. However, blue, you have to devide that number by average hours of daylight at the lattitude it was installed at don't you? They probably only get a little better than half that 10950.
          • grumpyrain, on 05/11/2008, -0/+3You know when the US finally adopts the metric system, relations between units make a lot more sense.

            1 Joule is the amount of energy required to raise dry air by 1 degree Celcius, or the amount of energy released dropping an apple from a height of 1 metre

            1 Watt is the rate of consumption or production of energy equivalent to 1 Joule per second, so 1KW/hr = (1 kW·h)(1000 W/kW)(3600 s/h) = 3,600,000 W·s = 3,600,000 J = 3.6 million Joules of energy.

            So the amount of work required to boil a kettle full of water can be interchangeably measured in Joules or KW/hr. This has nothing to do with the wattage of the kettle. The wattage of the kettle defines how quickly it can be bought to the boil. All else equal, a 3KW kettle will boil the same quantity water twice as quickly as a 1.5KW kettle. Both kettles will capably bring your water to the same temperature, and both kettles will have used the same number of joules or KW/hr, just you get your coffee quicker from the 3KW kettle.
  • Ageroth, on 05/09/2008, -0/+26But how much do they cost?
    • follower64, on 05/09/2008, -0/+11This is the deciding factor for me. I'm not spending a bunch just to get a little 'green' energy.
      • gn0stik, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5If it was consistent enough, had a decent lifetime/maintenance ratio, and could power your whole home, even, say, 20 grand would be reasonable. That's what a new car costs, and you wouldn't be paying any power bills. But we're not there yet.
        • cha5e, on 05/09/2008, -0/+12Precisely. My electric bill is about $150/month. That's the same as a payment on a 20-year loan, at 6% interest, of $21,000. So, the question is, will $21,000 buy enough solar cells to meet my power needs, and will those solar cells last 20 years? If the answer is yes, it would be a financially wise move. (Assuming I'm going to stay in my house 20 years, or could take cells with me when I move, or whoever buys my house can comprehend this math as well)
          And of course it's an environmentally-wise move.

          Too bad my $@% homeowner's association won't let me put up solar panels.
          • gn0stik, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2HOAs are paper tigers. They cave under the scrutiny of publicity. The answer to your question about enough to power your home.... is a resounding NO, however. Not yet. Note, they were selling to business and their demo was for someone with a big flat roof (perfect for pv). You might be able to get enough up there to do some decent electrolysis for your H Power cell though. But then you're talking HUGE cost. Storage salt cells, the power cell itself, which would be at least 10kw, and the added cost of the actual PV cells on your roof. But direct PV power? Probably not. And the setup I just described would die or need costly maintenance before you paid it off. We're just not there yet.
          • hansonc, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2Check your local laws... I know in Utah and Arizona HOA's can not tell you that you can't put up solar panels no matter what the HOA by-laws say, but they can tell you that you can't put them up in specific places if they affect the views of other HOA members.
        • bassik, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5http://www.dricompanies.com/ResidentialSolutions.a ... they have solar shingles too
          • Charlotte_Web, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2I hear there's an ointment for that.
  • wendelgee2, on 05/09/2008, -3/+11Not available retail...only wholesale for businesses and large applications. What's the point?
    • piratearggghhh, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1If you look at their website, they have a residential version but it's not something that you can just pick up at the Home Depot and install yourself. You have to contact a contractor to install, which isn't that big of a deal. The only problem probably is that whole thing is probably not widely affordable...yet.
      • Technopope, on 05/09/2008, -0/+5Calling a contractor is a big deal when the solar panels are touted as "peel and stick" which can be installed in a few minutes. Sort of defeats the purpose.
        • cha5e, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Probably a liability thing - you'd still have to know how to connect up the electrical aspect of the system, even though the physical aspect is so simple.
          Then again, I'm sure a decent percentage of the people walking through Home Depot (and of the people on digg) know how to do electrical wiring.
    • ontain, on 05/09/2008, -0/+9that's how most technology starts before getting to the consumers.
    • bobartig, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4The point is that commercial and industrial power usage is much, much higher than residential, and that they have a larger utilities budget and tax benefits from emergent alternative energy technologies, and targeting them is any green power companies first priority, both for commercial success, and environmental impact. So the point is that it's the entire point.
  • curtosrules, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1You can make your car like the one in "Honey I Blew up the Kids"
    • HonestAbe, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4Not even close. A roof covered with these things generates 2.25 kW peak, according to the article. A car uses at least 20 times as much, and has a much smaller roof.

      This is why it's important to teach kids about energy and power in high school.
      • gn0stik, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Over a long enough time everything uses "dozens" of kilowatts. A car gets nowhere close to that in sustained power.
        • pakruse, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4No, no, and no. The watt is a static power measurement. There is no "over a long enough time" when talking about kilowatts.

          The residential solar projects I've looked into are closer to 6 kW, but they're more than sufficient for the typical single family home. A 50 HP car engine is 37 kW. Period. Horsepower and kilowatt are different units for the same thing. That's like saying "over time, my ***** car engine gets 200 HP"

          Doesn't make sense, does it?
          • gn0stik, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1Yes, the watt is a static measurement. However, so is the Kilowatt Hour, 1 watt load over an hour. A kWh could also be .5 watts over 2 hours, or .25 over 4. So my assertion stands, since you werent specific. If you are talking about direct hp to watt conversion it depends on how many HP, and what all are you trying to drive. Then you have to start talking about internal combustion vs electric motor efficiency. 1hp = 745 watts, so a typical 34 cylinder with typical horsepower would be in the 140-145 KW range. However there's no way in hell you are going to get that out of one, due to losses. The typical electric car motor is in the 20-30kw range, however they lack power. If you wanted equivalent power to a muscle car, like say, the Tesla roadster, your motor is 240hp, however it's rated power wise, when compared to combustion engines at over 300, because it deliver's 100% torque from a dead stop. That's 180kW.
          • pakruse, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1@gn0stik
            You still fail at physics. One kilowatt hour isn't one watt over an hour, it's one kilowatt over an hour, and it still doesn't change the fact that your original statement of "over a long enough time everything uses dozens of kilowatts" is completely and totally incorrect. Had you said "over a long enough time everything uses dozens of kilowatt-hours" I'd not have commented, as this is correct. In an hour of highway driving, my car (a full size sedan) uses about 20 HP-hours, or about 15 kW-hours or 54 megajoules, or energy. I also use about that much energy (probably closer to 20 kW-hours) per day at home.
        • HonestAbe, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1You fail at physics.
  • rdubya44, on 05/09/2008, -1/+5Maybe get some solar pannels to keep their website from going down...
  • AgmLauncher, on 05/09/2008, -1/+18How ironic that they're installing the panels on a cloudy day :(

    Tbh, how long it takes to install those panels is sort of irrelevant if they take 10 years to pay themselves off...

    Call me when that 2.25kW system costs $225.
    • Technopope, on 05/09/2008, -1/+4In ten years those amorphous solar panels will likely need replacing.

      Without huge tax credits, solar panels are still not economical.
    • bobartig, on 05/09/2008, -0/+310 years to pay off? Most solar project's projected payoff time is much, much longer than that. Considering that commercial building roofs require regular maintenance as well, I'm wondering how this is going to work out.
    • pakruse, on 05/09/2008, -0/+6You're being dugg up, but I don't know why. A 2.25kW isn't quite enough for a home (most of the solar systems I've looked at are 3 to 6 kW) but you're talking about not paying a power bill again as long as the system is functioning.

      If you pay $150 a month in electricity, 5 years of electricity is $9,000. If you can get a solar system that lasts that long and effectively replaces your need for grid current, you wouldn't pay a couple of thousand dollars for it?
      • AgmLauncher, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2If indeed it's just a couple thousand dollars, but it's significantly higher than that if you also want to add a battery system to let you have electricity at night (which is arguably when you use the MOST electricity).

        And $2000 is quite a low ball estimate I would think. To get that much electricity out of a solar kit, you would probably have to spend closer to $5,000.

        Considering the price at which solar energy becomes cheaper than coal is $1/watt, and solar technology is still significantly more expensive than coal, even $5000 for a 5kW system is really not very accurate (yet).

        5kW would probably be closer to $7500, and then throw in maintenance, and a battery system to make use of the excess energy you collect, and you're talking a $12000 system. That will take you a long time to pay off....
        • mrsteve007, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2I'm not sure what sort of crazy you have, but a 10kw system with battery backup is in the neighborhood of $94,000. I know because I have and paid for one last year.
          • pakruse, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1I was looking at a 3 kW system (no batteries - feedback to the grid, and running off of the grid at night) that cost $19,000. I'd prefer a battery system, but that isn't as feasible for me.
        • grumpyrain, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I don't understand the argument "we can't do anything until the technology is 100% efficient". Most people would be horrified to know the amount of energy in the petrol they buy that does not go into propelling the vehicle in the direction. Most of the energy doesn't even make it to the drive shaft, wasted in heat and sound energy. In fact you should probably be impressed if your car is getting 25% of the energy available inside the fuel it is burning. But we don't sit and lament the inefficiency of the internal combustion engine.

          To take advantage of solar, you don't have to buy enough solar and backup batteries to power every electronic device in your home at the same time. In many regions, the grid will even credit you back for electricity you feed into it (they don't pay you much for it, but at least it isn't wasted as such). Even a 2KW system without batteries would half my power bill, and if I wasn't renting and planned to stay in this place for long enough, I would certainly consider these options.

          Pakruse's figures may not be accurate for where you live, but as a methodology of working out ROI, it is well considered. Whether it is feasible or not would largely depend on the local cost of panels and their life expectancy.
    • Berkana, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1What annoys me is that 40% efficient systems (vs the 12-15% efficient conventional cells) have been around for over a year now (http://www.soliant-energy.com/index.php ) , but I haven't seen them installed anywhere. The high efficiency systems pay for themselves in a much shorter time, especially since they track the sun all day and get maximum exposure.
  • Pplus, on 05/09/2008, -0/+22I didn't see any mention of efficiency ratings (even in the datasheet.) If there is a drop in the efficiency compared to standard solar panel installations, I don't think they would be worth the investment. I'd rather have the installers take a longer time on my roof installing something that is going to save me more money in the long run.
    You also have to take into account the repair of faulted modules. With standard installations, I would imagine you unbolt the damaged module and replace it with a new one, with this system, you now have a damaged panel glued to the roof. It may end up being more of a PITA removing and replacing them.
    • Seventus, on 05/09/2008, -5/+2You'll probably have to grind them into dust, letting behind hazardous chemicals like cadmium pollute the environment.
    • darkcthulhu, on 05/11/2008, -0/+2Current solar panels have a better efficiency when they are raised above the roof because they are slightly cooler when raised.
  • DavidYeah, on 05/09/2008, -3/+8From the comment section of the web site:

    "If you are not going to sell your solar product to individuals at a fair price as opposed to wholesale selling only to corporations, then you are irrelevant. People want energy independence - Freedom from the pollution grid and relief from elitist blood sucking. So do the right thing. Sell to us, not just to them."

    I couldn't have said it better myself. I anxiously await the markets to fill this need; they'll be millionaires if they market it correctly.
    • bobartig, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Lets see what you say when you see the price tag. People want energy independence, but can they afford it? The current answer is still no.
      • pakruse, on 05/09/2008, -0/+2It barely isn't there currently, though. People talk about it like it's decades away, but if energy prices rise much more, it's going to be there.

        The quotes I've seen are between $18k and $25k for a 3 kW system, after tax incentives, solar energy credits, etc. Depending on where you live, a 3 kW system is often enough for a single family home.

        Another poster pointed out that if you pay $150/month in electricity, a 20 year loan at 6% for the same amount is about $21k. So if the solar system lasts for 20 years, it pays off if the system is less than $21k, as you could just take out a home improvement loan and pay for it while still paying less per month than you would pay for electricity.

        The real question is: how long will one of these systems last?
    • nickaster, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4How in the world is this elitist? That's one of the dumbest comments I've seen. Most technology has to start out in large commercial spaces due to economies of scale. I'm sure this sort of thing will be available for residential before too long.
  • RobotLeAwesome, on 05/09/2008, -7/+2They could make pills that you take that allow you to ***** out solar panels – cost is still the issue keeping everyone from implementing solar; affordablity (efficiency a close second) should be the first goal.
  • simplicityiskey, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2Cool concept, but there are some serious questions the manufacturer needs to address in regards to this product. As others have mentioned: what is the cost, not just of the product itself, but shipping, installation (though obviously that is minimal), etc. Also, it takes 8 panels to generate a little over 2 kilowatts, but how long does it take to generate that amount of energy? Similarly, if it takes 8 panels to get a little over 2 kilowatts and the average home uses about how many kilowatts a day? 50 or something? How many panels is that? Those panels are rather good size, too, reducing the available space on a roof for other systems and what not. Neat concept, but needs to provide more information.
    • WRSaunders, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Kilowatts are a measure of power; kilowatt-hours are a measure of energy. The electric company bills you for the energy you use and an appliance needs a certain amount of power to make it run. Two kilowatts is about the amount an outlet circuit in your kitchen can provide. It will run 20 light bulbs that demand 100 watts each. If you want to run a 100 watt light bulb all day and all night, that takes 2.4 kilowatt-hours. With a perfect storage device, this solar cell can collect this energy in a little more than an hour. Since we don't have perfect storage, I presume the plan is to sell excess energy to the electric company when it is sunny to earn money to buy power from them when it is not sunny. To find how many cells you need to break even, take the kilowatt-hours on your electric bill and divide by the number of sunny hours in a month.
    • pakruse, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1@simplicityiskey
      What WRSaunders said is correct, but I'll add that you'd need about double this system for a home. Typical solar installations are 3 to 6 kW.

      And you can either do it as a credit system, whereby you're 'selling' the excess solar power to the grid and then draining from the grid when it isn't sunny, or you can have banks of expensive batteries and capacitors in your basement.
  • digjam, on 05/09/2008, -4/+3hmm..
    • michael43, on 05/09/2008, -2/+2that might be the best comment I've ever seen on digg.
  • mrsteve007, on 05/09/2008, -0/+4This is an interesting idea, and if they could substantially bring the cost down over standard panels and mounts, I could see this being useful. There is one huge drawback to this idea though. To operate at optimum efficiency, solar panels must be directly perpendicular to the photons hitting them. These panels would work well on the equator, but in higher latitudes, you're losing a ton of potential energy.

    This site gives a good idea of what is lost: http://www.macslab.com/optsolar.html and their base line takes into account for the panels already properly angled for summer generation.

    Here's an example. If this panel were installed flat on a building's roof in Seattle, expect and annual average of 3 kwh/m2 a day. When angled properly for summer inclination of the sun, that's closer to 4. When adjusted seasonally for an optimum angle, it's closer to 5.5, and when constantly tracking during daylight hours, it's above 7 kwh/m2 a day. These are huge differences using the exact same panels, but just from angling them properly.
  • wubblie, on 05/09/2008, -2/+0scratch-n-sniff ???
  • Seventus, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3It's a shame that most of the 2.25 kW will be consumed by the air conditioner.
    • pakruse, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1Maybe, but the systems I've looked into to power an entire family home are only 3 to 6 kW. 2.25 kW isn't enough, but it's close if your appliances and home are energy efficient on the whole.

      Plus in some cases you can buy DC appliances which, while more expensive, can just use the current your generating rather than inverting it for an AC appliance that's just going to rectify it back to DC anyway (with the power loss therein).
      • normlsparky, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1the D.C. appliances would have to be located close to the bank of batteries for this to be economical. the huge wire you would have to run to each appliance would get real expensive. watts of power = volts x amps. most D.C. appliances are 12 volts, so lowering the volts would require raising the amperage (or size of wire to handle the higher amperage). better to use inverters and standard appliances. most inverters are very efficient.
    • DeadPanDan, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1The building has a white roof instead of the stupid black tar roofs of old. That should keep the AC needs down a fair bit.
  • Me0wmix, on 05/09/2008, -1/+3The definition of a few minutes is now 35 apparently.
    • michael43, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1One of the great mysteries of life answered.
    • brocruit, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I thought it was 42. no... wait
  • drake77, on 05/09/2008, -0/+1bassik already mentioned this deep underneath Ageroth's comment, but they make solar shingles too:

    http://www.dricompanies.com/ResidentialSolutions.a ...

    Solar shingles are the holy grail of solar technology for me, because every 20-30 years I will have to replace my roof anyway- why not pay a little more and have solar shingles installed. The cost of the labor for eight guys to install the roof is present either way.
  • ExRe, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3If only something would come out to stick on the tops of laptops...even if it was only about 15w, that would double the length of time I can be away from an outlet. 8 hours on a single battery would kick ass.
  • Leopards, on 05/09/2008, -3/+1Darn my roof is oriented 90 degrees out! No solar for me!!
    • hansonc, on 05/09/2008, -0/+7your roof is vertical? how does it keep the rain out?
  • nickaster, on 05/09/2008, -1/+6Hey guys, this is my site and I want to apologize for it crashing. The host shut it down and I've simplified the page a lot and hopefully we'll get it up again in a less server-intensive version. Unfortunately this crap happens with Digg. I hope you'll check it out after this storm is over!
  • galore, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3As if installation time is the problem with solar panels...
    • DeadPanDan, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Clearly, you've never dealt with contractors.
  • superjunaid, on 05/09/2008, -2/+1Yeap!
  • bincoder, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Price and availability, thats all that matters. I could survive without the peel and stick part, it isn't like you would have to reinstall them every other day. Sell them to individuals. There are a whole lot more of us underlings waiting to give you money than there are large corporations.
  • TehPostman, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Nanosolar is the answer.

    http://www.nanosolar.com/index.html

    http://blog.nanosolar.com/
  • Ouze, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2.. what are you going to do if a panel breaks or cracks or otherwise needs to be replaced? I'm thinking that's why the generally are installing on racks with bolts and not just glued to the roof.
    • da5id, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Maybe the self-heal around a dud -- like Windows ME self-healing drivers!
    • ParanoydAndroid, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Nah, they're based on 3M technology, you can't see it but there's a little adhesive tab you pull and the whole thing comes right off. No residue left on the roof or anything!

      /s
  • kieranmaine, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2They look cool, but far greater carbon and money savings could be had, in the short term, by helping everyone to install loft and cavity wall insulation (this only really applies to cold places I guess - unless better insulated houses keep heat out in the summer?) and then set the average mpg of all cars to 60 MPG - the car industry has lots of competition and if all companies are set the same MPG target im sure they can innovate their way to that target without affecting the cost of cars that much.

    • da5id, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Yeah, that insulation stuff works for AC too. Multi-pane glass too. Who woulda thunk?
      • kieranmaine, on 05/13/2008, -0/+1House designs exist in germany that have no AC or heating and simply use clever insulation and design to keep the house warm in the winter and cool in the summer. You can read more here http://www.basf.co.uk/en/uk/house/design/energy_ef ... for a discussion on a UK passive house. Or google 'passive haus' for lots more info.
  • stfuitsalex, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2The problem I see with this is that roofs utilizing rolled roofing only last about 10 years or so. Solar Panels have a lifespan of 20 or more years. This means instead of simply unbolting the traditional apparatus, you have to somehow get these glued things off.
    • da5id, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Sheesh, all these bolt people. Spray it on I say.
  • fuknlightn, on 05/09/2008, -1/+2Like all awesome solar technology, we will never see it. :-(
  • budser, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3mirror, anyone?
    • DeadPanDan, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1That would help. It wouldn't be very expensive either.
      But it could be done later, and isn't inherently needed. A plus all around.
  • atarijedi, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1This is neat, but it only being offered to commercial interests sucks, I think I'd rather see Helical Savonius Wind Generator installed in 30 minutes. :)
  • jkaechler, on 05/09/2008, -1/+1the site says "Comments down due to DIGG storm"!!!!!!

    Excellent! How many kilowatts are we burning on that server?
  • wafflekaffe, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Why can't they make a webpage that displays correctly in firefox? Is it reall that hard?
  • DestroyFascism, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1So all we need really is company willing to make these cheaply, not for the power corporations but for us! Then all it takes is a government willing to subsidise the panels in the same way and quantity they subsidise the oil and power companies. Then for the same government to make it mandatory each new house then later each older home has at least 10kw of power output potential, not an absolute but at least potential. Then we can feed power to each other and ditch the coal, nuke and hydro industry that suck us dry every day. If people got out and voted green, then this would be a reality and 40% of our greenhouse emissions would be obliterated, the air would be cleaner and the environmental destruction produced by big dams, coal and the dangers of nuclear energy would be forever removed from the equation.
    • da5id, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Damns are cool, nuclear is ready now except for NIMBYs, and clean coal is our future. You cannot legislate cheap photovoltaics or science and physics.
  • 2Bnor2B, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Was interested till I saw the video. The panels are laying flat, dirt and dirty rain water can collect on the glass. I have never seen a roof that smooth and level. Lacking airflow behind the panel I would imagine that they would get hotter than a rack mounted system. Can not optimize the panel for efficiency to sun. Can not easily replace a panel. Have concerns of stress due to thermal expansion. This is more of a gimmick and offers little benefit from a real solar panel installation.
  • jschnees, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1I wonder if solar power is a valid source of energy for my apartment complex. It is a small building, only 12, one bedroom apartments. Problem is, we live in Columbus, Ohio so the sun isn't always shining.. in fact the last couple of days have been cloudy and raining.
  • normlsparky, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1although i am glad to see progress being made in the area of solar panels, this is only one part of the entire system. you still need batteries, as well as the inverter, charger and controller. also, a back up generator is not a bad idea. i'm still hoping to see similar improvements in the battery technology. right now most systems are using conventional lead acid batteries- the deep cycle type found in boats.
    • mateosfo, on 05/10/2008, -0/+0Actually you only need batteries if you plan to size your system bigger than your actual power needs; otherwise, you'll just use all the power from the panels as they generate it and supplement from the grid for the rest - that's how 99% of solar installations work, anyway.
  • laurencedrell, on 05/10/2008, -0/+0what if all the money we have paid Halliburton
    went to research to improve this
    to where its really practical.
  • fuckdiggdotcom, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2That music is so bad....
  • OutAndAbout, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Here is the same article on blogspot. They called it the Digg free link.
    http://cleantechantics.blogspot.com/
    • budser, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1Thank you! no other way to get stuff now that digg took over duggmirror!
  • Thomaschaaf, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Why do they need hard hats ?
    • OutAndAbout, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1OSHA requirement in case of very large bird poop.
  • Farmer77, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Oh yeah? I have a Mr. Fusion and I can power up the whole block with my trash.
  • drudometkin, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1sitting here on graveyard shift and i feel asleep while watching this.
  • neFariou5, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1Burried for arrogant attitude of Matthew Lewis in his reply comments to comments on his site.
  • bryan107, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0Check this out: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=REucDXcF53Y
  • tmcdigg, 9 hr 2 min ago, -0/+1When the price comes down the the point of paying itself off in 3 years instead of 10-15 years, this will REALLY take off. Until then... yawn... If you could beat your power company at their game (selling power), why wouldn't you? Heck, they may just have solar farms instead of using gas/oil powered turbines to deliver power. This means the price would have to come down to about $2500-4000 for the complete system. The power generated saves you roughly $100-250 per month in energy costs.. you're on track to recoup the cost in 2-3 years and the rest is gravy..
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.