Interesting.

Solar cell technology could soon tap into the massive energy potential
of windows and other transparent objects, new research has shown.

Scientists have been working on transparent solar panels which could be
used as windows in cars or homes at the same time as generating electricity.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8018071.html
--
Bod

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
Interesting.

Solar cell technology could soon tap into the massive energy potential
of windows and other transparent objects, new research has shown.

Scientists have been working on transparent solar panels which could be
used as windows in cars or homes at the same time as generating electricity.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8018071.html
--
Bod

Sounds like another pipe dream of impracticality for a variety of reasons.

On 24/10/2017 21:14, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
Interesting.

Solar cell technology could soon tap into the massive energy potential
of windows and other transparent objects, new research has shown.

Scientists have been working on transparent solar panels which could be
used as windows in cars or homes at the same time as generating electricity.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8018071.html
--
Bod

Sounds like another pipe dream of impracticality for a variety of reasons.

I'm sitting on the fence with this one, but I get your gist.

--
Bod

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 20:56:26 +0100, Bod wrote:

Interesting.

Solar cell technology could soon tap into the massive energy potential
of windows and other transparent objects, new research has shown.

Scientists have been working on transparent solar panels which could be
used as windows in cars or homes at the same time as generating electricity.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8018071.html

Solar windows have been around a long time. The point is how they
face. What directions.

On 10/24/2017 04:11 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 20:56:26 +0100, Bod wrote:

Interesting.

Solar cell technology could soon tap into the massive energy potential
of windows and other transparent objects, new research has shown.

Scientists have been working on transparent solar panels which could be
used as windows in cars or homes at the same time as generating electricity.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8018071.html

Solar windows have been around a long time. The point is how they
face. What directions.


Do you need a rotating house?

On 10/24/2017 4:11 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 20:56:26 +0100, Bod wrote:

Interesting.

Solar cell technology could soon tap into the massive energy potential
of windows and other transparent objects, new research has shown.

Scientists have been working on transparent solar panels which could be
used as windows in cars or homes at the same time as generating electricity.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8018071.html
Solar windows have been around a long time. The point is how they
face. What directions.

Â* Well , it ain't 'lectrickycity , but I do use solar windows ... my
house faces 30° west of true north , and the southern exposure is over
50% windows . No low-e glass , I want the solar heat gain . In winter ,
that is . I plan an overhead trellis for seasonal vegetation to provide
shade on the deck in summer . Probably muscadines ...

Â* --

Â* Snag

On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 13:14:22 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
Interesting.

Solar cell technology could soon tap into the massive energy potential
of windows and other transparent objects, new research has shown.

Scientists have been working on transparent solar panels which could be
used as windows in cars or homes at the same time as generating electricity.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8018071.html
--
Bod

Sounds like another pipe dream of impracticality for a variety of reasons.

It will be an interesting house that has that much south facing glass.
Around here you wouldn't even generate enough electricity to run the
AC necessary to get rid of the heat those windows let in. I have
exactly zero south facing windows. My garage is on the south side of
the house ... on purpose. There are also awnings over the west facing
windows.

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 at 3:56:31 PM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
Interesting.

Solar cell technology could soon tap into the massive energy potential
of windows and other transparent objects, new research has shown.

Scientists have been working on transparent solar panels which could be
used as windows in cars or homes at the same time as generating electricity.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8018071.html
--
Bod

My irony meter pegged when I saw he is from Michigan State University.
It's located in East Lansing, Michigan, which has 71 completely sunny
days and 104 partly sunny days per year.

Cindy Hamilton

On 10/24/17 1:27 PM, BurfordTJustice wrote:
Fraud!



"Bod" wrote in message
...
: Interesting.
:
: Solar cell technology could soon tap into the massive energy potential
: of windows and other transparent objects, new research has shown.
:
: Scientists have been working on transparent solar panels which could be
: used as windows in cars or homes at the same time as generating
electricity.
:
:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...windows-power-
renewable-energy-us-electricity-demand-richard-lunt-michigan-state-university-a8018071.html
: --
: Bod


indeed you are

On 25-Oct-17 2:58 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
....

There would be no heat let in as the IR would be turned into electricity.

Only if the conversion were 100% effective...

--

On 25-Oct-17 3:27 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 21:16:41 +0100, dpb wrote:

On 25-Oct-17 2:58 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
...

There would be no heat let in as the IR would be turned into
electricity.

Only if the conversion were 100% effective...

Whatever the %, you're just changing one gain for another. Unless of
course your house is too warm.

Well, of course, but the PV conversion will be yet another net loss if
actually do need the heat as its conversion is not reversible and
certainly the usage isn't altho if went into resistance heating the loss
wouldn't be huge...

The question would be whether there really were sufficient PV generation
to actually be a noticeable fraction of other usage that could be
replaced. One would kinda' doubt it just from the geometry and all, but
I've not tried to do any sort of guesstimate given there's absolutely no
data with the blurb to even try to estimate what the incident energy
intensity might be in the portions of the spectrum targeted.

--

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 20:58:36 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:


There would be no heat let in as the IR would be turned into electricity.

You HAD to "grace" also this thread with your idiocy, eh, Birdbrain?

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) usual sociopathic
bull****:
"Does your dog leave **** everywhere in your house because it hasn't wiped
it's arse? Do you allow it to urinate on people's walls and hedges like
most dog walkers?"
MID:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 20:58:01 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

FLUSH sociopath's usual idiotic drivel

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) sociopathic BULL****:
"If someone walks out from behind a parked car without looking, they're at
fault, end of story. You may decide to be nice to them and stop, but you
don't have to."
MID:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 20:59:00 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:


Dunno what you mean by that, but living in Scotland I'd say that was a LOT.

Don't say anything, Birdbrain, just shut up, stupid oaf!

--
Mr Pounder about Birdbrain:
"Do you lot realise that PHucker is one of the biggest ******s/trolls on
usenet? He is a **** poor delivery boy, lives in a stinking hovel with 9
cats, several parrots, no hot running water, no money, no woman, no future
and no hope.
Do you lot realise that he has successfully trolled all of you?"
MID:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:52:08 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:09:10 +0100, dpb wrote:

On 25-Oct-17 3:27 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 21:16:41 +0100, dpb wrote:

On 25-Oct-17 2:58 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
...

There would be no heat let in as the IR would be turned into
electricity.

Only if the conversion were 100% effective...

Whatever the %, you're just changing one gain for another. Unless of
course your house is too warm.

Well, of course, but the PV conversion will be yet another net loss if
actually do need the heat as its conversion is not reversible and
certainly the usage isn't altho if went into resistance heating the loss
wouldn't be huge...

The question would be whether there really were sufficient PV generation
to actually be a noticeable fraction of other usage that could be
replaced. One would kinda' doubt it just from the geometry and all, but
I've not tried to do any sort of guesstimate given there's absolutely no
data with the blurb to even try to estimate what the incident energy
intensity might be in the portions of the spectrum targeted.

If your heating is on, solar windows are useless, you might aswell let the infra red through. They only help during weather where you aren't heating your house. Then they would both remove unwanted IR, and create energy to run the AC. So it depends on the climate really.

They still let in more heat than the power generated would pump out if
you in a place where the sun actually shines.

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:27:36 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:09:18 +0100, wrote:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:52:08 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:09:10 +0100, dpb wrote:

On 25-Oct-17 3:27 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 21:16:41 +0100, dpb wrote:

On 25-Oct-17 2:58 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
...

There would be no heat let in as the IR would be turned into
electricity.

Only if the conversion were 100% effective...

Whatever the %, you're just changing one gain for another. Unless of
course your house is too warm.

Well, of course, but the PV conversion will be yet another net loss if
actually do need the heat as its conversion is not reversible and
certainly the usage isn't altho if went into resistance heating the loss
wouldn't be huge...

The question would be whether there really were sufficient PV generation
to actually be a noticeable fraction of other usage that could be
replaced. One would kinda' doubt it just from the geometry and all, but
I've not tried to do any sort of guesstimate given there's absolutely no
data with the blurb to even try to estimate what the incident energy
intensity might be in the portions of the spectrum targeted.

If your heating is on, solar windows are useless, you might aswell let the infra red through. They only help during weather where you aren't heating your house. Then they would both remove unwanted IR, and create energy to run the AC. So it depends on the climate really.

They still let in more heat than the power generated would pump out if
you in a place where the sun actually shines.

No idea what your point is. There is x amount of energy going through the window already. If you want that as heat, there is absolutely no point in intercepting it for electricity, as you will no longer get that heat.

That assumes that the IR energy is what gets converted to electricity.
It is actually the visible light. Even if it was converting IR, the
best cells are still only around 30% efficient allowing 70% through.

On 10/25/2017 09:10 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
Even if they only capture 30%, if it's winter and you're heating your home, then you're taking 30% of the sunlight IR gain away from the windows, then redirecting that to electric heaters,
which gives you nothing whatsoever.

I use R5 drapes in the winter.

What if we used the juice to power a heat pump?

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:27:36 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

They still let in more heat than the power generated would pump out if
you in a place where the sun actually shines.

No idea

Those two words sum up most of your idiotic posts, Birdbrain.

--
Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) "intelligence" at work:
"Europeans are generally quite stupid, this is why the Brits hate the EU."
MID:

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:10:16 PM UTC-4, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 02:01:54 +0100, wrote:

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:27:36 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:09:18 +0100, wrote:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:52:08 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:09:10 +0100, dpb wrote:

On 25-Oct-17 3:27 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 21:16:41 +0100, dpb wrote:

On 25-Oct-17 2:58 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
...

There would be no heat let in as the IR would be turned into
electricity.

Only if the conversion were 100% effective...

Whatever the %, you're just changing one gain for another. Unless of
course your house is too warm.

Well, of course, but the PV conversion will be yet another net loss if
actually do need the heat as its conversion is not reversible and
certainly the usage isn't altho if went into resistance heating the loss
wouldn't be huge...

The question would be whether there really were sufficient PV generation
to actually be a noticeable fraction of other usage that could be
replaced. One would kinda' doubt it just from the geometry and all, but
I've not tried to do any sort of guesstimate given there's absolutely no
data with the blurb to even try to estimate what the incident energy
intensity might be in the portions of the spectrum targeted.

If your heating is on, solar windows are useless, you might aswell let the infra red through. They only help during weather where you aren't heating your house. Then they would both remove unwanted IR, and create energy to run the AC. So it depends on the climate really.

They still let in more heat than the power generated would pump out if
you in a place where the sun actually shines.

No idea what your point is. There is x amount of energy going through the window already. If you want that as heat, there is absolutely no point in intercepting it for electricity, as you will no longer get that heat..

That assumes that the IR energy is what gets converted to electricity.
It is actually the visible light. Even if it was converting IR, the
best cells are still only around 30% efficient allowing 70% through.

The link in the original post talked about only capturing invisible light.. If it captured visible light, your windows would get rather dark, and nobody would want that.

Even if they only capture 30%, if it's winter and you're heating your home, then you're taking 30% of the sunlight IR gain away from the windows, then redirecting that to electric heaters, which gives you nothing whatsoever..


I guess you never heard of a heat pump.

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:31:46 AM UTC-4, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:17:51 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:10:16 PM UTC-4, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 02:01:54 +0100, wrote:

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:27:36 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:09:18 +0100, wrote:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:52:08 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:09:10 +0100, dpb wrote:

On 25-Oct-17 3:27 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 21:16:41 +0100, dpb wrote:

On 25-Oct-17 2:58 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
...

There would be no heat let in as the IR would be turned into
electricity.

Only if the conversion were 100% effective...

Whatever the %, you're just changing one gain for another. Unless of
course your house is too warm.

Well, of course, but the PV conversion will be yet another net loss if
actually do need the heat as its conversion is not reversible and
certainly the usage isn't altho if went into resistance heating the loss
wouldn't be huge...

The question would be whether there really were sufficient PV generation
to actually be a noticeable fraction of other usage that could be
replaced. One would kinda' doubt it just from the geometry and all, but
I've not tried to do any sort of guesstimate given there's absolutely no
data with the blurb to even try to estimate what the incident energy
intensity might be in the portions of the spectrum targeted.

If your heating is on, solar windows are useless, you might aswell let the infra red through. They only help during weather where you aren't heating your house. Then they would both remove unwanted IR, and create energy to run the AC. So it depends on the climate really.

They still let in more heat than the power generated would pump out if
you in a place where the sun actually shines.

No idea what your point is. There is x amount of energy going through the window already. If you want that as heat, there is absolutely no point in intercepting it for electricity, as you will no longer get that heat.

That assumes that the IR energy is what gets converted to electricity.
It is actually the visible light. Even if it was converting IR, the
best cells are still only around 30% efficient allowing 70% through.

The link in the original post talked about only capturing invisible light. If it captured visible light, your windows would get rather dark, and nobody would want that.

Even if they only capture 30%, if it's winter and you're heating your home, then you're taking 30% of the sunlight IR gain away from the windows, then redirecting that to electric heaters, which gives you nothing whatsoever.

I guess you never heard of a heat pump.

I have, but I've never heard of one actually being used. I still doubt you'd make much saving once you factor in the cost of a heat pump and the special glass.

--

You need to get out more. Unless there is something very strange about
the UK, there would be lots of examples of heat pumps being used.
Perhaps some of your fellow citizens can inform you. And the cost of
the heat pump isn't really an issue, it would not be there only
because of solar generation, it's the heat source for the house.
Note, I already said I think the whole idea of solar electric generating
windows is a pipe dream, but that doesn't change the physics of a
heat pump and how it operates.

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 07:39:50 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:31:46 AM UTC-4, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:17:51 +0100, trader_4 wrote:


I guess you never heard of a heat pump.

I have, but I've never heard of one actually being used. I still doubt you'd make much saving once you factor in the cost of a heat pump and the special glass.

--

You need to get out more. Unless there is something very strange about
the UK, there would be lots of examples of heat pumps being used.
Perhaps some of your fellow citizens can inform you. And the cost of
the heat pump isn't really an issue, it would not be there only
because of solar generation, it's the heat source for the house.
Note, I already said I think the whole idea of solar electric generating
windows is a pipe dream, but that doesn't change the physics of a
heat pump and how it operates.

I imagine it is too cold and wet for a heat pump to work well. Temps
below 10c with high humidity would ice one up. Once you get below 4c
or 5c the efficiency really falls off and they have no real summer
that needs AC.

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:33:04 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:


I use R5 drapes in the winter.

R5 is a rock band. What did you mean by it?

Shut your stupid gob, troll!

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) endless BULL****:
"If you live for 4 years and die, you wasted 4 years. If you live for 20
years and die, you wasted 20 years, that's 5 times worse."
MID:

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:31:40 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

I guess you never heard of a heat pump.

I have, but I've never heard of one actually being used.

Which doesn't mean a thing with a prize idiot like you!

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) sociopathic BULL****:
"If you have a beard, you're guilty, no court needed."
MID:

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:00:55 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

We weren't discussing heat pumps. We were discussing how

The one thing that is getting discussed when you are around is your crass
stupidity, Birdbrain!

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) hilarious endless
blather:
"Mr Smith murders women. Mr Jones murders men. They are both types of
murderer. You murder nobody. Are you saying you're a type of murderer
because you murder nobody?"
MID:

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 11:01:00 AM UTC-4, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:39:50 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:31:46 AM UTC-4, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:17:51 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:10:16 PM UTC-4, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 02:01:54 +0100, wrote:

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:27:36 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:09:18 +0100, wrote:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:52:08 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:09:10 +0100, dpb wrote:

On 25-Oct-17 3:27 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 21:16:41 +0100, dpb wrote:

On 25-Oct-17 2:58 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
...

There would be no heat let in as the IR would be turned into
electricity.

Only if the conversion were 100% effective...

Whatever the %, you're just changing one gain for another. Unless of
course your house is too warm.

Well, of course, but the PV conversion will be yet another net loss if
actually do need the heat as its conversion is not reversible and
certainly the usage isn't altho if went into resistance heating the loss
wouldn't be huge...

The question would be whether there really were sufficient PV generation
to actually be a noticeable fraction of other usage that could be
replaced. One would kinda' doubt it just from the geometry and all, but
I've not tried to do any sort of guesstimate given there's absolutely no
data with the blurb to even try to estimate what the incident energy
intensity might be in the portions of the spectrum targeted.

If your heating is on, solar windows are useless, you might aswell let the infra red through. They only help during weather where you aren't heating your house. Then they would both remove unwanted IR, and create energy to run the AC. So it depends on the climate really.

They still let in more heat than the power generated would pump out if
you in a place where the sun actually shines.

No idea what your point is. There is x amount of energy going through the window already. If you want that as heat, there is absolutely no point in intercepting it for electricity, as you will no longer get that heat.

That assumes that the IR energy is what gets converted to electricity.
It is actually the visible light. Even if it was converting IR, the
best cells are still only around 30% efficient allowing 70% through.

The link in the original post talked about only capturing invisible light. If it captured visible light, your windows would get rather dark, and nobody would want that.

Even if they only capture 30%, if it's winter and you're heating your home, then you're taking 30% of the sunlight IR gain away from the windows, then redirecting that to electric heaters, which gives you nothing whatsoever.

I guess you never heard of a heat pump.

I have, but I've never heard of one actually being used. I still doubt you'd make much saving once you factor in the cost of a heat pump and the special glass.

You need to get out more. Unless there is something very strange about
the UK, there would be lots of examples of heat pumps being used.
Perhaps some of your fellow citizens can inform you.

Nope, almost everyone heats with gas. Those without mains gas have storage radiators etc. Almost nobody has AC.


Who should we believe? You or our lying eyes:

https://www.aranservices.co.uk/pages...t-Pump-London/

http://www.groundsun.co.uk/content/a...rce-heat-pumps

https://www.renewableenergyhub.co.uk...of-london.html

Dozens of companies installing them in the London area on that last
link.




And the cost of
the heat pump isn't really an issue, it would not be there only
because of solar generation, it's the heat source for the house.
Note, I already said I think the whole idea of solar electric generating
windows is a pipe dream, but that doesn't change the physics of a
heat pump and how it operates.

We weren't discussing heat pumps. We were discussing how little power you could get from a solar window. Power which is already being used to naturally heat the house.


But you claimed that converting solar electric back into heat has
to be a losing proposition because you only were considering using
the electric energy generated for resistance heating, which is stupid.
Hence, a couple of us pointed out heat pumps.

Just stop. You're in way over your pay grade again.

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 1:16:49 PM UTC-4, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 17:58:04 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 11:01:00 AM UTC-4, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:39:50 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 10:31:46 AM UTC-4, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 15:17:51 +0100, trader_4 wrote:

On Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 9:10:16 PM UTC-4, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 02:01:54 +0100, wrote:

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:27:36 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:09:18 +0100, wrote:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:52:08 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 22:09:10 +0100, dpb wrote:

On 25-Oct-17 3:27 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 21:16:41 +0100, dpb wrote:

On 25-Oct-17 2:58 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
...

There would be no heat let in as the IR would be turned into
electricity.

Only if the conversion were 100% effective...

Whatever the %, you're just changing one gain for another.. Unless of
course your house is too warm.

Well, of course, but the PV conversion will be yet another net loss if
actually do need the heat as its conversion is not reversible and
certainly the usage isn't altho if went into resistance heating the loss
wouldn't be huge...

The question would be whether there really were sufficient PV generation
to actually be a noticeable fraction of other usage that could be
replaced. One would kinda' doubt it just from the geometry and all, but
I've not tried to do any sort of guesstimate given there's absolutely no
data with the blurb to even try to estimate what the incident energy
intensity might be in the portions of the spectrum targeted.

If your heating is on, solar windows are useless, you might aswell let the infra red through. They only help during weather where you aren't heating your house. Then they would both remove unwanted IR, and create energy to run the AC. So it depends on the climate really.

They still let in more heat than the power generated would pump out if
you in a place where the sun actually shines.

No idea what your point is. There is x amount of energy going through the window already. If you want that as heat, there is absolutely no point in intercepting it for electricity, as you will no longer get that heat.

That assumes that the IR energy is what gets converted to electricity.
It is actually the visible light. Even if it was converting IR, the
best cells are still only around 30% efficient allowing 70% through.

The link in the original post talked about only capturing invisible light. If it captured visible light, your windows would get rather dark, and nobody would want that.

Even if they only capture 30%, if it's winter and you're heating your home, then you're taking 30% of the sunlight IR gain away from the windows, then redirecting that to electric heaters, which gives you nothing whatsoever.

I guess you never heard of a heat pump.

I have, but I've never heard of one actually being used. I still doubt you'd make much saving once you factor in the cost of a heat pump and the special glass.

You need to get out more. Unless there is something very strange about
the UK, there would be lots of examples of heat pumps being used.
Perhaps some of your fellow citizens can inform you.

Nope, almost everyone heats with gas. Those without mains gas have storage radiators etc. Almost nobody has AC.


Who should we believe? You or our lying eyes:

https://www.aranservices.co.uk/pages...t-Pump-London/

http://www.groundsun.co.uk/content/a...rce-heat-pumps

https://www.renewableenergyhub.co.uk...of-london.html

Dozens of companies installing them in the London area on that last
link.

Now find the percentage of homes with it installed. You sound just like a journalist, no figures just waffle.

You were talking about pure theoreticals, new solar electric windows.
YOU claimed that solar electric can't be used efficiently to produce
heat. YOU were assuming it's only about using the electric to
generate resistance heat, that you only get the resistance equivalent
of the heat. I and another poster said that's not true, look at
heat pumps. It has nothing to do at all about percentages. And
then you claimed there were no heat pumps in the UK, so I provided
you with links that show dozens of companies installing them in just
the London area.

Stop already. Why do you enjoy making a total ass of yourself?




And the cost of
the heat pump isn't really an issue, it would not be there only
because of solar generation, it's the heat source for the house.
Note, I already said I think the whole idea of solar electric generating
windows is a pipe dream, but that doesn't change the physics of a
heat pump and how it operates.

We weren't discussing heat pumps. We were discussing how little power you could get from a solar window. Power which is already being used to naturally heat the house.

But you claimed that converting solar electric back into heat has
to be a losing proposition because you only were considering using
the electric energy generated for resistance heating, which is stupid.
Hence, a couple of us pointed out heat pumps.

Just stop. You're in way over your pay grade again.

And I've told you already WE DON'T USE HEAT PUMPS.



The links I easily provided show you're lying. And you just contradicted
yourself, above you were talking about percentages, now you're back
to denying there are any heat pumps period.

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:32:22 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

And
then you claimed there were no heat pumps in the UK, so I provided
you with links that show dozens of companies installing them in just
the London area.

He is probably going to say he doesn't live in London. The Scots may
not even go there.

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 18:16:44 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

But you claimed that converting solar electric back into heat has
to be a losing proposition because you only were considering using
the electric energy generated for resistance heating, which is stupid.
Hence, a couple of us pointed out heat pumps.

Just stop. You're in way over your pay grade again.

And I've told you already WE DON'T USE HEAT PUMPS.

You've been provided with the LINKS that prove the very opposite to be true,
you disgusting unwashed troll!

--
AndyW addressing Birdbrain:
"Troll or idiot?...
You have been presented with a viewpoint with information, reasoning,
historical cases, citations and references to back it up and wilfully
ignore all going back to your idea which has no supporting information."
MID:

On 10/26/2017 01:16 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
And I've told you already WE DON'T USE HEAT PUMPS.

..

Are you idiots?

Resistive heat yields 3412 BTU per kWh

Today's heat pumps yield 10000 to 13000 BTU per kWh

On 10/24/2017 12:56 PM, Bod wrote:
Interesting.

Solar cell technology could soon tap into the massive energy potential
of windows and other transparent objects, new research has shown.

Scientists have been working on transparent solar panels which could be
used as windows in cars or homes at the same time as generating
electricity.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8018071.html



Solar panels and windows do not give back more energy that it takes to
produce them. And they have a very limited lifespan. The batteries
are really expensive and pollute like hell to produce. Not to mention
they occasionally catch fire. Their disposal is a toxic waste
nightmare.

Solar is (currently) only economically viable for living off the grid.

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 19:24:05 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 19:12:37 +0100, wrote:

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 10:32:22 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

And
then you claimed there were no heat pumps in the UK, so I provided
you with links that show dozens of companies installing them in just
the London area.

He is probably going to say he doesn't live in London. The Scots may
not even go there.

London's climate is not significantly different, and I'm sure they have gas. And I know several Londoners, who all just use gas. Since gas is 2.5p instead of 11.5p a unit, a heat pump isn't yet economically viable.

Heat pumps are most common with people who need air conditioning in
the summer. It is a small up charge to add the reversing valve.
If you are using ground source pumps, that also makes sense in you
need to use electricity but I agree, for pure heat, you can't beat
piped gas if it is available.

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 19:24:05 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

FLUSH the attention-starved troll's usual troll ****

....and much better here!

--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) sociopathic BULL****:
"If you have a beard, you're guilty, no court needed."
MID:

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 19:41:37 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
wrote:

And my gas is 4.6 times cheaper than my electricity

You electricity may be 4.6 times as much as gas but if gas was only
ONE TIMES cheaper than electricity it would be zero.
(1x4.6=4.6 and 4.6-4.6=0)

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 21:47:29 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

FLUSH the sick sociopathic idiot's inevitable sick DRIVEL


--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) endless BULL****:
"If you live for 4 years and die, you wasted 4 years. If you live for 20
years and die, you wasted 20 years, that's 5 times worse."
MID:

On 10/26/2017 2:41 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 19:30:40 +0100, ted wrote:

On 10/26/2017 01:16 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
And I've told you already WE DON'T USE HEAT PUMPS.

.

Are you idiots?

Resistive heat yields 3412 BTU per kWh

Today's heat pumps yield 10000 to 13000 BTU per kWh

And my gas is 4.6 times cheaper than my electricity.* Your best figures there are 3.8 times cheaper than resistive.


And after the panels are paid for, the electricity generated from solar is free.

On Thursday, October 26, 2017 at 2:41:30 PM UTC-4, T wrote:
On 10/24/2017 12:56 PM, Bod wrote:
Interesting.

Solar cell technology could soon tap into the massive energy potential
of windows and other transparent objects, new research has shown.

Scientists have been working on transparent solar panels which could be
used as windows in cars or homes at the same time as generating
electricity.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8018071.html



Solar panels and windows do not give back more energy that it takes to
produce them.

Where is the cite for that claim? One typical size panel puts out
about 250 watts in full sun. Derate that by 60% and you still
have 100 watts. A hundred watts for 10 hours a day over 20 years
is a hell of a lot of energy.

And they have a very limited lifespan.

Says who? They've been around for ten or fifteen years and so far
I haven't heard of massive early failures. Plus all of them have
warranties, don't they?



The batteries
are really expensive and pollute like hell to produce. Not to mention
they occasionally catch fire. Their disposal is a toxic waste
nightmare.


What batteries? Very few of the millions of solar installs here in
the USA have batteries, they are grid tied.


Solar is (currently) only economically viable for living off the grid.

Those exceptional cases are the ones that would use batteries. I agree
that solar is only economically viable with subsidies at this point.
That's the only thing you got right here.

On 10/24/2017 3:56 PM, Bod wrote:
Interesting.

Solar cell technology could soon tap into the massive energy potential of windows and other transparent objects, new research has shown.

Scientists have been working on transparent solar panels which could be used as windows in cars or homes at the same time as generating electricity.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8018071.html


The days of burning fossil fuels for energy are about over:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...made-practical

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 22:01:30 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

FLUSH idiot's latest troll



--
More from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) strange sociopathic
world:
"I get told by my dentist to floss. I don't. I can't understand how to do
it. You can't get your hand inside your mouth to pull on the other end. I
also always manage to make the floss jump down and cut my gum to bits."
MID:

On 10/26/2017 5:47 PM, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 22:43:57 +0100, Willy wrote:

On 10/24/2017 3:56 PM, Bod wrote:
Interesting.

Solar cell technology could soon tap into the massive energy potential of windows and other transparent objects, new research has shown.

Scientists have been working on transparent solar panels which could be used as windows in cars or homes at the same time as generating electricity.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8018071.html


The days of burning fossil fuels for energy are about over:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...made-practical

How much fossil fuel do we have left?** WHEN that runs low, THEN we'll have to use the less efficient crap renewable rubbish, and make do with homes with only 500 watts available.* Back to candles anyone?

Whoooooosh! Clearly thatPipistrel article flew right over your head.* You got no vision, boy!

On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 22:47:28 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

FLUSH the attention whore's sick ****

....and much better air in here again!

--
More of ****** Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) twisted
sexuality:
"Facial hair is the same as pubic hair, therefore disgusting."
MID: