Spray-On Solar Window Unveiled

There is no marketing hype they actually did a side by side on 2 of the companies that make a silicon pv and the spray on when the silicon pv was doing testing and the varriance between was considerable now moving ahead as you see with smaller companies they didn't stop improving and went to a more Eco friendly polymer. I know the university was testing against standard crystalline panels but I think once there commercial version is ready I would go over the data and consider it.

The other thing is that they spray this stuff on the entire net zero home so it also works with the other systems which may have efficiency subsidized within the system.

Hi:

Ok, I think you all had better hold your horses a bit here on the 35% eff. stuff...
If they have a spray that can be sprayed on glass that is twice as efficient as mono silicon PV, Santa must be coming way early this year...
To me, as to the above, I see allot of marketing hype and no substance....

.....Bill

I have done a little checking and the company that makes it is VP and E they did realease a home do it yourself kit it is $ 45.00 dollars and Eco friendly it has the same 25 to 35 percent efficiency depending on wall/glass facing it is transparent so it can go over existing finishes without color change. They have been working with the university on a more efficient and organic system that will reduce cost for commercial applications.

Supposedly this company showed the news and some investors recently at the Tampa building. Would like to know about the product that has been used for 3 years already.

This product is already commercially available down here there is a company that makes it and uses it on there net zero homes for the past 3 years. About a year ago they went to a renewable base polymer which seems to be working well at a 35% efficiency at a cost of about $ 6.50 a square foot. I know they have been working on a spray and terminal do it yourself kit but I haven't seen anything yet.

Where can we find performance specifications? The disclaimer at the bottom of the page might convey the sense that this 'announcement' is promotional hyperbole as part of a stock sale campaign.

How does this differ from what was announced in 2005?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html

Not so fast with all that praise: sounds good prima facie, I admit — but upon further scrutiny it turns out that any safety aspects have not properly been takein into consideration. The "coating" or "film" seems to be nanotech-based and it's health hazards (abrasion, inhalation of particles, food-chain contamination etc) are TOTALLY unknown today.

"Green" means ecologic: and ECOLOGY is the knowledge of the whole thing/world which, in my humble opinion, should include humans and all other forms of life — don't you think? So how "ecologic" would it be to risk further damage to these just to save a few bucks per Watt installed? There are equally promising and BETTER ways of harnessing high-tech solar power! (CSP comes to mind here as a proven and testedas well as cost-effective way.) Should we have greed take over Green energy just like everything else? There's no such thing as a Free Lunch, particularly not for the greedy and hasty!

I see both optimists(good) and pessimists(bad)making comments

To the pessimists, wouldn't you agree that any advancement of
any solar energy is good? So why try to discredit this tech?
IMO as a home owner the sooner this is developed and on the
market the better. I would like to spray my home windows and
start reducing both my energy costs and pollution as soon as
possible. I'm sure you would like the same wouldn't you?

You can use statistics, charts and numbers on anything and
everything you want to make it/them look either good or bad
It's all in what numbers and research you use and how you
present it or structure it. Just like a good film/video
editor takes many graphics and creates a film that shows the
selected subject either good or bad.......it's the creators
choice. So to the pessimists and their stats thanks but we
ain't buyin it to the optimists I understand exactly how ya
feel and thank you very much

One reason this new spray-on solar power is so attractive to the user, lies in the fact that it can be applied to surfaces on all sides of a building and thus exposing the solar generation cells to a wide range of solar energy.
http://www.greenliving9.com/solar-powered-windows.html

Sure wish we'd stop trying to mislead the readers. The building shown has a magnitude greater of wall space compared to a relative small rooftop. The 'cost' aspect of applying this spray to such a large space vs the rooftop must be considered and it is sure to be much higher and non-cost effective. There are probably good applications for the spray but let's cut the hype about the commercial skyscraper potential cause it's not gonna happen relative to other energy related alternatives for this market.

this technology and others seem to be rushing to market.. I hope they are not moving to fast before more advancement could be made..

http://www.thekpv.com

Amazon will advertize your ink for free for a cut of the action. You can't beat free advertizing.

There is an existing market and distribution channels for third party ink refills for standard home office ink jet printers. There are more than 200 million of these printers working today. Printing in parallel for less than four hours a day they can produce more than a billion square meters per day of product.

If you can sell ink into this market that can be used in these printers then you do not need to manufacture finished modules or cells, only ink. Instructions and code to drive the printers can be posted on your web site.

So what if they don't last twenty years. They are so cheap they can be replaced when they wear out.

Let me know if you think this will work. Consider me a current buyer. I will buy today or when you have ink to sell. I am not expecting miracles. I consider this just like the early 1970's, when hobbyists built computers at home with transistors. Today computers rule the world.

These products can change the world by providing energy cheaply at the point of consumption.

I have read with great interest this claim about this technology. Assuming you can do what is claimed, will this technology be made available for use in other countries or will it be retained only for the US market as so often happens with new technologies. If it is available to other countries, we would be interested in rolling out the system in South Africa. You know, all year sun and all that. Be great if we can have contact details as to who we can open discussions with. Brian

Learning from mistakes is part of the learning process. Think Thomas Edison.
No modules, no mounting hardware, no roof penetrations, no leaks. Why stand still? Forward with creative ideas.

Tch tch. Once again we see a picture of a transparent solar cell -- when are we going to learn? You can only get energy by absorbing sunlight; consequently, an efficient solar cell should be essentially black. Non-visible light could be selectively absorbed except that a lot of UV in sunlight doesn't get through ordinary window glass and the infrared solar spectrum is relatively low energy. Even then, for comercial buildings you'd have to replace the integral sun blocking film with the PV material otherwise very little UV or IR would be getting to the cells. They imply something like twice the efficiency of monocrystalline cells i.e. >35% which goes beyond improbable since the cell depicted appears to be transmitting more than 65% of the incident light (note the picture is taken against a backdrop, consequently, light has to have passed through twice and yet the backdrop is barely obscured). The bottom line is either you capture light and turn it into current - in which case your cell looks dark - or you don't.

The usefulness of producing electricity from artificial light seems pretty sketchy. There is the weak case that bifacial windows would reduce the amount of energy escaping from a building as light from interior lighting but the relatively low light levels compared to sunlight would make this very marginal. Also, one could just as easily increase the reflectance of windows to improve the net efficiency of interior lighting.

You've also got to question the apples and oranges comparison of conventional solar on the roof versus something else on the building facade. Does a tall building have more available wall space than roof space? of course it does -- there's even enough of a difference that a south facing facade can produce more power than the roof despite the non-optimized tilt (with the possible exception of Siberia) although at a higher $/kWh cost. No high-rises to the south please!

Will this be available to the average joe? Or will utilities slurp up the goodies and charge us a ton for it?

Life expectancy of a coating would be interesting info as well, since crystalline modules have a 25 year warranty and likely will still perform well beyond that point.

It will be interesting to find out the installation cost and efficiency of the coating, especially with most windows installed vertically, rather than at an optimum angle. Another question would be how much the coating blocks sunlight, which may or may not be a good thing. It might be a trade-off situation whereby savings accrue for AC but more artificial lighting is needed as well as increased occupant heating loads. Solar tubes, solar fiber technology, skylights, LEDs, fluorescent lighting or other advanced lighting technology could help.