Solar-powered houses

There are two problems; the expense of the glass and no electricity at night, when you need it for lighting. The third problem then is how to store enough electricity to last the night. Batteries are expensive in that amount.

hi Taganan, you seem to see the problems before the possibilities. Its all about the attitude from us engineers. Power from the sun as photovoltaics has to be sent to grid, before there are any sense in bying expensive panels. But they are getting cheaper and more efficient. Or you may have an application where all the power can be used as is. The power from these windows may support or power all the computers and servers and copiers in the building when the sun is shining, but of course when the sun dont shine, the power has to come from somewhere else, and sadly that is fossil fuels. Or maybe there are some windmills turning in the neighborhood....Try to see the possibilities instead of the limitations.

regards, moe

The example is from Queensland, so my bet is that they should use the electricity from the windows to run the air-conditioning for all the computers running the high-tech house and to chill the beer.

The excess energy could be sent into the grid and used to power superconductive coils which can store the energy until it is needed at no loss.

Too bad we haven't discovered room temperature superconductors.

Perhaps another type of battery should be used?

My two cents, Blue

And how much power can be stored, at what cost, so as to be competitive with coal generation, nuclear generation or hydropower from the grid? You can do anything if cost is no object. But the consumer of the electricity will object if the cost rises.

Picture electric rates up to 5 X what they are now [or even higher] and what that will do to millions of homes. Progress? Oil lamps anyone?

If you plot the peaks of electricity usage (work hours, air conditioning, etc.), you find that it corresponds closely to peak solar power generation.

So solar power enhances peak load capacity, allowing other PG sources to continue handling the off-peak loads, even as overall demand increases.

And if there is surplus power generated, there are methods currently in use to store power cheaply, such as reducing the demand placed on hydroelectric dams, thus preserving their headpond levels, even pumping water back up from below the dam. In effect, the hydro dams become batteries.

Power storage technology is still in its infancy, and new/improved/cheaper methods are emerging constantly to meet the growing need and demand.

So digging your heels into a negative mindset will only serve to get you passed by, career/business-wise.

Unless of course you're retired, in which case, never mind.

Munky - Just as Brave Sir Robin said, there is not enough information. What I object to is the rosy glow of the article as if it is a panacea for our energy problems. My questions were valid applied to any solar generating scheme. What do you do at night for electricity and how do you store it and at what expense? I have no problem with the fact that it could lower daytime loads, perhaps delay the need to construct a few new powerplants by a few years. I applaud it.

1. There are not all that many hydro dams and pumping water back up is horrifically inefficient.

2. Just what power storage technology actually shows a possibility and is cost-effective? Until there is one the idea is still pie-in-the-sky. I too believe it can be solved, but there again at what cost and when?

3. My mindset is not negative, but I do question over-optimism and wonder about the cost efficiency of all this 'green' technology. I personally think the future may be great as long as the practical people have a say in it and the politicians are kept in check. Good, sensible, realism and practicality will get you further career/business-wise than uncritical enthusiasm for everything new. Which is why my tag at the bottom has meaning. We go into the mountains to have a duel, you must use a laser and I must use a stone knife, but we both go in with nothing. Guess who wins. What has worked will continue to work, despite how bright, shiny and full of promise the new tech may be and it will do the job a lot cheaper. Please make the new tech as economical as the old.

PS. - I will retire for real when I cannot think, until then you will see my thoughts here.

Efficiency? Cost? Precious little information in this article. As such, I tend to believe that we are a long ways off before realising any benefit from this technology.