Lumeta's "peel & stick" solar panels can blanket a roof in under 35 minutes

If destroying your roof just to get some sun-sucking solar panels installed isn't your thing, Lumeta's PowerPly could be the solution. The panels use traditional roofing adhesives, that'll be familiar to regular ol' roofers, and save the process from drilling holes and bolts associated with the regular rack systems required to mount solar panels. Right now this process is targeted at commercial projects -- you can watch a pair of guys install 2.25 kilowatts of solar modules onto a California roof after the break -- but hopefully residential applications won't be far behind.

[Via Digg]

[w00t @ May 12th 2008 8:16AM]

These look great! If I had a roof to stick them to I'd be seriously interested!

[shanoboy @ May 12th 2008 8:26AM]

I have to second Fred's comment.

Let the market handle innovations in the market, not the politicians. We already let politicians (Reps. and Dems) into our lives too much as it is.

I don't need big brother to babysit me.

[tom @ May 12th 2008 8:36AM]

what is 2.25 Kilowatts good for?

[w00t @ May 12th 2008 8:48AM]

Since I live alone 2.25kw is more than enough for my entire usage unless I have the cooker or hoover running, which isn't exactly a huge proportion of my usage.

In fact with a suitable bank of batteries I could go entirely off grid with power to spare!

These would generate over 1,000kw/h per quarter with reasonable sun, I can't remember the last time my bill was that high!

[stefan @ May 12th 2008 8:57AM]

Well it would be enough to power a big AC unit.

Nobody says that this amount of power will help you become independent of the power grid. But it might allow supermarkets to cool their stores and freezers.

The equation is quite simple: More Sun leads to higher energy requirements for cooling but also to higher yield from solar powers.

Another factor are big cooling warehouses (e.g. for meat). If they could use solar power to cool down their facility 1 or 2° below normal temperature by the end of the day, they could effectively switch off the cooling during the night. Imagine that on a big scale and you have huge offsetting of power consumption along with a more stable power grid.

[hugh.mckellar @ May 12th 2008 10:11AM]

well the aussie government is talking about paying anyone 66 cents per kilowatts your put back on the grid which i think is the first good thing old k-rudd's done

[coffee @ May 12th 2008 10:45AM]

Isn't it amazing that private companies can actually get something done without government intervention? You wouldn't think so from all the press.

Hybrids, battery-power, solar, all being innovated from consumer demand, not laws. Amazing.

The government should focus on cutting spending, reducing its size, and staying out of our way. Replacing 4000 lightbulbs in D.C. isn't really helping.

[Ian @ May 12th 2008 2:31PM]

@stefen
how big are meat lockers? we arent talking football size rooms are we? i ask because the same thing goes to beer companies that have HUGE rooms just to keep beer cold. and it could do the same thing

[Flashpoint @ May 12th 2008 8:16AM]

Hopefully, the democrats (likely Obama) will win and continue the progression of "green jobs" I think millions of American factory jobs could be created if we focused on building solar panels and improving our infrastructure while making it greener.

Solar panels could be used to decrease the need for home heating oil. They could charge a power bank during the summer and run heaters during the winter. The technology is there for that purpose if we apply it.

When I think of all the buildings with roof space not being used (as well as all the jobless Americans out there) it bothers me.

[fred @ May 12th 2008 8:22AM]

Yeah, because having the government, the same one that is wiretapping your phones and spending us into oblivion, is just the most peachy keen place to look to to do anything ever.

The free market will make "green jobs" viable, not some idiot like Obama or CONgress.

People that rely on the government are owned by them.

[Flashpoint @ May 12th 2008 8:30AM]

fred

So Obama is an idiot?

Well I guess I should vote for you then, since you've accomplished so much.

Idiot Obama came out of nowhere and raised more money than Hillary Clinton and is destroying her because of her dishonesty and public discontent. But I suppose you are so smart that you knew that.

...that and the fact that the "government" is composed of people who could care less about tapping phones - the only people doing that are the departments of the CIA and NSA. But you knew that cause you passed 3rd grade last week.

[simbiot @ May 12th 2008 8:35AM]

Power bank? Other than batteries, there is not way to store electricity.

[telepheedian @ May 12th 2008 8:52AM]

Obama is honest because he never says anything about the actual issues. He just makes a true statement, then says there will be change. For all we know, change could be tyranny, but there will definitely be change.

[fred @ May 12th 2008 9:13AM]

"Idiot Obama came out of nowhere and raised more money than Hillary Clinton and is destroying her because of her dishonesty and public discontent. But I suppose you are so smart that you knew that."

Obama has a personality cult that cloaks him with a veneer that gives people the impression that he is more than what he is.

99% of his "supporters" cant name a thing he has done nor can they tell you his positions on anything outside of "change" and "hope".

Obama didnt destroy anyone, his ask no tough questions supporters ran defense for him at every turn, protecting him from anyone that has the kooky idea of expecting these guys to get a through vetting before getting the keys to the nukes. They baby this guy to the point where they will start losing voters because people still wont know what he is about.

[Hrolf @ May 12th 2008 7:11PM]

To Fred:

Let's remember that the REPUBLICANS are the one that are spending us into this debt which started with St. Regan, Bush 1 and Bush 2. Clinton got us into a surplus and was starting to work on the debt. The Republicans are the ones that got us into this war and wiretap our phones. Not the Democrats.

That being said, Obama wants an Apollo style program that will invest in green technology.

I would greatly suggest you shut your mouth about things you don't know about.

[fred @ May 12th 2008 9:47AM]

"Let's remember that the REPUBLICANS are the one that are spending us into this debt"
"
Let's remember that the Democrats have been running congress from 1981 - 1994 and from 2006 to NOW, so to try to play some stupid game where you absolve one party from their collective stupidity is not going to get you far.

"which started with St. Regan, Bush 1 and Bush 2. Clinton got us into a surplus and was starting to work on the debt. The Republicans are the ones that got us into this war and wiretap our phones. Not the Democrats."

THEY ALL ARE THE GOVERNMENT. You want to be a party hack and do the dance for the DNC? Dont be shocked, but they F you in the rear like everyone else.

"That being said, Obama wants an Apollo style program that will invest in green technology."

And the benefits of the original Apollo were so great that we need this guy to use money that we DO NOT HAVE to emulate it and make more jobs for paper pushers in DC and to subsidize companies that aren't smart enough to tap into demand to keep themselves afloat? No thanks.

"I would greatly suggest you shut your mouth about things you don't know about."

Ah and the Chang/Hope army speaks! Dont, question just obey the smarter government!

When talking to an Obama supporter. You can fall asleep and know more of what you're talking about than they.

[larcen007 @ May 12th 2008 9:54AM]

First, stop talking about politics and economy - just because you have an opinion does not mean you are right or should express it.

Second, the market and politics are to blame for the current problems. Remember the oil crisis in the 70s? Do some research - this is the short version. Prices go way up. Someone passes some laws to try to ween us off of oil - some energy conservation bill that would go into green technologies. Prices go back down shortly thereafter, and the initiatives are abandoned, since it was cheaper to use oil than to invest in alternative technologies. So, go ahead and continue blaming either politicians or the market for our current problems. Blame the democrats, republicans, and businessmen EQUALLY - they all play(ed) a big part in the problem. But it only takes one to solve the problem. And one solution we cannot have is hope that gas prices go back down so that everyone again abandons the initiatives. Just think where we would be today if those initiatives werent abandoned. Let's hope history doesn't repeat itself.

[Jon @ May 12th 2008 10:22AM]

Clinton gave us the surplus? ISTR that the first Bush signed for the budget in 1990 that gave us over half the surpluses that people attribute to Clinton. Anyone who things the President effects the economy in anything close to realtime is a fool. The economy takes months and years to react to changes in law and regulations. The dive we took when Bush 2 was voted in? It started before the election, under Clinton.

[OneLove @ May 12th 2008 10:36AM]

whats Chang/Hope army? Is that a chinese band?

[Magius @ May 12th 2008 12:25PM]

And so we can blame Clinton for the dip, right?
He may have been president when the tech market collapsed but the current administration is really digging our graves:

Current Cost of War in Iraq Is Almost $11 Billion Per Month. “In FY2007, DOD’s monthly obligations for contracts and pay averaged about $12.3 billion including about $10.3 billion for Iraq and $2.0 billion for Afghanistan.” [CRS Report, 2/22/08]

That Amounts to…

* $332,258,064 Per Day
* $13,844,086 Per Hour
* $230,734 Per Minute
* $3,845 Per Second

How many kids could have gone to school with that money? How about upgrading our aging infrastructure? Investing in green tech? How about investing in our future for a change?

The sad part is that with that much money spent our troops don't receive all the equipment they need and back home they don't receive the treatment they deserve.



Instead we go into a war that should not have been. We had justification enough for Afghanistan, but Iraq? Give me a break.

[UKNigel @ May 12th 2008 12:27PM]

Ron Paul would allow keep the governments inefficient hands off people's roofs, while at the same time freeing up money for people to buy their own solar panels whichever way they very well please.

[sotec_productions @ May 12th 2008 1:51PM]

@UKNigel [and] the rest:

First off, I voted for Ron Paul in the NH primaries and there is no shame there because I believe that he is the only politician, maybe ever, to speak like a normal human being, to believe and want the same things in life and in gov't practice as a human being, but mostly, because my vote didn't go to someone that I don't believe has shown us, anyone, ever, that they ARE true, and deserving of my vote. But gov't is not about real people or real issues, it's about domination, control, money, and winning. No one that deserves to be our president will ever be our president, because that would screw up the system (in a good way as far as I'm concerned).

That said, I also don't believe that once he swore into office, anyone in CONgress(I like that, thanks whomever typed that) would back any of his ideas. He would be skiing uphill with a downward hail storm (and not the infatuated kind of hailing) his entire term because if you watched any of his debate snippets, you'd know that even the moderators were appalled with his answers (though true as they were). No politician wants to ever take the blame or the responsibility for their actions, instead they hide behind party politics and policys, and most people today still swallow that lard. Well, I don't. I don't adhere to any party politicing, and I think they're all full of shit. It's a fact. They push their agenda from behind the guise of 'we care because you do', and it's about time we stopped letting them mow us over with niceties and political fallacio. Another disgusting fallback scenario that I hear so much about when someone's candidate of choice doesn't make it is, 'well, I'll pick the lesser of two evils'. Read that slowly and think about this: less of two EVILS. Both are out for blood, so WHY CHOOSE EITHER ONE? Lesser of two evils...that's such bullshit in my opinion. It's complacency people!

Picking the best piece of rotting garbage to satiate your stomach pains means you're still eating garbage, and 9 times out of 10, you're still going to get sick..

Wake the fuck up people...

---------------------------------
@the article:

Fantastic idea! By the time I own a house, these will be super cheap, and remarkably better.

[John @ May 12th 2008 8:19AM]

Very cool. I wonder how well this would work in places that get a lot of snow, rain, and/or wind, though.

[w00t @ May 12th 2008 8:38AM]

Probably not too well, but I would imagine people in those areas would be sensible enough to consider alternatives such as wind power.

[Eric @ May 12th 2008 9:21AM]

I live in an area that gets a lot of snow, and I have a few solar panels for backup power on my ham radio station. It isn't such a big deal, as the panels still generate significant amounts of power with an inch or so of snow. After that you need to get it off, but if you have enough sun it often melts off.

If a store already has a snow removal crew, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to see them up on the roof after a big storm to brush off the dishes. Heck, there are already a lot of roofing companies that do that in the off season anyway. Just need to keep walking space between the panels and provide a way to get the snow off safely.

[John @ May 12th 2008 9:26AM]

I guess I meant more in terms of moisture getting under the panels and stripping the adhesive over time.

[barry99705 @ May 12th 2008 9:49AM]

They use the same adhesive as the ice dam material already stuck to the roof under the normal asphalt tiles. It ain't letting go. That stuff is sticky!

[Hooterman @ May 12th 2008 9:59AM]

How strong are solar panels against a hail storm?

[Silverfrog @ May 12th 2008 10:20AM]

I'd be worried about ice getting trapped in the lip and under the panel, which would then turn to water and start rotting the asphalt tiles, which leads to roof leakage. Better yet, It would be better to not mount these on one's roof. Instead, have a pole mounted system where each pole holds 2, 4, or 6 panels. It's not as attractive, but the maintenance is easier (and safer too).

[Brian @ May 12th 2008 1:21PM]

I've actually worked with military grade solar panels that say you can shoot a hole in them and drive over them with a tank and they'll still output quite a bit of juice!

[BowserUSC @ May 12th 2008 9:36PM]

Well, the real problem for colder climates is that you have to replace the roof approximately every 10 years. So are they cheap enough that you can just throw them out when you replace your roof or would a mounted system be better where you can just disassemble it, replace the roof and then put it back on.

[simbiot @ May 12th 2008 8:33AM]

How much?

[Flashpoint @ May 12th 2008 8:37AM]

simbiot


"power bank" can be used to refer to batteries or capacitors.
We use the term in our R&D labs.

[MBS @ May 12th 2008 1:26PM]

Either way, you think we have the technology to store electricity for months and months on a large, cost-effective scale.

[Bakari @ May 12th 2008 9:00AM]

All hail the free market, bringer of the latest mortgage and credit crises! Enabler of 41 billion dollar Exxon-Mobil profits!

Free market mythology won't solve our upcoming peak oil crisis. We need people to kick this thing into high gear now so that our transition to sustainable energy will be smooth. I'd rather have the manufacturing base ready 20 years early than face the worldwide depression coming with peak oil.

[fred @ May 12th 2008 9:17AM]

Uh, how do you think the free market works?

Supply and demand and necessity

Conventional energy prices go through the roof = Necessity

Solar Company makes panals because their is a decent profit to now be made = Supply

People see their neighbors get this and see their bill go through the floor
= Demand

Prices go down as Solar Company can now afford to make more at a cheaper rate. People buy more panels, the Earth is happy, and Socialism goes the way of the oil industry.

[Jon @ May 12th 2008 9:46AM]

And that money that Exxon-Mobil isn't going to some large oil tycoon. It's going to the shareholders and the business that have invested in the company. You look at just the name of the company but I bet if you realized that you or your company had an investment with them (your 401k as an example) then you would think much differently then.

The economy works and is in a slow down. People's perceptions on the matters are what negatively influence our economic slow down (recession is being in the red for two or more successive quarters and we aren't).

Companies pushing to get newer and better technology is what we can look for to bring us out of this slow down. Not to mention, better politicians that aren't there to screw around...Congress, you know I'm talking about you...

[larcen007 @ May 12th 2008 10:31AM]

Fred - you need to finish the story

Oil industry sees solar company = threat to profits

Oil industry drops prices = competition

People prefer cheaper oil = supply

People buy cheaper oil = demand

Solar company goes belly up = end of story - wait another 30 years.

Bottom line - the market is profit driven, and the oil industry has a huge head start. Politicians need to find a way to make it profitable to invest in solar energy - i.e. MORE subsidies and tax breaks (and tax increase on the oil industry). Right now, the market is doing a good job, but it can change at any time, or it may not change at all. The oil industry is different than it was 30 years ago - the problem is with third world countries, so the pricing scheme of the oil industry may not change. While an important factor, it is a separate issue.

Socialism is no more a problem than a free market is (they are equally bad/good, depending on your viewpoint) - the real problem is having leaders with no balls. Where are the visionaries? (Please don't mention any of the current candidates- i may throw up)

[webmonkees @ May 12th 2008 9:05AM]

Pretty neat, but how long does it take to remove a broken one?

Cost savings alert: you can take a 30% tax deduction on this and other 'green' energy retrofits till Dec 31st, unless Congress renews the energy tax break; the current renewal is on the bill that eliminates Big Oil's 54 billion in tax breaks, so don't hope much for that version..

[torfred @ May 12th 2008 9:36AM]

Subsidies is what brought the solar and wind technology to where it is now, without it we would still be 10-20 years behind compared to today on both solar and wind technology.

Government interventions brings stability while free market creates big ups and big downs and no one wants the big downs.

Think about this before you state how bad the government having their hand in things is. European countries have much more intervention from their governments and they complain a lot less then americans do.

I belive the key is a good balance between free market and government stimulation.

[coffee @ May 12th 2008 10:54AM]

While I don't believe in an all-out unconstrained free market, government intervention should be very rare and limited to actions such as watching monopolizing tactics and protecting trade agreeements.

Government interventions may bring stability, but it also brings stagnation and mediocrity. With intervention invariably comes higher taxation, higher costs (see Sarbannes-Oxley) and less time and money for innovation and investment.

Sure, the downswing sucks. The upswing is great. I'll take free markets over a government that subsidizes poor business practices in Airlines, Rail, Mortgage investors, Auto industry, etc. The downswing only hurts because of bad business decisions. If we let them perish, better-managed companies will supply the demand.

[Jon Doe. @ May 12th 2008 9:33AM]

A thought.

Hybrid Electric Car + electric home filling station + these = interesting future.

The home filling station would charge over the day through these panels + a trickle charge over night through the normal grid to supplement the solar. Then when you get home plug the car into the refill unit, that should allow a quick charge, and start the process over again.

That being said the efficiency of solar is _currently_ so pathetic. The need to have a metric crap ton of these cells to really get the job done is still expensive and impractical. Wake me when the efficiency reaches 50%...Right now if I'm not mistaken current efficiency is around 20% for the cheaper cells out there.

[wunch @ May 12th 2008 9:54AM]

Now, all we need to do is install these on 537,778 roofs, and we can go Back to the Future!

[UKNigel @ May 12th 2008 12:29PM]

We should start off with a more attainable and reasonable goal, like installing these on 1337 houses.

[Rob @ May 12th 2008 10:06AM]

Well, if you could install a couple of these suckers somewhere and they'd generate enough power to charge either an electric car overnight, then I'd love to have it. Within a few months to a year this thing would pay for itself.

Regarding government subsidies for certain markets. I think they work. However, they should come a point when they are no longer subsidized. Take for example the oil industry. Why are we still giving them billions of dollars every year? So they can give us the middle finger back? Also, the corn industry. Why are we still subsidizing them? We live in a society with a diet based on corn. We eat more corn, and corn derivatives, than the pigs in the farm. High fructose corn syrup is in almost everything we eat and drink. Then you have corn starch on the surgical gloves. Did I forget ethanol from corn too? They don't need more subsidies.

We need more windmills. We have plenty of areas that enjoy of high winds. Put some there. How about the arid deserts? Put some solar panels there. America, as a nation, is falling behind big time. We have the means to make it. We just prefer to do nothing about it and whine.

[Coolbeans @ May 12th 2008 12:40PM]

Windmills kill birds....and they look ugly. That is why they don't have a huge windfarm in Massachusetts. Too many rich people didn't want their view of the coast messed up. No one ever wants this stuff in their back yard.

Personally, I think we should turn Wyoming into a giant wind generator. When I lived in Utah and drove to Colorado a few times I had to drive through Wyoming and that is one windy state. Sucks when you own a jeep with the aerodynamics of a barn door - I have a civic now.

[d0n0van @ May 12th 2008 10:07AM]

Follow the money.

'An even better way to tell the story is by how much taxpayer money is dispensed per unit of energy, so the costs are standardized. For electricity generation, the EIA concludes that solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and "clean coal" $29.81. By contrast, normal coal receives 44 cents, natural gas a mere quarter, hydroelectric about 67 cents and nuclear power $1.59.'

SOURCE: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121055427930584069.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

Next time someone tells you it isn't the money think again. It's always the money.

[Bakari @ May 12th 2008 10:17AM]

The size of the industry matters. Compare the market share of oil to the market share of solar. 44 cents means alot more for an oil company.

[anomous @ Jun 11th 2008 9:47PM]

you are totally right.... its always about the money even if they say it is not.

[happy_penguin @ May 12th 2008 10:25AM]

Photovoltaic is still not all that efficient but if production methods were streamlined and improved this could be a cost effective way remove thousands of kilowatt hours of usage off the grid. But they'll need to be used on many homes and businesses. The ease of installation is certainly a great step forward in potentially cutting cost.