Lumeta's "peel & stick" solar panels can blanket a roof in under 35 minutes
By Paul Miller 
posted May 12th 2008 8:01AM
posted May 12th 2008 8:01AM
[Via Digg]
posted May 12th 2008 8:01AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
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.
This is great innovation. If they continue to reduce costs and increase efficiency more people will go solar.
@Bakari
These are standardized subsidized costs so no market share is irrelevant. For instance, the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit pays, PAYS, a producer .51 USD to blend ethanol into gasoline. I'm not trying to argue could have, should have, would have. We produced over thirteen billion gallons of ethanol last year and the government spent .51 USD per gallon to blend into gasoline. Do the math: 13,000,000,000 x .51 and that's the tax credits given to big oil and if you consider the numbers above it's still one of cheapest when you look at subsidies.
Follow the money. It's always the money.
Seems so simple. Why didn't somebody think of this before? It's not terribly hard to imagine this being attached to a shingle, make the three tabs each solar panels. Dang, it just seems so obvious.
It's just silly to think that many businesses and many homes would have to use this. One is already a start. A few is better. A product like this, easy to install, can be used over existing roofs, and a bunch of other application possibilities - that's where things change.
Guess there's one downside, maintenance. Might be hard to remove a single panel if there was a problem or a roof leak. That's tough.
We also have to stop thinking about perfectly aimed, perfect environment, 365 days of sun, to get electricity. Anything is an improvement over today. Shade half the day, who cares, you got half a day of solar energy - that's 25% less electricity used.
Bravo friend for making one of the most logical comments ever on Engadget.
Please breed. I beg of you.
This is interesting. As long as the cost is offset within a couple of years, I could see these easily becoming mainstream. If it takes more like 5-10 years to break even, it could be a problem. Few people are willing to make a long term investment like that. Of course, it would only be a small bump in a construction budget, so new homes may come with them, especially if there ends up being a tax incentive.
Here in the states, if you apply more power to the grid than you're taking, your meter runs backwards. The power company pays you, instead of you paying them. I could see going on a two week vacation then getting $5 back from the power company at the end of the month, because everything is off but the cells.
As far as storage goes, that's absolutely not a problem from a cost standpoint. What very little you might not use just gets poured into the grid. The bill would end up reflecting that.
But there won't be much to spare, really. These are totally supplemental. It'll be rare- if ever- that you are producing as much as you're using.
I just had someone steal my baby's car seat out of my car while it was sitting in my own driveway. How likely is it that I would find myself in a similar, only worse, predicament after investing in this: no hot water for baby's bath tonight, dear - the bad guys stole the roof.
Gluing down the panel helps with theft as well (a conventional panel would be over $500)
Reasticaly, though, this sized system generates all of 10 kWh/day - far less than a building that size would use daily.
PV installs still make economic sense only if one has California-size tax credits in your particuar state.
Oh great, 35minutes and $12,500.
I'm so excited.
Three quarters of sites will be unsuitable, of course, due to the poor surface.
So we have a solution to a problem that didn't exist (mounting to a flat roof) but no solution for the one that does (price).
Also, mounting it with better orientation towards the sun would increase efficiency by 100%. So, save $6,250 and spent a few more minutes installing normal cells.
Exactly. How many of us have perfectly flat roofs with ice-like smoothness?
At .$0.15/kwh, you only have to generate 83,333 kWh to get your money back. 10 kWh/day = 8,333 days to break even. A mere 22 years.
NEXT!
I can't help but notice these gentleman aren't donning enough PPE. What was their PM thinking.
What some dont realise, #1 during the energy downtimes you dont use, you will be getting money which will make up for the times you need to draw from the grid, and #2 if EVERYONE has these.. power supply issues would be a thing of the past, as would every single type of power plant.
I only question what protection these things have to the weather, but other then that it seems perfect.
I wonder if you can layer them ...
The advances in solar photovoltaic technology will do much to reduce our need for foreign oil and help our balance of payments ONLY IF the commercial products are made here. The key issue is driving the price of the panels down to where a payback for the installation is less than 5 years. The way to drive the cost down is to promote the increased manufacturing volume per plant. Promoting the increased manufacturing volume is driven by the customer demand for the product. At present, the customer demand is low because of present costs for the panels are too high. By offering a tax credit or rebate, or purchasing the solar generated power at an artificially high price, say 40 cents per kilowatt hour, the demand will baloon. When the cost of the installed system reaches a dollar watt, and it can, then the artificial inducements can be dropped and solar can be a significant player in the energy picture. Excess solar power can be stored in batteries, or better yet, in the form of electrolyzed water forming hydrogen and oxygen which stored on the premisis can be utilized by a fuel cell and used to provide power to the home and to the electric vehicle during the evening hours. No new technology is needed. Just the leadership to go in this direction. That is where you, the voters, can make it happen. It is up to you.
I would be curious how they solve the problem of Heat dissipation. Crystalline solar cells are prone to decreased efficiency under high heat conditions. Production starts dropping off rapidly above 120 degrees.
Panels that are elevated above the roof cool easier because air can flow beneath them.
As mentioned above water intrusion under the panels and freezing, thus breaking the seal would also be a serious consideration.
I imagine they would do quite well under high wind conditions given the low profile.
Thoughts?
Some of you have some bad information. I happen to work for a general contractor, in the Bay Area, where one of the DRI Energy offices is located (and where this video was shot). These proprietary panels are going through UL Listing and have passed all the major test and are slotted for distribution in June of 2008. These panels are available to the residential public, but, do not have a very good application for a comp or clay tile roof. For DRI Energy's "Residential Solutions" you need to visit their website at: http://www.dricompanies.com/ResidentialSolutions.aspx. They have unique patents on both s-tile and flat tile solar solutions...