New solar generator system from Solyndra is totally tubular

We all know the internet is not a big truck, and the rolling blackouts in California not that long ago showed our power grid isn't either. Part of the solution could be a series of tubes, a new type of solar generator from a company called Solyndra that replaces the usual square solar roof panels with something that would make Senator Stevens proud. The company's photovoltaic rods are able to catch rays from any direction, meaning they don't need to be tilted to point at the sun. Also, since they're not shaped like a silicon kite, they don't need the same big, beefy installation brackets. This cuts installation costs in half and has helped to drive $1.2 billion in orders from eager would-be customers of this three-year-old startup. Want to see 'em for yourself? Head on down to the Solar Power International Expo next week in sunny San Diego.

[Via Make]

[chris @ Oct 9th 2008 5:42PM]

the internet is tubes

[Goatee Man @ Oct 9th 2008 5:45PM]

Clever.

[Marcus @ Oct 9th 2008 5:51PM]

This is truly awesome. The website features great illustrations. Damn why didn't I think of this... :(

[CraigJ @ Oct 9th 2008 5:57PM]

The rolling blackouts in California not that long ago had more to do with power market manipulation and keeping plants off-line than it did with the grid, however, here in Phoenix I'd love to have a 10KW system on my roof...

[captainpease @ Oct 9th 2008 6:09PM]

Wasn't that discussed on the Enron documentary?

[CraigJ @ Oct 9th 2008 6:53PM]

The Smartest Guys in the Room.

Yes.

[Darryl @ Oct 9th 2008 5:58PM]

Hmmm... looks like they're using the flexible film panels. Not as efficient, from what I've heard, but pretty ingenious. Thin films don't sound very durable though, even if they're mounted on some kind of tube.

[Jonathan @ Oct 9th 2008 6:25PM]

Correct... the thin film is less efficient but the cost is much lower. At the end of the day, it all comes down to installed $ per kwh delivered.

[SimonRichards @ Oct 9th 2008 9:19PM]

Doesn't overall size come into the equation also? I wouldn't want these tubes all over my roof, garden, conservatory, etc when I could get some normal ones and get the same power and only cover my roof.

[loosely_coupled @ Oct 10th 2008 2:10AM]

actually, overall, these are 20% more efficient than traditional panels because they catch reflected and diffuse light from the white roof and they don't have to use energy to aim the panels...

[Scott Neary @ Oct 9th 2008 5:58PM]

If we're going to have a government that controls more and more of what we do, which I'm completely against and thats another story, then let em force every new roof built after 2008 to use some kind of solar tiles or solar shingles, or solar devices like this.

[Yoyodyn @ Oct 9th 2008 6:29PM]

Instead of specifying the type of system, they (the Govt) could just make it so that any house built after (insert date here) must generate at least 10% of its own power requirement. (percentage just an estimate).
That would allow for solar or wind or other as yet to be found power source. Certain exceptions could be granted for super efficient HVAC systems (geo thermal) or solar water heaters as well.

[CraigJ @ Oct 9th 2008 6:00PM]

they should cool the cells by running coolant through the grid and produce hot water too. Cooler solar cells are more efficient

[Scott Neary @ Oct 9th 2008 6:05PM]

awesome idea!

[Abuzar Baloach @ Oct 9th 2008 6:29PM]

Dude, that's smart. Patent that or something.

[Lauren @ Oct 9th 2008 7:04PM]

Sadly they have already tried this and it uses more energy to cool the cells than you gain in efficiency in most cases...

[CraigJ @ Oct 9th 2008 7:18PM]

how much hot water do you get from the process though?

[Kizorblade @ Oct 10th 2008 4:05AM]

Always need that hot shower.

[maveric101 @ Oct 10th 2008 11:17AM]

if you want to do that, use a parabolic mirror to focus light on a single tube of this. would cut cost and provide enough heat to produce hot water. not sure if there would be enough to vaporize freon to turn a turbine.

[sean @ Oct 10th 2008 12:15PM]

I think the point isn't cooling the panels, it's making hot water, and reducing the load on the hot water heater. There are tons of solar heating systems for pools out here in CA, but they're not terribly effective because they work best when it's hot out, and the pool is naturally heated anyways.

[dave @ Oct 9th 2008 8:37PM]

one of the issues of solyndra's system is its sustainability in markets outside of california

hail + delicate glass tube = broken.

[Jonathan @ Oct 9th 2008 6:22PM]

I'm so excited for the show next week. I didn't see their name on the exhibitor's list, so hopefully they were a late addition. I really want to see these guys.

Too bad that the market has been tanking. Back when the solar stocks were soaring, the conference must have been raging!!

[Ray @ Oct 9th 2008 6:28PM]

*cough* Bull___ *cough*

There are no specs on the site, no efficiency ratings, power output, $$/sq/ft, nothing. It is great you can cover more roof with this product. Do you have to put up more panels because the efficiency sucks? Or because the panels collect 1/2 as much as a conventional panel? All I see is some cheesy flash and a couple of embeded video files telling me how great the emperor's new clothes look. And what the hell is a solar generator? Is that some new euphism for photovoltaic or solar panel? You still have to wire them all up to an inverter to get usable electron flowage.

[Abuzar Baloach @ Oct 9th 2008 6:29PM]

I guess we shall find out soon enough.

[HunterXI @ Oct 9th 2008 7:01PM]

My thoughts exactly. Just because it "doesn't lose efficiency if not facing the Sun" doesn't mean anything; for all we know, this system produces half the output of a traditional panel. Then again, if it costs a lot less per installation/space/Watt, then it may be worth the eyesore.

[Slick @ Oct 9th 2008 7:06PM]

The material may be less efficient than traditional flat solar panels, but the tube method does seem to gain sources of solar power, with the reflected light. On a white wash concrete roof on a particularly sunny day, i bet the reflected light would be an extremely valuable source of energy.

[Steve A. @ Oct 9th 2008 7:29PM]

As someone who designed, build and maintains a 900 sq/ft 10kw solar array, I agree you you 100%. Unless the panel's surface area is directly perpendicular to the sun's rays, efficiency goes down. The further away in degrees, the greater the drop. All the company lists is that the efficiency of the panels/tubes at 13%. Not exactly ground breaking, as sunpower is retailing a 19% efficient panel. Sure you save money on mounting hardware, but you're paying to have at least 50% of your PV panels in the shade during the day. And shaded panels deliver a mere fraction (1/10-1/20th) of their rated output.

Also in colder climates, this form of mounting on commercial rooftops will promote snow accumulation in the winter (due to the shading), and would likely cause roof collapse.

This is nothing but a flash in the pan. Cool idea, yes, but unless they can undercut the cost other panels by 60-75%, you'd be much better off with standard PV.

[loosely_coupled @ Oct 10th 2008 2:26AM]

Um, apparently you missed the part about Solyndra being funded by hundreds of millions of dollars from top venture capital companies. This is no amateur operation.

And for the SV performance, they say their product is roughly 20% more efficient than a conventional high-end panel system per sq m. Probably because of the ability to utilize reflected and diffuse light, in addition to not needing to be rotated along the perpendicular axis of the sun.

[Arran @ Oct 9th 2008 6:40PM]

Is that maynard?

[keland44 @ Oct 9th 2008 7:41PM]

It would be interesting to see if this does work and if it does. A good idea would be to put something reflective under the panels since they do collect energy 360 but given that it's on a flat surface it will only be able to see 180. The other 180 would be it's base or the roof and unless the roof is reflecting something to back to the 180 under the base its only getting half of what they state it can do unless reflection is put into place in which it would be able to get the 360 from all angles. Nice concept though

[F U @ Oct 9th 2008 7:20PM]

Solyndra fucking sucks. I hope you go under real damn soon you POS company

[ignoramus @ Oct 9th 2008 7:32PM]

Dude, that is rather harsh. Did they fire you or something?

[haX0r @ Oct 9th 2008 7:34PM]

Must be an ex-employee...

[John @ Oct 9th 2008 7:24PM]

Sen. Stevens? Seriously? More like make folks like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd jealous....

[Denom @ Oct 13th 2008 7:12AM]

It seems that these photovoltaic cylinders wont be able to take advantage of all their surface since the cylinder's lower part will be covered by shade. It should exist a reflective background for maximum output. I think the best and cheapest solution is to place water underneath of it.Of course only in horizontal installation . Sea's sand sticked to some kind of material would be a nice solution too.

[MyHeadisFed @ Oct 9th 2008 8:10PM]

Or cut them in half. A reflective surface will not reflect all of the light back. So why not use half of the material per area and make the surface area twice as large?

[haX0r @ Oct 9th 2008 7:30PM]

Yipee! They are close to me. I am going to check them out: http://www.solyndra.com/Contact-Us/Directions

[MyHeadisFed @ Oct 9th 2008 8:09PM]

Why not semi-rods instead of round? seems like the bottom half is a waste.

[Jeremy @ Oct 9th 2008 8:13PM]

As usual people go off half cocked and make assumptions without even reading the material. The design is 360 degrees of PV cells, so that means it collects light from any direction including underneath it, and yes that would be light that bounces of the roof itself. The massive difference between this design and a traditional tilted array is that it doesn't need to be turned in a direction. Tilted arrays can only have a max of 180 degrees of collection and outside of being directly angled they are terribly inefficient. While this design's cells might be less efficient, a traditional array is only at its most efficient when pointed directly at the sun.

So unless you have a electric motor turning your arrays (using power), your tilted arrays could in fact be less efficient over the course of the day.

To the op who mentioned about snow gathering on the roof. Have a think genius, if that is an issue, don't get it installed! A tilted array requires a high amount of structural integrity due to the fact that it will have to stand up to gail force winds. This design requires hardly anything.

The simplicity of this design is what makes it a winner. Think of every business out there that has a flat roof and could use this system to supplement their own power use.

[Steve A. @ Oct 10th 2008 1:00AM]

Jeremy, I guarantee you I've read all the available material on this company, including their trumped up claims for funding that is completely unsubstantiated.

http://greenlight.greentechmedia.com/2008/10/06/rumor-solyndra-doesnt-get-its-350-million-627/

Placing 50% of your solar collecting PV material in the shade is a ridiculous idea. Rooftops, especially ones that are already shaded from adjacent tubes, reflect only a tiny fraction of the energy that hit them. Spending money on shaded cells is a bad idea.

[Jeremy @ Oct 10th 2008 1:16AM]

Well considering they haven't come out with any real pricing or cost to power ratio it's a big call saying it is a ridiculous idea. If smaller amounts of light received on the underside balance out the cost of the of the overall equipment, it really is a viable option.

Yes, there is very limited information on the night. But just because you have have your own PV array doesn't make you an expert on this. Personally, the design does look promising, so give it a go. Don't just pull something down because you don't fully understand the technology.

If the technology turns out to be not all it's made up to be, then you can jump on everyone who thought it looked good.

[LarryLarryLarry @ Oct 10th 2008 6:49AM]

All the linked blog says is that they didn't get the $350 mil they wanted. I seriously doubt their video of the automated production line is a fraud. It looks efficient as hell and totally modern. They're claiming they have $1.2 bil in orders, that's a huge amount of product. Even if they only net 10%, that's $120 mil in standing orders, which is fantastic for a brand new company.

There's lots of competition in this arena but they look very prepared to compete. Maybe it will all go up in smoke, but it looks pretty solid at this point.

If it was me, I'd put aluminum sheets under the tubes for better reflection and little added cost or weight. They've probably tried this, no idea really. They could easily form the aluminum sheets into rows of cylindrical reflectors which line up with the tubes. They could be integrated into the mounting hardware without adding much cost or any installation time.

Even aluminum foil with adhesive backing should be a noticeable improvement.

[couchpundit @ Oct 9th 2008 9:17PM]

Hmmm. There's lots of sun getting through those--I wonder what would happen if you mounted it over a highly reflective surface like polished aluminum, chrome, or mirrored glass? Seems like you could bake two sides of the rods in the sun and increase efficiency.

[Kris Quigley @ Oct 9th 2008 10:00PM]

All the solar panels here in china are circular, and most homes have them...

[Jonathan @ Oct 9th 2008 11:45PM]

They're solar hot water collectors known as an evacuated tube collectors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_hot_water#Evacuated_tube_collector

[Kris Quigley @ Oct 10th 2008 6:41AM]

Here's a pic of one http://www.fta.hk/fileupdate/www.fta.hk/upfile/200808/217/12178137857500.jpg is it the same thing as your wiki link? Is it not classed as a solar panel then?

[Jonathan @ Oct 10th 2008 7:38AM]

Yep. I'm not sure why the one in the wiki pic is enclosed. Usually they are not. They either have a tank on the roof (like in your pic), or the tank inside.

[Nick @ Oct 10th 2008 2:06AM]

1.2 billion? I call bullshit. Probably 1.2 million. Gotta be a mistake. Companies we've never heard of don't have 1.2 billion dollar contracts.

[cory yalowicki @ Oct 10th 2008 4:00AM]

maybe they have 1.2 billion $1 contracts. hmm hmm??

[porksmash @ Nov 5th 2008 8:27AM]

Maybe you should not pull things out of your ass
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2008/10/06/daily39.html
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21473/
http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20081006006649