Solaroad's CubeTube adds solar panels to your cube, lowers the cost of you working there
By Darren Murph 
posted February 24th 2010 9:45PM
posted February 24th 2010 9:45PM
It's 2010, which means there's a significant chance that your cubicle work could be done from absolutely anywhere. For those still stuck under the burden of old-school management, here's an idea that might just nab you that raise you've been longing for: the CubeTube. Engineered by Solaroad Technologies, this indoor photovoltaic electrical generator straps onto the edges and tops of conventional cubicles and collects light from every angle. Internal batteries are charged up, and power is instantly available for the decade-old Latitude and CRT monitor that's still residing on your desk. It sounds like you'll need to ping the company directly for pricing quotes and the like, but if you managers are seriously considering this for your office, maybe they should first calculate the cost and carbon savings from letting their subordinates telecommute. Just sayin'.
That would be nice if my sad cubicle was anywhere near a window. I would say that 80-90% of all office cubicles do not get any sunlight.
@GadgetGeezer Fluorescent tube light works too.
@Nitesh
Flourescent light does not really work. Have you tried it? The power you get from it is miniscule compared to sunlight (white light).
@Nitesh ... you are capturing a tiny amount of light from a powered source with only a fractional efficiency rating of the panel itself. I have never heard of a worse idea.
Solar panels should be large, outdoors, and angled to face the sun.
Now if my office were to provide outdoor covered parking via solar panels, with outlets at the base of the supports to plug in a hybrid/electric vehicle, now THAT would be badical. =)
@GadgetGeezer
You're obviously not in IT.
Programmers burn in direct sunlight.
@Ducman69 That's not only badical, that's Googlical:
http://www.ecofriend.org/entry/googles-parking-lot-gets-solar-panels-enough-to-power-1000-homes/
@Ducman69
Wow - finally someone intelligent. I agree that this is by far the worst implementation of solar panels yet. Why not just use localized high-efficiency lighting to reduce energy usage... or focus on something more significant than the .01% of energy this will save.
CubiCLE
@meepmeep have some sympathy; author probably just got fired while working in one
Telecomputin rulez!
"CUBICLE"
LOL
Crapgadgets like this are what give solar power a bad name. There is so much wrong here, I wish it were a joke.
@GeekPI I think somebody might have jumped the gun, this really seems like it should be posted 35 days from now.
why is there one right in front of his desk.
A nice fat solar panel in front of your face?
@Alexpeegs Spacial comprehension fail
I feel like this is a bias towards cubicles...what if you don't have one. What if those of us without cubicles want to have solar power surrounding us too. Engadget, you should be ashamed..So one sided of you...
But does the recovered costs equal a raise for me?
@Einlander How dare you!
Seems like it would be far cheaper and more effective to just shut off the fluorescent lights and computers in unoccupied parts of the building and reduce the number of lights that are lit up on the main office floor.
@paul34 Shhhhhh
@paul34 because i have a music server on in that cubicle! and it's powered by my nifty solar panels which only provide 10% of them power it needs to run!
only one thing comes to mind...
the movie office space!!
Yeah, a fluorescent tube might give some power. I just measured the light coming off one in a reasonably bright room with an insolation meter. About 75 cm from the light, we were reading less than 10 W/m^2 (we might see 1300 W/m^2 outside on a sunny day here). If these panels are 18% efficient (pretty good for a solar panel), we'll see under 2 Watts per square meter of panel. Just 8 m^2 of panels will run a desk lamp with a CFL, saving $2.25 a year if it is on 2000hrs a year and electricity is $0.08/kWh. If 8m^2 of panel costs just $1000 (very low estimate), we have a payback time of just under 450 years.
(back of napkin calculations, don't rely on these numbers)
@chemix +1 for bothering.