They covered one entire side of the DOE building with a solar panel that supposedly can power 60 homes. I don’t know how big the DOE building is, but if they put solar panels on say half the sides of skyscrapers (leaving the other half for windows; alternating 5 feet of solar panel and 5 feet of window or something like that) couldn’t they provide power for the entire building and then some? Seems like it would be economical in a very short time even if they only did the one side that faces the sun most (I think it’s the south right?)
There have been about a million questions about solar panels on this board. The answer is the same for all of them: Solar panels are horribly inefficient. It takes many, many years of use just to recoup the cost of the panels. I’m very skeptical of the claims that the DOE’s panels can power 60 houses. It would have to be an extremely tall building, and the houses would have to be one-room shacks with just a lightbulb requiring electricity. And solar panels are weather-dependent, so they’re pretty much useless in cloudy weather. The environmentalists all love the concept of solar power, but the truth is that it’s not very practical. There has to a big breakthrough in solar panel efficiency before they can start being a realistic energy source.
I skimmed the article and they kept referring to the ‘DOE headquarters building.’ I presume they are talking about the Forestall building on Independence. It is about eight stories tall (I occasionally do work there, but only go to the third and seventh floors. Can’t remember the elevator too accurately) and about a block or so wide. Not too big, but fairly massive.
As for the structure becoming a 'landmark. Right. The south side of the building faces away from the Independence / the National Mall. Not a lot of tourists venture out that far. Maybe a nice landmark for those stuck in traffic on 395?
I don’t know what type of exposure the building would get, but Dice is pretty much right on with his summation of solar’s problems. Not to say that these are not surmountable, but for the time being, solar is not efficient enough to warrant large scale switching. Also, I am pretty sure the south side of Forestall does not have too much blocking it - consider how much exposure a typical Manhattan skyscraper gets. Small scale energy production could someday be a reality, but not anytime soon.
The above two posts are correct: PV cells cannot even begin to compete with grid power. They’re expensive to produce, their electrical efficiency is horrible, and their life span is limited. Plus, you must have a basement full of batteries and an expensive inverter (that produces a crappy-looking sine wave).
It seems we are assuming they are photovoltaic panels but I cannot see anything in those articles that supports that. the articles are so vague that they are meaningless as a source of information. My guess is that they are solar heat collectors. The “60 homes” etc is all meaningless and cannot be proved or disproved. The whole thing sound like a pretty ignorant reporter is quoting out of context stuff he did not understand. It is pathetic that public opinion is formed by such junk. I wish some technical body would criticize such type of meaningless information.