this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
37 points (89.4% liked)

Technology

1221 readers
1 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

[email protected]
[email protected]


Icon attribution | Banner attribution

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A research team from the Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology (UNIST) in South Korea has developed transparent solar cell technology capable of directly charging a battery from a glass surface. This innovation offers numerous applications, allowing for direct energy generation from sources like smartphone screens, car windows, and building facades.

Study: https://news.unist.ac.kr/new-study-unveils-all-back-contact-neutral-colored-transparent-crystalline-silicon-solar-cells-enabling-seamless-modularization/

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

Did a simple calculation to see how long it would take for such a tiny solar panel they made to charge the phone. And that's not using the phone (turned off) and without concern for overheating the phone by putting it in direct sunlight. The efficiency of regular solar panels are bad, this transparent thing is cool but way worse than regular panels. In an optimized scenario such as in the paper (not realistic) it would take 60 hours for a full charge. Since there aren't usually 24 hours of sunlight (let alone full direct sunlight) it would probably take well over a week to charge.

Self charging phones using solar isn't a thing that's practically possible.

Even at high efficiency (which isn't possible) it isn't practical since phones don't do well in the sun and are usually stored in pockets, bags and often have covers over them. Plus they are mostly used inside where there isn't sun, or outside where most of the times there also isn't a lot of sun.

Just put a solar panel on the roof, that's the best place for solar panels.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Solar panels on your roof won't do much good if you're off grid and need to charge your phone. Just get a small, folding solar panel that you can carry in your backpack. A 10W panel will only need a couple hours of direct sunlight to fully charge a phone.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Even having a panel covering your backpack would be a good idea.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

There was a very simple phone from Samsung a few years back that had a solar cell on the back.

Since the battery lasted over a week anyway, you could easily double the battery life by just having it in indirect light.

Modern phones are guzzling so much power that it's hardly useful there.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago

yeah I was thinking if this was so useful we would have panels on the back of the phones already.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Great points.

Regular solar cells with better efficiency are already are thing, even in a compact travel format or as a novelty part of some electric cars. Those are cheap to produce, but still aren't practical at all, unless we're talking about something like a 2m² solar panel to charge a phone in a somewhat reasonable time on a very sunny day in an off-grid situation.

Using transparent solar cells additionally to regular ones in buildings instead of windows is pretty much the only reasonable application I can think of right now, but with a visible transmittance of 20% that's kinda farfetched as well.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You could look at it another way- a solar power screen on a phone won't charge it all the way, but as a secondary source of power that is essentially always on when the sun is up or other light sources are on, it reduces the battery drain over the day, meaning less charging needed at night.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago

It's so tiny that it's a waste of time and money. Most phones can charge in an hour now, so there's no need to shave 60s off a night charge by exposing your phone to the sun all day.

Carry a power bank if you are constantly draining your phone all day.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Weight is extremely important in automotive applications, and I see no info on how this compares to the weight of conventional auto glass.

Most “solar on cars” doesn’t get past the gimmick stage because of unfavorable power to weight ratio.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

@deegeese @BrikoX If it's light enough to be added liberally to a smartphone without turning it into a brick, it probably is light enough to add it to a car roof with no major weight added. The question is, will it actually absorb enough sunlight to fill a car battery?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

False comparison. Smart phones are volume constrained, cars are weight constrained.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

sure, the 6 ton object is "weight constrained"

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Go read up on CAFE regulations and then tell me weight doesn’t matter.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

That's pretty wild