Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Solar panels disguised as terracotta tiles in Pompeii

theartnewspaper.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 143 posts

Re: Solar panels disguised as terracotta tiles in Pompeii

#131

Post by ilyt »

mcronce wrote: post #62
galangalalgol wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that mean that in high intensity regions you'd need active cooling or is that not a problem?

This doesn't answer your question, but I really wish someone would offer off-the-shelf panels with tubing on the back to hook up water lines. It would be dope to cool my panels and preheat my hot water at the same time.

They are usually called "hybrid solar panels" and not exactly a new thing.

Usually cheaper to just put more panels tho. Pretty handy if you need to get the most out of roof space but otherwise more panels + heat pump water heater is much simpler solution.

Re: Solar panels disguised as terracotta tiles in Pompeii

#132

Post by kevincox »

maxwell wrote: post #52
yen223 wrote: post #42

The thought of future archaeologists being thoroughly confused by Roman terracotta tiles that apparently generates electricity amuses me.

Sufficiently advanced civilizations seem likely to integrate energy generation technology to the point of invisibility, optimizing for aesthetics and potentially going classical and opting for something that looks like ancient Rome or Egypt. It seems unlikely that the pyramids were power plants and obelisks energy receivers [1], but maybe power plants of the future will look like the pyramids and energy receivers lik…

Terracotta tiles were probably more about practicality than astestics as well. There is a good chance that we only find it astetically pleasing because we associate it with historical architecture. If that had been shiny black surfaces we may have thought that modern solar panels look beautiful and antique.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is great to have more choice in what solar panels look like and I think preserving the appearance of historical architecture is important. But I don't think that one is fundamentally more astetically pleasing than the other. It also makes the idea "integrated to the point of invisibility" an interesting concept. What is invisible? Most of our current building are founded in practically with astestic choices a minor customization on top.

Re: Solar panels disguised as terracotta tiles in Pompeii

#133

Post by killingtime74 »

positr0n wrote: post #69
kristopolous wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's fine, they look great. Realizing we've got stuff looking like that that generates freakin' electricity is amazing.

Given the poorer efficiency, wouldn't it be better use of limited money and resources to put regular tiles on houses and normal solar panels somewhere else? (Honest question. I've always wondered why residential rooftop solar, especially since it's usually government subsidized, makes sense anywhere in the world.)

Money is being optimized if the land is not free. Solar panels are relatively inexpensive even if inefficient if the land is sufficiently expensive. Electricity cost can vary a lot. If you have a lot of expensive panels and don't have to hook up to the grid that can save a lot of money

Re: Solar panels disguised as terracotta tiles in Pompeii

#134

Post by simplyaccont »

bruce511 wrote: post #73
simplyaccont wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

on the other side, normal panels will usually cover part of the roof. those tiles will cover entire roof. hence even if efficiency lower, total output will be higher

I agree, effeciency is only a concern as a function of space available. If you have a flat roof then all the space is available, and depending on your latitude flat can be a good orientation, especially in summer. Pompei roofs do not appear to be flat, but they do seem to be very low pitch, and the panels are curved, so the whole roof is likely in play. Back to your main point, effeciency in itself doesn't matter. If…

It's possible to install more panels, but in many cases it's harder to get coverage of more than 50-70 % of the roof due to it's geometry/multi-slopeness/vents/etc.

Re: Solar panels disguised as terracotta tiles in Pompeii

#135

Post by gameman144 »

TheCapeGreek wrote: post #89
positr0n wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the poorer efficiency, wouldn't it be better use of limited money and resources to put regular tiles on houses and normal solar panels somewhere else? (Honest question. I've always wondered why residential rooftop solar, especially since it's usually government subsidized, makes sense anywhere in the world.)

It's useful for the NIMBYs and historical conservation areas.

I mean, not wanting commercial solar farms in your back yard seems like one of the more reasonable things to not want in your back yard. Especially when aesthetically pleasing (if less efficient) rooftop solar fits the bill nicely.

Re: Solar panels disguised as terracotta tiles in Pompeii

#136

Post by gameman144 »

midoridensha wrote: post #118
yywwbbn wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re still will to dedicate large amounts of resources for building museums, concert halls and other public buildings that fundamentally don’t really have a more practical purpose than medieval churches.

What? This is really dumb. Museums are extremely practical, just like schools: they educate people. Concert halls are for entertainment; they're just as useful as restaurants (after all, you could just eat microwave meals at home). Most public buildings have some kind of valid use that doesn't involve superstitious beliefs. Even medieval churches probably had some non-supernatural uses, I'm guessing, like being used…

The function of a thing can be solely "wow, this thing is impressive", and that's fine.

Even if medieval churches had no purpose other than to construct an impressive structure, that isn't something we ought to deem unworthy. Greatness is a fine goal in its own right.

After all, art museums and concert halls overwhelmingly display the things that people find impressive. The things that people don't find impressive don't stand the test of time.

Utilitarian function is certainly a great virtue, but it is not the only virtue.

Re: Solar panels disguised as terracotta tiles in Pompeii

#137

Post by DrNosferatu »

If it indeed delivers what's advertised, it appears they outdid Tesla's "Solar Roof", and actually have a de facto obtainable and better-looking product for delivery!

However, it seems to cost some ~4x the normal price per W of solar panels.

- Could mass production of these and economies of scale reduce the price to more competitive levels?

- And how long for a typical installation of these to recover the investment, aka: "Payback Period"?

(is it the same as ROI?)

Re: Solar panels disguised as terracotta tiles in Pompeii

#138

Post by kavouras »

cmarschner wrote: post #87
midoridensha wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but maybe power plants of the future will look like the pyramids and energy receivers like obelisks. Unless people in the future become religious nuts even worse than today's, I don't see why they'd waste so much space and resources on power-generating burial mounds. The pyramids may be impressive for a primitive civilization to build, but they were functionally completely useless and just a collosal waste of manpow…

People built 1000s of churches and cathedrals which, at face value, was a collossal waste of manpower, materials, and space. And yet we admire them and keep them around for 100s or 1000s of years, because of their greatness. The same for the pyramids. Of course, the effort served a function as well: to establish and maintain a power structure, to give people whose lives hung on strings far more often than ours do a s…

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/jul/11/skyscra...

Re: Solar panels disguised as terracotta tiles in Pompeii

#139

Post by graphe »

wcrossbow wrote: post #104
graphe wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun fact: resistance sucks and makes your electrons bump into protons and crash causing waste heat. Super conductors are usually supercooled and have 0 resistance and every electronic works more efficiently cooler.

> resistance sucks and makes your electrons bump into protons This is a myth with little bearing to reality. Protons (and the atomic nucleus) are insignificantly tiny when compared to the size of an atom. The major contributor to electrical resistance are defects to the crytal lattice of metals and grain boundaries.

Don't you need the defects to have semi conductors? I seen some really cool experiments with superconductors and every computer works better cold. Isn't that why Google's quantum computer is supercooled?

Re: Solar panels disguised as terracotta tiles in Pompeii

#140

Post by graphe »

pjc50 wrote: post #115
graphe wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does energy neutral mean? What does properly designed mean? And at what cost to comfort or the property? You could turn off all your electricity and heat yourself with kerosene and have used no electricity for the year.

Usually means "passivehaus", and "energy neutral" would mean "generates an equal quantity of electricity to that consumed, when summed over the year". > heat yourself with kerosene That's not energy neutral, is it now, unless you have a kerosene well on the property.

Geothermal energy would be amazing! But it's hard to balance with carbon emissions.
Post reply on HN