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

31–40 of 143 posts

Re: Solar panels disguised as terracotta tiles in Pompeii

#31

Post by scythe »

unit_circle wrote: post #14

Is reducing the amount of light that these panels receive likely to increase their effective lifetime? Or: Does total energy absorbed dictate decay of solar panels? Does that affect EROI calculations?

Light-induced degradation of silicon-based solar cells generally saturates above 0.1 suns [1] for the predominant mechanism of boron-oxygen defect formation; thermal degradation is also a factor [2] and likely to be unaffected by this geometry. But ERoEI for solar cells can be high, even in Europe [3] so, considering the roof replacement as a necessary cost regardless, these may still work out favorably, but at this juncture, only for special applications.

1: https://journals.aps.org/prb/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevB.69.02...

2: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403212...

3: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626191...

Re: Solar panels disguised as terracotta tiles in Pompeii

#32

Post by ant6n »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #11
causi wrote: post #6

They can be designed to appear like stone, wood, concrete or brick, so can be hidden on walls and floors, as well as on roofs, Somebody wanna run the numbers and tell me how many decades it will take for one of these things to offset its manufacturing & installation carbon footprint? I'm betting it's a while.

The answer for traditional solar panels is about 2 months IIRC. The answer for these should be significantly less, because you should only count the delta between solar tiles and non-solar tiles rather than the entire footprint.

>> …only count delta…

Not if replacing tiles that would otherwise not be replaced.

Re: Solar panels disguised as terracotta tiles in Pompeii

#33

Post by jkmcf »

ant6n wrote: post #32
bryanlarsen wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer for traditional solar panels is about 2 months IIRC. The answer for these should be significantly less, because you should only count the delta between solar tiles and non-solar tiles rather than the entire footprint.

>> …only count delta… Not if replacing tiles that would otherwise not be replaced.

I'm waiting for one good hail storm to finish off my roof as far as the insurance company cares.

Re: Solar panels disguised as terracotta tiles in Pompeii

#34

Post by jahewson »

ant6n wrote: post #32
bryanlarsen wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer for traditional solar panels is about 2 months IIRC. The answer for these should be significantly less, because you should only count the delta between solar tiles and non-solar tiles rather than the entire footprint.

>> …only count delta… Not if replacing tiles that would otherwise not be replaced.

Yeah terracotta tiles last over 100 years so it’s well worth factoring in.

Re: Solar panels disguised as terracotta tiles in Pompeii

#35

Post by kristopolous »

burkaman wrote: post #23

Here's the product datasheet: https://www.dyaqua.it/invisiblesolar/_en/documents/rooftile-... An independent research center lists the efficiency as 0.111: https://integratedpv.eurac.edu/en/products/modules/invisible... Anybody know how that compares to an average panel on the market today? From a quick search it seems like the best you can actually buy is 0.22 efficiency. Edit: The best available on this site is 0.2…

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

Re: Solar panels disguised as terracotta tiles in Pompeii

#36

Post by Animats »

serf wrote: post #13
TeMPOraL wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If EROI on those panels is negative then it's better to forgo them.

I agree -- but the picture is often more complicated for places that rely heavily on tourism and marketing. The image portrayed by a tourist destination that is making large efforts towards 'green initatives' may be a more enticing sell to the increasing number of 'eco-tourists', many of which have never thought a day in their life about EROI.

This is more of a specialty item where you don't want to trench a power line through an archeological site. You can get enough power for basic lighting with a small solar installation.

Re: Solar panels disguised as terracotta tiles in Pompeii

#38

Post by bloodyplonker22 »

burkaman wrote: post #23

Here's the product datasheet: https://www.dyaqua.it/invisiblesolar/_en/documents/rooftile-... An independent research center lists the efficiency as 0.111: https://integratedpv.eurac.edu/en/products/modules/invisible... Anybody know how that compares to an average panel on the market today? From a quick search it seems like the best you can actually buy is 0.22 efficiency. Edit: The best available on this site is 0.2…

I have worked in the solar industry. As a reference, the average efficiency of "normal" solar panels is around 16% today.

Re: Solar panels disguised as terracotta tiles in Pompeii

#39

Post by ggm »

causi wrote: post #6

They can be designed to appear like stone, wood, concrete or brick, so can be hidden on walls and floors, as well as on roofs, Somebody wanna run the numbers and tell me how many decades it will take for one of these things to offset its manufacturing & installation carbon footprint? I'm betting it's a while.

This "but the energy cost is net negative against keeping what we have" is an odd basis of reasoning. Some days I think its just a modern variant of "we should never have come down out of the trees" thinking.

No development can get away from a positive energy burden against the sunk cost of history. For active (coal burning power) vs passive (solar) the net energy cost is probably always good now: the cost of deploying solar has dropped enough that the sunk cost of the coal burner is now exceeded by the future lifetime upside of the PV, even given its carbon debt to make.

You're in a niche, arguing that scavenging existing clay tiles and keeping what you have is net better carbon output (bearing in mind your power has to be generated, and transmitted) than replacing the tiles with solar tiles. Thats different to 'replace coal burner with solar' but it can be calculated.

TL;DR you're asserting you think its worserer. I think its an interesting question, I don't actually think it is, but if it was, the question doesn't terminate in the sunk cost of the existing tiles, its the sunk cost AND FUTURE BURDEN of the coal burner you don't use. It's not just the production cost burden of the solar PV tiles, you have to remember to include the CO burden from the energy source you don't displace by making it locally.

Re: Solar panels disguised as terracotta tiles in Pompeii

#40

Post by zbrozek »

Artisanal production - nope nope nope nope nope

Give me a lights-out factory without a single human being churning out a gazillion units per day with 100% test coverage please. Anything else will have all kinds of quality control and reliability problems when trying to produce a bunch of nominally-identical widgets.

Post reply on HN