You forgot to mention the UK’s first major solar project on a tall building, the CIS Tower in Manchester, completed in 2005. At the time it was the largest commercial solar façade in Europe.
I have a feeling more parking lots and facades will get covered in panels in a few decades ... makes so much sense even if the panels are not at the optimum angle
There's so much more to be discovered in the world of secret solar power. Yet it seems to be taking an age to get them to market. From water cooled domestic roof panels ~ increasing the efficiency and providing hot water ~ via thin and flexible mats designed to look like roof slates, to the ones featured in the video (which remind me of the old heated rear window filaments on cars; it's all very exciting and encouraging.
If you could get more than 1MW average from the Burgh Khalifa I've got a bridge to sell you.The building is essentially vertical and panels get higher efficiency when they face the sun so less well under a third of the building will get sun relatively incident on it for 4 or 5 hours a day. For 6 months of the year you will also lose about 10% efficiency due to it being so hot.
PV on the side of a building at very high latitude like Canada could make sense but the angle to the sun will be so poor below 45 latitude it can’t be cost effective. Your 20% efficiency will be more like 7% based on the panels orientation. Sorry you’re stretching your assumptions to please the sponsor.
so instead of 22 million watts,, you are looking around 8 million watts. if my math is right, 1 day of this super reduce solar energy on 1 building would run 1 average home for 1 month. and that is zero emissions and no extra land being used. not a bad trade off. i'm still waiting for North America to start covering parking lots with solar panels. shade for you car in the summer time, when it rains the parking spots stay dry and in the winter time there is less snow to plow and you car doesn't get covered with snow either. plus you get energy out of it.
Plus, last time I checked, every face of a building can't get sunlight at the same time. Unless you're on Tatooine or something. Only the side facing the sun is going to generate significant energy.
Transperent solar panels are becoming a reality and can actually make this a reality for galss glass building as well. Additionally, the windows can be installed with transperent solar panels that can produce electricity. Note - I know that the efficiency of transperent solar panels is very low, but it is improving slowly.
Glad this is a thing right now, this was my thesis before but not solar. I integrate vertical turbines as part of the main facade creating both kinetic energy and kinetic facade which creates an optical illusion that the building is moving :D
Cover every canal and reservoir in solar panels to collect sunlight, cut evaparoation om those waterways, cool the panels due to them sitting over water, and create electricity over surface area thats not being used for anything else. Then you put these solar panels on the roofs of every single school, shopping mall, church, hoospital, parking garages, sky scrapers etc. We continue with home or modular/mini wond turbines that sit on these skyscrapers and other tall structures to capture wind to generate electricity. With all these forms of electricty we need energy storage we can use excess energy to create hydrogen to be used when these forms of energu produciton arent producing eneough.
honestly im shocked we took this long to even CONSIDER the idea of having SkyScrappers double as Solar-wind farms considering they're designed to catch sunlight & they're so tall they get constant wind
Sorry but the idea is stupid. I won't bore too much with numbers but to put it simply their calculation uses the absolute maximal amount of energy the sun gives which means it will most of the time be less then that, they use 100% of the surface area despite the fact 50% will be in the shadow of the building and then use 20% which is for solar panels that are angled and turn towards the sun as it travel the sky, not stationary panels at a 90 degree angle, and even then they get less then 10% of the energy the building consume... Get a few solar panels on your roof and keep your energy consumption low, that will do way more than this idea.
@@derpionderpson1424 also why I have to keep energy consumption low but not the SkyScrapers? they're a far bigger culprit than any residence building ever could Seriously this Captain Planet 80's mentality of "only the lowest common denominator has to do their part, the rich can still burn whole gallons of fuel daily, no biggie :)" needs some serious re-thinking
@@Artista_Frustrado Yes but at that point we have to actually dissect the numbers they got wrong and in effect the same solar panels put on a flat roof would have at least double the efficiency they have on a wall not to mention how much easier maintaining and cleaning would be… As I said, it’s a silly idea.
For me, distributed microgeneration is the future. In Brazil, for example, we had a recent record in which 93% of our energy was generated by renewable sources (62% hydro, 16% solar, etc.), and the majority of solar came from small producers(houses and businesses) This impacts the government budget, as state investments are no longer made in thermoelectric plants and new plants. Subsidies and tax cuts for products such as inverters, batteries and panels accelerate much more in new small producers that compensate the need for large companies waste large amounts of land and money to do so
I generally like your videos, and while this topic is interesting the information given simply doesn't make sense. Apart from the fact that the panels are less efficient and would be in the wrong orientation, the idea that whole cities could use this foregoes the fact that buildings are in each others shadow.
Sunlight hitting buildings already generates heat, which translates to lower heating costs/energy consumption. Also just to point out that the Burj Khalifa numbers are way off, since efficiency on fixed panels is hugely dependent on sun position and panel orientation. They're not the easiest or cheapest panels to clean, maintain or replace either. I'd also like to see a breakdown of the costs and efficiency of panels with translucent overlays, and whether they make financial sense or even reduce overall carbon emissions.
lots of nay sayers about these windows. but if we compare them to a regular concrete slab or a regular window that returns no power, they are better. i'm sure the cost will drop as well. definitely a step forward.
You are prioritizing maximal space efficiency over maximal resource efficiency. Once we run out of large unused areas on space, then this idea is an awesome one, until then making the exact same solar panel but putting it on a flat roof facing upwards would give you at least double the efficiency... we have more then enough space but not nearly as abundant resources so lets use the space and save the resources.
Not sure how I feel about the sponsor of the video being the subject area of the entire video. Kinda feels like a 7 minute advert. Edit: Please stop messaging me, thanks.
In general, I think Fred does sponcon well. He puts as much effort in as the rest of his videos and by the end I do feel like I’ve learned about a new or interesting piece of tech.
It is, the claim about the possible energy production of the Burj Khalifa is ludicrously inaccurate... The video is nothing more than an infomercial for skyscraper developers looking for ways to greenwash their woefully inefficient projects.
Do you know why panels tend to be angled towards the sun like at 2:56 as opposed to lying flat on the ground? Now imagine a vertical skyscraper where the panels are all pointing sideways ...and three quarters of them away from the sun. That's why this will never be a practical thing.
The problem isn't the placement of new solar panels persé: it's the cabling them together and transforming that power into usable voltages, as well as means to storage that energy for when it's really needed - which, in temperate climates, is hardly ever when the sun's shining brightly... Here in the Netherlands we see plenty projects fall flat on their faces because, after panels have been installed by east European workers, all the cabling (loads of copper!) has been nicked. Police is forever guessing who did it, while most outside of said police force have a pretty good clue, but not allowed do anything about this theft. Copper prices are rising, which means additional costs to be paid by the clients - not to mention all the extra security firms since police still hasn't got an inkling about the culprits. And even if they *did*, nobody there speaks polish anyway. End result: less solar panels installed, and even less properly working. On topic: High-rise buildings clad with integrated solar panelling would be lovely, but it's usually shot down by architects, who don't like their "artwork" marred in any way shape or form, including actual use by the owners. Architects and project developers are quite (i.e.: far too) familiar with city councils, and just do as they please, which is making vast amounts of money providing very little in the way of usable living accommodations. No matter how high: it's either going to have solar panels on the roof (depending on that massive skylight for an architect's price winning atrium, of course), or none at all.
we'd have to do the calculation, it might free up the city or state household for something else yeah. If it's enough to cover households and industry then we're good. It's just a large investment into long lasting infrastructures, so plans based on this would have to be on the scale of lifetimes. Like 40 or even 80 years.
Basically no. Elon Musk did a bit in a presentation several years ago asking how much land area we'd need to cover in solar farms to power the US. People think the answer is, 'All of Texas' but it's a relatively small patch and would easily fit on existing roofs. It may not be the most cost effective balance but it's absolutely viable, in every country on the planet. With undersea cables (which we already have in the UK) you can trade power with other countries during darkness as well. But we still need batteries. That's good though because batteries are useful for lots of scenarios and abundant solar will also have other uses (such as desalination and water purification).
Conflict of interest with a capital C, you don't talk freely about those that sponsor you, especially when they're the subject of the video becoming an ad for them.
Not to mention a pipe system with turbines at interval sections with a fraction of the energy to pump water up and let free gravity do the rest of the work and the water going down those turbines to produce more energy.
The main problem with this idea is that buildings in cities are surrounded by other buildings which will reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the facades of solar integrated buildings.
You could put solar on the side of buildings but you see a heavy drop in efficiency compared with panels angled towards the sun. This would make the panels so expensive that they may not even pay for themselves over their lifetime. Also that estimate of the power that the Burj khalifa could produce was lazy in the extreme in its calculations as well.
It's about instead manufacturing a solar panel ascetically that is pleasing to the building as opposed to not. I think they should also put solar technology into ordinary roofing shingles that are used in a lot of housing construction. 🌞
This sort of stuff is nothing more than green washing, the inclination of the panels is important if you want to optimize energy production... The orientation panels would always be suboptimal, they are hard to service and not to mention that due to their transparency these panels are already less efficient than regular ones.
Their most built in artificial reservoirs that aren't ment to have life in them. And it's a win win when done this way because it cools the panels (which makes them more efficient) and reduces eveporation which helps with water scarcity.
So if another skyscraper is built next door and cast a shadow on the first skyscraper, those panels will generate much less power? As a skyscraper fan my nightmare would be that those shadows stop another skyscraper from getting built. Of course that other skyscraper could also have solar panels, but I think solar panels make much more sense on he roofs of giant flat industrial buildings.
The claim about the possible energy production of the Burj Khalifa is ludicrously inaccurate... The video is nothing more than an infomercial for skyscraper developers looking for ways to greenwash their woefully inefficient projects.
no, it's literally an ad for a company that makes solar panel glass. HOW that gets used is different. There will likely be some greenwashing sure, but they can also be used in genuinely green buildings also, like a mass timber building for instance.
@@Fenthule transparent solar panels are an order of magnitude less efficient than regular ones, coupled with suboptimal inclination on most installations makes this sort of stuff completely useless beside as a marketing ploy... It's like solar roadways a fundamentally flawed idea.
@@Fenthule Just putting the solar panels on a flat roof would be a better use of the resources that goes into this... like double efficiency kind of better...
When talking facts about electric cars, the e-deniers always gloss over the fact that solar panels on every southern-facing structure will massively offset or even be net-positive for the charging demands of these cars which isn't that bad to begin with anyways (10kWh per day for most commuters)
So I had to check to be sure I had this right, but you do understand that in winter there is the least amount of sun light right? And in summer the sun raises in the north east and sets in the north west... So why would you place the solar panels on the south facing structures?
@@derpionderpson1424 In North America, the sun has a southern arc across the sky throughout the year Yes, there's not as much light but you get a few extra panels to compensate for it and with the lower the temps, the more efficient they get If you can get the batteries fully charged by 12pm every day, then you're doing good
@@chattphotos One of us clearly didn’t get our astronomy right in school because I’m 100% sure the sun will have a northern arc across the sky for the northern hemisphere (which North America is obviously part of) in the summer and a southern arc in winter. When I look it up that is what I understand the info I find as saying as well so could you please tell me if you can find any online sources that you feel confirms what you’re saying so I can read them and maybe understand where we’re disagreeing.
@@derpionderpson1424 North of the tropic of cancer the track of the sun will always be to the south, not the north. The angle will vary but it will always be in the southern half of the sky. You are 100% wrong on this.
@@willythemailboy2 so as I thought it seems to be a matter of talking past each other. At *NOON* the sun is in the south for most of the year on the northern hemisphere past the Tropic of Cancer, but in summer it goes from north east to that position at noon and to north west, meaning it spends a sizable chunk of the day in the northern part of the sky. So yes I was partly wrong. Relevant to having solar cells on the southern side of a building though, it still means the angle is not really that good as sun coming in parallel to the panels don’t exactly hit them a lot, therefor if only the sun at noon is when they can be hit, that’s going to be low efficiency.
These anti-skyscraper ideas are so stupid. Covering it with solar panels is just one of MANY ideas to make it sustainable. It doesn't matter and it's obvious that it's dirtier than small buildings. But people forget that it is tall, so it can accommodate many times the usable space compared to small buildings, meaning we can have more green areas and fewer taller buildings to meet our needs. Skyscrapers are not the problem, they are the solution! Lack of urban planning, zoning, vision and building regulations are the problem!
Why you aren't talking about energy, solar pv output is directly connected to the tilt angle, it's a logarithmic scale with very sharp angle like 90 degrees of tilt, so, it's one of the most important natural barrier for that. Let's say for the 22.3 MW burj Khalifa, It will get the sunlight for about 6 hours on average on each side, due to the tilt angle, mac generation is possible during the very early morning and very late evening, but the irradiance is lowest at those hour. All these factors will make it about 10/15% of the same sized pv farm or a rooftop pv. And the payback time will be about 60/80 years. Financially, a very loss project.
This is an impressive tecnology, but icovering sky-scrapersnot be the most cost-effective solution. In Tallinn, Estonia a new office development of 3 12-story buildings is entirely powered by a hardware store next to it, which is covered with solar panels. Estonia isn't very sunny, which just shows that you really don't need to cover everything with solar panels, even if you want the development to be energy neutral.
sponsored by the solar company that the video is about. so its an advert. usually youd have it on screen all the video, but i guess you dont want people to know they paid for you to make this about their rich ivestments....jesus like those sneaky adverts you put in all the older videos about a digital copy of the building, even on prodjects that didnt use it. bewcause you were being paid to promote them every time.
The old videos promoted building information modeling software because The B1M company was a private social network for building information modeling users. It turned out doing journalism on TH-cam was a more lucrative business plan than selling accounts on his website. Because then he can sell sponsored content like this.
This entire video is literally just an ad. Completely glossed over a lot of the limitations of this idea and solar, because highlighting any of the drawbacks would upset the sponsor. I'm a bit disappointed. If this behavior continues I'll probably unsubscribe
@@cynthia_g_ I'm sorry you felt personally insulted by someone telling you the truth. That you responded the way you did proves that it was indeed the truth.
so generally, solar power is awesome and we need more of it to be built fast, wherever possible. However, I don't think that it's worth it to build inefficient farms on the sides of skyscrapers (which are often overshadowed by other buildings in the neighborhood). You will get more climate impact for your money as a developer if you instead use that money to buy some space on a factory roof and put up regular cheap Chinese panels. You will get even more climate impact for your money if you donate to lobbying organizations such as the Clean Air Task Force.
Its probably already been thought about, but if it hasnt hopefully whoever reads this and develops it will credit it me one day. Why tf dont elevators going down generate electricity??? Please font forget me if you make billions 😂
Was the additional energy cost to human beings factored into that study? Especially the cost to older and handicapped individuals who cannot ride everywhere on a bicycle like one of Mao’s millions of victims. Even the bicyclists will require more energy that I expect wasn’t factored into the equation.
If we didn't use so much power it wouldn't be an issue. Crypto mining, data centres, electric cars, electric everything, people need to realise that a simpler life would solve a lot of problems.
Simply not true. A "simpler life" means a much more difficult one. I know people who bought into that lie, bought land and tried to become homesteaders. You know what things they missed the most? conveniences like laundry machines, water pumps, and air conditioning. We SAY "a simple life is better" but most people who go back to live that way quickly hate it. I do agree crypto miners is a completely f*cking useless thing we spend money on, but the blockchain could have big uses. I'd love to see a system in place using the blockchain to get rid of corruption and make money in a fun transparent, so you can track the money flowing out of a given fund pool to where it goes and how it was spent. THAT would be an amazing use of the blockchain. What we need is large scale green power production. Things like aqueous zinc ion batteries to stabilize the solar panels/wind turbines, and geothermal power likely to be unlocked with Quaise's revolutionary drilling bit to drill down deep and let us use the earth's heat to flash water to steam for power, those are two massive drivers for a more green future that still has all the modern niceties we've grown accustomed to.
You forgot to mention the UK’s first major solar project on a tall building, the CIS Tower in Manchester, completed in 2005. At the time it was the largest commercial solar façade in Europe.
You took the words right out of my fingertips!
@@timofthomas Always good to comment asap after a video is live! 😃
Please can B1M do a video about the CIS Tower and NOMA? It'd be interesting.
I have a feeling more parking lots and facades will get covered in panels in a few decades ... makes so much sense even if the panels are not at the optimum angle
France has a recent law requiring parking areas over a certain size to be covered in solar panels. It's a great idea.
Rest in peace 🙏 🪦 😢 we loved your videos, you were the best youtuber out there in construction and development field.
He makes videos still just on his bigger channel.
Finally, the ultimate grand return! Welcome to 2024!
Killing two birds with one stone? Don’t tall, glass-clad buildings cause enough avian carnage already?
There's so much more to be discovered in the world of secret solar power. Yet it seems to be taking an age to get them to market.
From water cooled domestic roof panels ~ increasing the efficiency and providing hot water ~ via thin and flexible mats designed to look like roof slates, to the ones featured in the video (which remind me of the old heated rear window filaments on cars; it's all very exciting and encouraging.
Big oil.
Great video! Integrating solar panels into buildings to provide electricity is a great idea that we will become more and more common.
If you could get more than 1MW average from the Burgh Khalifa I've got a bridge to sell you.The building is essentially vertical and panels get higher efficiency when they face the sun so less well under a third of the building will get sun relatively incident on it for 4 or 5 hours a day. For 6 months of the year you will also lose about 10% efficiency due to it being so hot.
I love seeing solar integrated onto existing structures. No need to cover up potential agricultural land when a factory roof can do the same thing.
PV on the side of a building at very high latitude like Canada could make sense but the angle to the sun will be so poor below 45 latitude it can’t be cost effective. Your 20% efficiency will be more like 7% based on the panels orientation. Sorry you’re stretching your assumptions to please the sponsor.
so instead of 22 million watts,, you are looking around 8 million watts. if my math is right, 1 day of this super reduce solar energy on 1 building would run 1 average home for 1 month. and that is zero emissions and no extra land being used. not a bad trade off.
i'm still waiting for North America to start covering parking lots with solar panels. shade for you car in the summer time, when it rains the parking spots stay dry and in the winter time there is less snow to plow and you car doesn't get covered with snow either. plus you get energy out of it.
Plus, last time I checked, every face of a building can't get sunlight at the same time. Unless you're on Tatooine or something. Only the side facing the sun is going to generate significant energy.
Transperent solar panels are becoming a reality and can actually make this a reality for galss glass building as well. Additionally, the windows can be installed with transperent solar panels that can produce electricity.
Note - I know that the efficiency of transperent solar panels is very low, but it is improving slowly.
transparent dollar panels 😆
@@MihkelKukk Corrected
@@hrushikeshavachat900
@MihkelKukk Yep, it was. But this looks better
@@MihkelKukk a freudian slip, they're very expensive.
Glad this is a thing right now, this was my thesis before but not solar. I integrate vertical turbines as part of the main facade creating both kinetic energy and kinetic facade which creates an optical illusion that the building is moving :D
Namibia Mentioned ❤ 🇳🇦
Cover every canal and reservoir in solar panels to collect sunlight, cut evaparoation om those waterways, cool the panels due to them sitting over water, and create electricity over surface area thats not being used for anything else.
Then you put these solar panels on the roofs of every single school, shopping mall, church, hoospital, parking garages, sky scrapers etc.
We continue with home or modular/mini wond turbines that sit on these skyscrapers and other tall structures to capture wind to generate electricity.
With all these forms of electricty we need energy storage we can use excess energy to create hydrogen to be used when these forms of energu produciton arent producing eneough.
honestly im shocked we took this long to even CONSIDER the idea of having SkyScrappers double as Solar-wind farms considering they're designed to catch sunlight & they're so tall they get constant wind
It's all about money, solars cheap enough now
Sorry but the idea is stupid.
I won't bore too much with numbers but to put it simply their calculation uses the absolute maximal amount of energy the sun gives which means it will most of the time be less then that, they use 100% of the surface area despite the fact 50% will be in the shadow of the building and then use 20% which is for solar panels that are angled and turn towards the sun as it travel the sky, not stationary panels at a 90 degree angle, and even then they get less then 10% of the energy the building consume...
Get a few solar panels on your roof and keep your energy consumption low, that will do way more than this idea.
@@derpionderpson1424 yeah but it's still more than the 0% energy Skyscrapers generate now
@@derpionderpson1424 also why I have to keep energy consumption low but not the SkyScrapers? they're a far bigger culprit than any residence building ever could
Seriously this Captain Planet 80's mentality of "only the lowest common denominator has to do their part, the rich can still burn whole gallons of fuel daily, no biggie :)" needs some serious re-thinking
@@Artista_Frustrado
Yes but at that point we have to actually dissect the numbers they got wrong and in effect the same solar panels put on a flat roof would have at least double the efficiency they have on a wall not to mention how much easier maintaining and cleaning would be…
As I said, it’s a silly idea.
For me, distributed microgeneration is the future.
In Brazil, for example, we had a recent record in which 93% of our energy was generated by renewable sources (62% hydro, 16% solar, etc.), and the majority of solar came from small producers(houses and businesses)
This impacts the government budget, as state investments are no longer made in thermoelectric plants and new plants.
Subsidies and tax cuts for products such as inverters, batteries and panels accelerate much more in new small producers that compensate the need for large companies waste large amounts of land and money to do so
Very good idea, that I can really get behind
I generally like your videos, and while this topic is interesting the information given simply doesn't make sense. Apart from the fact that the panels are less efficient and would be in the wrong orientation, the idea that whole cities could use this foregoes the fact that buildings are in each others shadow.
Sunlight hitting buildings already generates heat, which translates to lower heating costs/energy consumption.
Also just to point out that the Burj Khalifa numbers are way off, since efficiency on fixed panels is hugely dependent on sun position and panel orientation. They're not the easiest or cheapest panels to clean, maintain or replace either.
I'd also like to see a breakdown of the costs and efficiency of panels with translucent overlays, and whether they make financial sense or even reduce overall carbon emissions.
I enjoyed this channel more than the b1m. Please come back
A $1 billion development at 435 Bourke Street, Melbourne will feature a solar skin.
lots of nay sayers about these windows. but if we compare them to a regular concrete slab or a regular window that returns no power, they are better. i'm sure the cost will drop as well. definitely a step forward.
You are prioritizing maximal space efficiency over maximal resource efficiency.
Once we run out of large unused areas on space, then this idea is an awesome one, until then making the exact same solar panel but putting it on a flat roof facing upwards would give you at least double the efficiency... we have more then enough space but not nearly as abundant resources so lets use the space and save the resources.
the BUMN tower in the new indonesian capital city Nusantara is also proposed to be this kind of skyscrapper, using solar panels as a facade
Not sure how I feel about the sponsor of the video being the subject area of the entire video. Kinda feels like a 7 minute advert. Edit: Please stop messaging me, thanks.
It is
Some of B1M videos are ads
In general, I think Fred does sponcon well. He puts as much effort in as the rest of his videos and by the end I do feel like I’ve learned about a new or interesting piece of tech.
It is, the claim about the possible energy production of the Burj Khalifa is ludicrously inaccurate... The video is nothing more than an infomercial for skyscraper developers looking for ways to greenwash their woefully inefficient projects.
Thks for the heads-up! I'll skip this one
Do you know why panels tend to be angled towards the sun like at 2:56 as opposed to lying flat on the ground?
Now imagine a vertical skyscraper where the panels are all pointing sideways ...and three quarters of them away from the sun.
That's why this will never be a practical thing.
Did you actually watch and listen to the whole video?
Was this channel ditched in favor of the B1M
The problem isn't the placement of new solar panels persé: it's the cabling them together and transforming that power into usable voltages, as well as means to storage that energy for when it's really needed - which, in temperate climates, is hardly ever when the sun's shining brightly...
Here in the Netherlands we see plenty projects fall flat on their faces because, after panels have been installed by east European workers, all the cabling (loads of copper!) has been nicked.
Police is forever guessing who did it, while most outside of said police force have a pretty good clue, but not allowed do anything about this theft.
Copper prices are rising, which means additional costs to be paid by the clients - not to mention all the extra security firms since police still hasn't got an inkling about the culprits. And even if they *did*, nobody there speaks polish anyway.
End result: less solar panels installed, and even less properly working.
On topic:
High-rise buildings clad with integrated solar panelling would be lovely, but it's usually shot down by architects, who don't like their "artwork" marred in any way shape or form, including actual use by the owners.
Architects and project developers are quite (i.e.: far too) familiar with city councils, and just do as they please, which is making vast amounts of money providing very little in the way of usable living accommodations.
No matter how high: it's either going to have solar panels on the roof (depending on that massive skylight for an architect's price winning atrium, of course), or none at all.
If every house had solar panals on the roof, would we even need power plants other than to store energy for use at night?
we'd have to do the calculation, it might free up the city or state household for something else yeah.
If it's enough to cover households and industry then we're good. It's just a large investment into long lasting infrastructures, so plans based on this would have to be on the scale of lifetimes. Like 40 or even 80 years.
Basically no. Elon Musk did a bit in a presentation several years ago asking how much land area we'd need to cover in solar farms to power the US. People think the answer is, 'All of Texas' but it's a relatively small patch and would easily fit on existing roofs. It may not be the most cost effective balance but it's absolutely viable, in every country on the planet. With undersea cables (which we already have in the UK) you can trade power with other countries during darkness as well. But we still need batteries. That's good though because batteries are useful for lots of scenarios and abundant solar will also have other uses (such as desalination and water purification).
Depends on where you live. You might need more wind vs solar.
Conflict of interest with a capital C, you don't talk freely about those that sponsor you, especially when they're the subject of the video becoming an ad for them.
I expected better in terms of transparency.
Not to mention a pipe system with turbines at interval sections with a fraction of the energy to pump water up and let free gravity do the rest of the work and the water going down those turbines to produce more energy.
This is great news! I do wonder whether the integration of solar panels makes them harder to recycle though 🤔
The main problem with this idea is that buildings in cities are surrounded by other buildings which will reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the facades of solar integrated buildings.
You could put solar on the side of buildings but you see a heavy drop in efficiency compared with panels angled towards the sun. This would make the panels so expensive that they may not even pay for themselves over their lifetime.
Also that estimate of the power that the Burj khalifa could produce was lazy in the extreme in its calculations as well.
Ignoring the angle of incidence is indeed lazy.
I live in Canada and didn't know about any of those buildings. Love to see it! Thanks, Tomorrow's Build. :)
It's about instead manufacturing a solar panel ascetically that is pleasing to the building as opposed to not. I think they should also put solar technology into ordinary roofing shingles that are used in a lot of housing construction. 🌞
1:08 Negligible, actually, when looking at "the big picture" of climate.
This is the future
So the angle counts for nothing?
Check. The Cockney. Easy now big fella. 😎
I want BIPV or similar for my rentals.
Solar panels on all new buildings should be mandatory - houses, factories, skyscrapers, etc.
Tall buildings that lost funding for whatever reason could be fitted with temporary solar systems until a final disposition is determined.
This sort of stuff is nothing more than green washing, the inclination of the panels is important if you want to optimize energy production... The orientation panels would always be suboptimal, they are hard to service and not to mention that due to their transparency these panels are already less efficient than regular ones.
Taller MEANS more efficient if you take into account how many people there are and how their growth impacts limited resources esoecially space.
Waiting for perovskite
Interesting video.
How much damage to a lake’s ecosystem does blocking all the light with a mass of solar panels do?
Their most built in artificial reservoirs that aren't ment to have life in them. And it's a win win when done this way because it cools the panels (which makes them more efficient) and reduces eveporation which helps with water scarcity.
So if another skyscraper is built next door and cast a shadow on the first skyscraper, those panels will generate much less power? As a skyscraper fan my nightmare would be that those shadows stop another skyscraper from getting built. Of course that other skyscraper could also have solar panels, but I think solar panels make much more sense on he roofs of giant flat industrial buildings.
What happened to this channel???
He makes videos still just on his bigger channel.
04:41 Midtown Office Tower, Tel Aviv, Israel
The claim about the possible energy production of the Burj Khalifa is ludicrously inaccurate... The video is nothing more than an infomercial for skyscraper developers looking for ways to greenwash their woefully inefficient projects.
no, it's literally an ad for a company that makes solar panel glass. HOW that gets used is different. There will likely be some greenwashing sure, but they can also be used in genuinely green buildings also, like a mass timber building for instance.
@@Fenthule transparent solar panels are an order of magnitude less efficient than regular ones, coupled with suboptimal inclination on most installations makes this sort of stuff completely useless beside as a marketing ploy... It's like solar roadways a fundamentally flawed idea.
@@Fenthule
Just putting the solar panels on a flat roof would be a better use of the resources that goes into this... like double efficiency kind of better...
🎉🎉
Buddy Christ got your back.
_"same_ number of inhabitants?" Ouch. Didn't Elon Musk do that for a sample of homes, just a few years ago? The roofs were attractive.
When talking facts about electric cars, the e-deniers always gloss over the fact that solar panels on every southern-facing structure will massively offset or even be net-positive for the charging demands of these cars which isn't that bad to begin with anyways (10kWh per day for most commuters)
So I had to check to be sure I had this right, but you do understand that in winter there is the least amount of sun light right?
And in summer the sun raises in the north east and sets in the north west...
So why would you place the solar panels on the south facing structures?
@@derpionderpson1424 In North America, the sun has a southern arc across the sky throughout the year
Yes, there's not as much light but you get a few extra panels to compensate for it and with the lower the temps, the more efficient they get
If you can get the batteries fully charged by 12pm every day, then you're doing good
@@chattphotos One of us clearly didn’t get our astronomy right in school because I’m 100% sure the sun will have a northern arc across the sky for the northern hemisphere (which North America is obviously part of) in the summer and a southern arc in winter.
When I look it up that is what I understand the info I find as saying as well so could you please tell me if you can find any online sources that you feel confirms what you’re saying so I can read them and maybe understand where we’re disagreeing.
@@derpionderpson1424 North of the tropic of cancer the track of the sun will always be to the south, not the north. The angle will vary but it will always be in the southern half of the sky. You are 100% wrong on this.
@@willythemailboy2 so as I thought it seems to be a matter of talking past each other.
At *NOON* the sun is in the south for most of the year on the northern hemisphere past the Tropic of Cancer, but in summer it goes from north east to that position at noon and to north west, meaning it spends a sizable chunk of the day in the northern part of the sky.
So yes I was partly wrong.
Relevant to having solar cells on the southern side of a building though, it still means the angle is not really that good as sun coming in parallel to the panels don’t exactly hit them a lot, therefor if only the sun at noon is when they can be hit, that’s going to be low efficiency.
These anti-skyscraper ideas are so stupid. Covering it with solar panels is just one of MANY ideas to make it sustainable.
It doesn't matter and it's obvious that it's dirtier than small buildings. But people forget that it is tall, so it can accommodate many times the usable space compared to small buildings, meaning we can have more green areas and fewer taller buildings to meet our needs.
Skyscrapers are not the problem, they are the solution!
Lack of urban planning, zoning, vision and building regulations are the problem!
Why you aren't talking about energy, solar pv output is directly connected to the tilt angle, it's a logarithmic scale with very sharp angle like 90 degrees of tilt, so, it's one of the most important natural barrier for that. Let's say for the 22.3 MW burj Khalifa,
It will get the sunlight for about 6 hours on average on each side, due to the tilt angle, mac generation is possible during the very early morning and very late evening, but the irradiance is lowest at those hour.
All these factors will make it about 10/15% of the same sized pv farm or a rooftop pv. And the payback time will be about 60/80 years. Financially, a very loss project.
This is an impressive tecnology, but icovering sky-scrapersnot be the most cost-effective solution. In Tallinn, Estonia a new office development of 3 12-story buildings is entirely powered by a hardware store next to it, which is covered with solar panels. Estonia isn't very sunny, which just shows that you really don't need to cover everything with solar panels, even if you want the development to be energy neutral.
Wooden skyscrapers are the best
Why videos so quite, it's impossible to hear a word.
What if skyscrapers were covered in bird poop?
There are also clear ones js
Edit he brought it up afterward i said this
Was hoping this was a cool video about solar buildings but it turned out to be an ad.
sponsored by the solar company that the video is about. so its an advert. usually youd have it on screen all the video, but i guess you dont want people to know they paid for you to make this about their rich ivestments....jesus
like those sneaky adverts you put in all the older videos about a digital copy of the building, even on prodjects that didnt use it. bewcause you were being paid to promote them every time.
The old videos promoted building information modeling software because The B1M company was a private social network for building information modeling users.
It turned out doing journalism on TH-cam was a more lucrative business plan than selling accounts on his website. Because then he can sell sponsored content like this.
You should clearly mark the entire video as an advertisement.
DA !!! I've had this idea for a decade, But nobody listens.,
Are the window panels transparent or translucent? I doubt people will like a window that they can’t see clearly out of.
This video isn't very detailed. I don't know what it looks like from the inside or how it works.
This entire video is literally just an ad. Completely glossed over a lot of the limitations of this idea and solar, because highlighting any of the drawbacks would upset the sponsor. I'm a bit disappointed. If this behavior continues I'll probably unsubscribe
Should be, ok STALIN.
Instead of "killing two birds with one stone", why not, "feeding two birds with one seed"?
Because one is possible and the other is not, and they're not rabid irrational leftists.
@@willythemailboy2 Wow. How to say, "I'm a total creep that women avoid" without quite saying, "I'm a total creep that women avoid."
@@cynthia_g_ I'm sorry you felt personally insulted by someone telling you the truth. That you responded the way you did proves that it was indeed the truth.
@@willythemailboy2 It's amusing when people mindlessly repeat what podcasters tell them to.
@@cynthia_g_ Yes, your mindless repeating of podcasters is indeed amusing.
so generally, solar power is awesome and we need more of it to be built fast, wherever possible. However, I don't think that it's worth it to build inefficient farms on the sides of skyscrapers (which are often overshadowed by other buildings in the neighborhood).
You will get more climate impact for your money as a developer if you instead use that money to buy some space on a factory roof and put up regular cheap Chinese panels.
You will get even more climate impact for your money if you donate to lobbying organizations such as the Clean Air Task Force.
Yup..
This video had very bad math to justify a silly idea.
Good to see others in favor of solar panels but not this idea.
And what about the service life of those solar panals?
0:30 I rather not kill any bird at all lol
Windows kill more birds! So lets not have windows 😮 Right.
Its probably already been thought about, but if it hasnt hopefully whoever reads this and develops it will credit it me one day. Why tf dont elevators going down generate electricity???
Please font forget me if you make billions 😂
This is an ad!!!! U think im stupid?! Unsubscribing
OK boomer 😂
@handl3_me boomer wouldnt be able to tell this is an ad
The whole thing is an ad. Unsubbed.
Was the additional energy cost to human beings factored into that study? Especially the cost to older and handicapped individuals who cannot ride everywhere on a bicycle like one of Mao’s millions of victims. Even the bicyclists will require more energy that I expect wasn’t factored into the equation.
Meta skysrapa. I know for a fact you can say your r's. Atall wtf.
If we didn't use so much power it wouldn't be an issue. Crypto mining, data centres, electric cars, electric everything, people need to realise that a simpler life would solve a lot of problems.
This is ridiculous
Little late for that bud.
Simply not true. A "simpler life" means a much more difficult one. I know people who bought into that lie, bought land and tried to become homesteaders. You know what things they missed the most? conveniences like laundry machines, water pumps, and air conditioning. We SAY "a simple life is better" but most people who go back to live that way quickly hate it. I do agree crypto miners is a completely f*cking useless thing we spend money on, but the blockchain could have big uses. I'd love to see a system in place using the blockchain to get rid of corruption and make money in a fun transparent, so you can track the money flowing out of a given fund pool to where it goes and how it was spent. THAT would be an amazing use of the blockchain. What we need is large scale green power production. Things like aqueous zinc ion batteries to stabilize the solar panels/wind turbines, and geothermal power likely to be unlocked with Quaise's revolutionary drilling bit to drill down deep and let us use the earth's heat to flash water to steam for power, those are two massive drivers for a more green future that still has all the modern niceties we've grown accustomed to.
@@canismajoris6733 good comment. Well presented arguement you pose. 🤔
@@scottlauren3145so we should just give up? It's never too late to change your ways.