See-Through Plastic Batteries
From the Sci-Fi channel's Tech Blog (http://blog.scifi.com/tech/):

Apparently, some really smart folks over in Japan have come up with a way to make a transparent plastic battery, which is allegedly fast charging, long lasting, low leakage loss, etc., etc., etc.

But this isn't your normal rechargeable battery that you have to replace in a year or two — the flexible plastic has been specially treated to retain its charge over much longer periods of time. The three scientists who developed the polymer claim it has a life exceeding 1,000 rechargings. Even more impressive is the claim the battery can reach full charge in only a minute.
This is all still quite experimental, of course, but there you go.


Full article (http://blog.scifi.com/tech/archives/2007/03/25/too_good_to_be.html)

Well, maybe this could solve all our Iliad problems?
Just coat that nice and big screen with these batteries and you're ready to go for 21+ hours...

Sorry...I just couldn't resist... ;)

Electric cars with their batteries in the windshield and windows? And all our house windows could store what's produced from the roof panels.
Nice do dream once in a while. In the mean time I'll care to my MS Windows crap storage. :laugh4:

I read somewhere that what prevented technology to go much further is the battery size. Which that kind of battery, a roll-up polymer e-ink newspaper is nearer to reality...

Thinking a little more about it, I don't think it would be good for our current eink displays to add an other thickness. They already suffer from a lack of contrast due to the concept itself of the 'grids' that orient the colo(u)red particles. Adding an other layer over would further the loss of transparency however transparent this battery system may be. Do a test with ordinary glass, just pile panels atop one an other and compare light coming through. Plastics are even worse.

But they would work wonders on backlit displays. :smart:

I read somewhere that what prevented technology to go much further is the battery size. Which that kind of battery, a roll-up polymer e-ink newspaper is nearer to reality...

Wired ? They had a whole article about this point.

...the flexible plastic has been specially treated to retain its charge over much longer periods of time...
And there it is again... the word "flexible" which already almost sounds like a buzz word to me. Why is that we can only read about flexible but don't experience it yet?

Ooooo, I hadn't even thought about the implications of a roll-up battery on portable electronics! They could be ... significant. When the battery is just a layer (or layers) between other components in the case, things could get very interesting.


As for putting the battery in front of the screen, yvanleterrible, I meant that tongue-in-cheek as an attempt at an eye-catching headline, not necessarily as a literal suggestion. Although if an application came along where it made sense to do it (and I agree that e-ink isn't one, not at the moment, anyway), then more power to 'em. Until then, I think the battery can stay safely out of site, even if did happen to be transparent. :nice:

Hey! Watches would be a good application!

@TadW
Be flexible man! Time is! :laugh4:

I'd think that watches could be an excellent application. :)

I think the size and flexibility are more interesting than the transparency. How many items need to be completely transparent? Most have some part that can be opaque without hindering the functionality of the item in any way. But the other characteristics of this battery technology (especially charge time and capacity) are very attractive.

I don't really see the big whoop about transparency either, unless somehow the battery can become the display (limiting the number of layers), or if the transparent layer can absorb energy like a solar cell. Solar cell windows are being researched now... if they could store their own power...

However, flexible batteries can mean power in many more configurations, and that sounds great.

Hm. The main point of windows is to pass light. The main point of solar cells is to capture energy in the form of light. Seems like a basic purpose mismatch here... though I know there are many occasions in which we want windows to block some light, so I assume that's the effect they're going for.

That being said, I still don't see the advantage to having the battery in the same layer. Windows have frames, after all. But if the transparency could allow the battery to be integrated with the display, yes, I could see that this could make units thinner and lighter, and possibly less expensive to manufacture (though I somehow doubt it!)

Any component that can do double duty performs a weight and space savings. Of course it is a capital feature of miniaturisation.
In bigger projects it will save on wiring by bringing power source closer to energy storage. In this case I would also see some insulation values since plastics in general beat glass in this respect.
In automotive applications there would be weight savings because again of double duties but the main feature still is to make electric cars available; a reluctance forced upon us by petroleum consortiums.
The actual energy storage concepts of today still use as a base the dreaded lead/acid cell. How backwards. This new format of storage, if keeps to its promises, will drastically improve many aspects of energy consumption.
Of course, as of now, we know too few of the economic and practical aspects of this concept. We will have to know of environmental, durability, costs, effectiveness, transparency and diffraction, toxicity and availability factors just to decide how and where to use this promising concept.
Looking at it closely I can not with all the fiction I've read, remember an occurence of such features. It borders on genius. Are we so indifferent or blind to notice?
I look forward to the new devices this concept will release from fiction to reality.

For me, the bar on electric cars has been range and recharge time. I don't see much point in a car that can only go, say 200 miles and then needs 12 hours to re-charge -- a 400 mile trip would take a full day longer than it does now! Fortunately, there seem to be a lot of advancements in the battery realm lately, as yvanleterrible alludes to: better capacity, ridiculously short charge times -- the practical reality is getting closer. Of course, I'll likely run up against price as a hurdle next. :wink:

The only blind spot most folks seem to have with e-cars is that the electricity still has to be generated at some point, which is still mostly a fossil fuel driven operation, so you just move the 'emissions' from the car itself, to the generation plant. :shrug: Additionally, you have efficiency losses at all four points of the chain (generation, transmission, charging, and actual use), so e-cars still have a bit to overcome before they pass the ICE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine) on efficiency.

However, I've been keeping a gimlet gaze on these folks (http://www.powerchips.gi/) who are working on Quantum Electron Tunneling devices that should get conversion 70-80% efficiency (compared to ~40% for conventional generation facilities). As I recall, they've taken out a patent for a 'Thermionic Car' that would use their devices to convert heat -- from the burning of whatever fuel (pure ethanol, anyone?) -- directly to electricity (at ~75% efficiency, thank you) to power the car's electric motors.

I wants some of these things. http://www.sims99.com/forum/images/smilies/y_drool.gif I has plans for them, I does. :grin:

The basic idea behind e-cars is not a use such as an all around SUV. It is a specific purpose short haul vehicle, the type of commute we do the most. I'd say that to most people less than 1% of their trips is over the 150mile range of an e-vehicle charge. Just like the offroad trips is less than 1% for SUVs. Do this simple observation and a choice is pretty clear. As I've said before, an e-car is a combo with a solar carport, where as soon as the car enters it begins charging. No operation necessary. Such a car has almost no maintenance to be done to it. Even with a higher sticker price it will be cheaper in the long run. If it's the stop light race that interests you, e-cars set most acceleration records at some point.

If you really need a specific type of vehicle for an outing of some kind, rent it. It is cheaper and greener in the longrun. For basic a_b commutes E is better.

Or a bicycle. :D

Multiuse components reduce weight and expense... unless they add volume and/or complexity. Adding another layer to a display makes the display more complex to produce and possibly thicker/more fragile, as well. Adding a layer to a window reduces transparency of the window, I'm sure. But all of this could be negated by the idea of shortening the distance between power and use, I agree.

Ethanol will only be a viable fuel option in my mind when it is produced from something that requires no petroleum-based fertilizers and minimal power to harvest and process.

Any component that can do double duty performs a weight and space savings....
The actual energy storage concepts of today still use as a base the dreaded lead/acid cell. How backwards. This new format of storage, if keeps to its promises, will drastically improve many aspects of energy consumption.

Right. So, take this ever-so-thin battery, and create flexible layers of them that can be slipped into every crevasse of a car, to store power, and weigh less than lead-acid batteries. If layers of them can sit against or even replace the car's insulation, you'll have potentially hundreds of square feet of batteries.

Ethanol will only be a viable fuel option in my mind when it is produced from something that requires no petroleum-based fertilizers and minimal power to harvest and process.Now that's a factor I hadn't even considered, neko, the energy budget to grow, harvest and produce the stuff.

The technology already exists for highly efficient commuter cars without the need/extra cost for hybrids and the such. This (http://www.loremo.com/index_en.php) project is a prime example. I doubt the 20HP version would sell well in the states, but the 50Hp version would suit me just fine, and still theoretically get around 100MPG; quick calc in my head.

Ethanol right now is just a political gimmick. Bush meets again with the Big 3 (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070326/UPDATE/703260420/1148/rss25)

It costs automakers $50 extra to make a car able to use "flex-fuel". They get a credit towards meeting fuel standards, even though right now ethanol replaces about 1% of gas in parts of this country; the assumption is 50% when they're given the credit if I remember correctly.

It should be interesting what this new Supreme Court ruling about the EPA & gas mileage brings about.

I found it interesting when I learned that Henry Ford's original design ran on either gasoline or ethanol, and that he favored the ethanol. I also seem to remember reading somewhere that a lot of the racing cars run on ethanol, but I'm not real clear on that one. :shrug:

More info about the inefficiencies of ethanol here: http://healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329132436.htm

The US government contests these analyses. An overview of the factors involved is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel_energy_balance

Improvements in the fermentation process which allow ethanol to be produced from cellulose, rather than food components like starch and sugar, may tip the balance. But for now, I think conservation and improved efficiency are a better short-term bet. There are an awful lot of hungry people in this world. I'm not keen on a system that turns food into energy.

Medium term, I'd like to think this might work:
http://www.mindfully.org/Energy/2003/Anything-Into-Oil1may03.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization

Rudolf Diesel thought that diesel fuel based on soybean oil was the way to go.

Yeah. Ethanol was favored but gasoline became king since it was much cheaper, and then they figured out putting lead in it greatly improved performance.

Heh. I was put through a loop that NASCAR still uses leaded fuel; converting to a lead free version sometime next year.

Thermal depolymerization. Hey. Would this make soylent fuel a possibility? I can imagine the bumper stickers now; My car runs on people.

You mean like the stuff these folks (http://www.changingworldtech.com/) are working on, sea2stars? I've been pretty excited about it for some time now. :nice:

Sweet. Thanks for that link!

A warning note to all. In the quest for alternative energy use we have to beware of one thing. If a solution is proposed by a car manufacturer, an oil company or even the government, IT IS NOT NECESSARILY GREEN.

Those entities are seeking to preserve status quo. Meaning THEIR industries, infrastructures and economy. Being ecofriendly comes third.

If cars were electric they'd lose maintenance services.
If cars were electric they'd lose car obsolescense replacement opportunity.
If cars were electric they'd lose fuel sales, refining and storage fees.
If cars were electric they'd lose LOTS of money.
If cars were electric they'd lose opportunity for war and fear induced masses control.

When they propose ethanol, biofuels, natural gas and hydrogen they keep all above alive.

The electric car that uses solar energy uses the only free energy, the only one that comes from outside the planet. It has low maintenance and if built with appropriate materials, can last half a million miles easily. Engineering is simple and requires less than a third of the parts necessary for an ICE powered car. Coupled to small solar stations, it costs next to nothing in fuel use. There is no reason to go to war to maintain solar energy provision.

The first existing car was electric, it was before gas.

This debate can not exist because it has been forbidden by money and power.

I've been wanting an ecar since 1973 when the first (artificial) petroleum shortage shook economy. In 2001 there was The Electric Car Symposium in Montréal. They rented the Gilles Villeneuve race track and allowed everyone with a driving permit to try a selection of 8 different cars made by Toyota, Nissan, GM, Ford and Hydro Québec. I tried four of them. I was in love....

Sorry about all of this, I had to say it.

yvan, I'm with you on the advantages of the electric car, particularly when charged by solar power. I just wanted to point out, for completeness' sake, that any biofuel is in effect a solar fuel, as the energy stored in the hydrocarbons or whatever by the plants comes from the sun (and recently, as opposed to fossil hydrocarbons). The issue is efficiency. Existing solar cells need improvements, batteries need improvements... but biofuels aren't necessarily all that efficient, either, in terms of how much solar energy they make available for later use, even if using a very efficient engine (which the internal combustion engine is not).

Long-term, hydrogen fusion still seems like a really good idea, as we've got plenty of hydrogen and the byproducts are clean. But that's been coming "real soon now" for... well... even longer than stylus calibration on the iLiad. ;)

NatCh, yes, that's the same group as referenced in the link I posted. I just figured I might as well post a link to a marginally independent review rather than going straight to the company.

Hm... "This vehicle runs on (soylent) green power..." :D

Hm... "This vehicle runs on (soylent) green power..." :D
:laugh4: Good one. Sometimes I have the impression that foods are that way now too. Have you seen the movie? 30 years later it's still as good.

Bio fuels are carbon based, not newly added like fossil fuels, but added. Before we use them we have a good cleening up to do. Using them now is just as bad because of the vehicles we run.

BTW there is a good documentary that was done last year.
"Who Killed The Electric Car"

I've been wanting an ecar since 1973 when the first (artificial) petroleum shortage shook economy.

I remember an Earth Day festival on the Mall in Washington DC around 1976 or 77. Friends of mine and I saw at least half a dozen fully electric cars, at least one by GM, and the others by independents or little-known foreign car makers. I remember thinking at the time, "By 2000, I'll be able to buy an electric car!"

In 2000, I needed a car. The Honda electric was tiny and expensive, the Toyota electric even moreso, the GM electric had apparently been consumed by the desert, and I ended up buying a low-cost Korean car that got the same MPG as the Datsun my mother had bought 15 years previous, and cost me $4,000 less than the Honda.

As much as I like my car, I was incredibly disappointed that my electric choices were so bad. I'm still hoping that someone works out a way to retrofit my car with an electric plant someday (when the current engine runs out of warranty, or just becomes too old or expensive to run). In fact, if I had any experience with cars, I'd be actively pursuing a retrofit business as a career move.

Steve,

Make magazine ran an article on converting your own car to electricity in Vol 5. It looked doable, even to a non-electrician like myself. You can subscribe to the digital edition now and get the archives for free. :D http://www.makezine.com (though as I type this, something seems to be not quite right with their server).

yvan, all carbon fuels put CO2 into the atmosphere, but growing plants for biofuels takes it out again. That's how the energy is stored. Remember, plants make sugars as a food source by using the energy in sunlight to break up CO2 and recombine it, ready to be combined again with oxygen to release the energy stored in the sugar. Plant sugars are nature's battery for solar energy. Alcohol fuels (including ethanol) derived from plant sugars harnesses yeast to convert the sugar to a form human machinery can more readily use for energy-- though I still have a problem with converting sugar/food into fuel. However, plants also convert CO2 into cellulose for structural purposes, and that can also be converted to human-usable energy, either by burning, as with wood, or by fermenting to methanol. Biodiesel uses fats created by plants to store energy, which again use CO2 from the atmosphere.

The remaining problems are efficiency (do we design engines to use as much as possible of the solar energy stored in the biofuels?) and clean burn, which are related issues. Alcohol burning at perfect efficiency should produce only water vapor and CO2 - no more CO2 than was removed from the atmosphere to produce the alcohol in the first place. But incomplete/inefficient burn can result in CO (carbon monoxide, a poison), NO (nitrous oxide), O3 (ozone), and soot (carbon particulates). All of these are health hazards to most animal life.

Sorry for the lecture-- I guess I've spent too much time thinking about this lately....

Steve,

Make magazine ran an article on converting your own car to electricity in Vol 5. It looked doable, even to a non-electrician like myself. You can subscribe to the digital edition now and get the archives for free. :D http://www.makezine.com (though as I type this, something seems to be not quite right with their server).

Comment There is a place that converts cars to electric but a conversion costs from 15 to 40 grand.

yvan, all carbon fuels put CO2 into the atmosphere, but growing plants for biofuels takes it out again. That's how the energy is stored. Remember, plants make sugars as a food source by using the energy in sunlight to break up CO2 and recombine it, ready to be combined again with oxygen to release the energy stored in the sugar. Plant sugars are nature's battery for solar energy. Alcohol fuels (including ethanol) derived from plant sugars harnesses yeast to convert the sugar to a form human machinery can more readily use for energy-- though I still have a problem with converting sugar/food into fuel. However, plants also convert CO2 into cellulose for structural purposes, and that can also be converted to human-usable energy, either by burning, as with wood, or by fermenting to methanol. Biodiesel uses fats created by plants to store energy, which again use CO2 from the atmosphere.

Comment The biggest problem I see is that those fuels will for a long while be harvested with petroleum guzzling machinery. The second is that if all petrofuel was replaced now with biofuel, there wouldn't be anything left to eat in a couple of years. And third all crops dedicated to this type of fueling is drastically depleting agricultural quality of the soils they grow in.

The remaining problems are efficiency (do we design engines to use as much as possible of the solar energy stored in the biofuels?) and clean burn, which are related issues. Alcohol burning at perfect efficiency should produce only water vapor and CO2 - no more CO2 than was removed from the atmosphere to produce the alcohol in the first place. But incomplete/inefficient burn can result in CO (carbon monoxide, a poison), NO (nitrous oxide), O3 (ozone), and soot (carbon particulates). All of these are health hazards to most animal life.

Comment It is proven that an unmaintained or unproperly cared for alcohol burning vehicle will pollute more than a petrofueled one. They have been tested on since WW2.

Sorry for the lecture-- I guess I've spent too much time thinking about this lately....
No don't be sorry! I applaude your quest for info on the subjects. It is the second step that a growing consciousness must reach to attain the majority of individuals necessary to start a positive motion.

To maintain the actual vehicle park, the only fuel acceptable is Hydrogen. Unfortunately a full tank will get you only 125miles. There is also a storage problem that is not easily fixed, that of the gas permeating through its confinement. Hydrogen is one of the smallest particles and it's the toughest to keep. You lose about 3% a week in the best cases. But the most awful thing I've heard from manufacturers is that they plan to extract the hydrogen from......petroleum!!! :(

I regret having monopolized this thread so far for a subject near to me and totally 'wrongly blogged'. As a last take on this subject I would like to suggest you take further information in three places.

First, as mentioned before, rent the movie documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car" if only for the good music! :laugh4:
http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com/

Second go to the site http://www.thewatt.com/ where they have an excellent podcast on energy, where every episode is available.

And third, http://www.homepower.com/resources/links.cfm Home Power magazine where they have the best links page I know of.

Thanks for being patient with me. :)
Especially you NatCh!

Hey, I just start 'em, after that they take a life of their own! :wink:

The biggest problem I see is that those fuels will for a long while be harvested with petroleum guzzling machinery. The second is that if all petrofuel was replaced now with biofuel, there wouldn't be anything left to eat in a couple of years. And third all crops dedicated to this type of fueling is drastically depleting agricultural quality of the soils they grow in.
I thought the point of switchgrass and other cellulosic fermentation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol) crops was that they were non-food crops and don't deplete the soil as much as crops like corn? I would definitely oppose using corn to create any kind of fuel, given the environmental damage it does already. (I oppose feeding it to cattle to fatten them before slaughter, as well, but that's even further off topic than we already are. ;) ) But as you pointed out in your second comment, IC engines running on ethanol go "out of tune" worse than petrol burning engines. (Though I wonder if that would also be true for Stirling engines?)

To maintain the actual vehicle park, the only fuel acceptable is Hydrogen. Unfortunately a full tank will get you only 125miles. There is also a storage problem that is not easily fixed, that of the gas permeating through its confinement. Hydrogen is one of the smallest particles and it's the toughest to keep. You lose about 3% a week in the best cases. But the most awful thing I've heard from manufacturers is that they plan to extract the hydrogen from......petroleum!!! :(
Now that's just plain silly... so silly that I believe you. :(

I remember reading a number of years ago that there was some hope of using interstitial hydrides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydride) as a relatively stable means of storing hydrogen, but I just checked and apparently the best found still only accept up to 2% of their mass in hydrogen, apparently not enough (even though hydrogen is so light).

I found a link of my own to share: http://grist.org/news/maindish/2006/12/04/montenegro/ The comments are also worth reading.

But this whole discussion about replacements for petrol is because so far it's the most portable high-density fuel source we know of. So, back to batteries. Yes, let's hope they can produce lots and lots of extremely thin film organic polymer batteries (transparent or not) and cram them into all the nooks and crannies of cars and other energy hungry devices we humans seem to depend on.

See, we're back on topic again! :)

Yup, they want to distill the hydrogen out of natural gas, propane, etc. Which is just plain silly, as you'd probably end up with at least as much 'emission' as just burning the stuff, and lose energy in the transformation. (sigh)

I pointed this out a number of places (had charts and everything) when they started putting ethanol in the gasoline, but everyone was too caught up in Doing Something to be bothered with the piddlin' detail that the Something they were Doing was in fact counter-productive: until the reduction in emissions exceeds the decrease in efficiency, you get more pollution per mile even though it's less pollution per gallon. Last time I checked, work didn't move closer to home just 'cause it took more fuel to get there. It's the same sort of short-sightedness a lot of the more vocal (and less thoughtful) 'environmental activists' fall into. :shrug:

Say! what's the best type of battery these days?

What are they working on in the forefront?

@neko The site you proposed is not so bad, considering the partisanry! :)

Say! what's the best type of battery these days?Ulp! Now there's a question I wouldn't presume to get within ten feet of answering. I can only say that I, myself, avoid NiCd batteries like the plague they are, and try to go with NiMh for 'standard' sizes (like AA), or LIon for 'built in' stuff -- and those are base on other folks (perceived) expertise/advice as to what's going to give the best performance and last longest before wearing out. Beyond that I claim no expertise at all. :rolleyes5

Hrmm.. Nissan, and possibly another automaker, plan on releasing a luxury hybrid with lithium-ion batteries around the end of 2011. Although with the spate of issues inherent with the technology (production difficulties, contamination, heat) I wonder how they plan to address them; problems with laptops are one thing. Who know what issues could develop with these transparent batteries once you start to layer them, or increase their mass, etc.

Better off to stick with more natural (http://www.tomballhatchet.com/hamstershredder.html) power sources.

:laugh4: Make it rice paper with flavored oil inks and everything could be composted too. :laugh4:

As it is with so many other things, the key to efficiency is combining the right technologies in the right ways. Existing vehicle engines aren't purely petroleum-based, remember, they combine IC engines with batteries, manually-manipulated pieces and electric motors for some functions (like starting the IC engine).

A future car should encompass more efficient less polluting drive engines... those should be electric. It needs to store cleaner fuel... that should be batteries, not fuel tanks. It needs to replenish that energy... there are charging stations, wide-spectrum solar cells embedded in the vehicle's body, regenerative braking, even SMALL fuel-burning engines that only run in their most efficient mode to charge the drive engine's batteries.

A combination of these technologies could make for much more efficient and cleaner-running vehicles. Much of this technology is available today, and the rest is already well under development.

Most frustrating part Steve is that all this has been available for 30+years!!!

Agreed. More than once I've wished to live in southern California, where a lot of the US-based auto hacking and electric car experimentation goes on, to see whether I might someday take advantage of it.

Say! what's the best type of battery these days?

What are they working on in the forefront?

@neko The site you proposed is not so bad, considering the partisanry! :)What ever happened to the Super Flywheel car from Popular Science, August 1970.

There was a nice bitty about solar on PBS' Nova yesterday. Anyone see it?
My favorite was solar paint.

Yeah. Titanium dioxide nano paint. Multi junction solar panels seem to be the most promising; smaller and allowing a wider spectrum of light to be be converted into energy versus heat.

I missed the Nova show (I don't watch TV, for the most part). But how about the Walmart plan to outfit something like 1/3 of its stores with solar power? http://news.com.com/Wal-Mart+readies+large-scale+move+into+solar+power/2100-11395_3-6146851.html If this goes through, I understand it will outstrip the current production capacity for solar panels, which could cause a substantial investment in that industry.

I missed the Nova show (I don't watch TV, for the most part). But how about the Walmart plan to outfit something like 1/3 of its stores with solar power? http://news.com.com/Wal-Mart+readies+large-scale+move+into+solar+power/2100-11395_3-6146851.html If this goes through, I understand it will outstrip the current production capacity for solar panels, which could cause a substantial investment in that industry.
Oh! do try to look for it. Just the part on German manufacturing is worth it. You might find info on the PBS site.

While reflecting on the actual thread :laugh4: I got this idea.

If this transparent battery is not too 'heat and UV sensitive', it could be overlaid on PV cells directly!!! :scholar:

I missed the Nova show (I don't watch TV, for the most part). But how about the Walmart plan to outfit something like 1/3 of its stores with solar power? http://news.com.com/Wal-Mart+readies+large-scale+move+into+solar+power/2100-11395_3-6146851.html If this goes through, I understand it will outstrip the current production capacity for solar panels, which could cause a substantial investment in that industry.

Presently Honda, which claims to have come up with a very efficient mass-produceable solar cell, is building a plant (I should say, rebuilding one of their existing auto plants) to build said panels. If they work, and once Honda decides it is ready to move on past Japanese clients, Wal-Mart will probably be their biggest customer.