Solar iPhone? Solar iPod? Solar Macbook?

It would be good to see Apple leverage it's might towards giving back to the environment; it's taken for too long and would set a good example to lesser electronics companies.

It totally makes sense to have hand-helds solar powered. I could just chuck it in the sunny spot on my car seat and bam - powered up. :-)

This sort of thing is far from green oriented although it may be marketed that way. Its purpose would be to merely extend the laptops battery life by maybe 20 to 30 mins (maybe longer in future low powered laptops).

But this thing will never give back the energy that it took to make. Even the best solar cells take appoximately 5 YEARS OF FULL SUNLIGHT to become energy neutral.

Point 1: No one is going to leave their laptop in full sunlight all day every day. Point 2: Laptops have a lifespan of less than 10 years.

Conclusion: These laptops will be worse for the enviroment than their equivalent non solar versions.

I think if they can pull this off, that they could be a huge influence on people being a little more eco-friendly

If they make the solar cells at the same time as the LCD, they could probably cut WAY down on energy.. Making a LCD and a solar panel isn't that different, so I'm pretty sure making both at th same time would be smart and might address what one commenter said above.

@ "Via our friend Joel Johnson at BoingBoing, we learn that Apple has applied for a very intriguing patent."

It's so weird to hear that what the world knew a whole day before this post the much hyped TREEHUGGER got to know it from one of their friends at another blog and that too very very late.. its such a big news and we expected treehugger to be a bit fast on to it.

Check how many people posted this news without having friends in other blogs

http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=solar+iphone&as_maxm=5&as_miny=2008&as_maxy=2008&as_minm=5&as_mind=26&as_maxd=27&as_drrb=b&ctz=-330&c1cr=5%2F26%2F2008&c2cr=5%2F27%2F2008&btnD=Go

People need to realise that at the core of all presently viable solar pv technology is silicon. Silicon requires 1700degC to be produced. Ever tried to heat anything to this temperature. It takes a damn lot of energy to do this. I cant think of any common steps between the processes of producing solar cells and lcd screens apart from the final assembly steps which are INSIGNIFICANT.

I think Casio has watches based on the same principle, with a solar cell behind the LCD. Very efficient apparently (but a watch needs very little power).

I agree with Maca's comments above - these devices will in fact be worse for the environment as they won't earn back the additional embedded energy required to make the solar cells in the first place.
Also, by leaving elecronic devices in the sun, it shortens their shelf-life (particularly the battery's shelf life) - if people start replacing their iPods every 2 years instead of every 4, it will be much worse for the environment.

A better solution would be to make new gadgets out of recycled old ones, & by using more recycleable materials in their manufacture.

Also, a better solar option would be to have a separate plug-in solar charger that can charge numerous gadgets (whilst they can sit out of the sun) and won't need to be turfed when the gadget dies.

Per the above polar discussion on good vs bad for environment. No one seems to have included the thought that lightweight, inexpensive non-silicon based solar photovoltaic thin films are already available in prototype quantities, and more thin film SPV offerings are one the way.

Moreover, the commenters above assume that they know the purpose of the patent. Do they really?

Off the top of my head I can think of several prospective uses that do not involve battery charging, per se.

Finally, if we look at the trajectory of voltage requirements in portable electronics devices, it has been a steady down trend since roughly 1990. Look at where the Airbook is headed once lower power demanding OLED screens become cost effective.

Isn't thin-film solar *not* silicon based?

This thread is about what is better- to create a solar charger vs. how much energy it takes to make it.

I think it is important to consider human nature. Poeple who never had considered any kind of solar power/renewable power will get a taste for it. Knowing Apple, they will create some slick utility that tells you how much power you have created from solar. It would create curiosity- " If I can do this on my laptop, why not my house? i winder where my power is coming from now?"

While I agree that it takes a load of power to make solar cells, even if this only results in the interest of the masses in renewable power, in the long run it would be a victory for environmentalists.

Hey its better than laptops burning oil...

The only thin film solar cell technology other than silicon that has potential (its energy payback time is less than its lifespan) is Cadmium telluride.

Cadmium is on the list of banned substances since RoHS (Restriction of Hazardous Substances) has been implemented due to its extreme toxitity. It has been demonstrated to be safe in this particular application but then again so has nuclear power and you lot certainly aint jumping on that bandwagon.

But unless extreme advances are made in either silicon or CdTe I cant see this application ever being energy positive. If its not energy positive its not better for the enviroment. Its worse.

I totally agree that it is likely to create significant interest in solar energy and is also likely to drive down the costs of whatever solar technology they implement for other applications.

I also agree that this is now a good thing because modern solar cells are now energy positive (eventually). But people need to be wary what they are buying when it comes to solar cells because many of the old style solar cells will never produce the energy that went into making them. Most consumer grade solar cells you see on people roofs at the moment are of this type.

The problem is that these people think that they are doing a great service to the enviroment when they have actually done the opposite. This problem also seems to exist with many other things on the "green" hype machine. If the marketting campaign tells you you are being good to the enviroment you should always be very suspicious.

Nokia already beat them.

how do we know this is even apple's sheet?

"how do we know this is even apple's sheet?"

Follow the source link.

Maca: You're a little short-sighted... All consumer (and industrial) goods have an energy cost significantly larger than the savings. What is great about a solar cell is they last virtually forever. What would be the bad thing about everyone buying a bunch of solar cells that will be in service for nearly a century and would result in perhaps the closing of a few powerplants (huge CO2 savings) or at the very least diminish the need for future power plants. By the way "silicon" has a less impressive name: Glass. Glass is one of the most timeless materials made by man. Ceramics and glass products are far superior in spite of their high initial energy cost because they last literally forever. Ever see some 6000 year old pottery? Me too. In any case, I'd rather expend some energy for a product that lasts a lifetime than expend slightly less for a product with a lifecycle of 2-3 years.

This has nothing to do with being green like every eco freak these says would like. it has to do with being inventive and prolonging the life. Not everyone that puts solar on their roofs and drives a hybrid does it to save the environment. They do it to Save money.

"This sort of thing is far from green oriented although it may be marketed that way. Its purpose would be to merely extend the laptops battery life by maybe 20 to 30 mins (maybe longer in future low powered laptops).

But this thing will never give back the energy that it took to make. Even the best solar cells take appoximately 5 YEARS OF FULL SUNLIGHT to become energy neutral.

Point 1: No one is going to leave their laptop in full sunlight all day every day. Point 2: Laptops have a lifespan of less than 10 years.

Conclusion: These laptops will be worse for the enviroment than their equivalent non solar versions."

Who says it's for a laptop???? Cell phone perhaps? And still, it's a start. Quit bashing.....

Of course Apple's closed off business model will mean that it will definitely NOT be cross compatible solar charging for anything but themselves. They really need to open up.