- Volvo Leading the Hybrid Bus Highway
- Lemnis Lighting’s “Buy One, Give One” Holiday Promotion Brings Solar LED Lighting to Rural Zambians
- SCHOTT Solar Achieves Nearly 20% PV Efficiency Using New Fabrication Technology
- Discovery Could Cheaply Provide Significant Solar Cell Efficiency Boost
- How Whac-A-Gas Ruins Everything and Why Only Carbon Pricing Can Fix It
Posted: 21 Dec 2011 06:09 AM PST
With congested cities that continue to grow, more and more cities are looking towards public transportation as a way to move people around and get people not using cars.
However, despite the benefits of public transportation, many public transit buses still run on good old fossil fuel diesel. With carbon emissions reaching record highs, one wonders if public buses running completely on fossil fuels and wasting energy is efficient.
Enter Swedish automotive company Volvo, which has been getting into the clean tech game in a big way by developing hybrid buses.
Anders Kroon, technical official with Volvo, and his team began to work on the concept of buses that would be more sustainable. Call them hybrid buses. Hybrid buses use a combination of an internal combustion engine, along with an electric engine, which can cut the amount of fossil fuel energy used by the bus.
Volvo’s process to create a superb hybrid bus took ten years, which involved a team that discussed how the technology would be developed.
When all was done, Volvo’s 7700 model was created. Over 300 of these buses have been shipped all over the world, from Brazil to Europe (including London), as demand has been brisk.
The buses cut carbon emissions by 50%, while saving on fuel by 34%, 7% more then the nearest competitor in the hybrid bus market.
Part of the reason for the massive cut in carbon emissions and fuel savings is from the way the team designed the bus.
The price for Volvo’s hybrid buses are more costly then regular buses. However, the energy savings make up for those costs with a full return on the investment within 5 to 7 years, according to sources from Volvo.
Only time will tell, with the success Volvo has had with its hybrid buses, if other companies will get more involved and build them. Only time will tell, also, when other regions of the world and other cities decide to think in long-term savings by investing in hybrids.
What do you think about hybrid buses and their potential for moving people in cities?
Photo Credit: Volvo Group
Posted: 21 Dec 2011 02:55 AM PST
For profit and non-profit companies from around the world have zeroed in on Africa, taking advantage of innovative renewable energy and digital light-emitting diode (LED) lighting technology to better the lives of locals while also helping reduce carbon dioxide emissions and deforestation.
San Francisco's Lemnis Lighting is one socially and environmentally focused LED lighting technology company doing just that. All this month, Lemnis is offering a charitable holiday season twist on traditional “buy one, get one” promotions. Dubbed “buy one, give one,” Lemnis is matching every US purchase of its Pharox Solar Kits with a donation to Empowered by Light, a new nonprofit foundation that is delivering renewable energy lighting to schools in rural communities in Africa that do not have access to electricity.
Pharox Solar Kits normally sell at a manufacturer’s suggested retail price of $39.95 each. For the holiday season “buy one, give one” promotion, two can be purchased for $49.95, with Lemnis shipping the second directly to Powered by Light for use in its Solar: Zambia program, according to a Dec. 20 news release.
Pharox Solar Kit Delivers Energy Efficient, Sustainable Lighting to Rural Africans
Pharox Solar Kits come with a 1.5-watt solar panel, a spherical LED lamp with a built-in USB port and charger. The solar panel can be repositioned easily and is able to fully charge the kit’s battery within eight hours. The LED lamp can then provide lighting for anywhere between eight and 45 hours depending on which of three settings is used. At its highest setting, it can light up a 30-square foot area.
Lacking access to grid power, Empowered by Light and other organizations working in Africa have zeroed in on locals’ heavy reliance on charcoal and kerosene fuel for cooking and lighting, inefficient practices that lead to deforestation and carbon dioxide emissions, as well as threats to health and safety.
A recent UN report stated that a rural African family burns around 60 liters of kerosene a year to light their homes, Lemnis points out. “The average kerosene lamp in Africa spews a ton of CO2 in less than 10 years. Solar lighting can replace kerosene and wood, and improve the health of the people and the environment," according to the report.
Its holiday season promotion in support of Empowered by Light’s Solar: Zambia program dovetails with Lemnis’s core focus on developing sustainable lighting solutions that are affordable for as many people as possible. "Since its it was founded, Lemnis Lighting has been committed to making creatively designed sustainable lighting solutions for all," said Warner Philips, Lemnis Lighting Co-Founder.
Socially & Environmentally Conscious Solutions
Lemnis has supplied more than 1,000 Pharox Solar Kits to schools in Zambian villages through the Empowered by Light program. The nonprofit aims to donate 5,000 solar-powered lights across rural Zambian communities.
The effects bringing light to people in these communities are far-reaching, they cost relatively little compared to massive infrastructure projects, and result in far less environmental destruction.
Inspired by an Elisabeth Rosenthal article in the New York Times reporting how the school grades of children in rural Africa improved when they were given access to solar-powered lights, Rabobank executive Marco Krapels and fellow executives Moira Hanes and Gianluca Signorelli got together and formed Empowered by Light. The nonprofit’s first project, Solar: Zambia, was launched when Lemnis Lighting’s Warner Philips shared their Pharox Solar Kit.
Posted: 21 Dec 2011 12:17 AM PST
on Dec. 12 announced a breakthrough: it manufactured a new type of industrial wafer size silicon solar PV cell with nearly 20% energy conversion efficiency that contains no silver – the most expensive raw material used in solar PV cell and module manufacturing.Innovations in the manufacture of high-efficiency solar cells continue to come fast and hard, holding out the promise that the cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) modules will continue moving lower down a declining cost curve. SCHOTT Solar AG
It will no longer be necessary to use expensive silver in cell manufacturing if long-term stability can be demonstrated successfully, according to SCHOTT. Several innovative technologies were employed in achieving the latest results. In addition to using nickel-copper plating on the front side of the silicon solar PV cells. SCHOTT also employed ‘bleeding’, moving toward leading, edge PERC (Passivated Emitter and Rear Contact) technology to fabricate the cells. An alternative to screen printing of solar cells, PERC essentially increased the efficiency of solar cells by enabling it to capture reflected light from the cell’s backside.
PERC, Back-coating Solar PV Cells
Part of ongoing efforts to move PERC from testing labs on to production lines, researchers at Germany’s Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems in June last year published a paper detailing the results of solar cell manufacturing using PERC. They fabricated 192 standard 156 mm x 156 mm industrial solar PV cells with very efficiencies – above 20%. “The overall high efficiencies show that the PV-TEC (Photovoltaic Technology Evaluation Center) allows fabricating PERC cells with industrially related throughput with high reliability,” they concluded.
Fraunhofer PV-TEC researchers are now using PERC to fabricate “back-contact” silicon solar cells with efficiencies as high as 20.2%.
Bosch Solar Energy has scaled up the PERC process. In April, the company announced large-scale production of PERC solar cells achieved record-breaking performances of 19.6% during testing at the Fraunhofer Institute. A record peak power output of 4.73 watts (W) was achieved by monocrystalline silicon PERC cells.
Posted: 20 Dec 2011 01:36 PM PST
According to a recent University of Texas (in Austin) press release, solar cells could soon extract twice as many electrons from each photon of sunlight received. This would be achieved using an organic plastic semiconductor material.
Solar cells are, themselves, a semiconductor material which is often printed onto a substrate such as glass or plastic (just to clarify this for you), and they are encased in solar panels for protection.
"Plastic semiconductor solar cell production has great advantages, one of which is low-cost," said Zhu, a professor of chemistry. "Combined with the vast capabilities for molecular design and synthesis, our discovery opens the door to an exciting new approach for solar energy conversion, leading to much higher efficiencies."
The maximum theoretical efficiency of the type of silicon solar cell that is usually used today is 31%, and these researchers say that they can achieve a 50% to 100% efficiency improvement.
Much of the electrons received by solar cells from the sun are of the “hot” type and are usually converted into heat in the panel instead of electricity. Capturing the “hot” electronics could facilitate 66% efficiency, which is extremely high for any type of generator.
Zhu and his researchers demonstrated that the hot electrons mentioned could be captured using semiconductor nanocrystals.
There are challenges still, of course. "For one thing," said Zhu, "that 66 percent efficiency can only be achieved when highly focused sunlight is used, not just the raw sunlight that typically hits a solar panel. This creates problems when considering engineering a new material or device."
A type of solar power plant that requires concentration in order to function correctly uses gallium arsenide solar panels, which achieve 42% efficiency, which is impressive compared to the 20% efficiency that typical solar cells achieve.
I can’t be sure where exactly this discovery will take solar technology, but surely in the right direction. It is another bit of evidence that suggests that solar cell efficiency and cost will likely continue to improve at a rapid pace.
h/t Think Progress
Posted: 20 Dec 2011 01:30 PM PST
There are a schmillion people addressing climate change in a schmillion ways, most of which won't work without Carbon Pricing thanks to a horror I call Whac-a-Gas (if you don't know what Carbon Pricing is, by Hera and Zeus and all the Gods of Olympus please keep reading). Climateers would be more effective if we briefly put aside our scattershot efforts and collectively pushed for Carbon Pricing. But beware: there's smart Carbon Pricing and dumb Carbon Pricing, and you should know the difference or I'm coming after you with this:
Note: I discuss some caveats in a section at the end. Don't give me any lip until you've read that part.
We begin with the following picture:
(click the pic to embiggen it)
It shows where our greenhouse gases come from. It’s misleading though, because it's static, while reality changes. Carbon flows shift, grow, sometimes shrink, and the economy evolves. Keep this in your head for a minute.
Perhaps because the problem is so beastly, many Climateers focus on just one slice of the picture. Some are dedicated wholly to stopping deforestation, or making buildings efficient, or cutting transport emissions. I argue that this domain-specific effort is mostly wasted, not because it's unnecessary, but because it won't work without Carbon Pricing. Carbon Pricing means making the gassiest activities more expensive at once so that economies will move away from them – usually through a tax or by selling permits for the right to emit greenhouse gases. Without Carbon Pricing, something I call Whac-a-Gas gets in the way.
Whac-A-Gas refers to the way economies negate carbon cuts by shifting carbon flows. An example is the Keystone XL Pipeline. Many Climateers spent the last months trying to block it, and I agree it shouldn't be built, but I don't think fighting it will yield a good return on our effort. Why? Because blocking it may not limit emissions as we assume.
If the Pipeline's blocked, TransCanada might instead build a line to Canada's west coast (a contingency plan already in the works). In that case, Climateers' efforts will have been wasted. There are other alternative plans besides, and any of one of them could neuter our efforts.
But imagine the best-case scenario, in which the oil stays put. Less oil will flow on the world market and it'll cost more. If the story ended there then I'd chain myself to a TransCanada front-loader, but it doesn't because oil isn't the only fossil fuel. As a result, with higher oil prices, some activity which would have been powered by oil will end up powered by coal, which is a potent contributor to climate change. Like electric cars: they'll become more viable as gas prices rise, but much of the electricity to power them will come from coal. Substitution effects like this will at least partly cancel the effect of blocking the pipeline. Whac-A-Gas.
Another example of Whac-a-Gas is the Rebound Effect, which thwarts energy efficiency. It refers to our habit of doing more stuff as stuff gets more efficient. Example: a person who switches from a Hummer to a Prius might drive more miles because it costs less, and the extra driving cancels the benefit of efficiency.
An example from my own life: I bought an electric kettle, which boils water more efficiently than stovetop or microwave. But since it's also faster, I not only make more tea now, but also warm up my drinking water because I like warm water (I know this is weird). I probably use more energy now than before I got the kettle. Damn that kettle to hell.
I could cite a slew of other examples, but they all amount to the same thing: when you discourage folks from doing one thing, they’ll do something else, which is probably also gassy.
But even if there were no such thing as Whac-a-Gas, wouldn't it make more sense to address all emissions at once, if possible, rather than focus one domain or another? If folks dedicated to, for example, greater building efficiency are 100% successful, they will only have fixed a sliver of the overall problem.
So these are the reasons Carbon Pricing is A-Number-One-First-Priority-Mission-Critical:
How does it do these things? Again, Carbon Pricing means making economic activities more expensive in proportion to their emissions, to make gassy activities less attractive. Since all activities will be covered at once, there won't be wiggle room for Whac-a-Gas. Oil will be more expensive no matter which pipeline it comes from. Also, every sector of the economy will have an incentive to innovate and reduce emissions, which beats the limited efforts now driving attempts to address Climate Change.
But wait. It's easy to foresee problems with Carbon Pricing. Specifically:
Praise be, there are ways to avoid these problems. First: how to avoid Waterloo?
It turns out that you don't have to explicitly price every activity. The reason is that about 90% of all carbon emissions have their ultimate origin in just five activities:
Let’s call these the “Big 5″. If we raise their costs, the extra costs will be distributed to the rest of the economy as well (see the Caveats section below for more about how it will happen). The cost of downstream activities most reliant on the Big 5 activities will rise relative to everything else, and the economy will shift away from them.
But that's the easy problem. The hard problem is avoiding economic damage. A Dividend system can ensure that we do.
Government will collect extra cash through carbon pricing. Where should it go? In a dividend system, each citizen receives a monthly dividend check and that check should be the same for everyone (another option is to cut income taxes). Here's the reason:
This is fake data I made up to show how the dividend works. Citizens are arranged on the X-axis according to how much extra each spends yearly due to Carbon Pricing. Each blue bar represents the extra cost to one citizen. Because our lifestyles aren't all equally gassy, the extra costs are spread unevenly — folks with gassier lives pay more.
The height of the pink line is the value of a year's worth of dividends for one person. It's the same for everyone, and it’s set so that all the cash that goes in comes right back out. I’ve chosen a value of $100 because that’s near the EPA’s best guess about what it should be (but a wide range of other numbers would also work). Folks on the right, where the blue bars are higher than the pink line, put more money into the system than they get out. They live the gassiest lives, and their extra costs will prompt some to change, so they can move to the left. Most are wealthy, so the extra costs won't be crippling.
Where's their money going? Answer: to folks on the left, where the pink line is higher than the blue bars. Those folks are less gassy than average and get more money out of the system than they put in as a reward.
(I know these pictures are dumb, but I’ve got a ten-year old trapped inside of me and even the prospect of environmental cataclysm won’t dissuade him.)
You might ask: by giving the folks on the left more money, will we make them gassier? No, because relative prices change for everyone. No matter who you are, when you go to the store you see that the price of beef is up compared to chicken, for example. Everyone's incentivized to change. Some will choose not to, and that's good; we'll create a net carbon reduction while preserving freedom of choice. We can adjust the size of the reduction by adjusting the price on carbon.
Getting back to the risk of economic damage, the key point is that the system doesn't affect citizens' net buying power because all the money they pay in goes right back to them. It's just redistributed to create incentives.
The price can increase over years on a schedule, so we can prepare. This is key for folks in the the Big 5 industries. Their businesses will shrink as less-gassy alternatives grow, and we must help them deal with it. This includes retraining programs and help for businesses to remake themselves. I can't emphasize enough how important this is. We can't treat folks in the Big 5 industries as enemies. Change can be scary and they're going to bear more of it than anyone else. They should be honored for it and helped, because a) our future hangs on their willingness to change; and b) it's the right thing to do. We have experience providing this kind of help. For example we helped Tobacco farmers transition to other crops when we shrank the Tobacco industry. We'll need to use what we learned there and improve on it.
Finally, note that the US has participated in pollution-pricing systems thrice before: for Lead in gasoline, Sulfur Dioxide from coal plants, and Chlorofluorocarbons to prevent ozone depletion. In each case, these systems were effective, because companies are profit machines and cost-cut like bosses. The arc of events was the same in each case: industry grumbled that pollution-pricing would be trouble, and then after it took effect they kicked ass and fixed the problem. We underestimate ourselves. Now we're healthier than we would have been without these systems and we've saved mountains of shekels on avoided-healthcare costs: the savings has been far greater than the setup cost in each case, according to the economists who study this stuff. Pricing carbon will be harder than all of these because it's more pervasive, but if we do it right, it'll work.
As Promised, Caveats
|You are subscribed to email updates from CleanTechnica |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610|