Brilliant 10: Greg Nielson Shrinks Solar Cells To The Size Of Glitter

The same output of electricity, now with 100 times less silicon 

By Abe Streep

Greg Nielson pushes a small jar full of rubbing alcohol across his desk at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico. In the jar float shiny solar cells the size of glitter. “If you have panels of these on top of Walmart, you get twice as much power [as conventional photovoltaics] and your costs go down by half,” he says. For the past six years, Nielson has worked to dramatically reduce the size of solar cells in order to make them more durable, efficient, and cost-effective.

Greg Nielson
Age 38
Sandia National Laboratories

When the Utah native arrived at Sandia in 2004, Nielson was one of the world’s leading researchers of optical microelectro-mechanical systems—technology that uses light to drive tiny machines. It was a wrong number in 2005 that led him into solar power. One of Sandia’s leading solar researchers, Vipin Gupta, accidentally called Nielson’s office. Soon, the two scientists started chatting. “I found out that silicon materials account for something like 40 to 50 percent of the total costs of most solar panels,” Nielson says. By using microfabrication techniques borrowed from the electronics industry, he discovered that he could make solar cells that use 100 times less silicon to produce the same amount of electricity.

These days, Nielson leads a team of 30 researchers working on solar glitter, which could significantly improve the efficiency of flexible photovoltaics. Nielson is also trying to incorporate the glitter into consumer electronics. “[It] could provide power wherever you need it,” he says, “as long as you don’t live in a cave without lights.”

Click here to see more from our 11th annual celebration of young researchers whose innovations will change the world

Source: Popsci

The Future of Energy: A Realist's Roadmap to 2050

Which technologies will finally free us from oil?

The Future of Energy

This December, when representatives from 170 countries meet at the United Nations climate talks in Copenhagen to replace the expiring Kyoto climate treaty, the smart money predicts unprecedented collaboration. American political change coupled with spiking carbon dioxide levels could inspire a communal project on a scale not seen since World War II. A consensus, backed by science, is emerging among the international community that by 2050 we need to reduce emissions of C02, methane and other greenhouse gases to approximately 80 percent lower than they were in 1990.

It will mean a wholesale reinvention of the global energy economy; anything less could result in catastrophe. Here's how we'll get there.

To reach this goal will require a two-pronged approach. First, we have to get serious about the small stuff: better insulation, tossing the incandescent lightbulbs and, yes, inflating our tires all the way. Second, we need to scale up every low-carbon energy source we have — wind, solar, nuclear — pretty much immediately. Our realist's road map to 2050 shows how we get there:

Solar Power

Harnessing the terrawatts of energy we get from the sun

Hydro Power

Subtle movements create current

Biofuels

Beyond ethanol 

Wind Power

Turbines to take root in the sea 

Safer Nuclear

Six Generation III+ reactors set for the U.S. 

Geothermal Energy

Energy from the Earth's core comes to the surface 

Cleaner Fossil Fuels

Carbon-capture technology comes on the scene 

The Plan to Build the Next Electric Grid

Even if we tap every renewable power source available, it won't mean a thing without a final, crucial step: reinventing the grid 

Source: Popsci

Solar Collectors Covering 0.3 Percent of the Sahara Could Power All of Europe

A company plans to construct the world's largest solar power project ever, in the Sahara

By Dan Smith

Saharan Solar Farms Proposed design of solar arrays that come complete with irrigation-based vegetation

Solar power is an exciting source of renewable energy, but has so far mostly been used to power little things like homes, cars and small villages. But what if solar energy was used on a scale that would power the majority of Europe? The Desertec Foundation, a Jordanian and German company are hoping to secure financing for a radically ambitious project to harness solar energy in the world’s most barren, sun-drenched expanse, the Sahara Desert. Desertec claims that if only 0.3 percent of the expanse of the Sahara was covered with solar panels, it would power the entire European continent. If up to 1 percent of the desert were covered, it could power the entire world.

Desertec hopes to construct decentralized solar fields across different parts of Northern Africa within the next 10 to 15 years. They predict that these installations will generate about 100 gigawatts of power, which would be sent over high-voltage DC lines buried under the Mediterranean and power about 15 percent of Europe. Their plans get even more ambitious from there. The company hopes to also set up a series of desalinization plants in the area as a source of clean water and for irrigation in the region in hopes of reclaiming portions of the desert. They even have a long-range plan that adds wind farms to the mix.

Desert Power: Estimates on the relative size of solar collection needed to power Europe, the World.

These solar installations would constitute the world’s largest, 80 times larger than any currently planned solar arrays. However, getting it up and running is still a ways off, and will require an investment of up to €400 billion before it gets off the ground. The project could also face certain dangers, such as damaging sandstorms and political instability in the region. Yet despite the potential setbacks, many large European companies are backing the project. If realized, this could set the standard for the future of renewable energy.

Source: Popsci

V3Solar Puts a New Spin on PV Efficiency (Video)

By Paul Ridden

V3Solar has developed a cone-shaped solar energy harvester that is claimed to generate over 20 times more electricity than a flat panel thanks to a combination of concentrating lenses, dynamic spin, conical shape, and advanced electronics

For the vast majority of those looking to harvest energy from the sun to satisfy domestic or business electricity needs, the photovoltaic world is a static and flat one. Even many large scale solar farms feature row upon row of rigid panels, although there may at least be some movement as the panels follow the path of the sun as it moves across the sky. V3Solar's Spin Cell is a little different. It's claimed to be capable of generating over 20 times more electricity than a flat panel with the same area of PV cells thanks to a combination of concentrating lenses, dynamic spin, conical shape, and advanced electronics.

The V3 Spin Cell actually features two cones, one made up of hundreds of triangular PV cells and a static hermetically-sealed outer lens concentrator comprising a series of interlocking rings and a number of tubular lenses spaced equally around the outside surface. According to V3Solar (previously Solarphasec), the Spin Cell's cone has been set at an angle of 56 percent to enable capture of the sun's light at more angles than flat PV panels, which negates the need for separate tracking systems and also accommodates the different angles of the sun throughout the year.

The lenses concentrate light on the PV cells beneath and by spinning the inner cone, the excessive heat problems often associated with static systems that use lenses or mirrors to focus the light in one area are avoided. The PV layer is continuously cycled in and out of the concentrated light, creating a dynamic shutter and flash rate strobe effect that excites the electrons in what's described as a perfectly timed dance of light.

"Imagine holding your hand steady beneath a magnifying glass," says V3Solar. "The heat would build up to a point of discomfort, even pain. Now imagine moving your hand back and forth below the magnifying glass. You still receive the same light, but very little heat."

Here's a video of the first prototype in action:

"The spin is powered by a small amount of electricity that comes from the sun," V3Solar's Chief Marketing Officer Robert Styler told Gizmag. "It only requires one amp because the unit floats on magnets, there is almost no resistance, and the magnets are arranged to push the spin forward. The rate of spin is controlled by electronic feedback loops to maximize production."

"The panels produce DC, which runs to the magnets in the base ring. As these spin past the magnets in the stator ring, AC is produced ... just like a standard generator. It is then conditioned through the power electronics to be grid ready. We can also produce DC with the flick of a switch if that is required."

The company has just announced that a Spin Cell prototype recently underwent third party testing where it was verified as being capable of generating over 20 times more electricity than a static flat panel with the same area of photovoltaic cells. The test involved wirelessly connecting the module to data loggers which recorded information on such things as heat, revolution speed, and output.

It was also found that the layer of PV cells never exceeded 95 degrees Fahrenheit (35°C), and determined that the module would perform indefinitely at 20 times concentration. More tests are scheduled to analyze performance at 40, 50 and 75 times light concentration levels.

V3Solar has recently joined forces with Nectar Design to complete the engineering and commercial design of its one meter high and one meter wide Spin Cell module, and has just secured its first licensing agreement to supply 800,000 Spin Cell units for a large solar farm.

V3Solar has produced the following video explaining its Spin Cell technology:

Source: Gizmag

U.S. Navy Looking at Obtaining Fuel from Seawater

By David Szondy

USS Fife, a Spruce Class destroyer powered by gas turbines

Tell someone that you’ve invented a car that runs on water and they're liable to report you for fraud. That hasn’t stopped scientists and engineers at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) who want to run warships on seawater – or at least, to turn seawater into jet fuel. This may sound like they’ve been standing too close to the ether again, but the idea is to extract carbon dioxide and hydrogen from seawater and then convert these into jet fuel by a gas-to-liquids process. If this proves practical, American naval vessels could refuel themselves at sea.

At first, it seems odd that the NRL wants to make jet fuel, but many modern warships now run on gas turbines, a type of jet engine. Every year the U.S. Navy’s fleet of 15 oilers carries 600 million gallons (2.27 billion liters) of fuel to ships at sea. This is a major logistical problem made worse by dependence on hostile or unstable nations who may cut off or interfere with fuel supplies in times of crisis. Needless to say, a ship that can make its own fuel while underway would be an advantage.

Seawater contains about three percent carbon dioxide in the form of dissolved carbonic acid, carbonate and bicarbonate. That’s 140 percent more than air. Along with the hydrogen bound in the water molecules, there’s all that’s needed to make hydrocarbon fuels at sea. The tricky bit is how to do it.

According to research chemist Dr. Heather Willauer, the NRL’s approach is based on established technology. "The reduction and hydrogenation of CO2 to form hydrocarbons is accomplished using a catalyst that is similar to those used for Fischer-Tropsch reduction and hydrogenation of carbon monoxide,” she said. “By modifying the surface composition of iron catalysts in fixed-bed reactors, NRL has successfully improved CO2 conversion efficiencies up to 60 percent."

The Fischer-Tropsch reduction was invented by Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch in Germany in the 1920s. It converts coal, natural gas or biomass into fuel by means of iron or some other catalyst and is used commercially in countries with abundant coal, but little oil. Despite being very inefficient and costly, the U.S. Defense Department has long been interested in it.

A U.S. Navy ship being refueled at sea

The NRL process begins by extracting carbon dioxide and hydrogen from seawater. To do this, it uses a three-chambered electrochemical acidification cell. As seawater passes through this, it’s subjected to a small electric current. This causes the seawater to exchange hydrogen ions produced at the anode with sodium ions. As a result, the seawater is acidified.

Meanwhile, at the cathode, the water is reduced to hydrogen gas and sodium hydroxide is formed. The cells recover dissolved and bound carbon dioxide by re-equilibrating carbonate and bicarbonate to carbon dioxide gas from the acidified seawater. The end product is hydrogen and carbon dioxide gas. As a bonus, the sodium hydroxide is added to the leftover seawater to neutralize its acidity.

In the next step, the hydrogen and carbon dioxide are passed into a heated reaction chamber with an iron catalyst. The gases combine and form long-chained unsaturated hydrocarbons with methane as a by-product. The unsaturated hydrocarbons are then oligomerized – that is, they are made to form longer hydrocarbon molecules containing six to nine carbon atoms. Using a nickel-supported catalyst, these are then converted into jet fuel.

The process has been tested under open ocean conditions in the Gulf of Mexico, and the NRL is now working to improve the process and scale it up to practical levels. The estimated cost of the fuel is projected to be between US$3.00 and $6.00 per gallon (US$0.79 - $1.58 per liter) and that may be something of a problem because the current price of jet fuel is about $3.30 per gallon ($0.87 per liter), which makes the NRL product potentially almost twice as expensive.

Another problem is that processes based on the Fischer-Tropsch reduction are very energy intensive and inefficient, which adds to the cost. Also, the end product is very pure and this can cause lubrication and sealing problems in engines.

An Electrochemical Acidification Carbon Capture Skid, used for the process

However, the big question is, where does the energy come from to make the fuel while at sea? Most Fischer-Tropsch reduction processes work because the raw material is itself a fuel. To make fuel from coal, you burn coal to run the process. The same goes for natural gas, biomass and other examples. With the NRL process, the raw material is seawater, so what is running the machinery? The jet fuel produced is only an energy storage medium, not an energy source. To use that is like trying to lift yourself off the ground by yanking on your belt. Until that question is answered, a vital piece of the puzzle is still missing.

Source: Gizmag

Wind Power Passes 100 Gigawatt in EU

By Mat McDermott

Harvey Barrison/CC BY-SA 2.0

An important milestone (kilometer-marker?) has been passed in the European Union: The European Wind Energy Association reports that there is now over 100 gigawatts of wind power installed.

EWEA points out the increasing rate of growth of wind power in the EU, noting that it took twenty years for the first 10 GW to be installed, but over the subsequent 13 years 90 GW was installed.

Making the usual sort of comparisons, EWEA says that 100 GW of wind power produces a similar amount of electricity as 62 coal power plants, 52 gas power plants, or 39 nuclear power plants.

As for the increasing amount of wind power, up through 2011, EWEA shares the chart below:

© EWEA

Source: Treehugger

Offshore Wind Turbines Could Meet Power Demands of Entire East Coast

By Derek Markham

Offshore Wind Turbines Could Meet Power Demands of Entire East Coast

A quantitative analysis of offshore wind energy on the U.S. East Coast finds that, in theory anyway, the strong winds there could potentially meet one third of the entire country's electrical demands.

The study, "East coast U.S. offshore and near shore wind energy potential" concluded that the offshore wind energy available in the Atlantic Ocean off of the east coast is sufficient for powering much of that region:

"A major finding is that the strong winds off the USEC alone can theoretically power all of the annual coastal electricity demand from Florida to Maine (FL-to-ME) or about one-third of US electric power demand. With the exception of summer, all peak-time electricity demand could be satisfied in the states of Virginia through Maine (VA-to-ME) with OWE in those states’ waters."

The team used weather modeling to generate five years worth of hourly wind speed data for locations at 90 meters above the surface (the height that an offshore turbine would reach) and then added turbines into the model. The 140,000 5 MW wind turbines were "installed" at varying distances and depths, covering the area from Maine to Florida.

For their analysis, the team found that after figuring in the standard losses in turbine inefficiencies and transmission, offshore winds on the east coast could produce up to 1,372 TWh of electricity annually, and that even more importantly, it could produce it at the best time - during peak demand.

"People mistakenly think that wind energy is not useful because output from most land-based turbines peaks in the late evening/early morning, when electricity demand is low. The real value of offshore wind energy is that it often peaks when we need the most electricity – during the middle of the day." - Mike Dvorak, part of the research team

While we're a long time away from installing 140,000 offshore wind turbines, the data shows the potential is there, and could be used to help guide wind farm placement by locating areas with high wind energy potential near high population areas.

Source: Treehugger

Wind is the Cheapest Power Source in the World, Report Says

By Brian Merchant

Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0

Electricity generated by wind farms might just be the cheapest in the world. IF, that is, you take into account the myriad costs that polluting energy sources like coal impose on public health. Those costs, after all, are very real: we're just so used to giving the coal, oil, and gas industries a free ride that they seem not to belong in the equation. The cost of electricity is the number that shows up on our monthly utility bill, and that's that, we think. Not so: those fossil fuel industries produce plenty of pollution that adversely impacts the public at large — and pay zilch for it.

Anywho, the grist for restating this fact — I've discussed the true cost of fossil fuels in various posts here, as well as on certain cable TV shows — is a study from German researchers highlighted by Deutsche Welle that concludes that wind is the cheapest power source in the world.

From the report:

Many people find it difficult to calculate the true cost of their electricity. Special duties, taxes and subsidies all add up to influence prices, not to mention the environmental and health costs that aren't included in the final calculations ...

According to GBG's findings, the least expensive energy sources worldwide are currently wind and solar power. One kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity produced by wind power stations on the coast or in the countryside costs an average of 0.07 euro (about $0.09).

Solar is more expensive, both because of actual production costs and because of the environmental damage done in the name of mining silicon. The report claims that "New solar energy plants in central and southern Europe produce electricity for an average of 0.14 euro per kWh. In Germany, the cost is about 0.18 euro when using rooftop solar panels, while in southern European solar parks it costs about 0.10 euro per kWh."

Meanwhile, nuclear power is 0.20 euro, because of the omnipresent risk of nuclear meltdowns like the one that occurred in Fukushima. And then we come to coal. Coal, which until recently generated half of the United States' electricity, costs an additional 0.09 euros per kWh, due to the enormous burden it places on the public health sector and the environment.

In other words, electricity generated from wind power is cheaper per kilowatt hour than just the additional costs of coal-fired power alone, invisible though they may be. But combine those health and environmental costs with what you're actually paying on your utility bill, and wind gets cheaper by a long shot.

Source: Treehugger

Japan Approves Nuclear Phase-out By 2040

Government plan to idle nuclear stations will mean increase in fossil fuel use, including imports, and a larger role for renewable energy and efficiency.

By Martin Lamonica

The town of Okuma was evacuated following the nuclear power plant crisis at Fukushima. Popular opinion against atomic energy has led to a dramatic change in energy policy. The Yomiuri Shimbun/AP

The ruling Japanese government party today approved a policy to phase out nuclear power by the 2030s, a dramatic shift expected to increase fossil fuel use and drive demand for efficiency and renewable energy.

The plan formalizes Japan’s departure from nuclear power last year in the wake of the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power station where all but two power stations were shut down for safety checks. As in Germany and Switzerland, public opinion in Japan has turned firmly against atomic energy, which led to today’s decision.

Japan’s remaining 50 nuclear reactors will operate until their planned 40-year lifetime but then be shut down, with the latest projected for the mid-2030s. The country intends to keep fossil fuel use at roughly current levels while tripling renewable energy’s share and increasing energy efficiency, according to government documents.

In 2010, Japan got 26 percent of its electricity generation from nuclear plants, 63 percent from fossil fuel plants, and ten percent from renewable energy. Before the Fukushima disaster, the country had a strategic plan to increase nuclear to 45 percent by 2030 and renewable energy to 20 percent, thus decreasing its reliance on fossil fuels.

But the earthquake-induced nuclear power plant meltdown undermined the view of atomic energy’s safety among Japanese, which prompted the dramatic change.

The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan opposes the plan, saying it will have “a serious and immediate impact on Japan’s electricity supply.” The industry group also said it will result in higher greenhouse gas emissions and make it difficult to retain the skilled people needed to maintain current nuclear power facilities.

In the near term, Japan will rely more heavily on thermal power generation because renewable energy is expensive and unstable, the government said in the report, according to a Bloomberg report. As a result, Japan will continue to import oil, coal, and natural gas. (See, Can Japan Thrive Without Nuclear Power?)

Government officials said many details of the plan, which also includes regulatory reforms on the wholesale and retail electricity markets, still need to be worked out, according to reports.

In addition to more reliance on natural gas, the plan could also result in increased innovation around clean energy technologies, such as hydrogen and energy storage.

“The plan is worth trying, but sooner or later it will be realized it isn’t possible,” Hirofumi Kawachi, an energy analyst at Mizuho Investors Securities told Bloomberg. “To eliminate nuclear power by the 2030s will need breakthroughs in renewable and energy-efficient technologies.”

Cutting back nuclear power has reduced the power generation capacity on Japan's grid and made it more difficult to maintain a steady balance between supply and demand. A report from Japan’s Institute of Energy Economics last month found that there was heightened risk to natural disasters and unplanned events in 2011 after most nuclear stations were taken off line.

Source: Technologyreview

A Biofuel Process to Replace All Fossil Fuels

A startup unveils a high-yield process for making fuel from carbon dioxide and sunlight.

By Kevin Bullis

Solar farming: A photobioreactor houses photosynthetic microorganisms that use the energy in sunlight to make fuel and other chemicals from carbon dioxide and water. 

Joule Biotechnologies

A startup based in Cambridge, MA--Joule Biotechnologies--today revealed details of a process that it says can make 20,000 gallons of biofuel per acre per year. If this yield proves realistic, it could make it practical to replace all fossil fuels used for transportation with biofuels. The company also claims that the fuel can be sold for prices competitive with fossil fuels.

Joule Biotechnologies grows genetically engineered microorganisms in specially designed photobioreactors. The microorganisms use energy from the sun to convert carbon dioxide and water into ethanol or hydrocarbon fuels (such as diesel or components of gasoline). The organisms excrete the fuel, which can then be collected using conventional chemical-separation technologies.

If the new process, which has been demonstrated in the laboratory, works as well on a large scale as Joule Biotechnologies expects, it would be a marked change for the biofuel industry. Conventional, corn-grain-based biofuels can supply only a small fraction of the United States' fuel because of the amount of land, water, and energy needed to grow the grain. But the new process, because of its high yields, could supply all of the country's transportation fuel from an area the size of the Texas panhandle. "We think this is the first company that's had a real solution to the concept of energy independence," says Bill Sims, CEO and president of Joule Biotechnologies. "And it's ready comparatively soon."

The company plans to build a pilot-scale plant in the southwestern U.S. early next year, and it expects to produce ethanol on a commercial scale by the end of 2010. Large-scale demonstration of hydrocarbon-fuels production would follow in 2011.

So far, the company has raised "substantially less than $50 million," Sims says, from Flagship Ventures and other investors, including company employees. The firm is about to start a new round of financing to scale up the technology.

The new approach would also be a big improvement over cellulose-based biofuels. Cellulosic materials, such as grass and wood chips, could yield far more fuel per acre than corn, and recent studies suggest these fuel sources could replace about one-third of the fossil fuels currently used for transportation in the United States. But replacing all fossil fuels with cellulose-based biofuels could be a stretch, requiring improved growing practices and a vast improvement in fuel economy.

Algae-based biofuels come closest to Joule's technology, with potential yields of 2,000 to 6,000 gallons per acre; yet even so, the new process would represent an order of magnitude improvement. What's more, for the best current algae fuels technologies to be competitive with fossil fuels, crude oil would have to cost over $800 a barrel says Philip Pienkos, a researcher at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, CO. Joule claims that its process will be competitive with crude oil at $50 a barrel. In recent weeks, oil has sold for $60 to $70 a barrel.

Joule's process seems very similar to approaches that make biofuels using algae, although the company says it is not using algae. The company's microorganisms can be grown inside transparent reactors, where they're circulated to ensure that they all get exposed to sunlight, and they are fed concentrated carbon dioxide--which can come from a power plant, for example--and other nutrients. (The company's bioreactor is a flat panel with an area about the size of a sheet of plywood.) While algae typically produce oils that have to be refined into fuels, Joule's microorganisms produce fuel directly--either ethanol or hydrocarbons. And while oil is harvested from algae by collecting and processing the organisms, Joule's organisms excrete the fuel continuously, which could make harvesting the fuel cheaper.

David Berry, one of the company's founders and a board member, says the organism they use was selected and modified to work well in a bioreactor, and the bioreactor was designed with the specific organism in mind. He adds that the company carefully considered issues such as the organism's response to heat, and the reactor was built to keep the heat within bearable limits. Overheating has been a problem with bioreactors in the past.

The company will likely face many challenges as it attempts to scale up its process. Other companies, such as Green Fuels, have failed to produce biofuels economically in bioreactors because of the high cost of the reactors compared to the amount of fuel produced. Another challenge is keeping the microorganisms producing fuel at a steady rate. Algae populations can bloom and grow so quickly that they outrun the supply of nutrients or sunlight, leading to a collapse of the population, says Jim Barber of Barber Associates, who was formerly CEO of Metabolix, which produces chemicals from renewable resources. "You get a burst and then they all die off," he says.

Joule Biotechnologies will also face stiff competition. It is not the only company developing photosynthetic organisms that excrete fuel. Synthetic Genomics, which recently announced a research partnership with ExxonMobil, has developed organisms that excrete fuel, as has Algenol, which recently announced a partnership with Dow.

Source: Technologyreview 1 and Technologyreview 2