Research
Research propels innovations in technology that can help make the world a more energy efficient place. This section features articles and information about research in the energy industry.
Solar Breakthrough: Cheap Quantum Dot Solar Paint
Dec 29th
Researchers have reduced the preparation time of quantum dot solar cells to less than an hour by changing the form to a one-coat quantum dot solar paint.
How?
Titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles are coated with cadmium sulfide (CdS) or cadmium selenide (CdSe.) The composite nanoparticles, when mixed with a solvent, form a paste that can be applied as one-step paint to a transparent conducting material, which creates electricity when exposed to light.
Although the paint form is currently about five times less efficient than the highest recorded efficiency for the multifilm form, the researchers predict that its efficiency can be improved, which could lead to a simple and economically viable way to prepare solar cells.
The scientists responsible for the research breakthrough, Mathew P. Genovese of the University of Waterloo in Canada, with Ian V. Lightcap and Prashant V. Kamat of the Radiation Laboratory and Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, will be publishing their study in an upcoming issue of the American Chemical Society’s publication Nano.
During an interview with PhysOrg.com Professor Kamat, John A. Zahm Professor of Science in Chemistry and Biochemistry and an investigator in Notre Dame’s Center for Nano Science and Technology (NDnano) and who led the research, explained, “Quantum dots are semiconductor nanocrystals which exhibit size-dependent optical and electronic properties. In a quantum dot sensitized solar cell, the excitation of semiconductor quantum dot or semiconductor nanocrystal is followed by electron injection into TiO2 nanoparticles. These electrons are then transferred to the collecting electrode surface to generate photocurrent.
The holes that remain in the semiconductor quantum dot are removed by a hole conductor or redox couple and are transported to a counter electrode. If we can optimize the paint preparation, it should be possible for anyone to open a bottle (or a can in the long run) and apply it to a conducting surface. This will decrease the variability between lab to lab or person to person as one encounters in a multi-step process. Having fewer fabrication steps and ambient preparative conditions should provide an economically viable transformative technology.”
During their research the scientists tested a number of different compounds, but found that a composite of mixed CdS/TiO2 and CdSe/TiO2 nanoparticles performed best, particularly when the CdS and CdSe was deposited directly on the TiO2 nanoparticles as a coating.
Describing their work they said that the nanoparticles were suspended in a water-alcohol mixture to create the binder-free paste, which was then applied to conducting glass surface and annealed at 200 degrees Centigrade. When coated on a glass electrode, the paint has an overall power conversion efficiency exceeding 1 percent. Although some multifilm quantum dot solar cells have efficiencies greater than 5 percent, the scientists believe that using different quantum dots and further optimization could significantly increase the efficiency of the paint.
Potential uses could include painting electronic devices such as cell phones to recharge their batteries, along with larger electrical devices such as computers, while rooftops, windows, and cars could be coated as well.
The scientists’ work has attracted some major governmental interest and the Department of Energy’s Office of Basic Energy Sciences is funding their research.
Professor Kamat concluded in a Notre Dame press release, “We want to do something transformative, to move beyond current silicon-based solar technology. The best light-to-energy conversion efficiency we’ve reached so far is one percent, which is well behind the usual 10 to 15 percent efficiency of commercial silicon solar cells. But this paint can be made cheaply and in large quantities. If we can improve the efficiency somewhat, we may be able to make a real difference in meeting energy needs in the future. That’s why we’ve christened the new paint, Sun-Believable.”
Written by. Dr. John C.K. Daly for OilPrice.com. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author, Dr. John C.K. Daly. For more information on oil prices and other commodity related topics please visit http://oilprice.com
Energy efficiency is so in right now part II: The delight factor (and more energy puns)
Sep 12th
Last week, we looked at how the energy efficiency industry is working on its cool factor (Dare I say sex appeal?), to make clean energy more accessible to the masses.
Perhaps a bikini charger doesn’t make much difference when the grid is under great strain as it was this summer; but it does get people thinking about alternatives that could lead to – or add up to – more important changes.
Time to shed some light on lighting. An energy efficient approach to lighting has gained traction in the commercial world – with wireless controls, dimmers and a clear ROI for building owners. But so far, consumer touch points have largely revolved around bulb efficiency standards – which are dull, governmental and even intrusive.
There are very cool things on the horizon, like Professor Haas’ LED-light-based data transmission, which could feed our hunger for greater capacity for cell phones and all things Wi-Fi. Here are some other lighting innovations that might generate excitement at home (or rather, at your slick downtown condo):
Mood lighting made simple. No, please – don’t get up. This LED lightbulb from Sharpcomes with a tiny remote that allows you to turn the bulb on and off, increase or decrease the brightness and even adjust the color temp (for mood lighting, perhaps?) all without lifting a finger (er, ok, barely lifting a finger). Its life is long, its efficiency impressive, but perhaps more importantly – it has novelty potential we haven’t seen since the clap-on, clap-off lamp control. The bulbs start around $40 – not cheap for the average consumer – but then again, what are a couple of Jacksons compared to how smooth you’ll look on date night?
Party on the patio. The Oasys from Sol is a complete unit that houses their aiSUN controller, batteries, and LED fixture. When darkness falls, the party doesn’t have to end: reliable light (and again, spiffy dimming capabilities) can be yours. Although we must say, their website needs a few tips on more accessible language if they’re going to get through to us.
Energy on display while you’re away. These days, being cool is not always about how much money you can spend – you also get bragging rights for snagging great deals (hence the Groupon boom) and saving money. The PowerCost Monitor is an inexpensive, DIY system that reads home electricity usage and transmits it to your iPhone or iPad – so you can see how much energy your pad (your house, that is) is gobbling while you’re away. You can slice and dice your data and track usage in kilowatt-hours (zzzzz) and in dollars and cents (even better).
Blue Line Innovations and People Power have also done a great job of connecting with the consumer market – they not only use mobile apps to drive their technology; they’re also all over social media, and recently moved their technology to the cloud through a partnership with PlotWatt for real time updates. They even use video to explain their product activation to users.
These are a few of my favorite, cool energy gadgets. Do you know others? Let’s encourage the trend; post in the comments section here any you’ve come across.
Written by Cara Miale. Cara Miale is a freelance writer in Denver, Colorado and a frequent contributor to Energy Efficiency Markets.
Top Sustainability Companies in America Keep Moving Initiatives Forward
Aug 5th
When Tom Friedman published his memorable book, “Hot, Flat, and Crowded”, in 2006, it was a wake up call for many about the potentially desperate set of outcomes that we now find our one and only planet confronting. He linked the coming crisis to America’s loss of focus following “9/11” and the plight of our planet’s environment, ranging from intolerable climate changes to a pressing lack of potable water in all parts of the world. He makes the case that the solution is tied to solving both causes, which he claims are interconnected.
Corporate sustainability has become the watchword over the past decade. A true “Green” revolution must include companies from all corners of the globe to be truly sustainable in any way. In the vein of “if you don’t measure it, nothing will change”, there is one organization that publishes “The Global 100 Most Sustainable Corporations in the World”. This company is Corporate Knights,Inc., founded in 2002 and noted as “an independent Canadian-based social enterprise that publishes the global magazine for clean capitalism.”
Their list for 2011 was recently released and included thirteen companies from the United States, constituting 19% of the $3 trillion in revenues for the entire list. While the entire list may only represent 5% of global GDP, large companies must lead so that others can follow. Differentiating oneself through sustainability initiatives has proven to be a new competitive weapon on the corporate battlefield, but the financial benefits have also been quantified from a variety of perspectives. “People, Planet and Profits” has become the new triple bottom-line objective.
The methodology for selection is quite extensive, beginning with a global universe of 3,500 stocks, and then culled down to 100 finalists based on a series of reviews by independent experts, of applying analytical formulas, and by focusing on those companies that has “been most proactive in managing environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues.”
Here is a brief update on the top three large companies from the United States and how they are proceeding in 2011 with their respective initiatives:
- Johnson & Johnson (#2 – Not listed in 2010): Known for its pharmaceutical and medical product line, this $62 billion in revenue company announced in July 2011, its “Healthy Future 2015” initiative, “a sweeping citizenship and sustainability program that unites goals for its various businesses under a single, five-year roadmap.” This program follows on the heels of two previous programs, but is broader in its expectations and aligns well with United Nations’ published goals;
- Intel Corp. (#6 – #30 in 2010): Intel has a long history in energy conservation initiatives, accompanied by its “Sustainability in Action” program. The firm recently opened its new four million square foot office campus in Ocotillo, Arizona, that is one of the first technology manufacturing complexes to earn the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, from the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), for a manufacturing complex.
- General Electric Co. (#11 – #1 in 2010): This firm’s key growth strategy has been labeled “Ecomagination” that consists of corporate commitments to reduce greenhouse gases and become more energy efficient in all of their global operations. The company has reported progress publicly on these standards and enlisted the support of their partners, suppliers, and customers. In 2011, their investments in environmental R&D will double to $1.5 billion and company-wide water consumption will fall 20% by 2012.
As the largest economy on the planet, the United States must assume responsibility for leading us all to a cooler, rounder, and less crowded world. Tom Friedman, for one, is counting on it.
Written by Tom Cleveland. From 1980 until 1999, Tom Cleveland served as CFO for various Visa International entities, retiring with the title of Group EVP and Treasurer. Currently, Tom Cleveland owns a consulting firm and is one of the main contributors for forextraders.com.
What if the light bulb produced more than light?
Aug 5th
Talk about a light bulb moment.
A professor of engineering at Edinburgh University recently demonstrated for the first time to a wide audience his technology that uses common every day lights to transmit data.
Harald Haas streamed a video through a desk lamp at Ted Global at Scotland’s Edinburgh International Conference Center in July 2011.
If commercialized, the technology not only creates a vast new application for light, but also dramatically expands our now limited wireless capacity. Imagine downloading your email from any of the 14 billion light bulbs installed in the world.
Haas’ technology swaps out our current way of transmitting data – through radio frequency – with a new approach using visible light from LED light bulbs. This is significant because we are running out of radio frequency spectrum as our appetite for wireless communication grows, Haas says. The visible light spectrum, on the other hand, is enormous, with about 10,000 times more capacity than radio frequency. Using light instead of radio frequency would give us a lot more capacity for our cell phones, wireless computers and other devices.
The energy implications are even more interesting.
First, the technology creates a new impetus for switching from incandescent light bulbs to LEDs. Until now, LED champions have argued their cause based on the light bulb’s energy efficiency. It’s a good argument, but not one that always motivates the consumer. With Haas’ technology the LED takes on new importance. LED lights are necessary because they contain a semi-conductor; incandescent light bulbs do not.
Second, the whole process of transmitting data through light is more energy efficient than using radio frequency, according to Haas. Think of it this way. We have 1.4 million cellular masts, or base stations, that now allow us to transmit data through our 5 billion cell phones worldwide. These base stations use a lot of energy, particularly for cooling, operating at only a five percent efficiency level, according to Haas. What if instead we transmitted data through the 14 billion light bulbs already installed worldwide? Haas says he’s calculated the “energy budget” and found light-based data transmission to be so efficient, it is virtually free.
“It should be so cheap that it’s everywhere. Using the visible light spectrum, which comes for free, you can piggy-back existing wireless services on the back of lighting equipment,” he says.
The technology offers some other advantages as well, particularly privacy, convenience and health assurances.
Light is more secure than radio waves. Light does not penetrate walls and radio waves do. So it appears that it would much more difficult to hack your calls via light wave than radio wave.
As for convenience, think of how you’re asked to switch off your computer on an airline, so that you don’t interfere with radio signals needed by the plane. If you were instead using the light above your seat to access the Internet, you could keep the computer on.
And last, for electric utilities, light-based transmission would eliminate customer concerns that smart meters placed on homes cause cancer. Industry research has not supported these claims. Nonetheless utility customers in some states, particularly California and Maine, have protested installation of smart meters, themselves an energy efficiency device.
How does Haas’ technology work? It all looks pretty simple. He switches on a desk lamp that uses a $3 LED light. The light beams into a hole to a receiver. The receiver detects small changes made in the light’s amplitude and converts those changes into an electronic signal. Voila! A streaming video, showing flowers opening, appears on a nearby screen. To stop the video, Haas simply passes his hand in front of the light.
Haas hopes to see the necessary microchip fitted into every lighting device: household lights, street lamps, cell phones, overhead lights on planes, traffic lights. Of course, the road to commercialization trips up many potential technologies. And he’s still working on improving data speed. (He has achieved rates of 10 MBit/s per second and hopes to achieve and 100 MBit/s by the end of this year.) But this is one to watch.
Written by Elisa Wood; who is a long-time energy business writer. To read more of her articles on energy visit www.RealEnergyWriters.com
How did we grow an energy conscience?
Jun 20th
The US has grown an energy conscience. Just look around in stores that sell appliances, computers, televisions, light bulbs or any kind of electric equipment. You’ll see the words ‘energy saving’ or ‘energy efficient’ on a lot of the packaging.
This trend didn’t just happen, but is the result of some careful nurturing by government, most of it relatively invisible to the average consumer and certainly painless and free of sacrifice.
Of these policies, one of the most ingenious is the state energy efficiency resource standard, or EERS. Okay, it’s mouthful to say, but the concept is actually pretty simple. A state sets a requirement to reduce the amount of electricity (and sometimes natural gas) used within its borders by a certain date. Some states come up with a catchy goal, like New York’s 15-by-15, meaning New York wants to reduce energy use 15% by 2015.
Utilities and others that supply electricity are responsible for meeting the goal. To help them do this, inventors, entrepreneurs and other enterprises offer a variety of energy efficient products, systems and services.
These states, of course, also are simultaneously trying to build industry and add jobs, so the electricity reductions are not about scaling back on commerce. Quite the opposite, they are about getting more economic bang out of each electron buck. To the consumer, the new television, the clothes washer and the computer works the same as the old one; it just uses less electricity.
The EERS is quickly gaining popularity, according to two papers released June 15 by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy.
Twenty six states have instituted such standards, most of them since 2008, says one of the papers “Energy Efficiency Resource Standards: A Progress Report on State Experience.” The programs, for the most part, are on track to reach their goals. The states spend money on programs to encourage energy efficiency. But by using less energy, they cut back their energy costs. The savings exceed the spending – and must by law. For example, Ohio saved $56 million in energy costs over and above what the state paid for efficiency programs in 2009 and 2010. During the lifetime of these efficiency programs, Ohio customers are likely to save more than three-quarters of a billion dollars, according to ACEEE.
The second paper, “Energy Efficiency Resource Standards: State Strategies to Reach Higher Energy Savings,” looks at some of the star states and how they plan to achieve even higher energy savings. Some of the largest and most successful EERS states, what the report calls the “established savers,” are California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, and Vermont. The report also looks at Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, which it calls “rapid start” states. These states are newer to energy efficiency but are building their programs quickly from the ground up.
What’s next for energy efficiency resources standards? “The greatest challenge for the future isn’t technical—it’s inspiring the political will necessary to pass these energy- and money-saving standards in every state,” says Martin Kushler, ACEEE senior research fellow.
As more states add these standards, our energy conscience will continue to grow — and in a very unconscious way. If these programs work as they should, we’ll save more and more energy, yet will notice nothing different, except when we pay our energy bills.
Written by Elisa Wood. To read more of her articles on energy visit www.RealEnergyWriters.com
Energy Is the Lifeblood of Any Economic Unit
Apr 28th
Energy is the basic driver of all major economies. Nothing happens without an energy cost. That is virtually as basic as the laws of physics. Nothing is made, nothing is grown, nothing moves, without an energy cost. The lower the real cost of its energy, the more productive any economic unit will be. This holds true regardless of the size of the unit, whether it is a small company, or an entire nation.
The three value factors of energy include its cost in money per unit of energy, the cost of minimizing environmental damage, and the cost for transport from where it is to where it is used. These three factors affect the sum total cost of energy to any user in many ways. Since the cost of energy directly affects the value and profitability of any economic unit, it is important that every person, every organization, do what they can to lower overall energy costs. There are only two ways to do this, reduce energy consumption, and/or reduce energy costs.
Reducing energy consumption—conserving energy—is important only where energy efficiency can be increased, something that may not be practical in many cases. Also, this must be done without increasing environmental or transportation costs. While it is quite easy to assess direct costs, even that of transport, calculating the real cost of environmental damage is much more difficult.
An example of one very successful effort at a major change was that undertaken by the port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles started in 2006. This change was undertaken principally to reduce air pollution, a major environment cost to the area. It had to be done in a manner that was as cost effective as practical. The following is a direct quote from the book Energy, Convenient Solutions.
“California set forth a ballot initiative that would free up $5 billion for deployment of a million LNG vehicles on state roads. In 2006, the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles adopted a plan to reduce drastically pollution from more than 16,800 Class-8 tractor trailers. The basis of the plan was promoting the massive conversion of diesel trucks to LNG, Liquid natural gas. These big trucks, the only trucks strong enough to transport the heavy containers in and out of the ports, were contributing considerable amounts of pollution to the air in the LA basin.. The ports chose LNG for many reasons including safety and cost. Even with the expense of replacing diesel engines with LNG engines the ports look to save around $350 million each year. The ports have announced the approval of a new $1.6 billion Clean Truck Superfund. Wal-Mart, which operates one of the largest truck fleets in America, is testing four trucks to measure the possible money saved by the switch. I am certain other truck users are carefully watching the results.”
The ambitious Clean Trucks Program has reduced air pollution from harbor trucks by nearly 80 percent as of January 1, 2010. The Port banned trucks with 1993 and older engines, and almost all trucks with 1994-2003 engines. The program will also ban all trucks that don’t meet 2007 emission standards by 2012. With the industry replacing vehicles much sooner than expected, the result is a major reduction in air pollution two years ahead of the original schedule.
This is but a single instance of successful efforts to change one energy system and simultaneously reduce both environmental and operating costs. Currently, there are many other such efforts underway throughout the country. These range from hybrid and pure electric vehicles now coming to market to new systems for generating electricity, to new non fossil fuels.
There is no one answer to our energy problems. Whether or not we are running out of cheap petroleum is actually irrelevant. No matter how you look at it, it is quite obvious that petroleum products are continuing to rise in price. This can make alternative energy systems more attractive to buyers. There are countless technologies that could not compete successfully when oil was at $20 a barrel that would be very competitive with oil at $100 a barrel. Electric cars that were at a per mile cost disadvantage when gasoline was $1.50 per gallon now cost a third of cars powered by $4 per gallon gasoline.
Many new and different technologies will compete for the energy buyer’s dollar. This competition will gradually weed out poor performers and expand those that show the lowest cost. Then there is always the specter of catastrophic global warming driven by increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Whether real or not, there are enough believers to make it necessary to at least consider it
Increasingly, environmental costs are being considered in the overall equation. Many times these types of improvements have been found to pay back the investment in less time than anticipated. That is an everybody wins scenario. There is a major change underway. It will be quite some time before the marketplace determines the winners and losers.
Written by Howard Johnson, engineer/author. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of Howard Johnson.
Daily Double: Water and Analytics
Feb 17th
Millions of viewers tuned in to Jeopardy! this week to watch Watson, a computing system built by IBM researchers that rivals a human’s ability to understand human language and answer questions, compete against Jeopardy! record holders Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter. In preparation for the match, Watson, named after IBM founder Thomas J. Watson, ingested more than 200 million pages of content. It not only understands English, it knows how real people use it in conversation. More >
Offsetting the Costs of CO2 Capture and Storage by Energy Production from Saline Aquifers: a Novel Approach with Game Changing Impact
Jan 17th
The current approach to carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) from, for example, pulverized coal-fired power plants, is not economically feasible without either large subsidies or a very high price on carbon. Current schemes require roughly 1/3rd of a power plant’s energy for CO2 capture and pressurization, and neither merchant nor regulated utilities can accommodate this magnitude of added cost. More >
Loading ...
Recent Comments