The future of solar power?

Improved 3D printing can ‘revolutionise’ industry

Following the news that a company has been given £2m funding to develop ‘solar glass’, technology that allows buildings to produce their own low-carbon electricity through their windows, the future of the solar industry looks even brighter thanks to the potential of 3D printing.

Printing 3D solar cells has an advantage over the standard method of PV models because they are less complex to create, weight less and do not need direct overhead sunlight to absorb the UV energy. Studies have also shown that 3D cells can be 20% more efficient than standard flat solar panels, according to researchers at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

With 3D printing, solar panels like this would just be one way of using solar cells

(Image source - Wired.co.uk)

Another benefit of 3D solar cells is cost. It has been estimated that production of 3D cells would be 50% cheaper than traditional panels because it would eliminate inefficiencies associated with wasting materials. Also, as 3D printing can take place anywhere, shipping costs will be reduced considerably. 

On top of this, 3D printing of solar cell is not limited to one form. Solar cells can be added to things ranging from glass, paper and even fabric, meaning that solar cells creating by 3D printing can be used in more advanced ways compared to traditional methods of creating solar panels.

With the potential of 3D printing starting to gain momentum within technology circles, it seems that solar power, something that has stuttered somewhat in recent years, could finally have a way of becoming a major player in the renewable energy industry.

'Solar glass' lets buildings generate own power

New invention adds solar cells to glass panels that can produce low-carbon electricity

An energy company has been given a £2m funding boost after developing a form of glass that can absorb solar energy.

A University  of Oxford spin-off, Oxford Photovoltaics, believe the funding will help them take the remarkable product to the commercial market. The ‘solar glass’ works by adding a very thin layer of transparent, solid-state solar cells to glass, which can then turn up to 12% of solar energy into low-carbon electricity. This means that a new building can use this glass for all of their windows and run a large portion of the building’s electricity needs from it. 

The 'solar glass' can be dyed with numerous colours, giving building designs countless design options

(Image source - The Guardian)

This is why Kevin Arthur, the company’s founder and CEO, believes the product can be a commercial success. ‘What we say here is rather than attach photovoltaics to the building, why not make the building the photovoltaics? If you decide to build a building out of glass, then you've already decided to pay for the glass. If you add this, you're adding a very small extra cost, no more than 10%’.

Glass panels for buildings usually cost about £600 to £1000 per square metre, and adding the solar glass would only cost about £60 to £100 extra. This would only be a small additional cost, as the glass would then generate electricity for the new building. The company is mostly targeting customers creating new buildings throughout 2013, but can also retrofit existing buildings with their technology.

Can Scotland reach their energy targets if they gain independence?

Target of 100% renewable energy may fail without UK help

If Scotland votes to become independent it may result in plans to become totally reliable on renewable energy being scrapped.

This warning comes from academics from four UK universities, who believe that the country won’t be able to fund Alex Salmond’s ambitious plans for 100% of Scotland’s electricity to be generated from renewable energy sources by 2020 if they break away from the UK. Scotland would have to spend billions to fund projects such as offshore wind farms and tidal devices on their own, as they would lose all financial support from the UK government. 

Alex Salmond's plans for a 100% renewable-powered Scotland may have to be put on hold

(Image source - Telegraph)

Academics from universities in Cardiff, Birmingham, Robert Gordan and Queens in Belfast, who worked on the report, titled ‘Delivering Renewable Energy Under Devolution’, believe that this increased cost will result in the target either being postponed to a later date or being scrapped completely. ‘Gaining greater control over energy policy is likely to be an inferior option as far as getting renewables funded is concerned, in comparison with the prospect of achieving a scheme organised by Westminster in which the costs are shared across the UK’, states their report, to be published this week in the journal Political Quarterly. ‘This is because, in practice, funding a significant expansion of Scottish-based off-shore renewables under independence would lead to considerable increases in Scottish electricity prices, something that a Scottish government would find hard to sustain politically’.

For Scotland to meet their energy target requirements, they would have to replace the amount of energy generated from fossil fuels and nuclear power, which is currently 50% of the country’s total energy output. They will also have to deal with the higher costs of developing off-shore wind farms in Scotland, as seas are rougher and deeper, making it harder to build, as well as the fact that off-shore wind farms in England and Wales are cheaper and already more advanced. Also, Scotland will likely lose business from the UK, as the UK will be unlikely to continue to support Scotland’s renewable energy projects with subsidies if they gain independence, as there are cheaper energy alternatives in Ireland.

Carbon emissions fall in US

Lowest level since 1994

Carbon dioxide emissions in America fell to their lowest level since 1994 last year.

A report compiled by Bloomberg New Energy Finance for the Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE) shows that emissions fell by 13% over the past five years as a result of investment in new energy-saving technologies and renewable energy.

Despite the widely-held view that Obama is failing in climate change policy, emissions in the US have fallen

(Image source - www.scientificamerican.com)

This fall brings the country more than halfway towards its target of cutting emissions by 17% of 2005 levels over the next decade, despite the fact that many claim that Congress and President Obama have failed to act efficiently on the issue of climate change. Obama can now use these figures to show that America is going in the right direction in terms of dealing with climate change and may improve the country’s standing in global climate negotiations. 

Ethan Zindler, a BCSE analyst said, ‘There have certainly been some solid results on the board in the US as a result of all these changes’. This view is also held by the president of the BCSE, Lisa Jacobsen, who believes the Bloomberg findings prove wrong the Conservative argument that acting on climate change would damage the economy, as GDP continued to rise even as emissions went down.

The report highlighted that the steadily expanding installation of wind, solar, hydro and geothermal energy projects represented the largest single source of new growth last year, reaching $44bn in 2012. The reduction of carbon emissions in America was also helped by 488,000 citizens who opted for a hybrid/plug-in vehicle last year.

White House inaction on climate change is not Obama's fault

Report says environmental groups are to blame

A research paper written by a Harvard academic has suggested that President Barack Obama is not to blame for America’s apparent inaction on tackling the threat of climate change.

Scholar Theda Skocpol, who is due to present her findings at a Harvard forum next month, has instead put the blame for these failings on environmental groups, who she says were blind to extreme Republican opposition to their efforts. These groups failed to consider just how opposed certain groups would be to environmental reform and naively though they could still win them over with ‘insider grand bargaining’.

Obama is unlikely to make climate change an major issue, despite campaigners calling for him to do so

(Image source - CBS)

Skocpol also states that climate change will not be a major issue for Obama in his second term as President, which will come as a blow to campaigners who have appealed for Obama to take action following several high profile events such as Superstorm Sandy that they believe were results of global warming. "Whatever environmentalists may hope, the Obama White House and congressional Democrats are unlikely to make global warming a top issue in 2013 or 2014," she writes.

Skocpol writes that these high profile events are not enough in themselves to get the issue of climate change on the national agenda, and believes that 'fresh strategies will be needed, based on new understandings of political obstacles and opportunities'.

Fuel poverty set to rise

‘Inadequate’ Government policies blamed for increase in households struggling to pay bills

Christmas will be a difficult time for a lot of families as reports suggest another 300,000 households will be plunged into fuel poverty following recent price rises.

The independent Fuel Poverty Advisory Group has warned that nine million homes could be hit by fuel poverty by 2016 and have blamed the Coalition government for doing very little to ‘soften the blow’ of initiatives such as implementing green measures, which could add nearly £100 to the average energy bill, and getting firms to insulate the roofs of poorer customers’ homes, which will add another £100. With these measures, along with the recent price increases from the major energy companies, the average annual energy bill will be around £1,365.

More and more people are struggling to pay the bills to keep their homes warm

(Image source - The Mirror)

A policy announced by the Government which will limit the amount of tariffs energy companies can have and will force companies to offer customers the cheapest tariff has been criticised, as many believe it will actually cause prices to rise because it will effectively end competition for cheap deals and will stop customers switching tariffs regularly.

It has previously been suggested that nearly 90% of people will ‘ration’ their energy this Christmas in an attempt to save money, with elderly people more likely to do so, and more likely to suffer because of it. This Christmas, it is feared that fuel poverty will be directly responsible for over 2000 ‘excess winter deaths’, with that figure looking increasingly likely to rise as winters get colder and prices get higher.

Was Doha a success?

Did climate talks in Qatar achieve anything?

The Doha climate talks in Qatar have come to an end; and for some they were a bit of an anti-climax, as no grand, bold deal on dealing with climate change was reached. However, other commentators have stated that this was never the point of the talks, that they were just a stepping stone for the more important talks in 2015. So was Doha a success?

According to environmental organisation World Wildlife Federation, the talks were a complete failure. WWF called the deals made at Doha ‘shamefully weak’ and accused larger nations like the US, Russia and Japan of blocking any real progress. The organisation even went as far to say that many governments of developed countries are ‘out of touch with the reality of climate change’ and that at Doha they failed to deliver even the most minimum expectations of dealing with climate change.

Doha didn't produce a major climate change deal, but did pave the one for one in 2015

(Image source - Yahoo.com)

However, there are others who would disagree. Granted that no major deals on battling climate change were made at Doha, a lot of people didn’t see that as the main goal of the talks. Connie Hedegaard, environment correspondent for the Guardian, believes that Doha was simply ‘setting the stage’ for the main talks in 2015. She states that, although goals on climate change weren’t set, goals on sorting out the way future talks would go were set, and reached.

Before Doha, there were several different working groups based on the vast differences between developed and developing nations. Now, there is one negotiation forum for everyone, the Durban Platform. Before Doha, only developed nations had a legal commitment to reducing carbon emissions. Now, both developed and developing countries will make legal commitments to tackling climate change. And now, following Doha, there is now a schedule of what must be done before 2015.

So Doha may not have been the spectacular definitive moment where climate change was beaten, as some environmental groups seem to have thought it would be. But progress was made. The preparations for the major talks in 2015 were made. Now it is down to the governments to make the most of the progress made at Doha and take it into the talks in three years time. Climate change is a very serious issue, for both developing and developed nations alike, so all nations have to make sure that a proper deal is made in 2015, otherwise all of the progress made in Doha will have been for nothing.

Wales tackling climate change

Talks in Doha highlight Wales as first country to introduce unique climate law

The climate change talks in Doha, Qatar are well underway and have brought up an interesting fact. Wales, out of all the 194 countries with representatives at the talks, is the only  one to be preparing to introduce a new law that requires all public bodies, such as schools and libraries, to take into account the environmental factors of any decision.

This sustainable development bill will be law in just under a year and follows other bold actions to deal with climate change. Wales has a target of reducing carbon emissions in the country by 3% every year (which would mean a 40% reduction by 2020) and is currently leading the UK in renewable energy. The country also has plans to make improve energy efficiency in social housing by fitting homes with energy saving devices. These plans show Wales is ambitious in dealing with the issue of climate change, but one embarrassing fact is that, between 2009 and 2010, greenhouse gas emissions in the country actually increased 8%, compared to just 2% in England, although this has been attributed to economic growth and the cold winter during that period.

Wales has its sights set on becoming leader in renewable energies

(Image source - The Guardian)

John Griffiths, the Welsh assembly member who is representing them at the Doha talks, wants to get Wales utilising more onshore and offshore wind, but accepts the opposition schemes like these have faced, especially in mid-Wales. To deal with this, he wants to find a way to make energy companies benefit the local communities they operate in. "We are in discussions with companies to get more community benefit, and to provide more jobs. We need to paint a positive picture around renewables in Wales. There's a lot of benefit for us if we get it right." 

Griffiths wants more schemes to make homes in Wales energy efficient

(Image source- South Wales Argus)

Griffiths sees the importance of tackling climate change, as he blames it for the recent flooding in many parts of Wales. "We in Britain had the wettest summer for 100 years. Now we are told we will have more extremes [like this] with climate change. It was very much in line with climate change. Floods like that and the one at Talybont bring climate change home to people. It will have a severe impact."

There is potential for Wales to be seen as a small but outward-looking, progressive state, as there are scores of renewable energy companies in the country looking to help reduce the impact of climate change and, in the process, help improve the lives of the Welsh people.

Act on climate change Obama!

Campaigners call on President to commit to promises

Following his election victory last month, Barack Obama has been urged by climate change campaigners to turn his environmental promises into real working policies during his second term as President.

Environmental groups, who admitted they were reluctant to push the President on the issue during his first term, are now determined to hold him to his vague post-election promises and make sure he backs new action on climate change. Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who is a strong campaigner for climate change supported these views, stating, "He passed historic healthcare legislation, now he needs to work on climate change”. He added that Sandy had changed the political dynamics of climate change. "If you are a Republican above the Mason-Dixon line is it no longer going to be possible for you to start making jokes about climate. That era is gone," he said. "Republicans now have to be more respectful of science."

Obama has talked about the impact of climate change, but will he deliver on his promises to act on it?

(Image source - The New York Times)

Markey, along with other experts at a forum event hosted by Climate Desk, offered up a list of options Obama can take to "flex his executive muscle" and push Congress and government agencies into action. Some of the recommendations on this list included:-

i) The extension of tax credits for wind farms, which are due to expire this year

ii) An adoption of a renewable electricity standard (something that 30 states have already) on a national scale, meaning every state would be required to get a share of its electricity from sources such as solar and wind

iii) A commitment from the President to use the full power of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate carbon emissions from large industrial sources

So what do you think? Should Obama commit to affirmative action on climate change? Let us know in the comments below.

US set for offshore wind farms

Areas along Atlantic coast to be 'opened up' for turbines

Large areas of land along the Atlantic coast of the United States of America will be opened up for the development of offshore wind farms by the Obama administration. 

Competitive lease sales of around 432 square miles of land off the coast of states such as Virginia, Rhode Island and Massachusetts will be offered by mid-2013, with the scheme looking to launch the country’s first offshore wind farm project. Despite hundreds of turbines being built across America over the past few years, all of them have been on the mainland, and wind farms themselves still only make up 3% of the country’s energy use.

This could be the scene across the Atlantic coast of the US within a few years

(Image source - The Guardian)

According to the US government, there is enough wind along the Atlantic coast to power up to 1.4 million homes, which is seen as ‘enormous potential’ by Kevin Salazar, the interior secretary, who sees the scheme as a way of ‘moving closer to tapping into this massive domestic energy resource to create jobs, increase our energy security and strengthen our nation’s competitiveness in this new energy frontier’.

However, whilst there is enthusiasm among many for this scheme, there may also be criticism. Building turbines offshore is much more expensive than building them on land, and there are many people opposed to turbines due to their visual impact. The proposed turbines would be 10 miles off the coast of Rhode Island and around 23 nautical miles from Virginia. Officials stated that the sites were chosen to avoid environmental concerns and backlash from locals.

Why hasn't solar taken off?

Form of renewable energy isn't as popular as it could be

Earlier this week, the chief executive of Desertsec Paul van Son denied his plans for a scheme to produce 15% of Europe’s energy from solar panels in North Africa was in turmoil following the withdrawal of two major investors. Both Siemens and Bosch pulled out of the project, which would see energy produced by solar power in countries such as Tunisia and Morocco relayed to Europe via underwater cables, whilst the Spanish government has backed away from a deal to build the panels. Despite these apparent set-backs, van Son laughed off suggestions the €400 million scheme was in crisis. But does this situation suggest that solar power has still yet to really take off as a form of energy production?

An outline of the Desertsec energy proposal - which may now be in doubt

(Source - The Guardian)

Solar power seems like the ideal form of renewable energy. Even more straightforward than wind power, all you have to do is watch as the sun shines and produces electricity. But despite this seemingly simple process of producing energy, solar has yet to really go mainstream. Whereas wind power is gaining more and more momentum as the answer to the question of how to produce clean, renewable energy, solar power is getting left behind. But why is this? Why haven’t we committed to solar yet?

Cost. Installing solar panels in a home can cost nearly £9000 on average; a price a lot of people aren’t willing to pay, especially as it may also require adjustments or renovations of the roofs of houses, which adds further costs. Many people could have had help covering costs via a grant, but last year the Government cut the Feed-In Tariff (FIT) by over half, meaning people who could have earned money for merely having solar panels (up to £1000 a year in many cases), which would have helped cover the cost of the initial installation, will now earn significantly less. 

Solar power is a great form of renewable energy - but people don't like the cost

(Source - The Guardian)

On top of all this, it has been announced that energy bills will increase to cover the costs of implementing green energy schemes, such as solar power. Any form of price increase is bound to anger consumers and, despite the assurances that using renewable energy will actually decrease prices in the coming years, the new deal has been met with criticism from consumers, MPs and environmental campaigners. 

So with the current negativity surrounding renewable energy in the media – mainly focusing on the cost – it seems that solar power has an even harder task of trying to appeal to people as a realistic alternative to traditional energy production.

Are new coal plants a backwards move?

Plans for new coal-fired power plants raise questions

New research has revealed that over 1000 new coal plants are being planned in 59 countries, with China and India contributing to three-quarters of them. 

This coal expansion is going ahead despite warnings over the large amount of pollution the new plants will create, with scientists, politicians and climate change campaigners all agreeing that the world needs to move away from fossil fuels as the main energy provider. Many argue that fossil fuel assets will become worthless as action on climate change moves forward.

Coal plants are the most polluting of all types of power plants. The capacity of all 1200 proposed plants across the world will be around 1400GW, which is the same as adding another China to the world in terms of the level of greenhouse gas emissions.

A coal-fired power station in Michigan, USA

(Source - Wikipedia)

The report is said to be the most comprehensive made and was compiled by the World Resources Institute, who state that the proposed coal plants are ‘definitely not in line with a safe climate scenario’. Nick Robins, head of HSBC’s Climate Change Centre, believes it would be easier to ignore coal as an energy source, as several factors including tighter air pollution regulations, the increasing investment and commitment to renewable energies and the scarcity of water (as coal plants need massive amounts of water to operate) make coal energy not worth the hassle.

Despite these warnings however, the coal industry has seen economic rejuvenation in recent years, as global coal trade increased 13% in 2010. The UK, Germany and France are still in biggest importers, but countries like South Korea and Japan are fast-increasing their import levels. These countries, along with developing countries such as Senegal and Uzbekistan, have high numbers of coal plants but produce practically no coal of their own. Ailun Yang, of the WRI, believes that there is an issue of a lack of awareness in these countries that their energy needs can be met from sources ‘other than coal’.

Does the Government really care about green energy?

Tory MPs call on PM to publicly back renewable energy investments

David Cameron’s position on the green economy has been questioned by his own party after 20 Conservative MPs sent a letter to Downing Street expressing their concern over what they believe to be attacks on renewable energy and an anti-green sentiment from across the Coalition.

The Prime Minister is set to defend the Government’s policy on the green energy economy following criticism that many figures with the Coalition, such as George Osborne, are attacking the value of the sector, despite it being worth over £120bn and supplying a third of the recent economic growth in the UK. 

Many Conservative MPs, including Peter Aldous, MP for Waveney, who organised the letter, feel that Cameron’s silence on the issue may be putting off companies from investing into renewable energy schemes in the UK, and could see them invest overseas instead. Aldous called on the PM to clearly state what the Coalition’s position on the green economy is so that they can work to ‘encourage and incentivise investment from emerging markets…for our country to be a world leader in renewable energy’. 

David Cameron is currently pushing for investment in Britain’s energy production from the Middle East, and will meet with the heads of three of the biggest sovereign wealth funds in the United Arab Emirates to secure more investment in renewables. But in the eyes of many MPs, this isn’t enough. Cameron and the Coalition must come out and publicly back investments in green energy projects and, in the words of Energy Minister Greg Barker, ‘put its money where its mouth is’.

The city of the future

Iskandar Malaysia will be totally green and model for all south-east Asian cities 

An eco-friendly, ultra-modern city the size of Luxembourg, housing 3 million people and powered completely by green energy – that is the vision of Iskandar Malaysia. 

A map of the proposed eco-city of Iskandar Malaysia

(Source - The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/02/iskandar-malaysia-green-megacity?intcmp=122 )

Across the strait of Johor, opposite Singapore, is the site for this ‘smart metropolis’ that developers hope will be template for all new cities across all of Malaysia and south-east Asia. This new city will be home to over 3 million people by 2025 and will be powered by renewable energy, will have publically provided transport and will recycle all of its waste. The city will also have green spaces to encourage social integration and improve resident’s mental well-being. Skyscrapers will share the skyline with low-rise buildings and self-contained ‘neighbourhoods’. 

This vision, described by Malaysia’s Prime Minister Najib Razak as a ‘smart city template’, came about as a solution to the predicted city population growth in the region. In 2007, the world’s urban population overtook the rural population for the first time, and by 2050 the planet’s population will increase from 7bn to around 9bn, with the majority of people in south-east Asia living in major cities.

Eco-city projects have been planned in the past, in countries ranging from China to the US, and have collapsed, but with over $30bn promised to the development of the city (a third of which has come from outside the country), Iskandar Malaysia is hoping to truly become the city of the future.