Appearing today, a story I wrote for MIT Technology Review outlines work done at Wake Forest University in North Carolina. Researchers there, led by Prof. David Carroll, have developed a way to make low-cost organic solar cells that have more than double the efficiency of existing organic devices. The idea is to stamp evenly spaced but densely populated polymer fibres onto a substrate. The optical fibres, which protrude from the surface and function like “light pipes”, let sunlight enter from the tip. The sunlight gets trapped and bounces around inside the fibre until it is absorbed by the organic solar cell wrapped around it through a dip-coating process. Carroll has tested the design and found that it improves efficiency by 1.5 times compared to a flat cell design of similar chemistry. But more than that, the sunlight can enter the tips of the fibres at any angle, meaning it can accept sunlight from sunrise to sunset. This contrasts with flat or “planar” cells that must face the sun somewhat directly. Both of these features more than double efficiency.

It’s a fascinating example — and one of hundreds out there — of how innovation is driving real progress in the solar market.

The International Energy Agency, according to two recently released technology roadmaps, thinks solar electricity coming from photovoltaic or concentrating solar systems could by 2050 come to represent between 20 and 25 per cent of global electricity production. Now, to be clear, we’re talking about production — not capacity — so this is a significant figure given the sun doesn’t shine all the time. PV would be mostly for distributed on-grid generation, while concentrating solar power (CSP) would be mostly used at utility scale in a way where electricity could be dispatched, much like coal power plants are used today. CSP would have a thermal storage component, and it would be done on a large scale in regions with the best solar regimes. The electricity would then rely on enhanced transmission infrastructure to get the power to more remote locations. “Together, PV and CSP could generate 9,000 terawatt-hours of power in 2050.”

It also predicts that residential and commercial building PV will reach grid parity in some markets by 2020, and will be competitive at utility scale in some regions by 2030, when it would provide 5 per cent of global electricity. “As PV matures into a mainstream technology, grid integration and management and energy storage become key issues… By 2050, PV could provide more than 11 per cent of global electricity.”

The rest will come from CSP, which is expected to become competitive as a peaking and mid-peak power source by 2020 in sunny regions. “Thanks to thermal storage, CSP can produce electricity around the clock and will become competitive with base load power by 2025 to 2030.” It also predicts North America — i.e. the southern parts of the United States — will be the largest producer of CSP electricity, followed by North Africa and India. CSP, like PV, could represent 11 per cent or more of electricity production by 2050.

Personally, I’m equally optimistic. As Joe Romm over at Climate Progress regularly makes clear, CSP is well on its way to replace coal-fired power in many parts of the world. On the PV side, I’m encouraged by the state of innovation (see above posting).

The Ottawa Citizen has a story this morning about multibillionaire Bill Gates and his funding of projects that are aimed at controlling the Earth’s climate in the face of rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and the resulting warming of the biosphere. I won’t go into too much detail, except to say that University of Calgary scientists David Keith is among a small group of researchers who are advising Gates and receiving funding from the Microsoft co-founder. Controversy has no doubt followed. The scientists involved say don’t worry, our work is only confined to the lab. But critics of geoengineering — and I would include myself in that group — are concerned that what grows in the lab will be applied to the atmosphere without meaningful public debate about the risks. Already, there is a plan — called the Silver Lining Projects – to test out the whitening of clouds over a 10,000-square-kilometre patch of the Pacific Ocean. The idea is that this would increase their ability to reflect sunlight back out to space before it gets a chance to heat the Earth’s surface.

To me, the first phrase that pops into my mind is “Beware the law of unintended consequences.” I believe Gaia theorist James Lovelock expressed the risks best in a commentary last September in The Guardian U.K.: (more…)

It’s nice to see Ontario’s information and privacy commissioner, Ann Cavoukian, being so proactive on the issue of privacy as it relates to deployment of the smart grid. (Disclosure: Cavoukian is a good friend of mine and co-author of a book we wrote on privacy issues back in 2002).

Cavoukian’s latest annual report highlights the privacy risks involved with the rising use of smart meters and the increased collection of granular data about when and where people are using electricity. “In a future smart grid scenario that does not build in privacy, intimate details of hydro customers’ lives could be easily discerned by data automatically fed by appliances and other devices to the companies providing electric power (eg. what time you cook, shower, or go to bed — and the security issues such as whether the house has an alarm system),” Cavoukian writes in her report. “Once inferences can be drawn on granular energy consumption information flowing outside of the home, such as real-time energy use data, future consumers may have questions including: Who will have access to this sensitive data? For what purposes? What are the obligations of companies making smart appliances and smart grid systems to protect my privacy?”

Cavoukian has a new program called Privacy By Design, which places focus on the need to build privacy into new technologies and systems from the outset, rather than scrambling to make privacy/security fixes after there has been a major — and often embarrassing — information breach. The whole point of this is to learn from past mistakes during the early days of Internet, Web and e-commerce development, when companies rushed ahead to come out with services without considering the privacy implications. This got many companies, including big names like Intel and DoubleClick but also high-profile retailers, into a lot of hot water. The rise in identify theft only brought increased attention to the problem. Whether it was disgruntled employees looking to take advantage of this information from the inside, or clever hackers looking to steal information for a profit or for bragging rights, having so much detailed information about individuals in one place is — in Cavoukian’s words — a “treasure trove” that needs to be protected like Fort Knox. You can bet there are already hackers out there looking to make a name for themselves by being the first to access consumer information through smart grid infrastructure, even during these early days.

That’s why it’s crucial that utilities and their partners think of information privacy and security now, rather than as a Band-aid measure later. Not only is this a good strategy to avoid future legal challenges, it will also save them a lot of hassle and embarassment in the long run if they treat privacy/security seriously from Day 1. For that reason, I think Cavoukian’s Privacy By Design message needs to spread across the industry as we embark on what’s expected to be a massive, multibillion dollar smart grid buildout.

The biggest barrier to introducing peer-to-peer carsharing services to the general public is believed to be insurance. What insurance company is prepared to insure a primary driver on a vehicle that could end up being driven several times a month by a complete stranger? The fear is that insurance companies simply wouldn’t cover somebody who enrolled their vehicle in a peer-to-peer carshare service, or would refuse to honour an insurance contract if it was found the vehicle was driven as part of such a service. Also, even if an insurance company kept your coverage, there might be a tendency for them to jack up your rates.

California legislators are aiming to clear up this matter. A new bill making its way to the Assembly Floor makes it clear that insurance companies can’t penalize someone for enrolling their vehicle in a carshare service, and this is because the service provider must have separate commercial insurance covering the vehicle at times when the car has been signed out by someone other than the car owner. If this bill passes, it will clear the way for peer-to-peer car sharing in California, and set a precedent that other states and provinces (in Canada) can follow. I wrote about this in my recent Clean Break column, which has generated a lot of interest from Canadian entrepreneurs who see value in starting up such a service in Canada.

This is a cool concept that needs to be explored more thoroughly.