A plan for more efficient and competitive photovoltaics

Industry is steadily marching the cost of current photovoltaic technology downwards and it appears likely that photovoltaics will become competitive across most markets in the coming years and decades [1]. Many of these cost reductions will come from improvements in manufacturing, installation and in smoothing the permitting process rather than improvements in basic science [2]. This is good news for those of us yearning for a renewable energy infrastructure.

While current technologies are making their way to markets, researchers in basic science already have their eye on the next generation of technologies that will make photovoltaics even more efficient and competitive.

The efficiency of a photovoltaic cell describes the ratio between energy contained in the electricity generated by the cell to the energy of sunlight on the cell. Thermodynamics limits exist for the efficiency that no amount of innovation can overcome. This maximum theoretical efficiency is known as the Shockley-Queisser limit [3] and is only 33.7%, for the simplest photovoltaic architectures, known as single-junction devices. We would like to be build cells that operate at the thermodynamic limit, but in practice even the best research grade cells under-perform. Manufactured cells generating electricity in the market today typically only operate at an efficiency of 10-20%.

One well known mechanism to improve the overall efficiency is to couple several simple devices together into what is known as a multi-junction device. Today the best research grade multi-junction cell is 43.5%, a significant improvement. A recent commentary in Nature Materials[4] outlines a set of proposals for doing even better. The authors argue that recent innovations in the control of light made possible by nanotechnology, such as nano-sized optics, should allow us to not only build better multi-junction devices but also move closer to the thermodynamic limit for single-junction devices. Combined they argue that their plan could allow us to build devices with efficiencies between 50-70%.  Such an improvement would mean that for equally sized modules, 2.7 to 7 times more electric power could be generated compared to today’s photovoltaic modules.

So while industry continues to push costs of today’s technology down towards mainstream adoption, scientists and engineers around the world are already planning and developing new technologies that will lead to even more efficient, more competitive photovoltaic modules in the coming years.

-Joshua LaForge, PhD Candidate in Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, University of Alberta

[1] Technology Roadmap — Solar Photovoltaic Energy (International Energy Agency, 2010); http://www.iea.org/papers/2010/pv_roadmap.pdf

[2] Alan Goodrich, Ted James, and Michael Woodhouse. Residential, Commercial, and Utility-Scale Photovoltaic (PV) System Prices in the United States: Current Drivers and Cost-Reduction Opportunities. NREL Technical Report. February 2012. NREL/TP-6A20-53347

[3] Shockley Queisser Limit. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shockley%E2%80%93Queisser_limit

[4] Polman, A., & Atwater, H. a. (2012). Photonic design principles for ultrahigh-efficiency photovoltaics. Nature materials, 11(3), 174–7. doi:10.1038/nmat3263

Dangerous times ahead for renewable energy in Ontario

The events of the previous month have raised some serious concerns for renewable energy in Ontario and threaten the survival of the province’s flagship clean energy policies: the green energy and economy act and the feed-in tariff (FIT). First, the World Trade Organization (WTO) is set to rule against the domestic content requirements contained in the FIT. Second, the sudden resignation of Premier Dalton McGuinty over the mismanagement of the energy file has sent tremors throughout the province’s energy landscape. Additionally, delays in implementing the new FIT 2.0 framework, continued media assaults on PV and wind, as well as the growing backlash over rising electricity rates are propelling Ontario’s renewable energy strategy into dangerous waters.

On Monday, October 15^th the WTO ruling backing the EU and Japanese challenge against Ontario’s domestic content requirement was leaked [i]. This ruling will have implications for the longevity of the policy framework surrounding PV in Ontario as well as the regional PV industry. If the domestic content rule is struck down (pending a likely appeal), local module and balance-of-system producers will no longer be sheltered from foreign competition originating from low-cost manufacturers in Asia. In essence, this will expose domestic firms to the same market forces that have transformed the global PV industrial landscape over the last year or so. In turn, plant closures, consolidation and job loss are likely on the horizon. With the regional industrial development impetus for policy support removed, how long will the government continue to pay premium FIT rates for foreign-sourced renewable energy developments?

Adding fire to the flame, Premier Dalton McGuinty – a champion of the current green energy strategy – resigned on the same day as the WTO leak in the face of political fallout stemming from the costly cancellation of new natural gas units during the last election[ii]. His resignation reflects the dangers of tampering with the electricity system for political reasons and highlights the lack of a genuine long-term energy plan for the province. McGuinty’s resignation also poses challenges for the future of renewable energy support. With an election likely on the horizon, will the new Premier seek to distance his or herself from increasingly unpopular support for wind and solar? After all, the last election saw rural voters reject Liberal candidates in part due to wind opposition[iii].

Other issues have also plagued renewable energy policy in the province. Delays in implementing changes to the FIT scheme following the scheduled program review have created difficulties for the domestic industry and investors[iv]. A prominent PV firm has even entered into litigation with the province over the revisions[v]. Moreover, the last several months has seen a ratepayer backlash brewing over electricity rate increases and overgenerous incentives for wind and PV[vi]. Despite the fact that nuclear refurbishments and the rollout of natural gas are primarily to blame for rate increases[vii], the media continues to hammer renewables while giving nuclear and natural gas a relatively free ride.

In many ways, this situation was avoidable. An appropriate renewable energy policy framework with reasonable and justifiable incentives for emerging energy technologies would be far more resilient. The market-based policies in California point to the success of reasonable incentive levels. Although more moderate support may lead to fewer near-term job creation opportunities, it creates a more sustainable market, allowing for a greater degree of certainty for industrial actors and investors. Another key lesson that arises from this unfortunate situation is the need for a less politically interventionist approach to energy planning. An approach that is determined through market mechanisms or an expert bureaucracy with proper authority and regulatory oversight would be far more robust. Legitimacy needs to return to renewable energy support and energy planning in the province.

Daniel Rosenbloom

Research Associate in Sustainable Energy Policy

Graduate from the MA program in Public Policy and Administration at Carleton University

---

[i] http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1173543–rising-electricity-prices-have-little-to-do-with-renewable-energy

[ii] http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1271913–premier-dalton-mcguinty-resigns

[iii] http://www.betterfarming.com/online-news/did-wind-turbines-blow-rural-liberal-seats-away-4561

[iv] http://solarindustrymag.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.11382

[v] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/07/14/toronto-solar-power-lawsuit-ontario.html

[vi]http://www.cbj.ca/mobile/business_news/canadian_business_news/ontario_electricity_subsidies_should_be_zapped_study.html

[vii] http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1173543–rising-electricity-prices-have-little-to-do-with-renewable-energy

Interesting Year for Photovoltaics

Very interesting year for PV around the world. The ‘solar rush’, led by numerous support policies enacted in the second half of the 2000s decade, by the spectacular entry of China on the world market, and by a drive to produce ‘green jobs’ to revitalize the ailing manufacturing sector of several industrialized countries, has gone a little too fast for some markets. As is usually the case for rapidly expanding industries, it appears it is now time for a serious restructuring. Several large players have already gone belly-up. The PV industry, it seems, will look quite different in a few months from what it was at the beginning of 2012. The question is, of course, what will happen to the drive for PV installations as governments pull back support.

Germany, the hailed dean of renewable electricity expansion, has not escaped these developments, far from it. With an astonishing 28GW of installed capacity for PV electricity generation, Germany is also dealing with important changes in its own industry but also in its policy support. In June 2012, after three months of harsh debates on modifications to the EEG (the major piece of legislation supporting PV and other renewables), the German Parliament has adopted amendments that will affect not only PV deployment rates, but also the very way that PV is deployed across the country. Now that panel prices have dropped to a small fraction of what they were 5 years ago, and now that electricity generation from renewables (including PV) presents costs that are at parity with electricity retail rates in several regions, the German government is trying to shift gears. We are now at a junction, where PV deployment has ceased to be so hard and expensive that we do ‘whatever we can’ to pursue it. The Germans are now attempting to modify how developers and other actors see and think about PV electricity, not as a promising niche industry but as a full-fledged component of electricity markets.

These changes are intended to produce a different type of planning for PV installations, where developers are encouraged to seek means other than FIT support, and to think carefully about electricity markets when choosing where to site their projects. This is the step that comes logically after a successful FIT program. It will be fascinating to see how that market, which has shown in the past few years how impressively quickly it can change and adapt, deals with these new times. A short-term future that looks promising, and definitely interesting, as I said at the beginning. Stay tuned!

Yours truly,

Simon Langlois-Bertrand

PhD Candidate, Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University

Update from European PVSEC

Greetings from Frankfurt! It is a cool and rainy day in the financial capital of Germany, but things are heating up at the 27^th European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference (http://www.photovoltaic-conference.com). Since arriving at the conference, a particular topic has been emphasized in both presentations and discussions with international experts: the harmonious integration of PV into the electricity grid.

This topic is critical for the future of PV as jurisdictions encounter grid challenges while moving towards electricity systems with ever higher penetration levels of variable renewable energy sources. Leading countries in PV are acutely aware of the problems that arise when PV deployment outpaces the capacity of grid infrastructure and management systems. In Germany, for instance, grid operators are grappling with the daily ramping up of PV, which can see output rise by a GW or more per hour.

Intermittent renewables also pose problems for balancing the grid in Ontario, where PV deployment is still relatively low. Transmission and distribution capacity constraints, grid stability issues and other operability challenges are becoming more commonplace as greater quantities of wind and PV come online. It has become clear that if we are to move forward with the rollout of renewables, we will need to adopt a variety of advanced integration solutions.

At a parallel event hosted by the PVSEC conference, these potential solutions were addressed. The series, entitled The Smart Solutions Forum, considered the physical, functional and electrical integration of PV into the grid. In particular, the deployment of electricity storage, implementation of smart grids and advancement of BIPV were explored. PV was conceptualized as a component of a future energy system based on a more decentralized, adaptable and sustainable grid configuration. When framed in this fashion, the potential of PV is therefore inextricably linked to the rollout of this system and the surrounding social and technical factors.

I hope to, as part of my future studies and work with Project 13 of the NSERC Photovoltaic Innovation Network, continue to explore this fascinating policy space surrounding the integration of PV. Some key areas for further study include the framing of PV by prominent actors and how they envision the role of PV in future energy systems in the Canadian context as well as potential policy frameworks for promoting the synchronous development of the system as a whole.

And with that, I think I will go for an authentic German strudel.

Daniel Rosenbloom

Research Associate in Sustainable Energy Policy

Graduate from the MA program in Public Policy and Administration at Carleton University

See Daniel’s photojournal at:

http://www.pvinnovation.ca/files/Photo_Journal_Danny_Rosenbloom.pdf

PV and Bureaucracy: An impossible balancing act?

As discussed in Jonathan Boulanger’s excellent blog post, the Ontario FIT program must learn from Germany’s example set before us and remain vigilant in changing FIT rates. On one hand, FIT rates cannot be too lucrative at the expense of the taxpayer. This was the case for the German market. On the other hand, FIT rates cannot be so stingy as to discourage continual investment in the solar market. This describes the current case in Queensland, Australia as per the recent article in pv magazine: http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/australia–proposed-gross-fits-slammed_100008527/#axzz26pjjGSbz

Like the story of the German solar market, the Australian solar market has seen rapid growth in the last two years. As such, in the interest of the taxpayers, regulators are proposing to reduce FIT rates, as is necessary for sustainable growth. However, the current proposal reduces FIT rates to a point threatening the growth of the solar industry, thus defeating its very own purpose. Under the new proposal, businesses and households with solar arrays would be forced to sell electricity to utility companies at the wholesale price of 0.08 AUD/kWh, while buying electricity from the utilities companies at a retail price as high as 0.35 AUD/kWh. Russell Marsh from the Clean Energy Council creates an analogy which goes like this:

“What the Queensland Competition Authority has proposed is the equivalent of telling people they can’t just use the lemons growing on the lemon tree in their backyard – they have to sell the produce to a wholesaler for next to nothing, and then buy the lemons back at a premium from the supermarket” (Taken from http://www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/australia–proposed-gross-fits-slammed_100008527/#axzz26pjjGSbz)

This proposal, while avoiding the problem that Germany faced, threatens to kill the growth of the solar industry by significantly reducing the incentive for purchasing solar to near nothing. In this proposal, why have a FIT program at all?

If anything, this case study along with the analysis of the Germany story in the previous blog post  highlights one thing:  the PV industry is at the mercy of bureaucracy. Legislation is perhaps the primary factor determining the sustainable growth of the local PV industry.  Grimly, the margin for error is miniscule. There is huge probability of the local PV landscape swinging from the extremes of either quenching the PV industry growth (current Australia proposal) or realizing enormous PV industry growth at significant expense to the taxpayers (German story). Getting FIT programs right is truly a delicate balancing act.

-Andrew Chia ( PhD in Engineering Physics, Year 4, McMaster University)

Lessons from Germany and Around the World

“Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it” – Winston Churchill

This often quoted phrase reminds us that we should never take for granted the examples set by those before us. Whether it be foreign policy or invention, the lessons taught to us by history are equally important.

Since 2009, with the passing of the Green Energy and Green Economy Act (GEA), Ontario has started down a road first tread by Germany. The GEA was modeled after the evolution of Germany’s 1990 Electricity Feed-In Law, which was initially designed to promote small-scale wind and hydro electricity projects and later modified in 2000 and 2004 for solar energy. Following the first modification in 2000, Germany saw a 20 times increase in solar installations within 5 years and another 8 times jump by 2010. During this time, many German solar businesses were founded and flourished under an environment of heavy government subsidies.

So if everything worked out, then why aren’t more countries adopting feed-in-tariff (FIT) programs? After all, there are far more sunny locations than Germany. Unfortunately, Germany’s FIT program was far from perfect. The sudden increase in manufacturing, assembly, and installation of solar in Germany and other parts of Europe brought solar panel prices down sharply. This in turn made the FIT incentives in Germany even more attractive to investors leading to a larger installation than initially expected. This cost the German government more than anticipated, but more importantly, it left manufacturers with very thin profit margins while solar cells became a highly commoditized product.

As it was, the German solar market may have survived, but two major developments occurred: a drastic reduction in government subsidies and China’s entry into the silicon PV market. On one hand, Germany no longer had the political will to pay the growing FIT bill. The unanticipated drop in solar panel prices and the resulting surge of investor interest was more than many politicians could stomach and the FIT funding was sharply cut 30%. Almost simultaneously, China entered the silicon PV market, driving the cost of silicon PV sharply and evaporating the thin profit margins that German manufacturers were reliant on. This unfortunate combination of events has led the bankruptcy of numerous German solar businesses as well as other large solar corporations around the world.

Now as it stands in the 2012 market, the outlook for the German solar energy economy is mixed. While the installed capacity continues to grow at impressive rates and installation and operation corporations are flourishing, the health of the solar manufacturing industry is on life support. The latter industry is now forced to compete with China at the game they play best – high volume, low margin manufacturing. Worst of all, China has been accused of illegally dumping solar cells into the market at prices below cost, resulting in the US and Germany instituting tariffs on Chinese PV imports or incentives for buying home made products. As in most ultra-competitive markets, vertical integration has been the only way to maintain healthy profit margins by cutting costs normally accrued with middle-men suppliers.

With the brief history of solar FITs discussed, how can we best apply this knowledge to Ontario? Firstly, both the German and Ontario FIT programs have shown that they can be incredibly successful at encouraging investment in clean energy technologies; however, this occurs at the expense of the tax payers. In return, taxpayers should hope to expect the creation of jobs in an emerging industry as well as an increase in clean energy production capacity. In order to reduce the burden on the tax payers and for these newly created jobs to become stable and self-sufficient in the market, the FIT must be reduced gradually until the cost of solar energy reaches grid-parity. One particular lesson to learn from Germany was how sensitive the market will be to the FIT rate. If the FIT rate is left high and enough contracts are given, the high demand leads to large increases in manufacturing capabilities. When the FIT rate is then sharply decreased, the resulting decrease in production volume can lead to poor profitability. In other words, the Ontario government must be vigilant when changing the FIT rates so that abrupt swings in capacity are avoided. This vigilance should also include avoiding circumstances where no FIT contracts are awarded for extended periods, such as the 6 month freeze that began towards the end of 2011.

The second important lesson that Ontario can learn from both Germany and the other emerging solar markets around the world is to be conscious of the commoditization of solar cells and solar panels. The Ontario solar industry is primarily composed of solar panel assembly and installation, with the bulk of solar cells being purchased from abroad. There is some inherent protection against international solar panel manufacturers due to their bulky size leading to expensive shipping costs; however, increasing competition from highly efficient, vertically integrated solar corporations may lead to the gradual extinction of Ontario based solar businesses. Furthermore, while it may seem prudent for Ontario to produce its own home-grown vertically integrated solar energy corporation with Ontario based solar cell production, the recent dominance of Chinese solar cell production warns us otherwise. The relatively high cost of labor in places like Ontario or Germany compared with China are incredibly difficult to overcome (even with robotic assembly lines and 24/7 production). Therefore, if Ontario cannot compete on solar cell price, we must focus on quality – higher efficiency solar cells. More efficient solar cells not only reduce the number of cells required to reach a power production target, but reduce cost of the supporting equipment and installation costs. It is here where we may yet find our niche in this booming global market and it will be up to the imagination and innovation of Ontario engineers and business leaders to develop such a disruptive technology venture.

Jonathan Boulanger

(Year 4 PhD in Engineering Physics at McMaster University)

 

 

References:

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/10/156537940/foreign-policy-made-in-the-shade

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/09/made_in_the_shade?page=0,0

http://www.nextgenpe.com/article/Vertical-Integration-the-path-to-success-in-a-competitive-market/

http://www.mcmillan.ca/Ontarios-green-energy-feed-in-tariff-program-re-launched-and-revised

FIT 2.0: What do the changes mean?

In attempt to give some perspective to industry stakeholders, CanSIA held a webinar titled “microFIT and FIT 2.0: What it really means for Ontario’s Solar Industry”, featuring several expert panelists. Some of the key points from that webinar are discussed below.

There is now a realization that not everybody who applies can receive a FIT contract. The system of “first come first serve” has changed to one where certain projects are given priority. This was most likely introduced for at least a few reasons.  Firstly, more stringent eligibility requirements will reduce the volume of FIT applications. Secondly, it ensures that priority access is given to those projects that are more likely to succeed, ie. those without community or municipal opposition. Lastly, this amendment will alleviate some of the negative criticism, particularly around community opposition to wind turbines that the FIT program has received.

The suggested annual pricing schedule review is likely to be an improvement. It provides industry with definitive dates and timelines and establishes when changes will occur, which is in contrast to the current situation. Furthermore, it allows the FIT program to more accurately reflect changes in the price of modules or system components.

The Deputy Minister has not yet released how the new pricing schedule was calculated and it is viewed as being somewhat harsh on rooftop PV <10kW. Some attendees of the webinar suggested this may have been a political move considering that the Liberal government received continuous negative criticism from the Progressive Conservatives for the 80.2 cents/kWh tariff. This large reduction may also reflect a shift in the priorities of the provincial government towards larger scale projects where electricity can be produced at a lower cost.

The previous application procedure has been acknowledged as inadequate. The adoption of a more streamlined approach which synchronizes application processing times with project size seems to be a positive step forward.

The running theme of the webinar seemed to be that “the devil is in the details” and currently there is much information that has been left out that will need to be clarified in the updated FIT Rules from the OPA. For example, how does one demonstrate community support of a FIT application? What about the issue of connection capacity, ie. how does 10,700 MW break down? What does that mean by way of area? Stakeholders need clarity of information, for example, tables published regarding where there is connection capacity. People should have access to this information before they go to apply. How was the pricing schedule calculated? How will the new point system work? The list goes on.

Looking to the future, the draft OPA FIT Rules should be released shortly and this should clarify much of the ambiguity of the current recommendations. However, the panelists cautioned not to expect new FIT contracts immediately, suggesting that it may not happen until the Fall or perhaps sooner for microFIT and other small-scale projects.

Through all the ambiguity one thing seems clear: while simple enough in concept, the FIT program is an incredibly complex piece of legislation requiring meticulous planning and foresight for an effective execution. It must balance the needs of all stakeholders and do so in the context of a dynamic electricity system with real physical limitations. The fact that the policy is far from perfect has been acknowledged but what must also be acknowledged is the sheer difficulty of designing it. While the FIT program policy is not yet mature, it is in the process of maturing. Hopefully that fact provides some solace to a strained solar industry.

-Erik Janssen

(Engineering Physics, MASc, Year 2 at McMaster University)

FIT 2.0 – What has changed?

The Ontario provincial government launched the ambitious Green Energy and Economy Act (GEA) in 2009 to encourage the adoption of renewable energy into the province’s electricity mix and to create a new sector of “green-collar” jobs. The largest component of the GEA is the Feed-In Tariff program (FIT). It allows any individual or community stakeholder to produce their own renewable energy and sell it to the local utility at a premium rate that is guaranteed for 20 years.

In terms of uptake, the program has generally been viewed as a success, with 2,000 FIT contracts and 12,000 microFIT contracts having been offered, totalling 4,600 MW of renewable energy. Furthermore, the province claims 20,000 jobs have been created since the program’s inception.

However, despite these successes, there currently seems to be a strong undertone of discontent in Ontario’s solar industry. It seems that the program has been on pause over the past several months, with new FIT contract offers being delayed. Furthermore, there are complaints about a lack of clarity from the provincial government on when this situation will be rectified.

Part of this delay is from the FIT program’s 2-year review that has been conducted over the last several months by the Deputy Energy Minister.  After having solicited feedback from various community stakeholders and private industry, the Ministry of Energy has recently finished a list of recommended FIT program policy adjustments to be adopted by the Ontario Power Authority (OPA). The document is publicly available at: http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/docs/en/FIT-Review-Report.pdf.

The FIT upgrade, unofficially dubbed “FIT 2.0,” has several changes but is stated to be a reaffirmation of Ontario’s commitment to clean energy.  Some of the more important changes are listed below:

• The program target of 10,700 MW of non-hydro renewable electricity procured is set to be hit by 2015 where the previous date was 2018.
• Instead of 2-year reviews, there will be an annual review of the pricing schedule in November of each year and changes will come into effect the following January.
• To streamline the FIT contract approval process, three streams, based on the size and impact of the project, are suggested. This will allow MicroFIT projects and small-scale FIT projects to get through the system quicker.
• Renewable energy producers should be given 18 months from the time a contract is offered to get their installation connected to the grid instead of the current three years.
• FIT projects with community, municipal or aboriginal support will be given priority and this will be evaluated using a new points system instead of the old system which was first come first serve.
• Tariffs should be altered according to a new schedule. Suggested reductions are greatest for solar PV. Hydro and bioenergy didn’t change and wind was slightly reduced. The highest tariff for roof-top solar <10 kW was cut from 80.2 cents/kWh to 54.9 cents/kWh, a reduction of 31.5%.
• More stringent land-use and zoning requirements for ground-mounted solar >10kW.
• Strategies for international expansion and export should be developed to ensure long-term industry survival.

The topic of what these changes may actually mean for the solar industry will be discussed in a subsequent post.

-Erik Janssen

(Engineering Physics, MASc, Year 2 at McMaster University)

Artificial photosynthesis may directly produce useful biofuels

Researchers at The University of Glasgow are attempting to mimic the process of photosynthesis to artificially produce a carbon-neutral biofuel that could potentially solve the problem of finding a liquid fuel suitable for a post-oil society.

Easy access to a relatively inexpensive source of liquid or gaseous fuel is indispensable to the functioning of a modern society. Inexpensive fuel means inexpensive transportation costs and the latter is one of the baseline assumptions of a global economy. Without the ability to ship goods around the world at low cost, the economy, as we have constructed it, will fail.  Thus, we need fuel.

Currently, our fuel of choice is oil and we can be sure of two things: (1) if we keep using it then we are going to run out and (2) the combustion of oil releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide emissions are, of course, the main culprit behind global warming. It then seems there are at least two good reasons to look at other liquid/gaseous fuel alternatives.

Two alternatives currently being researched are probably familiar to the educated layperson, namely, biofuels and hydrogen gas. Biofuels take organic matter and then chemically process it to get a liquid or gaseous fuel. One example is the production of ethanol from corn.

Hydrogen gas doesn’t occur in natural deposits and therefore, must also be produced. It can be made via electrolysis (ie. passing electricity through water), gasification of biomass, or other more advanced processes.

It is important to note that both biofuels and hydrogen gas require an energy input. If the energy input is from renewable resources than either could be a carbon-neutral liquid/gaseous fuel but if not, then their use could be doing more harm than good.

A different approach is currently being developed by researchers at The University of Glasgow and other universities around the world. The idea is to mimic photosynthesis, the process that allows plants to grow. In photosynthesis, water and carbon dioxide react under solar illumination to produce carbohydrate molecules and oxygen. Solar energy is converted into chemical energy and stored in chemical bonds of the carbohydrate molecule.

6CO₂ + 6H₂O (+ light energy)  C₆H₁₂O₆ + 6O₂

Photosynthesis is already exploited in the production of biofuels, during which the carbohydrate molecules (ie. corn) are further processed to produce ethanol.  However, using novel approaches, it may be possible to produce a useful biofuel like methanol directly from an artificial photosynthetic process rather than having a carbohydrate intermediary that needs further processing.

2CO₂+4H₂O → 2CH₃OH + 3O₂

The result could be an artificial solid-state “leaf” that uses solar energy to directly produce useful biofuels. This could have several benefits. The energy-intensive processing necessary for traditional biofuel production would no longer be needed. Issues with traditional biofuels, such as their effect on world food prices or climate sensitivities, could be avoided as the artificial photosynthetic process would not require anything to actually grow. The artificial leaf would be a fabricated self-contained unit. Furthermore, the process could be carbon neutral.

The field of artificial photosynthesis is relatively new but certainly has great promise as the potential benefits of such a technology are far-reaching. You can learn more about artificial photosynthesis at The University of Glasgow’s Solar Fuels webpage:  http://www.glasgowsolarfuels.com/proj.bio-insp.html.

-Erik Janssen

(Engineering Physics, MASc, Year 2 at McMaster University)

New Climate Change Coalition to Focus on Short-lived Greenhouse Gases

For those who were disenchanted with the results of the most recent United Nations Conference on Climate Change, a recent development gives at least one reason to be optimistic. The formation of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants was announced on Thursday, February 16^th by United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.[1]

It is a partnership between certain developed and developing nations with the aim of reducing the concentration of short-lived greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere, thereby mitigating climate warming in the short-term.  It is the first effort to focus on short-lived GHGs collectively and it is intended to augment current efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions globally. The participating countries include Canada, Sweden, the United States, Mexico, Ghana, and Bangladesh.

Three GHGs are the focus of this initiative: Methane, Black Soot and Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).  Each is a contributor to climate change and is also short-lived in the atmosphere, from a matter of days to approximately 15 years. This can be contrasted with carbon dioxide, the most well-known GHG, which has an average atmospheric lifetime of longer than a century.

By reducing the atmospheric concentration of these short-lived GHGs, it should be possible to see strong and relatively quick climate change mitigation. A recent NASA study estimated that 0.5^oC of global warming could be avoided by reducing the atmospheric concentrations of key short-lived GHGs like Methane and Black Soot.[2]  This is an important finding since the International Panel on Climate Change has determined the maximum allowable global temperature increase to avoid catastrophic climate change is 2^oC. Furthermore, the study indicates that these emissions reductions could boost international crop yields and prevent hundreds of thousands of premature deaths related to these atmospheric pollutants.

The Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants pledges to help reduce the atmospheric concentration of short-lived pollutants via a multi-faceted plan. It will work with already existing groups like the Arctic Council and Global Methane Initiative, create national policy priorities, mobilize funds, raise awareness, and support further scientific research into the atmospheric effects of these pollutants.

Tackling the problem presented by climate change is easily one of the most difficult and important tasks set before humankind. Any viable long-term plan will need to deal with all the issues—most importantly, our dependence on fossil fuels as an energy resource. However, with global action on climate change mitigation stalling, this seems to be a reasonable, albeit small, step forward.

-Erik Janssen

(Engineering Physics, MASc, Year 2 at McMaster University)

---

[1] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/02/184055.htm

[2] http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/interactive-charts.html