Shining a Light on Solar - Some More Innovations

Alongside perovskite there have been a number of other solar cell developments.

Solar Tower

MIT researchers have experimented with different 3D solar cells, including developing solar towers. These 3D shapes can better harness electricity when the Sun is not directly overhead, as well as allowing for light to be reflected within the structure and so increasing the amount of light absorbed.

This has the advantage of generating electricity more uniformly throughout the day, the solar cells can be "flat-packed" for easier transport, and in higher latitudes (like the UK) they perform considerably better than traditional flat solar cells (see Figure 1). The increase in energy density (the amount of power generated divided by its area) was by a factor of 2-20, with an even greater increase in cloudy conditions. 

Fig. 1 Ratio of energy generated by an open cube compared to a flat panel for different seasons

Bi-triggered solar cells

These are flexible solar cells that, with an added layer of graphene, can generate electricity not just from light but also from rain. Light/water electricity conversion efficiency is still relatively low at 6.53%, and it requires further work to improve long-term stability. This is still a very new technology however, and so optimisation in the future is to be expected. Even if efficiency never reaches the levels of normal silicon solar cells, in places such as the UK, bi-triggered solar cells may well be more appropriate.

Organic Solar Cells

Similar to perovskite solar cells, organic solar cells offer a low-cost, thin and flexible solar cell solution. They present an opportunity for solar cells to be used almost like wallpaper, covering buildings and interiors. Organic solar cells have also experienced a rapid increase in efficiency; this has included structural changes to the solar cell design, improving both efficiency (to about 15% - this is the efficiency required for commercial viability) and stability without altering the actual material.

Thin film solar cell

What does it all mean?

The innovations discussed in this post and the perovskite one tackle some of the big criticisms that are often brought up for solar cells: the variable output, their unsuitability for higher latitudes, high costs and so on. As these advances are prepared for the market and rolled out into the world, renewable energy will begin replacing fossil fuels not only to reduce carbon emissions, but also because they are simply the better option. This article from Nature describes just how much support solar is receiving from Silicon Valley, the current global hub of blistering technological development. 

Ultimately, as the current energy mix is discussed and plans for a zero carbon future are made, I think it's right that we assume real and novel improvements from the renewable energy offering, as opposed to arguing that the world must adapt energy generation to the technology we have available to us today. There are almost certainly similar improvements across the renewables industry, including other ways of harness solar energy (like this).

Shining a Light on Solar - Perovskite

Most, if not all, of the innovations and new ideas I'll be looking at will likely fail to make a big impact on the global energy scene. It's also very easy to get swept up in all the glitzy hype that some of these products have. But all it takes are a few key successes to accelerate the solar and renewable markets up to the heady heights of fossil fuels.
Note: I' not suggesting all these new ideas will change the world overnight, it will take many decades still. As you read this, think of changes happening on the timescale of massive global transformation.

Perovskite solar cells use materials that share a particular crystal structure known as, you guessed it, the perovskite structure. Some perovskite materials act as semiconductors, and that is what makes them useful in solar cells. Current solar cells use silicon as the semiconductor - an expensive material of choice (and 2/3 of global supply comes from China). Perovskites on the other hand can be easily made in the lab. The advantages don't just extend to cost however. The perovskite solar cells are a thin film - lightweight and transparent - and perovskites can be easily tuned to different band gaps, to control the wavelength of light they absorb.

Olga Malinkiewicz, who founded Saul Technologies (the company from my earlier post), is looking to develop cheap, flexible cells that can charge mobile devices and cover roof tiles. If they're a success, they could easily see use in powering the IoT and all our gadgets. This would make it easier for consumers to introduce solar technology to their homes. The sooner consumers begin to use and see the benefits of solar, the sooner solar and renewable technologies in general will be normalised and adopted on larger scales - and I really think that's an important point.

But Olga isn't the only person working on perovskite. The materials are a source of interest for several companies and researchers who all see promise in their application; Oxford PV is one such example. They are creating tandem solar cells, with perovskite being combined with other materials like silicon in the short term. The long term goal is durable all-perovskite solar cells with complementary band gaps, keeping manufacturing costs and energy usage to a minimum. This could ultimately see perovskite solar cells being incorporated into buildings, with normal glass being replaced with solar cells, helping to create self-sufficient buildings and potentially buildings generating surpluses of energy to feed into the grid.

There are of course hurdles that must be overcome, some of which are detailed here. Perovskite solar cells are still not operating at the same efficiency as silicon solar cells, with a particular problem being size - perovskite solar cells are still typically very small and efficiency suffers when larger cells are produced. The crystals readily dissolve in water, questions still linger about their stability outside of lab conditions and some of the best perovskite solar cells so far have been made with lead, which is far from ideal.

What is encouraging however is the pace of development (see Figure 1). New records are being consistently achieved and hurdles overcome. In July 2016 perovskite solar cells over 1cm² reached a maximum efficiency of 20.5%. Several months later, a different team grew the largest perovskite solar cell crystal yet created at 16cm²  with an efficiency of 12.1%.

Fig. 1 Change in power efficiency conversion rates over time

Habisreutinger et al. (2014) have attempted to address the question of thermal stability with the introduction of carbon nanotubes. Further work by Kim et al. (2016) has improved the stability of perovskite solar cells in humid environments, where water ingress poses the risk of dissolving the perovskite (and potentially any lead in the cells). They've achieved this by replacing the existing hole transfer layer used in perovskite solar cells with a hydrophobic, additive-free (the previous additive sucked in moisture) material that still has high hole mobility.

Attempts are being made to remove lead from the solar cells. Two teams have found ways to replace the lead but the resultant efficiencies have been very low (5.7% and 6.4%). The hope is that lead-free perovskite cells will improve in efficiency at the same rate as leaded ones, which were about 6% efficient only three years ago.

Alongside the technical achievements, I think it's important to highlight the financial backing perovskite solar cells have received. As well as just research grants, the cells are actively being prepared for market. Oxford PV, with the aim of 'commercialising technology from Oxford University', has recently acquired a factory in order to begin developing market-ready manufacturing processes. Saule Technologies has also attracted considerable private investment. For perovskite solar cells to have attracted so much investment in such a short period of time is very promising for solar technology.


Revisit next week where I'll be looking further into the latest solar cell developments. I hope you all have a great Christmas!

Shining a Light on Solar - How do Solar Cells Work?

This post has a quick and easy to understand explanation of how solar cells work.
I've also written a slightly more technical explanation, which is still very accessible! The second explanation really offers some more context to understand the new developments in solar technology, and hopefully allows a greater appreciation for them.

Solar cells use two different types of silicon sandwiched next to each other. One is the more negative side, which has extra electrons in it. The other is the more positive side, which has holes for the electrons in it.
The two pieces are connected together with a wire.
When light hits the solar cell, electrons are released from the negative side and they can move through the wire to fill the holes in the positive side.
That wire now has electricity moving through it that we can use!
Solar cells can be made to work best with different wavelengths of light. Some are tuned for natural sunlight, others for artificial etc. The wavelength of light that the solar cells work best with is the band gap.

Now the more technical explanation...

Currently most solar cells use silicon, which has four outer electrons.
In Figure 1 you can see the structure of pure, N-type and P-type silicon.
In pure silicon, each atom is sharing its four electrons with the surrounding silicon atoms.
The silicon is then doped i.e. it has impurities added to it.
Silicon can have phosphorus atoms added, and these introduce an extra electron as phosphorous has five outer electrons - this is the negative side, N-type.
Or silicon can have boron added, and this creates a hole, as boron has only three outer electrons - this is the positive side, P-type.

Fig. 1 Pure and doped silicon

The P-type and N-type silicons are then sandwiched together. At this point, the free electrons in the N-type silicon jump over to the P-type silicon, resulting in negative ions. And the holes in the P-type silicon jump over to the N-type, resulting in positive ions.

This creates an area called the depleted region in the middle (see Figure 2 - the diagram helps a lot for this bit!). One side (the P-type silicon) of the depleted region is negative, as there is now an excess of negative ions. The other side (the N-type silicon) is positive, as there is an excess of positive ions. This creates an electric field.

Fig. 2 Solar cell showing the P-type and N-type layers, and the depleted region

If a photon of light hits the solar cell, an outer electron will be lost and a hole created - this is called an electron-hole pair. If this happens in the electric field, that electron is attracted to the positive side of the depleted region, and so ends up in the N-type silicon. The resultant hole moves to the negative side of the depleted region, and so ends up in the P-type silicon.

If you connect both sides with a wire, the electrons can now flow from the N-type silicon, through the wire and over to the P-type silicon. You now have electricity flowing through that wire!

Not every photon will result in an electron-hole pair being created. The photon must have sufficient energy - that energy is known as the 'band gap' (see Figure 3). Some solar cells can lose electrons very easily (low band gap), others require more energy (high band gap). But any excess energy that the photon has is lost as heat. So if the solar cell has a very low band gap, you can expect more heat to be created. If it has a high band gap, there won't be as many electron-hole pairs created, but less heat.

Fig. 3 Band gaps and efficiencies of different solar cells

These band gaps are important, and some of the developments in solar cells is trying to make use of more than just a single band gap.

Shining a Light on Solar - An Introduction

I thought I'd expand more on my previous two posts on perovskite solar cells, as well as bringing in some other recent developments in the solar world that I've found quite interesting. But before that, here's a quick introduction to solar energy.

Solar energy has some phenomenal potential. A United Nations assessment calculated the 'Annual Solar Energy Potential' to be a minimum of 1,575 exajoules (1 EJ = 10¹⁸ joules) and a maximum of 49,837 EJ. The IEA calculated the global annual energy generation from all sources to be approximately 570 EJ... that's a lot less than what solar could generate.

It's fair to say then that availability of solar energy isn't exactly the problem, if anything, it's quite encouraging. And yet, solar currently accounts for about 1% of total electricity generation (see Figure 1 for total energy comparison), even when compared to other renewable energy sources such as hydropower and wind.

Fig 1. 2014 fuel shares in world total primary energy supply

On the plus side, the growth in the solar sector has been incredible (see Figure 2), but it will need to grow a lot to reach the potential that many people believe it can. This ambition has seen developments in solar technology attracting increasing investment, and this, ultimately, is the driving force required to see solar energy proliferate.

Fig. 2 Annual growth rates of world renewables supply from 1990-2014

Hydropower currently constitutes ~85% of global renewable electricity and yet has serious limits on further development, and ethical and environmental issues. Solar power is thus likely to be key in increasing renewable energy's contribution to the global energy mix. In order to harvest this potential we require considerable advances in solar technology.

My next post will look at how solar cells work.

Perovskite - Saule Technologies

So I looked into perovskite solar cells some more and there seems to be some really exciting work going on. They present some interesting opportunities which link quite well to the discussion on the Internet of Things and changing energy demands. Solar could (and maybe must) have a big part to play in the energy mix of the future.

The video below is a promo for a company that's managed to attract venture capital alongside research funding.

Perovskite Solar Cells

Just came across this video on some research being done by Stanford and Oxford scientists.

They're looking at perovskite solar cells as an alternative to the current silicon ones - the type you see on top of people's homes. As is always the case with these things, the hype may be unwarranted, but it definitely sounds interesting.

The Internet of Things - it's not all doom and gloom

There is hope.

The inherent "connectedness" that the IoT will result in would help to enable smarter homes, buildings, power grids and cities. Information will be more readily shared, analysed faster and acted upon in real-time. Transport for London is already making use of the IoT to begin informing planning decisions, react to disruptions within the network and keep users updated (see London Datastore and Shah, 2016) The IoT therefore creates opportunities for reducing congestion, optimising renewable energy utilisation etc. (Dragland, 2012).

The smart cities idea is attracting increasingly more attention. Whilst there is undoubtedly plenty of optimism/wishful thinking in discussions of what smart cities herald, it is still tough to overstate the significance of technological development and disruption. Sources of data, methods of data analysis and general capabilities will grow in the future, as they have done for the last few decades. Ramirez (2016) looks at the case of solar-powered, smart bins in Colombia. There are certainly flaws and limitations to the products and their implementations, but they show promise and demonstrate how the IoT can help as opposed to just hinder. The article looks specifically at smart waste solutions, but still identifies real sources of emissions reductions through that technology (for those interested in smart cities, The Guardian has a special section dedicated to it and is very accessible; this article on smart cars in smart cities, and this one on climate-smart cities are a good place to start).

Solar roofs in Freiburg, Germany show that
green building standards could cut electricity use.

The idea of energy harvesting - using ambient energy to sustain low power devices - is receiving more attention as the IoT continues to develop (Haight et al., 2016). Many of the devices that make up the IoT do not draw on much energy individually, but they are numerous. Smart cities would have such devices all over the place (cities like London already have a lot because of the work of TfL as mentioned earlier). Whilst this does not reduce the energy consumption of the more energy-hungry additions to the IoT, proactive action on this front would still serve to prevent a massive proliferation of grid-dependent devices.

Haight et al. (2016) discuss the increasing improvements in energy efficiency derived from ultra-low power processors, allowing for small, thin solar cells to run them. 'Multielemental kesterite' solar cells are made of earth-abundant materials, are exceedingly thin and can be easily optimised for indoor lighting by altering the band gap of the solar cell. They are identified as a potential source of solar cell technology to run low power devices. Further research by Wang et al. (2016) has seen the development of a single device that can scavenge wind and solar energy. They identified the lack of effective wind energy solutions that are suitable for urban areas, and so developed a device that is approximately 120 mm × 22 mm. This small device can individually and simultaneously generate power from solar and wind energy to run low-power devices. They could be installed extensively on the roofs of buildings and homes to self-power certain functions of smart cities that rely on the IoT.

The introduction of the IoT to the running of cities therefore presents opportunities to rethink how energy is used and drive reductions in consumption. Smart metering, in much the same way that it has helped in industry (see my post on the IoT and Industry Energy), can help draw attention to energy consumption for ordinary people. Anda and Temmen (2014) highlight the success of properly implemented smart metering programmes in achieving behavioural change.

Smart metering is a part of the movement towards smart grids, which can intelligently and autonomously handle shifting loads and variable energy generation (Anda and Temmen, 2014). They also present more opportunities for "end-users" to feed back into the grid with energy they themselves generate (Dragland, 2012). This would be alongside informed people taking an active part in regulating their energy use by making visible the previously invisible consumption. The resilience of the grid is improved whilst energy consumption is optimised (Young et al., 2016). Figure 1 lists the advantages smart grids hold for each stakeholder. This setup would also aid the adoption of renewable energy and help address the problems of variable energy generation that renewables suffer from.

Fig 1 Benefits cross section for key stakeholders

The mistake that I think Hazas et al. (2016) make is that whilst they recognise the increase in devices, they don't recognise the potential for change that those devices bring with them. Energy use does, in many cases, perversely drive energy use. But the IoT, through smart meters and smart grids, could still help to create efficient behaviours and practises, and speed up the transition to renewable energy. de Decker's suggestion of an inbuilt speed limit that Hazas et al. refer to would not be the correct solution. The growth of the IoT is too organic to introduce and enforce this sort of restriction, and I struggle to see how you could decide on a limit when it would almost certainly restrict innovation and growth (read: profit). 

The route of energy harvesting and smart tech-enabled solutions is the one that is likely to be the best. It allows commercial interests to be aligned with energy reduction, and these solutions themselves will grow to be large businesses. We will undoubtedly require more conservative voices to keep up the pressure and force a focus on reducing consumption. But enforcing data restrictions is not viable, and any government that tries it would likely be met with apocalyptic prophecies of businesses fleeing to enlightened, "pro-business" countries.

For those that are of a more technical disposition, this article may be of some interest.

The Energy of the Internet

The IoT heralds an age of continuously streaming data. Billions of sensors will be using the internet without any direct human action required. As ever, change on such scale brings opportunity as well as risk. In the context of tackling climate change by limiting greenhouse gas emissions, some of these opportunities and risks have already been looked at.

The rise in internet growth and energy consumption of data centres featured in the Digital Footprint article. This post will expand on those topics, with a greater focus on the IoT.

Internet-related energy consumption goes beyond data centres. And whilst energy efficiency is increasing, the rate of advancement in technologies (4G mobile data, 4K video, 3D TV etc.) means consumption continues to rise. Researchers from Lancaster University's DEMAND Centre argue that the primary constraints on internet use - population and waking hours - will be weakened with the IoT, as autonomous sensors and processors proliferate: 'some predictions suggest that production and use of information and communication technologies might grow to around 20% of global supply by 2030' (Hazas et al., 2016: 1). They highlight the fact that nobody is 'paying attention' to the devices and algorithms that are quietly building up in number and increasing energy consumption.

A recent Cisco white paper pointed to the 74% increase in mobile data growth from 2014 to 2015. It further stated that '4G connections represented only 14 percent of mobile connections in 2015, [but] account for 47 percent of mobile data traffic'. Faster mobile data connections will only serve to increase internet use, and change users' ideas of "low", "normal" and "high" data levels. This is coupled with projections for rapid growth in "smart" devices (see Figure 1). Faster mobile data therefore presents more opportunities for connected cars, health devices etc., further driving up energy consumption.

Over the last decade, data growth has been dramatic, and forecasts predict a similar ongoing pattern. Since this is associated with increasing electricity consumption, such a trend is significant to global efforts to reduce carbon emissions. (Hazas et al., 2016)

Fig 1 Global Growth of Smart Mobile Devices and Connections

The disconnection between internet use and direct/obvious human interaction presents a serious challenge in attempting to limit energy consumption. Turning lights off and unplugging electrical appliances are behavioural changes that have come from people (you, me and everyone else) being aware of their energy use and attributing value to it beyond the pennies it costs in electricity bills. Generating awareness about the impact of the internet, which is arguably more intangible than the lights, will present significant difficulties.

The Internet of Things and Industry Energy

In a previous post, Digital Footprint, I mentioned the increasing number of connected devices used by society today, including ones that are not as immediately obvious - like "smart" meters, "smart" TVs, "smart" watches. These sorts of devices form part of the Internet of Things (IoT). The IoT is the growing body of devices connected to computer networks. These can range from vehicles on our roads to tiny sensors in a water company's pipe network (if you're interested in the IoT and want to learn more about the different applications, check out Meola, 2015 and the two reports I use in the next paragraph for accessible introductions).

They allow for the gathering and communication of data and a host of uses. Some of them are already finding their ways into our homes (the Nest thermostat is a good example), but there is considerable growth forecast in these devices, as increasingly more appliances are connected to networks. The IoT has been identified as a major market for the future. Even conservative estimates place the economic impact of IoT at $3.9tn (2015 USD) by 2025 (McKinsey, 2015 - download full report, see Figure 1). An industry report identified several industries that are benefiting from the IoT, including 'manufacturing, mining, agriculture, oil and gas, and utilities' (Accenture, 2015 - download full report), which will therefore see growth in the IoT with a large drive coming from the commercial sector.

Fig 1 Potential economic impact of IoT by 2025

Reports and research have consistently pointed towards efficiencies derived from the IoT that can drive energy and resource consumption down. Industry is a good and well researched example of this. Currently, industry accounts for one-third of global energy use and 40% of CO₂ emissions (Brown et al., 2012). Improvements in industry practises and operational efficiency could therefore seriously reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Bunse et al. (2011) identify energy efficiency as the key short-term tactic in the wider strategy of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Citing research by the SPRU and Swedish case studies, Bunse et al. (ibid.) state that a major barrier to energy efficiency improvements has been the relatively low priority given to energy management. This has been enabled by the lack of sub-metering in industry (Shrouf and Miragliotta, 2015), and so granular energy consumption data is not gathered. Thus, improvements to energy efficiency go beyond just improvements to specific processes of production, and begin to incorporate availability of data and management approaches (Weinert et al., 2011).

In recent years there has been an increasing focus placed on energy efficiency. This has been driven by energy costs and their unpredictability; emissions-related regulations; and changing customer preferences towards "green products" (BCG, 2009). Real-time data provided by the IoT allows an awareness of energy consumption (Haller et al., 2009). New connected devices therefore offer the opportunity to integrate energy use-awareness into industrial processes (Shrouf and Miragliotta, 2015; McKinsey, 2015), driving behavioural, cultural and value change. Figure 2 shows an effective framework for introducing IoT-enabled data into the decision-making process.

Fig 2 Framework for IoT-based energy data integration in Production Management decisions

However, whilst the IoT has been identified as a source of energy efficiency innovation, Bunse et al.'s (2011) gap analysis between industry and the literature highlights the need for better, more practical frameworks to introduce more effective energy management. With the IoT rapidly developing, and framework suggestions being developed (Shrouf and Miragliotta, 2015), there is promise in the delivery of decreases in energy consumption. Whether that can be sustained even when the cost savings are not immediate and substantive will depend largely on policy and public pressure.

The IoT and its advances are not just isolated to industry. The next post will therefore explore other areas where the IoT may affect energy consumption.

Oil and Gas are cheap... and there's lots to go around

The World Energy Outlook (IEA, 2015), which I read for a previous post, briefly discussed the possible effects of the sustained lower oil prices since 2014. Whilst looking further into that issue, I came across this article from the Harvard Business Review (2016). As well as oil, it also touches upon the effect of unconventional and disruptive sources of non-renewables, such as shale gas.

Shale gas is argued to be affecting the current oil price (Makan, 2013*; Elliott, 2015), and will continue to do so in the future (PwC, 2013). As gas is the only non-renewable energy resource that is expected to see increased usage, lower prices and ample reserves may have significant implications for emissions reductions (IEA, 2015: 21). This is especially true for the US, which is a major player in the shale gas business (Haug, 2012). Hartmann and Sam also note that shale gas producers can act as 'quasi swing producers' (2016), which points to the power of policy in potentially shaping market prices of the future.

More robust oil-producing nations (see Figure 1) are now beginning to diversify their energy mix, with moves towards shale gas (which has a lower carbon intensity than coal and oil) and renewables. These investments present significant new opportunities, as cash-rich economies such as Saudi Arabia could help drive innovation, lower costs and share technology for the renewable industry. The most robust economies all also happen to be in areas that experience intense solar radiation (that could mean big things for solar...).

Fig 1 Low oil prices create high risks

Haug (2012) states that shale gas and renewables are complementary advances, with both helping towards the emissions reductions that are necessary to combat climate change. Without the cripplingly high oil prices and rapidly-depleting reserves that had long been predicted, it is vital that emissions reductions are still kept on the agenda and as a priority. In a future post, I'd like to see if shale gas does have a positive part to play in the energy mix of the future; or whether it's just a route to complacency and broken emissions promises.

*To read this article without a subscription, search "US shale gas to lead to lower oil prices FT" on Google.

The Power of the Brand

Recently, Elon Musk (CEO of Tesla, Chairman of SolarCity, and more...) introduced the Solar Roof. Solar tiles as opposed to solar panels.

SolarCity's Solar Roof

Solar tiles are not new, but it wasn't until Tesla arrived on the scene that they received the level of attention they now do. The same goes for home battery systems. Tesla are already selling the second version of their home battery, Powerwall 2, which can store energy generated or pulled from the grid during the day to then power the home at night. All of this, the cars, the batteries, the tiles, has been presented to consumers with the same slick style as Apple. Whether the tiles prove to be as disruptive as Tesla's cars is yet to be seen. But it does highlight the significance of industry, how it adopts renewable energy and how they capture people's imagination (and money). 

We the consumer do not base our spending habits on education, petitions and legislation alone. So we shouldn't just rely on these things to see electric cars, solar cells and other such products flourish (and they are, ultimately, products). If we hope to translate scientific advances and suggestions into real-world transformation, encouraging faster uptake of renewable energy and accompanying technologies will be key. Betting everything on the success of lone figures such as Elon Musk is risky business, and just a bit unfair!

Digital Footprint

In my last post I looked at the change in electricity generation. That got me thinking - how is energy consumption changing? Beyond just "energy efficient light bulbs" - but sectoral and industry change. That led me to the rise of Digital, and the disruption and challenges it brings with it. So I decided to do a brief post on what that may mean for the future outlook of energy consumption.

The Digital Economy has a number of contested definitions, with its increasing establishment in the "normal running" of things blurring the line between the digital and traditional economies. Put simply, it is the economy that grows from digital computer technology. The digital economy is continuing to grow at a rapid rate, as networks expand and networked devices proliferate.

This has introduced several sources of energy consumption, with one of the largest drains being data centres - facilities that hold computer systems (like servers). Data centres are required by every big company, the likes of Google and Microsoft have sprawling data centres with vast energy requirements. In 2012, these data centres alone accounted for 2% of global energy consumption, and at the time the annual growth rate was 4.3% - it is now likely higher (Aroca et al., 2014). Alongside these large-scale installations, the Digital Economy brings energy drains in the form of phones, laptops, desktops, smart watches. Every download and upload, whether it's a film on your laptop or an internet-connected fridge, comes with an energy cost.

Cloud computing also brings with it an "always on" capacity. More traditional appliances, such as ACs, had a limit to how long or how much you would use them. With cloud computing, with connections spanning households, borders, time zones, the demand for the services are ever present, and so is the energy consumption (Walsh, 2013). There has been considerable research into making data centres more energy efficient, not only because of the environment, but also because of costs. Aroca et al.'s (2014) research focused on optimising server function and components to minimise energy usage.

More granular research has also been conducted with Weber et al. (2010) establishing carbon dioxide emissions from different methods of music delivery. Direct downloading being by far the least energy intensive process. However, this research did not look at the usage of downloaded music and how it may differ. Is the era of downloads and streaming also encouraging further energy consumption with Wi-Fi speakers and Smart TVs?

Alongside the more technical solutions to the Digital Economy's energy requirements, it is also important to understand the behaviour of consumers. Hertwich (2005) conducted research into the rebound effect - the possible behavioural and systematic secondary impacts that can 'offset part of the environmental gain' of more environmentally-friendly products and services (e.g. downloading music rather than shipping physical CDs). Hertwich concluded that in fact 'ripple effects' is a better term than rebound effects, as the secondary impacts can actually be positive.

The Digital Economy therefore will be of increasing importance to energy solutions in the future, and work is well underway to keep emissions down as they are so closely linked to costs. How the Digital Economy can in fact reduce carbon dioxide production is still being researched, as a lack of physical copies and products does not necessarily translate into significant, if any, emissions reductions. 

Is the future bright for renewables?

In 2015, for the first time ever, more than half of the growth in electricity generation capacity came from renewable sources. This is according to the International Energy Agency's (IEA) World Energy Outlook 2015. The document was compiled with the help of peer reviewers from across the spectrum of expertise (and vested interests!) - industry, government, NGOs and academic institutions.

The report being an "Energy Outlook" and not "Climate Change Outlook" however means input from commercial sources is to be expected and indeed necessary. Further, the IEA have been criticised in the past for not supporting renewable energy enough. If those criticisms were true, the IEA's position in the 2015 report would reflect considerable progress in the viability of renewable energy. The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) echoed the IEA's findings, reporting the record 8.3% growth in renewable energy capacity.

The installed capacity of renewable energy has managed to trump that of coal's (barely - Figure 1). This is especially good news because out of coal, oil and natural gas, coal produces the most carbon dioxide per unit of energy. However, the trends of the fossil fuels are extremely complicated. The oil price plunge in 2014* took most by surprise, and oil prices have a complex relationship with gas. Overreliance on trends in the fossil fuels as a way of judging the success of renewables therefore is not advisable, and we should not allow ourselves to become complacent.

Fig 1 Total global installed cumulative capacity in 2015

China is a consistent area of focus in reports of the global energy makeup, for the present and the future. It is one of the largest economies in the world and forecast to grow to the number one spot. It emits more carbon dioxide than any other country in the world. But according to Bloomberg, by numerous renewable energy metrics (investment, total capacity, growth), it is a leader. China therefore represents a key and quite confusing player on the renewable energy stage. The IRENA (2016) lists ‘falling costs for renewable energy technologies, and a host of economic, social and environmental drivers’ to explain the increase in renewables. As renewable energy technologies develop and scale of production continues to increase, the falling costs are relatively straightforward, and China’s role as a massive consumer and producer of this technology is clear.

China, in its recent Five-Year Plans, has introduced clear goals of reducing energy intensity. This policy-driven change, spurred by the economic, social and environmental drivers the IRENA refer to, shows a Chinese commitment to moving towards more renewable energy. Structural shifts in the economy, moving towards the less energy-intensive, services sector; plans for an emissions trading scheme; and mandatory efficiency standards are all changing the projected outlook of China’s energy consumption.

An important economic driver in play across the world is the issue of subsidies. Subsidies for renewable energy totalled $112 billion in 2014; subsidies for fossil fuels totalled $493 billion in 2014. The difference is vast. Since 2009, fossil fuels have enjoyed a $103 billion increase in subsidies. The absurdity of the situation is clear, especially when the high cost of renewable energy is so often compared to the roaring, capitalist success of fossil fuels. The IEA do note however that decomposition analysis showed recent policy changes have seen a restriction in the fossil fuel subsidy increases (Figure 2). The reduction in oil prices, which carried the risk of countries increasing their reliance on fossil fuels (IRENA, 2016), has been used by certain countries like India and Indonesia as an opportunity to reduce fossil fuel subsidies (IEA, 2015).

Fig 2 Contributing factors to change in value of fossil fuel subsidies

Most of the renewable energy capacity currently comes from hydropower (1,209 GW), considerably greater than any of the other sources; wind and solar are the next highest at 432 GW and 227 GW respectively (IRENA, 2016). The IRENA analysis also found that the hydropower comes primarily from ‘large-scale plants’. The prominence of hydropower in the renewable energy mix is a serious concern, now and for the future.

Hydropower projects, especially the big ones, have received extensive criticism for several decades. They have been accused of offering a poor return on investment, at the cost of the local ecology, destruction of local people’s livelihoods, and all too often involve foreign investment (and, invariably, influence) driving the projects through. The push for an Integrated River Basin Management framework would invariably see a reduction in the production of these hydropower dams. Maintenance and continued use of existing dams would also be thrown into question, as hydropower projects struggle to fit the demands of a multi-sectoral, inclusive solution (Savenije and Van der Zaag, 2008).

Whilst record increase in renewable energy growth sounds positive, it is still far too small to bring about the necessary scale of change. Only 23% of energy in 2015 was from renewable sources, more of the global population is moving away from traditional biomass sources of energy to electricity and nations are continuing to heavily subsidise fossil fuels (the UK has in fact reduced renewable energy subsidies). China’s aligning of economic and environmental priorities is encouraging, as are developments in India. However, we must move away from “promising” and begin achieving significant, material results. The issues of China (and other developing countries), the place of hydropower in a sustainable world and the lacklustre leadership of developed countries all warrant further research.

*To read this article without a subscription, search "Winners and losers emerge from the oil price slump FT" on Google.

A focusing of the blog

Having prepared for my post on energy, I found the topic to be far larger and more interesting than I had expected. And so I shall forego my original aims and continue down the path of energy exploration. I've learnt my lesson, so I won't try to predict my future posts, but they'll definitely be in keeping with questions of energy: how much do we use, how might that all change, how can we make renewables successful? The blog will still retain a focus on the pragmatic solutions, on renewable energy efforts that have actually succeeded or may realistically succeed in the future.

Money makes the world go round

In a series of blog posts over the coming months (and maybe beyond...) I'll be looking at the ways in which the environment is used/exploited for monetary gain. And also try to see how the economy can help or hinder attempts at protecting the Earth. Alongside this, I'll be exploring the part politics plays - as the stage where some (if not all) of the highest level decisions are made.

Before I get started, I thought it would be good to note what my "starting position" actually is. What are my immediate thoughts / feelings / impulses about saving the world?

Well, I agree with the need to proactively challenge climate change. I don't think the problem will go away by itself. I don't think it's fair that some of the poorest people in the world will feel the brunt of it. And I don't think that our current set-up in countries like the UK is sustainable.

I also believe that the ecosystems of the world should be protected as well as possible. That organisms, whether they are cute or ugly, majestic or humble, shouldn't be driven to extinction by our fumbling, bumbling hands.

I am, in that respect, a run-of-the-mill Geography student.

However, whilst the ideal will always be a sustainable world, where power and wealth are fairly distributed and where we have a healthy respect for our surroundings... I am highly sceptical of the "integrated", "holistic", "grassroots" schemes that are all too often suggested as ways of protecting and managing the environment.

My natural inclination (for the time being, at least) is towards the big, heavy, systems-level schemes. The ones that have the clout of the most prominent global organisations fully behind them. These schemes have often been lacklustre or downright failures in the past, but I still think - at least they're actually doing something. For all the virtues of an inclusive, bottom-up initiative, I fail to see how they have brought about tangible and sustained change beyond the small-scale. All too often the frameworks that are drawn up also fail to suggest pragmatic roadmaps for delivery.

That is a small (and frank) introduction to my viewpoint. I absolutely support the idea of sustainable solutions, but I also think a lack of pragmatism means a waste of time (and research funding!).

In the coming weeks, I'll explore the ecosystem services concept, the impact of Tesla, fracking and more! All in the hope of discovering genuine opportunities to protect the environment from genuine threats.

At the end of this module, I'd like to revisit this post and reflect on how my thoughts have changed