SOLAR POWER AND ITS IMPORTANCE FOR ELECTRO-MOBILITY
Solar power is become increasingly popular thanks to its undeniable green credentials, improving efficiency, and decreasing costs. More and more people are investing in harnessing the inexhaustible supply of solar power the sun provides to light, warm, or cool their homes, offices, and boats. With advances in solar panel development their application continues to broaden.
Electro-mobility
A significant manifestation of acting on the urgent need to move to cleaner energy forms and away from greenhouse gas producing fossil fuels has been Electro-mobility or e-Mobility. This refers to the development and introduction of electric vehicles (EV) of various kinds. Thus far the majority of these have been plug-in vehicles that draw fossil-fuel derived electricity from the grid and store power in the battery.
That, clearly, is not a full solution. To fully meet the objective the source of power of energy should no longer rely on tapping into ‘dirty’ energy from a grid linked to fossil-fuel manufactured electricity. For those individuals who have been able to make the investment in solar technology and an EV the value of using them together is huge and the future of e-Mobility and solar power in partnership is bright indeed!
Solar and e-Mobility: a perfect marriage
The solar panel or photovoltaic (PV) panel and battery setup at your home or office has been created to store and provide a certain amount of power. Knowing the battery capacity you have at your disposal is crucial as some systems aren’t able to produce what an EV requires. You need to be aware of how many volts (V), amps per hour (Ah), and watts per hour (Wh) your system offers. According to Home Power, the average electric vehicle will “need a system that can provide about 12 kWh of daily charging energy”.
If your existing system isn’t up to the job you have alternatives when it comes to solutions. One effective and fairly cost effective solution is to set up a fairly simple solar array dedicated to charging the vehicle’s battery. There are even ways to get around the problem that drivers may well experience: only being at home at night when the sun is no longer shining. You can feed solar power into the grid and then draw it when you need it or—a much more expensive option—you can install an additional bank of batteries attached to an inverter. You could of course use a charging station rather than your own premises.
The undeniable power and value of solar power and the advent of the EV which one simply plugs in has led to the creation of an ever expanding network of solar charging stations. This allows commuters to plug their vehicles in while they work or shop.
Some of these charging stations look more like conventional gas stations and others look like car parks with car ports overhead. These are covered with PV panels and the driver attaches the EV to one of the power cables provided. The only potential problem here is if your normal routine doesn’t take you anywhere near a charging station.
The shape of things to come
The research and development around solar power and e-Mobility is becoming increasingly intertwined.
Grids and solar charging: there is constant work taking place with regard to more effective and cleaner grids. The number, capacity, and sophistication of solar charging stations are constantly evolving. In Japan, for instance, they are introducing cordless charging pads in parking lots.
The vehicles: some car manufacturers such as Audi and Toyota are making use of advances in photovoltaic panel designs and applications in a few hybrid cars. However, at this stage roof-mounted panels can’t generate enough power to drive the vehicle. In addition, these panels require silica which is a very costly material.
R&D is continuing, though, and Ford has a concept car which Extreme Tech claims can boost the battery when the vehicle is parked in the sun. They go on to state that US-based company designs PV panels for car roofs that can apparently “harvest 50% more energy over the same surface than conventional cells”.
Conclusion
While it is not difficult to track trends and quantify the number of electric and hybrid cars on the roads globally, what is still very hard to assess is how many EV owners are using the powerful combination of e-Mobility and solar. Using the renewable, sustainable, and clean energy from the sun to charge one of these vehicles is not only the smart—and increasingly affordable—thing to do, it makes a contribution to dumping fossils fuels which we must do!
ENERGY SOURCES: SUBSIDIES, EXTERNAL COSTS, PROS, and CONS
Between the traditional sources of energy and the increasingly popular renewable and ‘green’ sources of energy, the picture with regards to subsidies, external costs, pros, and cons has become ever more complex.
TRADITIONAL ENERGY SOURCES
Many of these energy sources are falling out of favor for environmental reasons and as fossil fuel resources come under strain. However, they are still heavily subsidized. According to Kate Gordon in Why Renewable Energy Still Needs Subsidies (2015) published by the Wall Street Journal, “the International Monetary Fund has found that the [US] government provides $700 billion a year in subsidies to fossil fuel companies”.
COAL
Subsidies:
USA [2010]: $37m (direct); $486m (indirect); 10% subsidy share
Europe [2013]: €3.2b to Germany, Hungary, Spain, Slovakia, and Poland
External costs:
USA: $575m (R&D); amount unknown (waste disposal)
Globally: 460 000 (deaths [for all fossil fuels]); 342 (accidents & related deaths)
The pros of using coal are limited but some are significant. Firstly, coal is inexpensive and also abundant. It can be converted to a gas or liquid and “Clean coal” has the same CO2 levels as natural gas. Finally and importantly, there is a well established and existing global infrastructure to use it.
The cons, however, can not be ignored. Like so many other fossil fuels coal is a limited resource; we will run out at some stage. Traditional coal produces massive amounts of CO2 and other pollutants which have numerous negative effects of the environment and health. The mining process and burning coal generates numerous toxic gasses and products. The mines also, according to Scientific America, produce more radiation than nuclear plants!
Globally: 460 000 (deaths [for all fossil fuels]); 85 (accidents & related deaths)
The pros of gas and oil include the established infrastructure, oil is abundant, has broader applications than many energy sources, and it is the cleanest of the fossil fuels as it produces 45% less CO2 than coal and the production process does not produce much waste or residue.
However, the cons are not to be ignored. Like coal, it is a finite and non-renewable fuel source. Gas and oil in their liquid forms are potentially dangerous as they are highly explosive. Both emit the greenhouse gasses CO2 and methane when they are burned. Pipeline transportation is costly. ‘Fracking’ presents an entire set of additional health and environmental dangers.
NUCLEAR
Subsidies:
USA: $65b over 56 years (direct and indirect); 21% subsidy share; 9 c/kWh (production tax credit for new-generation nuclear plants for the first 8 years)
Europe [2001]: €2.2b
Taxes: Sweden, Germany, Finland, and Belgium tax nuclear power.
External costs:
USA: $1,169m (R&D); own cost (waste disposal); 8 (accident related deaths)
Globally: unknown
The pros of nuclear power include the fact that it is a known and developed technology, it generates significant amounts of power at relatively low cost, better and safer ways to deal with waste have been developed, and it produces far fewer greenhouse gasses than other energy types.
There are of course cons associated with nuclear power. At the forefront of many people’s minds are the risks associated with nuclear energy and waste, especially in light of recent plant disasters and the terrorist threat. Building new plants is time and money intensive and materials that are required such as Uranium are limited and expensive. Currently nuclear waste poses huge immediate and very long-term environmental and health dangers.
RENEWABLE, GREEN ENERGY SOURCES
In 2007 the US Department of Energy figures stated that the R&D budget for renewables stood at $505m for the US. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) in their World Energy Outlook 2015 report estimates “that the total cost of subsidies for renewable energy were $135 billion in 2014 and are expected to rise to about $250 billion in 2030 ($112 billion in the power sector rising to $172 billion in 2040).”
They go on to state that, “Of total subsidies, about half go to solar PV and wind power, almost 30% to the other renewables-based power plants and around 20% to biofuels. However, several countries are cutting back support for renewables due both to the high cost impacting electricity prices and also the costs and difficulties of integrating them into the transmission networks. Germany and Spain are cutting about $2.5 billion and $3.5 billion per year respectively from subsidies for renewables.” The debate about the pros and cons of, and necessity for, subsidies is becoming more marked.
Europe: Swedensubsidizes renewables, mainly large-scale hydro, by taxing nuclear capacity
External costs:
USA: $51m (R&D); 883 (accident related deaths)
Globally: unknown
The pros of hydroelectric power include that it is renewable and does not require any fuel. It also does not produce any emissions and is a very reliable, efficient, and usually predictable energy source. While there is environmental impact it is only local.
Although the environmental impact of a hydro plant depends on both its size and type and is only local, there is a range of additional cons. These plants are very costly to construct and can only be located in locations providing all the necessary features; these locations can also be remote. They rely on a strong, regular flow of water and given the threat to water resources that can’t be guaranteed.
Europe: Francereduced subsidies for input to the grid to $0.61 c/kWh; Italy no longer subsidizes plants as of January 2015; Switzerland had a subsidy demand of CHF 415.6 million; Spain uses a feed-in tariff 31-34 c/kWh
China: increased subsidies to CNY13b.
External costs:
USA: $287m (R&D)
Global [2014]: $270.2b (R&D)
The pros that come with solar are numerous. It is: renewable, sustainable, does not produce any pollutants, low maintenance, quiet, negligible operating costs, increasingly efficient and inexpensive technology, it offers a good return on investment, and it can be easily installed. Organizations such Solar Action Alliance provide excellent, balanced information on solar power.
No power source is perfect and solar has cons too. It is still more expensive that other energy sources. Also, it is only suitable in locations where there is enough sun and the power produced needs to be stored. While the panels are green once installed the production process does generate pollutants. Some critics feel solar produces low grade energy.
Europe: Denmarkoffers buy-back rates for privately-generated wind electricity, Norway subsidizes wind energy with a 25% investment grant and production support, Spain has a feed-in tariff of €7.32 c/kWh
External costs:
USA: $166m (R&D)
Europe [2007]: $160m (R&D)
Wind offers a number of pros: it is clean as it produces not pollutants, abundant, has a very low carbon footprint, the turbines etc. can be located anywhere in the world where the wind blows, it is sustainable and renewable, and costs are dropping with the help of R&D efforts.
The first con when it comes to this type of energy is that wind is not a steady, predictable, and constant force. Secondly, costs remain high (building and maintenance) so the industry still requires financial assistance, usually from governments, to operate. In terms of environmental factors, turbines kill birds and bats and there are reports of affects on local weather and night-time temperatures. Finally, ome find the turbines noisy and unattractive.
BIOMASS
Subsidies:
USA [2013]: $332m (direct); $46m (indirect)
External costs:
USA: $251m (R&D)
As with many other non-fossil fuel energies, biomass is renewable. It is also abundant and widely available. It is low carbon and very clean, low cost in terms of inputs, contributes to dealing with bio waste, and can be produced domestically. This adds up to important pros.
It should be noted that “woody biomass” has cons other types lack and not all of the pros. For example, woody biomass is contributing significantly to deforestation in Europe. Other disadvantages are that biomass cultivation competes for land with food crops, utilizes a lot of land, is energy and water intensive, methane and CO2 are production byproducts, and the process can be financially unfeasible.
GEOTHERMAL
Subsidies:
USA: $115m (direct); $1m (indirect)
External costs:
USA [2010]: $3.7b (R&D)
The pros include the fact that no mining is needed, it has a very small land carbon footprint, produces zero CO2 and virtually no emissions, and it is steady, almost limitless, and cost effective.
In terms of cons, geothermal energy is heavily reliant on water and produces Silica and Sulfur Dioxide emissions. In addition, sites are often remote and are location specific. This in turn contributes to high construction and energy transport costs with some energy loss in the process. The very high temperatures also have to be very carefully controlled. Please visit Earth Comfort for more info on geothermal energy.
USA: $87m (R&D) with $1.5 for further impact assessments
The pros attached to hydrokinetic power are that the output can be predicted, it is renewable, reliable, and efficient. In addition, plants have very long lives and any environmental impact is extremely localized.
The cons include the fact that this energy source, like solar, requires a power storage system or grid backup, these plants are very costly to construct and put in place, there is impact on the surrounding marine life including birds, tidal levels and access to open water may be affected, and even tides and natural kinetic energy in the water may be disrupted.
LIST OF ARTICLES AND STUDIES CONSULTED:
While many of the reports are dated 2014 or 2015, some of the figures and percentages cited in them are drawn from 2010 statistics:
2016 Solar Scholarship Winner: Patrick Miga (Georgia Tech Georgia Institute of Technology)
Solar Action Alliance is a group of environmentalists who want to spread the word about the most clean, reliable, and abundant source of renewable energy: the sun.
A Future Among the Stars by Patrick Miga (Georgia Tech Georgia Institute of Technology)
My ideal future cannot be achieved without harnessing the energy of the sun. In my ideal future, fossil fuels are nonexistent for a very simple reason – as far as we know, they only exist on the Earth. This future exists beyond the scope of the Earth, where humans have begun to colonize other celestial bodies that are not plagued by fossil fuels.
I am currently a rising sophomore pursuing a bachelor’s degree in aerospace engineering from Georgia Tech. I am captivated by planets and the expanse of space; I do not believe that the human race should be confined to the bounds of the Earth and that it is our duty to first explore our solar system and eventually the stars. We are extremely lucky to be living in a solar system that not only has a beautiful planet that we call home but also has an expanse of unique celestial bodies each with their own distinctive properties and beauty. However, reality has led us to discover that hidden within the uniqueness of each world lies a hostile environment. The only way for the people of Earth to truly appreciate its beauty is to experience the hostility of the rest of the solar system and to conquer it – only then can we come to understand the importance of our home and cease to destroy it with pollution and carelessness. Currently we take the Earth and its resources for granted by pillaging what it provides and not allowing it time to heal. With just how large the Earth is, it is easy to get a false sense of the abundance of its resources. Obviously the Earth is not infinite, and the only way to convince the population is to show them just how small and insignificant we really are. Therefore, colonizing the solar system and observing just how rare it is to find an Earthlike world may be the quickest method to preach for the conservation of home.
The first step to colonization of the solar system is to have the means of sustaining ourselves without our umbilical cord binding us to Earth. We must be able to function without the dependency of ferrying resources between our settlement and our home – we must learn to live off of the land. This requires the means to sustain the massive energy consumption that will be a reality of colonization. Fortunately, we can colonize the solar system the same way we explore it – by harnessing solar energy. Today, almost everything sent into space with a desired lifespan longer than a few days is equipped with solar panels or Plutonium. The majority of the planets in the solar system are close enough to the sun that it provides enough energy to be considered an effective source. In the colonization of another planet or a moon, solar panels will accompany almost any form of technology that consumes electricity. Every building and vehicle will boast solar panels that work with cutting edge efficiency, presumably taking advantage of the lack of atmosphere to account for the difficulties presented by a lack of atmosphere.
In order to be positive that solar technology can be depended upon where the proximity to the Earth cannot be, we will first have to demonstrate that even on Earth we can survive solely on solar technology. I am excited for the implications that arise from this circumstance – soon there will be solar cities that validate its success and lead the struggle of convincing the rest of the world that solar power is reliable. More and more people will buy into the idea of solar power and eventually we will evolve into a race that only depends on renewable energy. Roadways will convert to solar roadways, rooftops boasting solar panels will be a common sight, and the days of dirty clouds emerging from a coal plant will fade like a bad memory. Solar technology will be developed for daily life as well as space exploration and both will improve together in synergy with overlapping technology – problems of space exploration will solve the problems of regular life, and vice versa. We will come to completely understand the power of solar technology and come to depend on it for the preservation of not only our world but also our way of life.
Once we have completely conquered the ability to produce energy without harming ourselves and our world, we will begin to conquer the solar system. We will evolve into a spacefaring species and joke of the days where humanity was guided by nonrenewable energy. Eventually we will only be bounded by our imaginations and the laws of the universe as we travel from one world to another.
We are all increasingly aware of how vital is it to act now and decisively to protect our environment. This applies to companies too. In addition to purely green concerns, “With so many products and services to choose from, it has never been more important to differentiate yourself from the competition. Going green is a great way to stand out [and] going green can help your bottom line” as Forbes so succinctly puts it.
Where to begin
Several sources suggest that before an organization can go green it needs to know how far it is from being green. In other words, the company must first list all the areas of operation that are relevant and then quantify usage. For example, how much water is used each month? What is the monthly power consumption?
There are various State (such as the EPA) and private bodies that assist – on-line or in person – with energy audits of this kind. Once the company knows what it has and what it uses, it can work to reduce its carbon footprint by making changes or replacements.
Green options for companies
*Power a business using alternative energy. Green energy or energy that is not derived from burning fossil fuels is available from clean, renewable sources such as solar, hydropower, geothermal, and wind. While solar, which is rapidly gaining ground as the foremost choice, can be costly to install, savings are made from the first month and the green benefits are enormous. Groups such as Solar Action Alliance provide a platform from which to explore solar power specifically.
*Use natural materials such as wood and stone, live plants, and natural sunlight. Not only does it look good but it is practical, reduces energy usage, filters the air in work spaces, and improves productivity.
*Replace equipment with a green energy and / or water efficient option. There’s no need to replace everything at the same time but the business can do so as an item requires replacing because it’s inefficient, broken or outdated.
*Set PCs and other computers so that they go to ‘sleep’ when not in use as this conserves power and saves money.
*Replace lights with LED or compact-fluorescent (CFL) bulbs. Admittedly they cost more than standard or incandescent light bulbs but given they use less power and last longer they are cost effective over time.
*Most companies already recycle certain items; paper and paper products come to mind first. However, companies can and should go beyond this by using recycled or post-consumer waste (PCW) paper when paper must be used. Employees can be encouraged to recycle by placing recycling containers throughout the premises.
*Move to a paperless environment as much as possible while still ensuring the safety of data and complying with financial and legal requirements. Server and Cloud technology have come a very long way. Do businesses really need files of papers or could documents be scanned and safely stored.
*Green products and promotions should also be a feature of a businesses’ daily life. The items a business sells should be eco-friendly as much as possible. Packaging material should be recyclable and / or biodegradable. This should also apply to promotional items and corporate gifts.
*Businesses should use the services and products of green suppliers whenever possible. In other words, source companies that use alternative power, fund or run green initiatives, etc. rather than using or supporting non-green businesses.
There can be no doubt that going green not only benefits a company’s bottom line but it also promotes their reputation and image, especially with eco-aware consumers, and it boosts staff morale and productivity. An article in The Huffington Post reminds companies that green actions don’t need to be limited to the business premises or working hours.
Companies can take part in green activities in the community, sponsor events, contribute to green research projects, promote Earth Day, establish carpools, and encourage staff to use lift schemes, public transport, or other forms of green transport.
A Case Study On Solar Cooling and Air-Conditioning Applications
Human beings need cooling technology to survive. It is necessary for a wide range of health and medical procedures, equipment, and applications (including anesthesia); manufacturing of various kinds; preservation and transportation of food and other perishable goods; keeping living, work, and public places cool; maintaining equipment such as computer data banks at the necessary temperature; and even the processes behind some of the up-and-coming alternative forms of energy.
Background
To date, cooling technologies have been anything but green as they produced by-products that have done considerable environmental harm. The culprit is, and in many cases still is, Freon or Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), an organic compound made up of carbon, chlorine, and fluorine.
CFC’s, when exposed to ultraviolet radiation, release chlorine into the atmosphere and it is chlorine that has done substantial damage to the ozone layer. To combat this there was a move to hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). While they are less harmful they contribute to climate change. The Montreal Protocol of the 1970’s required that CFC’s, HFC’s, and HCFC’s are phased out completely.
With the move away from fossil fuels and towards renewable and clean energy, various researchers and manufacturers began to investigate and later launch green, solar cooling and refrigeration systems that do not produce noxious by-products.
Solar powered refrigeration and cooling technologies
There are several reasons why out of the various types of renewable energy solar is the best choice for cooling and refrigeration. The primary reason is perhaps that cooling accounts for a very high percentage of energy usage in both domestic and commercial settings; solar energy is at its peak levels when demand is at its highest.
The two primary methods currently being used are evaporative coolers which are run by solar photovoltaic cells and absorption chillers powered by solar thermal. Conventional solar electric systems, i.e. where solar panels are used to generate electricity, that power traditional cooling, refrigeration, and air-conditioning units can’t claim to be green as there is still the large problem of CFC, HFC, and HCFC production.
Solar thermal systems are either closed cycle or loop systems or open cycle or loop systems. The most common closed system is absorption cooling. Solar chimneys and desiccant cooling are examples of open cooling systems. Initially absorption systems made use of refrigerant absorbents such as water with either Lithium Bromide or Ammonia which meant all green credibility was forfeited. Yet others use propylene glycol which, while not toxic to human, poses great dangers to the environment.
Successful, green solar cooling and refrigeration examples
Indirect phase-change evaporative coolers that only use water and a solar energy powered fan has been used successfully in some test locations. Solar chimneys, often coupled with photovoltaic powered fans, are able to remove heat, cool, and dehumidify. A design and engineering challenge is to ensure that levels of condensation and humidity do not become unacceptable.
Case studies:
*Solarchill: The US based company SolarChill is well aware of environmental and technological challenges, but has made huge strides in relation to research, field studies, and development. The company’s partners include Greenpeace, PATH, Unicef, World Health Organization, and research institutes in Sweden and Germany.
Their focus is 100% green solar refrigeration and cooling systems and these efforts has resulted in their system: “SolarChill relies on three 60 watt solar panels to run a direct current compressor, which then runs the refrigerant cycle that produces an ice bank. The energy of the sun is thus stored in ice [instead of batteries]”. The system contains no CFC’s, HFC’s, or HCFC’s. ‘Greenfreeze’ technology containing hydrocarbens, which have been shown to be safe, is utilized.
The progress made by just this one company is most encouraging. To date, “SolarChill [refrigeration] prototypes have been successfully field tested over an 18 month period, in Senegal, Indonesia and Cuba”.
*NASA’s Johnson Space Center: In 2015 Johnson Space Center was offering licensing possibilities on their patented solar-powered refrigeration system. They state that the technology is suitable for coolers, refrigerators and freezers, and air-conditioning. As with the SolarChill systems, the solar energy is stored in ice.
Conclusion
The European Solar Thermal Industry Federation (ESTIF) concludes that, “As paradoxical as it may seem, cooling using solar energy is feasible using solar thermal energy… At the end of last century it was still common view that solar cooling would only be profitable through photovoltaic driven compression cooling machines. However, optimized collectors, improved components and an enhanced system design have contributed to make solar thermal cooling a real technical alternative.” The fact that CFC’s, HFC’s, or HCFC’s are no longer by-products means that solar cooling is coming of age.
Grids and solar charging: there is constant work taking place with regard to more effective and cleaner grids. The number, capacity, and sophistication of solar charging stations are constantly evolving. In Japan, for instance, they are introducing cordless charging pads in parking lots.
