The scientific struggle to increase the efficiency in which renewable energy is used and then reused has proven to be a daunting task. Large wind farms and fields of solar panels are commonly used to generate energy through solar radiation. Congruently, investors are having a troublesome time competing with traditional oil and electric suppliers.

Reducing our carbon footprint lies heavily on new technologies, and the efficiency of those technologies. For instance, Doug Band and the CGI (Clinton Global Initiative) have been working closely on a project to reduce fleet emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area by utilizing advanced route optimization software. In other related alternative energy news, companies like Ford have been implementing solar panels in their vehicles to promote the usage of solar radiation for hybrid vehicles.

Both of these are fantastic steps towards a more sustainable earth, but have we really reached the point where organizations and collaborative units like the CGI can see the ROI?

By definition, solar energy is radiant heat and light from the sun, which is harnessed by us to produce electricity. There are various forms of solar-powered devices, including wind, wave, hydroelectricity, and biomass – all costly and inefficient. Because of expensive resources, along with lessened efficiency, most of these devices cannot be utilized globally. But scientists out of Stanford have found a somewhat promising solution.

Typically, solar panels and/or secondary powered solar devices will capture light or heat, and convert it into electrical energy; but they’ve never been able to simultaneously use both, until now!

Photon Enhanced Thermionic Emission or PETE, simultaneously combines the heat and light from solar radiation to create electricity.  Traditional solar panels utilize photovoltaic technology, which is flawed in that it decreases in efficiency as temperature rises. This is an obvious problem, seeing as the sun produces both light and heat. The new process of PETE, actually increases efficiency of the panels as the heat index increases.

In a recent piece by Science Daily, Nick Melosh, a scientist at Stanford claims that this isn’t just a “slight tweak,” in the conversion process, but rather a major breakthrough in a new energy conversion. He goes on to mention that the materials required to make PETE are very affordable.

The intricacies of PETE aren’t too "sciency" for the simple-minded either – nearly 50 percent of lost energy is accountable to the silicon conductor having limited transparency in regards to the light entering in. Most of the unconverted energy then turns into heat; as the sun gets hotter, energy waste increases. The obvious solution to this problem was to find a way to harvest this unused heat energy. Melosh’s group discovered that by simply shelling a piece of semiconducting material with a layer of metal cesium, enabling the simultaneous usage of light and heat.

And the best part about PETE, is that it doesn’t reach maximum efficiency until the panels hit an excess of 200 degrees Celsius, which is extremely hot. Traditional solar panels reach somewhere around 100 degrees Celsius on a hot day in the sun. Accordingly, this allows PETE to be used in concentrators (i.e. parabolic dishes), which are typically used to power entire grids and communities

In these larger systems, any remaining heat waste can then be dumped back into existing thermal conversion systems, similar to those used in the Mojave Desert. PETE actually takes that unused heat, and later dumps it back into existing thermal conversion systems. Researchers state that by using PETE in these large solar concentrators, efficiency can increase by 55%.

By doubling the efficiency we’re at now with solar power, this would be a tremendous leap in green energy efforts. This will ultimately allow those invested to become a legitimate competitor of oil. Let’s hope that scientists at Stanford continue to keep up the good work!

This is a guest submission by Jack Lundee.

Jack Lundee was born in 1984 and is a regular contributor to everythingleft.wordpress weekly. He graduated from the Newhouse School of Communications and is now an IT expert and freelance writer on the environment and political science.

It seems absurd but at the moment local authorities in the UK are not allowed to sell renewable energy to the National Grid, lest they will affect the energy market (i.e. lower prices and upset energy companies). Thankfully this will change from August 18, a major step forward in the decarbonisation of the UK.

Energy secretary Chris Huhne announced the reversal of the ban so that local authorities can install wind turbines and solar panels and generate renewable energy. It's wonderful news. Not only will they be able to cut GHG emissions and their utility bills, but they will also be able to feed the excess electricity generated into the National Grid.

Microgeneration is an important part of the decarbonisation of the economy. Communities can participate in generating clean electricity and therefore reducing the demands on the National Grid. Without this, the pressures on the National Grid will be immense, as demand is projected to double in the coming decades.

Local authorities have the means to influence communities, leading by example. They own many buildings and run large operations, where a significant review of energy supply can have a lot of visual impact. Councils installing wind turbines and solar panels en masse will not go unnoticed. This will encourage communities to be part of the same philosophy and households will be more likely to invest in solar panels for domestic use if their local authority is carbon neutral (or carbon negative) and a net producer of renewable energy.

This process can show us eventually that it is possible ultimately to decarbonise Britain's energy and produce clean electricity and consume it efficiently, without unnecessarily restricting our usage of it.

Last week, Energy Secretary Chris Huhne made the first annual carbon statement at the House of Commons and presented the 2050 Pathways analysis, an energy policy plan of 6 possible mixes for Britain's energy needs achieving 80% GHG emission cuts.

This is the first time that the Coalition government has presented something tangible on this subject, even though I expected that there would be a carbon budget in the Chancellor's recent emergency Budget, but the environment was conspicuosly absent then.

Mr Huhne proposes that energy efficiency in households should reduce demand (very sensible) (also probably costly). Homes in Britain dissipate a lot of heat and energy and are ill-equipped with all sorts of energy inefficient gadgetry. There is also room for technological advances, as we must move away from inefficient light bulbs but energy saving ones are not yet good enough for most people's needs and have the downside of being packed with toxic by-products, such as mercury.

The government wants the private sector to be the driving force of a nuclear revolution and pay its way to build new reactors and contribute to the significant shortfall that is predicted, as energy demand will double in the next 40 years (with a substantial electrification of households and transport), and North Sea oil and gas runs dry. This is wishful thinking, and there is little chance that the private sector will enter this field without proper incentives, because nuclear energy is immensely costly. Incentives can be in the form of land and technology leases and lucrative energy contracts. Alternatively, given that the state can ill afford to splash on incentives, and must make severe cuts to repay the national debt, the private sector can be pushed into nuclear energy by making other forms of energy generation more expensive.

Undoubtedly, by saying that fossil fuels will remain but only when fitted with CCS, Mr Huhne is implicitly implying just that.  Carbon Capture and Storage is phenomenally expensive, and if utilities will only be permitted to burn coal and gas with CCS, suddenly investing in nuclear energy will be attractive to them.

I believe that nuclear energy is fundamental to the decarbonisation of Britain, and to meet its energy needs in the long term. However, we must not forget that nuclear energy has numerous problems, not least that it is not a renewable resource. We have enough uranium to last us about one century at the current rates of consumption, much less if we engage in a full-fledged nuclear programme. Fusion nuclear energy (when and if ever commercially available), will be a renewable energy source (as there's plenty of hydrogen around) but fission is not.

Therefore, a nuclear programme, though necessary, can only be a plan with a horizon of a few decades at most to allow renewables to catch up with the level of supply that we need.  

The government intends to support microgeneration - great news. Solar energy is a brilliant solution for household supply, also recently it has been introduced to power recharging points for electric vehicles, so it can contribute significantly to decarbonise transport.

DECC has published a site called the 2050 Calculator where people can play energy secretary and design the UK's energy infrastructure, adjust demand and supply, and try to score the final goal: 80% emission cuts by 2050. Have a go!

Mikel Susperregi

mikel@carbonica.org