In case you missed it, The Economist ran a fantastic story this past week with obvious tech and electric car implications, but as a real estate guy I couldn't help but imagine the affect this kind of technology would have on Class A office space or high-rise multi-family buildings that are made of mostly glass.
Imagine if a building wouldn't require a backup emergency generator, or act as its own power source, or even provide power to surrounding properties?
If nothing else, it would be an amazing marketing strategy, alongside the "breathable" buildings under construction and all of the LEED certifications that tenants love.
WITH so much glass in buildings, cars and the screens of mobile devices, it is understandable why researchers would like to come up with transparent solar cells which could generate electricity and top up batteries.Solar cells work by absorbing the photons in sunlight and converting them into electrons, which are gathered by electrodes to flow into a circuit. Most solar cells are opaque to absorb all the light they can to maximise their efficiency. So, to look out of a window or use the screen of a smartphone, a layer of solar cells has to let some light through. Yet the more transparent the cells, the less energy they produce—or at least that is how it works with traditional solar technology based on semiconducting materials such as silicon.
An alternative is to make solar cells from substances that absorb light only at wavelengths which are invisible to the human eye, such as those in the infrared (IR) and ultraviolet (UV) spectrum. That would allow visible light to pass through. One company working on this is Ubiquitous Energy, a spin-off from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in 2011. It is developing solar cells using transparent organic materials that absorb IR and UV wavelengths.
Taking light from only part of the spectrum would reduce the percentage of sunlight’s energy that can be converted into electricity. Ubiquitous Energy is hoping, some think optimistically, to exceed 10%. That compares with 20-25% efficiency for a typical non-transparent solar panel.
Last year a team at Michigan State University led by Richard Lunt, formerly at MIT, displayed a variation of the approach using extremely small organic molecules, which Dr Lunt describes as “exceptionally transparent to the human eye”. These molecules absorb specific non-visible wavelengths of light and then glow at a different IR wavelength. This glowing light, which is also invisible to the eye, is guided to the edge of the glass where it is converted to electrical energy by thin strips of photovoltaic cells. The arrangement, known as a transparent luminescent solar concentrator, allows most of the glass to be kept clear of solar components. The first version had a power efficiency of only about 1%. But it is early days and the researchers hope to boost that considerably.
It should be possible by using materials that absorb non-visible wavelengths of light to produce thin-films of solar cells cheaply using industrial processes that make large rolls, says Rutger Schlatmann, director of the Competence Centre for Thin-Film and Nanotechnology for Photovoltaics, a Berlin-based industry research group. But as he points out: “It is visible light that carries by far most of the energy.” That means, however good they are, transparent solar cells may never rival solar panels designed to capture the maximum amount of light. Nevertheless, what they can trap could still be useful.
Semi-transparent solar cells can be used to produce coloured or tinted glass, which helps when shading is required. Heliatek, a company based in Dresden, Germany, uses organic materials to make solar-cell films which are up to 40% transparent. With a solar efficiency of over 7% they can produce electricity-generating tinted glass in buildings and car sunroofs.
One development that is attracting a lot of interest is the use of a family of crystalline materials called perovskites, which could allow semi-transparent solar cells to be made relatively cheaply in large rolls. A group at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, recently reported they had made ultra-thin films with perovskite crystals that are capable of a solar efficiency of over 15%.
Oxford Photovoltaics, spun out of the University of Oxford in 2010 to commercialise thin-film solar cells, reckons perovskites are good for over 20%. The firm calculates that if a 35-storey office block in London was clad with perovskite cells they could generate almost 60% of the building’s energy consumption. When electricity bills are high or batteries are running low, every bit of juice counts.
Honestly, in the long run if they do manage to bring up the efficiency, everything from cell phones to outdoor advertisements and sky scrapers would be able to take advantage of solar energy. What do you think?
Between cheaper and more efficient PV cells, improved battery tech (and it's been developing far longer than Elon Musk's PR machine would have you believe), overall distributed generation, and a few things, I'm really bullish long term on renewable energy. It's close to reaching the point of the cost for solar and other renewables to compete on price with fossil fuels (close, not quite in most places) where government subsidies don't need to bridge the gap, especially in higher cost electricity places and if battery tech improves and costs lessen there, a lot of people could never buy from the grid and always be reverse metering and sending power to the grid. Interesting stuff.
My interest in renewables and infrastructure has been growing as I learn more. May be a dumb question, but anyone who's worked in AM or maybe leasing, would there be a business opportunity to offer services to owners where you take excess space and retrofit with solar panels? For example, we have a lobby no one uses, and the REIT that owns my apt is now putting a bank there. We have tons of unused space on the roof, and I feel like if you had a viable plan to reduce opex, an owner would buy in.
You hear about it a lot with residential and ppl wanting to get off the grid, etc, so what's the hold up with commercial? I believe a few years ago I read that CRE creates something like 60-70% of global emissions.... I'd like to hear the 10 cents from those who work closely with owners
"Viable" is the key word here. Would the owner realize a return on investment from the purchase and installation costs in a timely matter? I honestly can't tell you if that's a yes or a not, but I imagine if it was a yes (much like the money saved from going to LED lighting) more people would be doing it.
You have to take into consideration the placement of the panels. Solar works best on long flat roofs where the panels can be placed contiguously. Most commercial buildings are not necessarily long and flat, many have roof top HVAC units and chillers on the roofs so they would inhibit a contiguous run of panels. Roof warranties are also usually voided if an owner goes solar because you have to drill into the roof, commercial roofs are incredibly expensive. Also, you would need a lot of panels to power a 30-40 story building, many times there just isn't enough space on the roofs to power a whole building.
You don't have to drill into the roof. Most of these panels are on movable sleds. Power is sold on long term, 10-15 year power purchase agreements. Even if the power costs more traditionally, it gives the buyer predictability.
Just think of how much flat surface is unused. Think parking lots, distribution centers, big box retail, etc. Renweables are so bad ass right now, I'm in love with them.
There's a huge push for rooftop solar, but it's not going to be on high rise CBD buildings, it's more suited for industrial, low rise suburban office (think 2 story 100k SF office), big box retail, malls, parking lots, etc, where there are HVAC units and other stuff on top but for the most they're empty roofs. I forget the exact number but it's something like you need 50k SF of free space for 1 MW. You have to drill into the roof, but barely, @TNA" is right, they're primarily on slides and the mounts don't penetrate the deck. They're also pretty light so as long as you don't try to put them on a shitbox 50 year old industrial building it works. Panels have a 20-25 year life (inverters blow after 12-15 so that's the only real capex you need for the life of the panels) so you want the useable life of the roof to be pretty close to that number. You also have to be on or close to higher power lines but I forget that detail.
There are a decent amount of companies doing this as third parties/investors but there are two basic ways people do it. One you own a company that uses electricity and you own the building, you buy and install the units, you use the electricity and know your cost for 25 years and any excess is net metered back to the grid (essentially your electric meter spins backwards). Unless you have an unusually large building coupled with very low electric use, you're still going to have an electric bill, it will just be less because you'll be drawing less from the grid and selling some back at peak sun (and on the weekends). The second ways are the investor owned, long term PPA with the tenant and any additional is sold to the grid OR you can pay a roof rent to a building owner (I'm sure Prologis has a program to just collect rent from these and works with multiple third parties across the country, similar to cell phone towers) and sign a PPA with an off-site large user (colleges love these because they can say they're green without putting solar panels all over their ivy walls...) and pump it into the grid-electricity is electricity, if you produce it in Worcester Mass your electrons don't have to come out of the Harvard dorm's plug, it's all just metered. Most states, if not all, have requirements that renewable energy must be accepted onto the grid as long as the infrastructure is there to take it onto the grid. Price doesn't have to be guaranteed however.
It comes down to economics and the state where they're located with regard to the electric rate in the particular state, the amount sunshine hours and the angle of the sun (I forget the name of this formula but it's basically longitude*days of sun) and the amount of state incentives and SRECs. Basically you need policy support in the form of tax credits to make it work. At the federal level there's currently a 30% tax credit based on installation costs, although it's set to end at the end of '15 (I think it came into being in '06) and I haven't been involved enough recently to know if that's going to be renewed with a lame duck pres and a fucked up do-nothing congress. Then states have different incentive programs but most use an SREC marketplace where utilities are mandated to produce Y% of their electrical production or they can buy it from the SREC market from those with solar production. The problems in some states, and this is gov't getting involved in anything, is that they set floor prices for these things in the early years of the programs too high and made it too rich of an investment so people built them, and then states were pressured by utilities to bring the floor too low, which made them less economic in those states, especially to an investor who had a cost of capital in equity, debt or both.
So basically there are three main sources of revenue: federal tax credit, PPA, and an SREC market, and two of those are govt controlled so policy risk is a major issue but it's very doable.
Prices have come down drastically over the past 5+ years since the Chinese got into manufacturing them. About 5/6 years ago it cost about $2.4MM to install 1 MW (as opposed to ~$500k for a coal fired plant, although that's at scale because no one builds a 1 MW coal fired plant), about 3 years ago it was ~$1.4/MW and from what I've heard the good EPC's are cracking $1M. I think the inflection point comes when the price point of PV panels hits a price and become more efficient (in size, or something like clear or maleable panels that be on all exterior glass of an office tower, or wrap an entire building's masonry, in combination with battery tech being able to produce smaller and more efficient batteries at a certain price point to store electricity efficiently for use when the sun's not shining and just unplug from the grid.
All interesting stuff. Like I said, I'm long term super bullish on it, just in the meantime it's navigating government subsidies and waiting for the tech and price to truly be there.
http://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2014/08/solaire-boston-properties-…
I assure you that REITS and owners are on top of this movement.
Nice - thanks for the link
Blackstone announced a fund strategy with Vivint Solar last week. My guess is they might have plans for Excel Trust and maybe that Israeli supermarket chain they're after.
Natus voluptate nobis officia non perspiciatis. Sed modi repudiandae molestiae incidunt expedita voluptas et quis. Facere aliquam eum modi est. Eveniet sapiente odio earum laborum eveniet.
Et ut iste possimus asperiores sed. Totam ea illo corrupti incidunt. Non nulla qui perspiciatis facere numquam ut.
Eveniet ad voluptatem voluptatum sit. Minus sed voluptatibus veritatis debitis. Laboriosam ut dolor esse facilis nihil.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...