"The Sun Does Not Shine on UT Solar Research"?

Wedding Presents an Uninformed Perspective

Rebuttal by Dr. Rob Collins

Professor Wedding began his article by highlighting two significant research grants for which the UT solar faculty members competed and were denied funding.  He states that "The DOE awards to the 46 Frontier Centers and the PV Center awards on April 5, 2011 confirm that UT is not a major player in solar technology".

First, one should delve a little deeper into the Frontier Centers. As stated in DOE's Financial Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for the Centers issued on April 4, 2008: "the goal to direct and control matter at the quantum, atomic, and molecular levels requires a change in our fundamental understanding of how nature works."  Developing an understanding of solar materials at such a fundamental level has not been the primary focus of UT's PV research over the past 25 years -- starting from 1987 when Prof. Compaan joined UT.  The focus has been for the most part applied research and, subsequently, commercialization of PV.  It is only recently since 2008, with two new PV faculty members joining UT from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, that a sufficiently strong team could be put together based at UT -- and also drawing from our partners in the Center for Photovoltaics Innovation and Commercialization (PVIC; formed in 2007) -- to apply to such a program.  It is significant that the Frontier Centers are administered by DOE's Basic Energy Sciences division, and UT's PV group had not previously received funding from this division -- as long as I have been at UT.  As a further point, the 46 awarded Frontier Centers ranged from PV to biofuels to nuclear power; as a result, only 19 included PV research, and of those 19, four were linked to DOE National Labs. 

Among the remaining 15 PV related awards, the statistics are interesting.  Seven awards went to California and Arizona universities (Stanford, CalTech, UCSB, UCLA, USC, ASU, UAZ), five went to East Coast universities (MIT (2), Columbia, Cornell, U Mass), and three went to mid-America universities (UTexas, Northwestern, UMich).  Not one of the traditional pioneers in the development of applied PV science and technology received awards; so UT is in good company: neither GA Tech (former DOE PV Center of Excellence), Univ. DE (former DOE PV Center of Excellence), nor Univ. FL / Univ. Central FL/ Univ. S. FL (Florida Solar Energy Consortium) received awards in PV.  If one considers 2009 federally financed research expenditures, the smallest university to be funded, U Mass was at $80 million, more than a factor of 2.5 higher than UT's.  The average federal research expenditures in 2009 for universities receiving awards was $360 million.  The awards clearly represented an effort to infuse funding for fundamental energy investigations into institutions with large research infrastructures.  The outcome had very little reflection on the potency of UT's research in PV and its ability to lead economic development in NW Ohio, but rather reflected on UT's standing as a broad fundamental scientific research powerhouse -- which we can agree it is not.  The fact that the UT PV group has focused tightly on applied research that drives new industries, makes it more difficult to shift that focus -- considering that UT is small by comparison with the above institutions.  Furthermore to state that this is a failure of the Jacobs administration is fallacious.  The technological (as opposed to fundamental) emphasis was established back in the 1990's.

Second it is also illuminating to delve more deeply into the more recent PV Center awards on April 5, 2011. UT was involved with two proposals, one "industry-led" in partnership with Dow Corning, and the other "university-led" with a consortium of advisory universities that included the leading thin film and crystalline silicon PV centers in the country: Univ. DE, UT, Univ. FL, AZ State.  Both of UT's proposals were site-visited by DOE, one visit was held at UT with Dow Corning and the other visit was at Univ. DE.  Only 8 proposals in all received this recognition.  The bulk of the funding for the industry-led proposal went to SEMATECH, a semiconductor manufacturing consortium with its partner SUNY Albany.  The university-led award went to a collaboration of Stanford and Berkeley. 

To those of us who are immersed in the PV community such awards were not a surprise.  In fact the DOE FOA for the PV Center stated: "Research and review of case studies has shown that successful collaborative private-public partnerships, such as envisioned through the PV Manufacturing Initiative, will have well stated goals and frameworks that address specific industry needs.  Relevant examples include the SEMATECH consortium ..."  So SEMATECH was called out in the FOA, and they received the award.  Furthermore, Energy Secretary Chu is a former Stanford professor and he received his Ph.D. and post-doctoral training at Berkeley.  As a result, it is concluded that the selections of these awards are more a reflection of the clout of the U.S. semiconductor industry in keeping Solar Valley under the influence of Silicon Valley and its nearby Bay Area universities.  The fact that UT received site visits for both of its proposals shows that the UT solar program absolutely does carry national prestige.  I personally can say that I am proud of this effort.  On the university-led proposals, UT's effort was selected as an alternate, meaning that if negotiations with Stanford-Berkeley break down, or if more funding becomes available, we will be next in line.

Professor Wedding states: "The UT solar research program is running on empty.  There is insufficient external funds to support the large impotent solar research structure..."  Between now and June 30, 2012, the UT group is maintaining at least $6 million in external funding.  UT is in a good position relative to our PV colleagues at Univ. DE, GA Tech, AZ State, and Univ. FL who were also applying for the same set of grants.  The "large research infrastructure at UT" consists primarily of post-doctors and graduate students (~40 students in all) -- in keeping with our primary mission as an educational institution.  The ranks of this group can rise and fall, tracking the fluctuations in funding that will inevitably occur in any program. The equipment and laboratory infrastructure was developed through the Wright Center of Innovation grant (PVIC) awarded competitively to UT, with OSU and BGSU as partners.  This is the first such Wright Center grant awarded to UT, and it was awarded under President Jacobs's leadership and with his strong support.  Staff are associated with PVIC, and the staff members are to be self-sustaining through the many industrial grants and contracts made possible through the unique and broad-based research equipment resources set up under PVIC.

Two faculty members came to UT from National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) under President Jacobs's leadership.  NREL is the most prestigious research laboratory in the nation for renewable energy; hiring these two faculty members was a great success for UT and demonstrates the prestige of UT.   One of these faculty member's research was identified as particularly promising in the National Academy's Grand Challenges Report on science and engineering.  These faculty members are currently leading a $3 million project (along with several others) with collaborators including Ohio State University, the University of Illinois, and NASA.  They also teach undergraduate courses, lead new undergraduate programs, and are in charge of developing graduate classes in PV for the Ph.D. in Physics. With more than 10 graduate students, these faculty members participate actively in one of the most important roles of the University, which is to educate our students and the community.

Both faculty members have salary supplements from an endowment, as has been the case for past endowed chair hires, and will be the case for future such hires.  In fact $3.5 million in endowments were generated by the UT PV faculty for the UT Foundation over the last four years

(under Dr. Jacobs's leadership) from competitively awarded grants reviewed by National Academy appointed panels.  The statement that "These faculty ... are given millions of UT dollars for laboratory start up" is misleading.  The UT component of the start-up for the two faculty members amounts to about $1.1 million; the remainder of the start-up funds came from competitively awarded funding, requested specifically for the purpose of start-ups for new hires.  The start-up packages of future hires will also be supported from a competitively awarded grant, specifically targeted for that purpose, amounting to $4.3 million.  This will generate the equipment and space resources that will enable UT to better compete with the major research universities.

Professor Wedding makes a key point about "continuous internal politics and petty infighting", and states that "nothing has been solved".   Both the point and statement are incorrect and uninformed.  Any disagreement among faculty arose in the initial set up of PVIC.  PVIC is an industrial consortium designed to service a large number of in-state, out-of-state, and even international members who pay membership fees.  The question arose as to whether faculty members who were also CEOs and CTOs of member companies could "wear two hats", namely control PVIC resources as faculty members and be potential beneficiaries of those resources as industrial members.  The solution was obvious for the success of the consortium -- to institute well defined rules to eliminate even the appearance of a conflict of interest.  The solution was arrived at with input and support from the Ohio Department of Development Project Manager in charge of the WCI's.  If the Blade thought this was newsworthy, they could write about it; all associated correspondence is available as open records.

Professor Wedding states that "During the last four years, there has been little innovation in the UT solar program".  This is misleading, as innovation requires research infrastructure -- namely, the daily operation of PV fabrication systems to explore and confirm new concepts.  Profs. Compaan and Deng have built up their infrastructure over a period of almost 25 years; this infrastructure is located in McMaster Hall.  Over the last four years this infrastructure has been devoted partly in one case and mostly in another case to research in support of Xunlight Corporation objectives.  Thus, the needed infrastructure for new faculty to innovate had to be developed from bare walls by the new faculty members hired over the last four years.  That infrastructure has been put in place using funds from competitively awarded grants -- and at an impressive pace. 

After a 15 year development period of PV infrastructure by the Profs. Compaan-Deng effort, they and their two PV faculty colleagues have -- according to Prof. Wedding -- generated 14 patents and patent applications over a period of 10 years.  That is patent generation at the rate of 0.35 patents per faculty member per year.   If the two faculty members "hired on the Jacobs watch" submit two applications this year their rate will be 0.33 patents per faculty member per year, after only three years of infrastructure development.  I think the data reflect more on the level of innovation of the Compaan-Deng effort rather than an indictment of the recent activity under Dr. Jacobs.  The inability of UT to compete with other universities on the basis of patent portfolio again is a reflection of the pre-Dr. Jacobs effort.  In this time, four UT faculty members have amassed about 70 person years of PV activity at UT and the ranking relative to other universities is a reflection of those four faculty members' output.

One can spin the numbers in different ways.  It may be interesting to consider other numbers.  Highest solar cell efficiency in the pre-Jacobs era (20 years effort from bare walls):  14%

Highest solar cell efficiency in the post-Jacobs era (4 years effort from bare walls):  16%

Average total publication citations for the three top PV faculty in the pre-Jacobs era: ~ 700

Average total publication citations for the three top PV faculty in the post-Jacobs era: ~ 3000

            (Based on data collected by Dr. Frank Calzonetti.)

Externally generated funding in the pre-Jacobs era (20 years): ~ $14 million

Externally generated funding in the post-Jacobs era (4 years):  ~ $38 million -- mostly for             infrastructure that builds UT's future

Approx. total number of graduate students at any given time in pre-Jacobs era:  15

Approx. total number of graduate students at any given time in post-Jacobs era: 40

Number of approved solar cell and semiconductor physics focused classes developed at

                                                                        UT in pre-Jacobs era (20 years):  0

Number of approved solar cell and semiconductor physics focused classes developed at

                                                                        UT in post-Jacobs era (3 years):  3

From these numbers one can conclude that the faculty involved in the PV effort are enhancing the local technology set, achieving greater scientific prominence and recognition from their colleagues, having great funding success, teaching more students and developing new classes.

Wedding concludes that "According to Blade articles, UT has received millions of taxpayers dollars. There is little to show for it."  This is obviously misinformed based on the above numbers.  In addition all Professor Wedding need do is walk through the R1 laboratories and see for himself the intense activity of faculty, staff, post-docs., and students engaged in funded collaborative efforts with PVIC members Calyxo USA, DuPont, Ferro, NEG, NewCyte, Pilkington, Solar Spectrum, W & K Solar Group, Xunlight, and others. 

Prof. Wedding states "If University of Toledo is to be a player in this future, it must have significant solar research innovation and intellectual property ...".  Those at PVIC couldn't agree more ... that's why we have established world unique research capability that enables one to understand the fundamentals of current and next generation PV -- inaccessible to our competitors.  Furthermore PVIC recognizes the need for a balanced approach to economic development:  (i) although we promote business start-ups, we also (ii) assist the existing local industries; and (iii) attract new businesses to the community.  Successes are being made on a regular basis in all areas ... for example, Ferro (Independence, OH) has hired three of PVIC's top people: a postdoctor, a graduating Ph.D., and a staff member.  Local PVIC member companies are on track to rely on PVIC for their staffing needs, and international companies are regularly stopping by PVIC to explore setting up operations in Northwest Ohio; some have already done so, and others I'm sure you will hear about in the future. 

I have spent 6 years working in industry to support the development of the first thin film roll-to-roll PV production line, 17 years at a major research university, co-chaired a top-5 nationally ranked academic program in Materials Science, and participated in university photovoltaics research with one of the founders of the thin film PV field.  With this experience, I find that the management at UT is sound and that UT's PV future continues to look great.  Prof. Wedding's misinformed article serves only to damage this future, and is an affront those of us here who are trying our best to build it.

Rob Collins

NEG Chair of Silicate and Materials Science

Distinguished University Professor

Principal Investigator and co-Director of

Wright Center for Photovoltaics Innovation and Commercialization