From waste to power: how floating solar panels on wastewater ponds could help solve NZ’s electricity security crisis

Wastewater ponds may seem an unlikely place to look for solutions to New Zealand’s electricity security crisis. But their underutilised surfaces could help tackle two problems at once – high power prices and algal growth.

Floating solar panels on wastewater ponds offer a multifaceted answer. They generate renewable energy, improve water quality in the treatment ponds and reduce costs.

Leading this approach is the 2020 installation of New Zealand’s first floating solar array at the Rosedale wastewater treatment plant in Auckland. This project demonstrates how New Zealand could double the country’s power supply without requiring additional land. It serves as a test for future deployments on other reservoirs and dams.

The project comprises 2,700 solar panels and 4,000 floating pontoons. It covers one hectare of the treatment pond, making excellent use of a marginal land asset in a dense urban environment.

The floating solar array generates 1,040 kilowatts of electricity and reduces 145 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. It also saves NZ$4.5 million in electricity costs per year. The electricity it generates, alongside biogas co-generation, meets 25% of the plant’s energy needs.

The project represents the first use of floating solar and the first megawatt-sized solar project in the country. As energy prices soar and environmental pressures mount, it is time to start exploring innovative solutions with the resources we already have.

Wastewater ponds provide underused surface

New Zealand is currently grappling with an electricity crisis, marked by increasing demand, aging infrastructure and a challenging transition to renewable energy sources.

The country relies heavily on hydroelectric power. This makes it particularly vulnerable during periods of low water levels in hydro lakes, especially in winter. This in turn leads to frequent supply shortfalls and, combined with diminishing gas supplies, to rising electricity prices.

As New Zealand intensifies its efforts to integrate more renewable energy, we need innovative solutions to stabilise the grid and meet growing energy demands.

One underutilised resource lies in wastewater treatment ponds. New Zealand has more than 200 wastewater ponds, chosen for their simplicity and low operational costs. They remain the most common form of wastewater treatment because they are robust, require low energy, cope with high water and waste loads and provide buffer storage to avoid applying agricultural effluent to wet soils.

However, because of the high surface area and nutrient-rich environment, algal growth is one of the biggest issues with waste stabilisation ponds. This is exacerbated on days with high sunshine levels and warmer water temperatures. It complicates the treatment process and necessitates costly chemical interventions.

An opportunity for New Zealand

My background is in entrepreneurship and innovation and the idea of floating solar panels on New Zealand’s expansive wastewater ponds represents an untapped opportunity.

Apart from generating power and preventing algal growth, the solar panels provide shade that keeps the water cooler and reduces evaporation. This is critical for maintaining effective wastewater treatment.

Utility-scale solar panels are now recognised as the cheapest form of energy, with rapidly declining costs over the past five years.

While relatively new to New Zealand, floating solar panels have shown significant advantages in other parts of the world. New Zealand may be held back by a misconception that solar panels work best in hot and sunny climates. In fact, solar panels harness the sun’s energy – not its temperature – making New Zealand’s cooler climate an ideal environment for efficient solar energy generation.

Given New Zealand uses more energy per capita than 17 of our 30 OECD peers, floating solar panels on wastewater ponds could set an example for how we tackle energy and environmental challenges.

By turning underutilised spaces into power-generating assets, we not only address immediate needs but also pave the way for a more sustainable, resilient future.

Faith Jeremiah does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

From waste to power: how floating solar panels on wastewater ponds could help solve NZ’s electricity security crisis

Wastewater ponds may seem an unlikely place to look for solutions to New Zealand’s electricity security crisis. But their underutilised surfaces could help tackle two problems at once – high power prices and algal growth.

Floating solar panels on wastewater ponds offer a multifaceted answer. They generate renewable energy, improve water quality in the treatment ponds and reduce costs.

Leading this approach is the 2020 installation of New Zealand’s first floating solar array at the Rosedale wastewater treatment plant in Auckland. This project demonstrates how New Zealand could double the country’s power supply without requiring additional land. It serves as a test for future deployments on other reservoirs and dams.

The project comprises 2,700 solar panels and 4,000 floating pontoons. It covers one hectare of the treatment pond, making excellent use of a marginal land asset in a dense urban environment.

The floating solar array generates 1,040 kilowatts of electricity and reduces 145 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. It also saves NZ$4.5 million in electricity costs per year. The electricity it generates, alongside biogas co-generation, meets 25% of the plant’s energy needs.

The project represents the first use of floating solar and the first megawatt-sized solar project in the country. As energy prices soar and environmental pressures mount, it is time to start exploring innovative solutions with the resources we already have.

Wastewater ponds provide underused surface

New Zealand is currently grappling with an electricity crisis, marked by increasing demand, aging infrastructure and a challenging transition to renewable energy sources.

The country relies heavily on hydroelectric power. This makes it particularly vulnerable during periods of low water levels in hydro lakes, especially in winter. This in turn leads to frequent supply shortfalls and, combined with diminishing gas supplies, to rising electricity prices.

As New Zealand intensifies its efforts to integrate more renewable energy, we need innovative solutions to stabilise the grid and meet growing energy demands.

One underutilised resource lies in wastewater treatment ponds. New Zealand has more than 200 wastewater ponds, chosen for their simplicity and low operational costs. They remain the most common form of wastewater treatment because they are robust, require low energy, cope with high water and waste loads and provide buffer storage to avoid applying agricultural effluent to wet soils.

However, because of the high surface area and nutrient-rich environment, algal growth is one of the biggest issues with waste stabilisation ponds. This is exacerbated on days with high sunshine levels and warmer water temperatures. It complicates the treatment process and necessitates costly chemical interventions.

An opportunity for New Zealand

My background is in entrepreneurship and innovation and the idea of floating solar panels on New Zealand’s expansive wastewater ponds represents an untapped opportunity.

Apart from generating power and preventing algal growth, the solar panels provide shade that keeps the water cooler and reduces evaporation. This is critical for maintaining effective wastewater treatment.

Utility-scale solar panels are now recognised as the cheapest form of energy, with rapidly declining costs over the past five years.

While relatively new to New Zealand, floating solar panels have shown significant advantages in other parts of the world. New Zealand may be held back by a misconception that solar panels work best in hot and sunny climates. In fact, solar panels harness the sun’s energy – not its temperature – making New Zealand’s cooler climate an ideal environment for efficient solar energy generation.

Given New Zealand uses more energy per capita than 17 of our 30 OECD peers, floating solar panels on wastewater ponds could set an example for how we tackle energy and environmental challenges.

By turning underutilised spaces into power-generating assets, we not only address immediate needs but also pave the way for a more sustainable, resilient future.

Faith Jeremiah does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Climate change is a pollution problem, and countries know how to deal with pollution threats – think DDT and acid rain

Climate change can seem like an insurmountable challenge. However, if you look closely at its causes, you’ll realize that history is filled with similar health and environmental threats that humanity has overcome.

The main cause of climate change – carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels – is really just another pollutant. And countries know how to reduce harmful pollutants. They did it with the pesticide DDT, lead paint and the power plant emissions that were causing acid rain, among many others.

In each of those cases, growing public outcry eventually led to policy changes, despite pushback from industry. Once pressured by laws and regulations, industries ramped up production of safer solutions.

I am an earth and environmental scientist, and my latest book, “Reclaiming Our Planet,” explores history’s lessons in overcoming seemingly insurmountable hazards. Here are a few examples:

Banning DDT despite industry pushback

DDT was the first truly effective pesticide and considered to be miraculous. By killing mosquitoes and lice, it wiped out malaria and other diseases in many countries, and in agriculture, it saved tons of crops.

After World War II, DDT was applied to farms, buildings and gardens throughout the United States. However, it also had drawbacks. It accumulated in mother’s milk to levels where it could deliver a toxic dose to infants. Women were advised against nursing their babies in the 1960s because of the danger.

In addition, DDT bioaccumulated up the food chain to toxic levels in apex species like raptors. It weakened the eggshells to the point where brooding mothers crushed their eggs. Bald eagles were reduced to 417 breeding pairs across North America by 1967 and were placed on the endangered species list.

Biologist Rachel Carson documented DDT’s damage in her 1962 book “Silent Spring” and, in doing so, catalyzed a public environmental movement. Despite disinformation campaigns and attacks from the chemical industry, tremendous public pressure on politicians led to congressional hearings, state and federal restrictions and eventually a U.S. ban on the general use of DDT in 1972.

Bald eagles recovered to 320,000 in the United States by 2017, about equal to populations from before European settlement. The chemical industry, facing a DDT ban, quickly developed much safer pesticides.

Building evidence of lead’s hazards

Lead use skyrocketed in the 20th century, particularly in paints, plumbing and gasoline. It was so widespread that just about everyone was exposed to a metal that research now shows can harm the kidneys, liver, cardiovascular system and children’s brain development.

Clair “Pat” Patterson, a geochemist at the California Institute of Technology, showed that Americans were continuously exposed to lead at near toxic levels. Human skeletons from the 1960s were found to have up to 1,200 times the lead of ancient skeletons. Today, health standards say there’s no safe level of lead in the blood.

Despite threats both personally and professionally and a disinformation campaign from industry, Patterson and his supporters compiled years of evidence to warn the public and eventually pressured politicians to ban lead from many uses, including in gasoline and residential paints.

Once regulations were in place, industry ramped up production of substitutes. As a result, lead levels in the blood of children decreased by 97% over the next several decades. While lead exposure is less common now, some people are still exposed to dangerous levels lingering in homes, pipes and soil, often in low-income neighborhoods.

Stopping acid rain: An international problem

Acid rain is primarily caused when sulfur dioxide, released into the air by the burning of coal, high-sulfur oil and smelting and refining of metals, interacts with rain or fog. The acidic rain that falls can destroy forests, kill lake ecosystems and dissolve statues and corrode infrastructure.

Acid rain damage across Europe and North America in the 20th century also showed the world how air pollution, which doesn’t stop at borders, can become an international crisis requiring international solutions.

The problem of acid rain began well over a century ago, but sulfur dioxide levels grew quickly after World War II. A thermal inversion in London in 1952 created such a concentration of sulfur dioxide and other air pollutants that it killed thousands of people. As damage to forests and lakes worsened across Europe, countries signed international agreements starting in the 1980s to cut their sulfur dioxide emissions.

In the U.S., emissions from Midwestern power plants killed fish and trees in the pristine Adirondacks. The damage, health concerns and multiple disasters outraged the public, and politicians responded.

Sulfur dioxide was named as one of the six criteria air pollutants in the groundbreaking 1970 U.S. Clean Air Act, which required the federal government to set limits on its release. Power plants installed scrubbers to capture the pollutant, and over the next 40 years, sulfur dioxide concentrations in the U.S. decreased by about 95%.

Parallels with climate change

There are many parallels between these examples and climate change today.

Mountains of scientific evidence show how carbon dixoide emissions from fossil fuel combustion in vehicles, factories and power plants are warming the planet. The fossil fuel industry began using its political power and misinformation campaigns decades ago to block regulations that were designed to slow climate change.

And people around the world, facing worsening heat and weather disasters fueled by global warming, have been calling for action to stop climate change and invest in cleaner energy.

The first Earth Day, in 1970, drew 20 million people. Rallies in recent years have shifted the focus to climate change and have drawn millions of people around the world.

The challenge has been getting politicians to act, but that is slowly changing in many countries.

The United States has started investing in scaling up several tools to rein in climate change, including electric vehicles, wind turbines and solar panels. Federal and state policies, such as requirements for renewable energy production and limits on greenhouse gas emissions, are also crucial for getting industries to switch to less harmful alternatives.

Climate change is a global problem that will require efforts worldwide. International agreements are also helping more countries take steps forward. One shift that has been discussed by countries for years could help boost those efforts: Ending the billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded fossil fuel subsidies and shifting that money to healthier solutions could help move the needle toward slowing climate change.

Alexander E. Gates is affiliated with The Newark Green Team.

Climate change is a pollution problem, and countries know how to deal with pollution threats – think DDT and acid rain

Climate change can seem like an insurmountable challenge. However, if you look closely at its causes, you’ll realize that history is filled with similar health and environmental threats that humanity has overcome.

The main cause of climate change – carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels – is really just another pollutant. And countries know how to reduce harmful pollutants. They did it with the pesticide DDT, lead paint and the power plant emissions that were causing acid rain, among many others.

In each of those cases, growing public outcry eventually led to policy changes, despite pushback from industry. Once pressured by laws and regulations, industries ramped up production of safer solutions.

I am an earth and environmental scientist, and my latest book, “Reclaiming Our Planet,” explores history’s lessons in overcoming seemingly insurmountable hazards. Here are a few examples:

Banning DDT despite industry pushback

DDT was the first truly effective pesticide and considered to be miraculous. By killing mosquitoes and lice, it wiped out malaria and other diseases in many countries, and in agriculture, it saved tons of crops.

After World War II, DDT was applied to farms, buildings and gardens throughout the United States. However, it also had drawbacks. It accumulated in mother’s milk to levels where it could deliver a toxic dose to infants. Women were advised against nursing their babies in the 1960s because of the danger.

In addition, DDT bioaccumulated up the food chain to toxic levels in apex species like raptors. It weakened the eggshells to the point where brooding mothers crushed their eggs. Bald eagles were reduced to 417 breeding pairs across North America by 1967 and were placed on the endangered species list.

Biologist Rachel Carson documented DDT’s damage in her 1962 book “Silent Spring” and, in doing so, catalyzed a public environmental movement. Despite disinformation campaigns and attacks from the chemical industry, tremendous public pressure on politicians led to congressional hearings, state and federal restrictions and eventually a U.S. ban on the general use of DDT in 1972.

Bald eagles recovered to 320,000 in the United States by 2017, about equal to populations from before European settlement. The chemical industry, facing a DDT ban, quickly developed much safer pesticides.

Building evidence of lead’s hazards

Lead use skyrocketed in the 20th century, particularly in paints, plumbing and gasoline. It was so widespread that just about everyone was exposed to a metal that research now shows can harm the kidneys, liver, cardiovascular system and children’s brain development.

Clair “Pat” Patterson, a geochemist at the California Institute of Technology, showed that Americans were continuously exposed to lead at near toxic levels. Human skeletons from the 1960s were found to have up to 1,200 times the lead of ancient skeletons. Today, health standards say there’s no safe level of lead in the blood.

Despite threats both personally and professionally and a disinformation campaign from industry, Patterson and his supporters compiled years of evidence to warn the public and eventually pressured politicians to ban lead from many uses, including in gasoline and residential paints.

Once regulations were in place, industry ramped up production of substitutes. As a result, lead levels in the blood of children decreased by 97% over the next several decades. While lead exposure is less common now, some people are still exposed to dangerous levels lingering in homes, pipes and soil, often in low-income neighborhoods.

Stopping acid rain: An international problem

Acid rain is primarily caused when sulfur dioxide, released into the air by the burning of coal, high-sulfur oil and smelting and refining of metals, interacts with rain or fog. The acidic rain that falls can destroy forests, kill lake ecosystems and dissolve statues and corrode infrastructure.

Acid rain damage across Europe and North America in the 20th century also showed the world how air pollution, which doesn’t stop at borders, can become an international crisis requiring international solutions.

The problem of acid rain began well over a century ago, but sulfur dioxide levels grew quickly after World War II. A thermal inversion in London in 1952 created such a concentration of sulfur dioxide and other air pollutants that it killed thousands of people. As damage to forests and lakes worsened across Europe, countries signed international agreements starting in the 1980s to cut their sulfur dioxide emissions.

In the U.S., emissions from Midwestern power plants killed fish and trees in the pristine Adirondacks. The damage, health concerns and multiple disasters outraged the public, and politicians responded.

Sulfur dioxide was named as one of the six criteria air pollutants in the groundbreaking 1970 U.S. Clean Air Act, which required the federal government to set limits on its release. Power plants installed scrubbers to capture the pollutant, and over the next 40 years, sulfur dioxide concentrations in the U.S. decreased by about 95%.

Parallels with climate change

There are many parallels between these examples and climate change today.

Mountains of scientific evidence show how carbon dixoide emissions from fossil fuel combustion in vehicles, factories and power plants are warming the planet. The fossil fuel industry began using its political power and misinformation campaigns decades ago to block regulations that were designed to slow climate change.

And people around the world, facing worsening heat and weather disasters fueled by global warming, have been calling for action to stop climate change and invest in cleaner energy.

The first Earth Day, in 1970, drew 20 million people. Rallies in recent years have shifted the focus to climate change and have drawn millions of people around the world.

The challenge has been getting politicians to act, but that is slowly changing in many countries.

The United States has started investing in scaling up several tools to rein in climate change, including electric vehicles, wind turbines and solar panels. Federal and state policies, such as requirements for renewable energy production and limits on greenhouse gas emissions, are also crucial for getting industries to switch to less harmful alternatives.

Climate change is a global problem that will require efforts worldwide. International agreements are also helping more countries take steps forward. One shift that has been discussed by countries for years could help boost those efforts: Ending the billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded fossil fuel subsidies and shifting that money to healthier solutions could help move the needle toward slowing climate change.

Alexander E. Gates is affiliated with The Newark Green Team.

How universities can unlock their entrepreneurial potential

Universities do more than just teach and conduct research – they’re where some of the most audacious ideas are ignited, eventually finding their way into the private sector and our everyday lives. Take Stanford and UC Berkeley, for example, which have become symbols of how universities can power innovation.

The emblematic interaction between Stanford’s Prof. Frederick Terman, Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard did not only lead to the emergence of HP’s success story in Hewlett and Packard’s garage, but also to the very notion of science parks. The Silicon Valley emerged as the reference for symbiotic development of an ecosystem focused on innovation thanks to interactions with Stanford and UC Berkeley. Today, corporations such as the aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, Tesla Motors, smart home product manufacturer Nest Labs, software company NVidia, Apple and Google all have headquarters and research facilities around Palo Alto, the world’s dream destination for any innovation specialist. Personal computers emerged there. And it remains a major research hub for AI and cybersecurity.

France still lagging behind

In France, public authorities have long supported universities in expanding their role beyond education and research. The “third mission” of universities covers all activities performed to impact society or transform basic research into innovation. Recently, the French government boosted these efforts by setting up University Innovation Poles (PUI)), investing €166 million to create 25 PUIs in 2023. But unlocking the full potential of universities in local innovation ecosystems demands a major strategic shift, with universities rethinking how they operate.

Funded by the Deeptech division of Bpifrance (the French agency in charge of funding innovation-related investments), our research shows that activities targeting the development of economic and societal impact are most often side-products mandated in the response to calls for tender about education or research issued by national and European public authorities. It turns out that the “third mission” of universities results in the accumulation of opportunistic projects that neither build a strategy, nor a focal position for the university in the dynamics of an ecosystem. Our research has identified major issues to unlock and key success factors.

If we’re going to release universities’ innovation potential, we’ll need to go beyond the old reflex of improving culture and organisation in research labs, or launching new training programs. Becoming an entrepreneurial university requires tapping into all of a university’s resources – human, technological and physical – toward innovation. In France, there’s still work to be done.

Issues to address and potential solutions

For one, universities need physical spaces that align with the fast pace of innovation. The “third mission” needs totem places dedicated to innovation, fit to host events promoting startups and new technologies, or meetings discussing new solutions transforming life in society. The totem places must offer areas for interactions between academics and practitioners, and coworking spaces for startups. Places like the Université de Bordeaux’s SMART building show what’s possible, and the relevance of hosting all these functions inside the same facilities easily identified inside the business and research community. Similar projects elaborate on fab labs at the the University of Cergy Pontoise. They open up opportunities for students, researchers and the civil society to collaborate.

To foster innovation, universities must break free from their traditional ways of working. To support student entrepreneurship, encouraging collaboration across disciplines is crucial. Coordinating the timetables of different courses will prove to be a headache, but the absence of cross-fertilisation between students can stifle student-led ventures. Students and faculty members face a long list of practical challenges when they try to develop incubation activities or to organise hackathons.

Another challenge is staffing. Universities need skilled professionals to manage incubation programmes, run innovation centres and interact with the local business ecosystem. All these roles can eventually be assigned to traditional faculty members, but they represent original managerial competences that should be staffed with specialised people. These roles do not fit into the standard human resource management patterns framed by research or education. Universities do not know how to pay salaries matching the standards of the market, or cannot propose long-term contracts ensuring service continuity. This applies to engineers supporting the use of technological platforms: wages are most often funded thanks to short-term education or research grants (two to five years). Similar difficulties exist for business developers scouting for the diffusion of research results and tech projects. These roles are fundamental components of the “third mission” but positions are tough to fill and staff is even harder to retain.

Finally, universities need to encourage the participation of faculty members in innovation initiatives. This ranges from creating start-ups to mentoring student entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, these activities aren’t always valued in academic careers. In France, and in many other European countries, individual performance evaluations focus on lectures, administrative duties and track records of publications in peer-reviewed journals, with no points granted for contributions to the “third mission”. This change in assessments could be introduced either by local universities, or mandated by national bodies, but it represents a key success factor to scale up.

À lire aussi :
Les tiers lieux définissent-ils des ambiances ou des espaces ? À qui profite la confusion ?

Going local

Universities local resources must be adapted to the strengths and weaknesses of local business and innovation ecosystems. Take Université Grenoble Alpes, which runs Biopolis, a biotech hub. Its location near research labs makes it a perfect fit for the region, but replicating this in other areas, like Bordeaux, where similar facilities already exist, would be redundant. Universities need to vary their activities depending on the dynamics of each local ecosystem and existing infrastructures, and offer services that do not yet locally exist.

The perimeter of the university’s strategy must tailor its action plan to local needs rather than follow a one-size-fits-all approach. While some ecosystems may focus on services for deep tech startups, others might require technology platforms, or services tailored to small businesses. Universities like Cercy Pontoise are already pioneering such initiatives.

For these strategies to work, universities need to collaborate with local stakeholders – businesses, associations and public authorities.

In Grenoble, for example, while Biopolis is operated by the Université Grenoble Alpes, part of the site’s premises is used as a venue for exchanges and a showroom run by the MedicAlps cluster, which is dedicated to the region’s medical technology sector.

The risk of spreading too thin

France’s universities are not equally equipped. They demonstrate a true dynamism with numerous initiatives supporting entrepreneurship, but they currently face a sort of glass ceiling: at present, less than 10% of students participate in entrepreneurship programs.

Each university has the potential to be a central force in its ecosystem. A successful “third mission” does not require the whole Stanford-Berkeley model to be reproduced everywhere. The French vision still promotes the idea of generalist universities in each region, small or large. Spreading resources too thin and trying to do too much everywhere lead to diluted impact. Instead, universities should focus on areas where they can truly make a difference, scaling up local initiatives and matching the local ecosystem’s specialisation.

To unlock the scale and impact needed for success, French universities need to avoid scattering their resources, to unlock their administrative processes, to broaden up performance criteria evaluated for faculty members, and to concentrate efforts and budgets on specialised research areas.

The European Academy of Management (EURAM) is a learned society founded in 2001. With over 2,000 members from 60 countries in Europe and beyond, EURAM aims at advancing the academic discipline of management in Europe.

Valérie Mérindol's research on the 'third mission' of universities is funded by BPIfrance.

David W. Versailles a reçu des financements de BPIFRANCE pour le développement de cette recherche.

How universities can unlock their entrepreneurial potential

Universities do more than just teach and conduct research – they’re where some of the most audacious ideas are ignited, eventually finding their way into the private sector and our everyday lives. Take Stanford and UC Berkeley, for example, which have become symbols of how universities can power innovation.

The emblematic interaction between Stanford’s Prof. Frederick Terman, Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard did not only lead to the emergence of HP’s success story in Hewlett and Packard’s garage, but also to the very notion of science parks. The Silicon Valley emerged as the reference for symbiotic development of an ecosystem focused on innovation thanks to interactions with Stanford and UC Berkeley. Today, corporations such as the aerospace giant Lockheed Martin, Tesla Motors, smart home product manufacturer Nest Labs, software company NVidia, Apple and Google all have headquarters and research facilities around Palo Alto, the world’s dream destination for any innovation specialist. Personal computers emerged there. And it remains a major research hub for AI and cybersecurity.

France still lagging behind

In France, public authorities have long supported universities in expanding their role beyond education and research. The “third mission” of universities covers all activities performed to impact society or transform basic research into innovation. Recently, the French government boosted these efforts by setting up University Innovation Poles (PUI)), investing €166 million to create 25 PUIs in 2023. But unlocking the full potential of universities in local innovation ecosystems demands a major strategic shift, with universities rethinking how they operate.

Funded by the Deeptech division of Bpifrance (the French agency in charge of funding innovation-related investments), our research shows that activities targeting the development of economic and societal impact are most often side-products mandated in the response to calls for tender about education or research issued by national and European public authorities. It turns out that the “third mission” of universities results in the accumulation of opportunistic projects that neither build a strategy, nor a focal position for the university in the dynamics of an ecosystem. Our research has identified major issues to unlock and key success factors.

If we’re going to release universities’ innovation potential, we’ll need to go beyond the old reflex of improving culture and organisation in research labs, or launching new training programs. Becoming an entrepreneurial university requires tapping into all of a university’s resources – human, technological and physical – toward innovation. In France, there’s still work to be done.

Issues to address and potential solutions

For one, universities need physical spaces that align with the fast pace of innovation. The “third mission” needs totem places dedicated to innovation, fit to host events promoting startups and new technologies, or meetings discussing new solutions transforming life in society. The totem places must offer areas for interactions between academics and practitioners, and coworking spaces for startups. Places like the Université de Bordeaux’s SMART building show what’s possible, and the relevance of hosting all these functions inside the same facilities easily identified inside the business and research community. Similar projects elaborate on fab labs at the the University of Cergy Pontoise. They open up opportunities for students, researchers and the civil society to collaborate.

To foster innovation, universities must break free from their traditional ways of working. To support student entrepreneurship, encouraging collaboration across disciplines is crucial. Coordinating the timetables of different courses will prove to be a headache, but the absence of cross-fertilisation between students can stifle student-led ventures. Students and faculty members face a long list of practical challenges when they try to develop incubation activities or to organise hackathons.

Another challenge is staffing. Universities need skilled professionals to manage incubation programmes, run innovation centres and interact with the local business ecosystem. All these roles can eventually be assigned to traditional faculty members, but they represent original managerial competences that should be staffed with specialised people. These roles do not fit into the standard human resource management patterns framed by research or education. Universities do not know how to pay salaries matching the standards of the market, or cannot propose long-term contracts ensuring service continuity. This applies to engineers supporting the use of technological platforms: wages are most often funded thanks to short-term education or research grants (two to five years). Similar difficulties exist for business developers scouting for the diffusion of research results and tech projects. These roles are fundamental components of the “third mission” but positions are tough to fill and staff is even harder to retain.

Finally, universities need to encourage the participation of faculty members in innovation initiatives. This ranges from creating start-ups to mentoring student entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, these activities aren’t always valued in academic careers. In France, and in many other European countries, individual performance evaluations focus on lectures, administrative duties and track records of publications in peer-reviewed journals, with no points granted for contributions to the “third mission”. This change in assessments could be introduced either by local universities, or mandated by national bodies, but it represents a key success factor to scale up.

À lire aussi :
Les tiers lieux définissent-ils des ambiances ou des espaces ? À qui profite la confusion ?

Going local

Universities local resources must be adapted to the strengths and weaknesses of local business and innovation ecosystems. Take Université Grenoble Alpes, which runs Biopolis, a biotech hub. Its location near research labs makes it a perfect fit for the region, but replicating this in other areas, like Bordeaux, where similar facilities already exist, would be redundant. Universities need to vary their activities depending on the dynamics of each local ecosystem and existing infrastructures, and offer services that do not yet locally exist.

The perimeter of the university’s strategy must tailor its action plan to local needs rather than follow a one-size-fits-all approach. While some ecosystems may focus on services for deep tech startups, others might require technology platforms, or services tailored to small businesses. Universities like Cercy Pontoise are already pioneering such initiatives.

For these strategies to work, universities need to collaborate with local stakeholders – businesses, associations and public authorities.

In Grenoble, for example, while Biopolis is operated by the Université Grenoble Alpes, part of the site’s premises is used as a venue for exchanges and a showroom run by the MedicAlps cluster, which is dedicated to the region’s medical technology sector.

The risk of spreading too thin

France’s universities are not equally equipped. They demonstrate a true dynamism with numerous initiatives supporting entrepreneurship, but they currently face a sort of glass ceiling: at present, less than 10% of students participate in entrepreneurship programs.

Each university has the potential to be a central force in its ecosystem. A successful “third mission” does not require the whole Stanford-Berkeley model to be reproduced everywhere. The French vision still promotes the idea of generalist universities in each region, small or large. Spreading resources too thin and trying to do too much everywhere lead to diluted impact. Instead, universities should focus on areas where they can truly make a difference, scaling up local initiatives and matching the local ecosystem’s specialisation.

To unlock the scale and impact needed for success, French universities need to avoid scattering their resources, to unlock their administrative processes, to broaden up performance criteria evaluated for faculty members, and to concentrate efforts and budgets on specialised research areas.

The European Academy of Management (EURAM) is a learned society founded in 2001. With over 2,000 members from 60 countries in Europe and beyond, EURAM aims at advancing the academic discipline of management in Europe.

Valérie Mérindol's research on the 'third mission' of universities is funded by BPIfrance.

David W. Versailles a reçu des financements de BPIFRANCE pour le développement de cette recherche.

Lord Kelvin: how the 19th century scientist combined research and innovation to change the world

“What got you into astrophysics?” It’s a question I’m often asked at outreach events, and I answer by pointing to my early passion for exploring the biggest questions about our universe. Well, along with seeing Star Wars at an impressionable age.

This fascination with the fundamental is a well-trodden path for many budding scientists. Learning about mindboggling fields such as general relativity, which describes the universe on large scales, and quantum physics, which rules the microworld of atoms and particles, can be a powerful way to stimulate young minds.

For many others, however, the road to physics (like hell) is paved with good intentions. What drives their passion is not so much the esoteric secrets of the cosmos, but applying the latest science to solve societal problems and global challenges – from health inequalities to the climate emergency. Both motivations are valid, maybe even essential, helping to form a virtuous circle between “blue sky” research and innovation.

Yet this dual-track approach to research and innovation – core to the contemporary mission of research councils and funding agencies across the globe – isn’t as modern as it may seem. This year marks the bicentenary of the birth of William Thomson, aka Lord Kelvin, arguably the most influential scientist of the 19th century, and perhaps beyond. He was a master at combining fundamental discovery with societal and commercial impact.

Cornerstone of physics

Thomson was professor of natural philosophy at Glasgow University for 53 years, making revolutionary contributions to physics, mathematics and engineering that still resonate today.

He is probably best known for his work on energy and the laws of thermodynamics, the science of heat and work, which are often hailed as the most unbreakable laws of nature. The British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington is reported to have declared in the 1920s that thermodynamics holds “the supreme position among the laws of nature”, adding: “If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

Thermodynamics still plays a central role in modern physics, underpinning research in information science, quantum mechanics, cosmology and even theories of life and consciousness. In fact, it is as much a cornerstone of modern physics as general relativity and quantum mechanics. Any final “theory of everything” will need to be consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.

Perhaps Thomson’s most well known discovery is the concept of absolute zero on the temperature scale, which is named Kelvin in honour of the title he would receive in 1892. But when we look beyond his work on thermodynamics, his achievements are remarkable not just for their breadth, but also for their diversity. They range from theoretical breakthroughs addressing the biggest research questions of the day to practical inventions driving industrial and commercial innovation.

Kelvin’s key attributes

What made Thomson so successful? There are three key aspects of his approach to research and discovery that I believe marked him out as a scientist for the ages.

First, there was his outstanding mathematical prowess. This allied with his deep appreciation of the power of maths for explaining the natural world – a power upon which he drew heavily throughout his career. This is captured in a profound quote that has been attributed to Thomson: “The fact that mathematics does such a good job of describing the universe is a mystery that we don’t understand, and a debt that we will probably never be able to repay.”

But Thomson was much more than a mathematician par excellence. He also understood that precise measurement and quantification were essential tools for scientific progress – an idea we find expressed in his 1889 book Popular Lectures and Addresses. “When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers you know something about it,” he wrote.

Thomson’s lifelong talent for inventing ingenious scientific instruments secured him 70 patents, enabled dozens of scientific breakthroughs and made him a highly successful entrepreneur.

Third, there was Thomson’s outstanding ability to think “out of the box”, to look at a problem in a completely novel way. For me, there is no better example of that visionary thinking than Thomson’s work on laying the first transatlantic telegraph cable. This was an immense technological challenge that has been described as the “Apollo project” of the 1800s.

It revolutionised the Victorian world as profoundly as the internet and mobile communications have changed ours.

After failed attempts in the 1850s, Thomson’s genius was instrumental (quite literally!) to the first successful cable-laying expedition in 1865. His understanding of the similarities between heat transfer and electrical transport allowed Thomson to model how electrical impulses would be distorted as they travelled along undersea cables.

But Thomson’s experimental breakthroughs were also key. Instead of using a stronger signal, requiring a much heavier and costlier cable, he invented instruments that could precisely measure extremely weak electrical signals, transmitted as Morse code. They were known as the mirror galvanometer and, later, the syphon recorder. These were essentially a precursor of a modern inkjet printer.

These inventions were game-changers and, as a result, global communications were transformed for ever. As my late colleague David Saxon wrote in 2007, “the transatlantic cable shrank the world more than anything before or since.”

For all of this, Thomson was first knighted in 1866, then later ennobled as Lord Kelvin in 1892 – the first ever scientist so honoured. And Thomson’s elegant combination of ultra-precision technology and cutting-edge theory to detect extremely faint signals resonates strongly with the story of our LIGO laser interferometers, the most sensitive scientific instruments ever built. It was just such a combination that enabled the 2015 Nobel prizewinning discovery of ripples in spacetime known as gravitational waves.

The science and technology of black holes and gravitational waves belong firmly to the post-Kelvin domain of Einsteinian physics. But I believe that domain – and the transformative quantum technology it has enabled – draws inspiration from the pioneering example of William Thomson, who combined fundamental research and innovation to change the world.

Martin Hendry does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Lord Kelvin: how the 19th century scientist combined research and innovation to change the world

“What got you into astrophysics?” It’s a question I’m often asked at outreach events, and I answer by pointing to my early passion for exploring the biggest questions about our universe. Well, along with seeing Star Wars at an impressionable age.

This fascination with the fundamental is a well-trodden path for many budding scientists. Learning about mindboggling fields such as general relativity, which describes the universe on large scales, and quantum physics, which rules the microworld of atoms and particles, can be a powerful way to stimulate young minds.

For many others, however, the road to physics (like hell) is paved with good intentions. What drives their passion is not so much the esoteric secrets of the cosmos, but applying the latest science to solve societal problems and global challenges – from health inequalities to the climate emergency. Both motivations are valid, maybe even essential, helping to form a virtuous circle between “blue sky” research and innovation.

Yet this dual-track approach to research and innovation – core to the contemporary mission of research councils and funding agencies across the globe – isn’t as modern as it may seem. This year marks the bicentenary of the birth of William Thomson, aka Lord Kelvin, arguably the most influential scientist of the 19th century, and perhaps beyond. He was a master at combining fundamental discovery with societal and commercial impact.

Cornerstone of physics

Thomson was professor of natural philosophy at Glasgow University for 53 years, making revolutionary contributions to physics, mathematics and engineering that still resonate today.

He is probably best known for his work on energy and the laws of thermodynamics, the science of heat and work, which are often hailed as the most unbreakable laws of nature. The British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington is reported to have declared in the 1920s that thermodynamics holds “the supreme position among the laws of nature”, adding: “If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.”

Thermodynamics still plays a central role in modern physics, underpinning research in information science, quantum mechanics, cosmology and even theories of life and consciousness. In fact, it is as much a cornerstone of modern physics as general relativity and quantum mechanics. Any final “theory of everything” will need to be consistent with the laws of thermodynamics.

Perhaps Thomson’s most well known discovery is the concept of absolute zero on the temperature scale, which is named Kelvin in honour of the title he would receive in 1892. But when we look beyond his work on thermodynamics, his achievements are remarkable not just for their breadth, but also for their diversity. They range from theoretical breakthroughs addressing the biggest research questions of the day to practical inventions driving industrial and commercial innovation.

Kelvin’s key attributes

What made Thomson so successful? There are three key aspects of his approach to research and discovery that I believe marked him out as a scientist for the ages.

First, there was his outstanding mathematical prowess. This allied with his deep appreciation of the power of maths for explaining the natural world – a power upon which he drew heavily throughout his career. This is captured in a profound quote that has been attributed to Thomson: “The fact that mathematics does such a good job of describing the universe is a mystery that we don’t understand, and a debt that we will probably never be able to repay.”

But Thomson was much more than a mathematician par excellence. He also understood that precise measurement and quantification were essential tools for scientific progress – an idea we find expressed in his 1889 book Popular Lectures and Addresses. “When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers you know something about it,” he wrote.

Thomson’s lifelong talent for inventing ingenious scientific instruments secured him 70 patents, enabled dozens of scientific breakthroughs and made him a highly successful entrepreneur.

Third, there was Thomson’s outstanding ability to think “out of the box”, to look at a problem in a completely novel way. For me, there is no better example of that visionary thinking than Thomson’s work on laying the first transatlantic telegraph cable. This was an immense technological challenge that has been described as the “Apollo project” of the 1800s.

It revolutionised the Victorian world as profoundly as the internet and mobile communications have changed ours.

After failed attempts in the 1850s, Thomson’s genius was instrumental (quite literally!) to the first successful cable-laying expedition in 1865. His understanding of the similarities between heat transfer and electrical transport allowed Thomson to model how electrical impulses would be distorted as they travelled along undersea cables.

But Thomson’s experimental breakthroughs were also key. Instead of using a stronger signal, requiring a much heavier and costlier cable, he invented instruments that could precisely measure extremely weak electrical signals, transmitted as Morse code. They were known as the mirror galvanometer and, later, the syphon recorder. These were essentially a precursor of a modern inkjet printer.

These inventions were game-changers and, as a result, global communications were transformed for ever. As my late colleague David Saxon wrote in 2007, “the transatlantic cable shrank the world more than anything before or since.”

For all of this, Thomson was first knighted in 1866, then later ennobled as Lord Kelvin in 1892 – the first ever scientist so honoured. And Thomson’s elegant combination of ultra-precision technology and cutting-edge theory to detect extremely faint signals resonates strongly with the story of our LIGO laser interferometers, the most sensitive scientific instruments ever built. It was just such a combination that enabled the 2015 Nobel prizewinning discovery of ripples in spacetime known as gravitational waves.

The science and technology of black holes and gravitational waves belong firmly to the post-Kelvin domain of Einsteinian physics. But I believe that domain – and the transformative quantum technology it has enabled – draws inspiration from the pioneering example of William Thomson, who combined fundamental research and innovation to change the world.

Martin Hendry does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.