Here is a analysis of all the problems related to Mathematica in your question.
Briefly summarized, These are 3 problems :
the lack of build-in tools to visualize the potential and vector field in polar coordinates.
boundary problems : Whatever is the real geometry you are interested (not clear in your question, especially you want to optain 1.9 pF/m), there are boundaries that are not expected (compared to your description of the geometry). This will become clear once we will have the tools to visualize the vector field
There is also a difficulty due with the fact that Grad[potential] return a pair of Interpolation functions and not a unique interpolation function that returns a pair of values.
Visualisation tools
You code (exactly) :
R = 1; V0 = 1; V1 = 0; e0 = 8.854187817*^-12;
regionCyl =
ImplicitRegion[
0 <= r <= R && 0 <= p <= 2 Pi, {r, p}];
laplacianCil = Laplacian[V[r, p], {r, p}, "Polar"];
boundaryConditionCil = {DirichletCondition[
V[r, p] == V0, r == R && 0 <= p <= Pi/2],
DirichletCondition[
V[r, p] ==
V1, r == R && Pi <= p <= 3/2 Pi]};
solCyl = NDSolveValue[{laplacianCil == 0, boundaryConditionCil},
V, {r, 1*^-12, R}, {p, 0, 2 Pi}, MaxSteps -> Infinity];
electricFieldCyl = -Grad[solCyl[r, p], {r, p},
"Polar"];
sigmaCyl = (Dot[
electricFieldCyl, -{1, 0}] /. {r ->
R})*e0;
Q0Cyl = NIntegrate[sigmaCyl, {p, 0, Pi/2}];
capacitanceCyl = Abs[Q0Cyl]/Abs[V0 - V1]
The potential :
potentialSquareRepresentation=ContourPlot[solCyl[r, p], {r,p} \[Element] solCyl["ElementMesh"]
, ColorFunction -> "Temperature"
,Contours-> 20
, PlotLegends -> Automatic
];
potentialCylindricalRepresentation=Show[
potentialSquareRepresentation /. GraphicsComplex[array1_, rest___] :>
GraphicsComplex[(#[[1]] {Cos[#[[2]]],Sin[#[[2]]]})& /@ array1, rest],
PlotRange -> Automatic
]

The field : , thanks to Matthias
electricField1[r_, p_] = -Grad[solCyl[r, p ], {r, p}, "Polar"];
electricField2[x_, y_] = TransformedField["Polar" -> "Cartesian", electricField1[r, p + Pi], {r, p } -> {x, y}] /. ArcTan[x_,y_]:> ArcTan[-x,-y];
fieldCylindricalRepresentation=StreamPlot[electricField2[x, y], {x, -1, 1}, {y, -1, 1}, StreamStyle -> Black]

The mesh (the error mentionned in first User21's comment is corrected) :
meshSquareRepresentation= solCyl["ElementMesh"]["Wireframe"];
meshCylindricalRepresentation=Show[meshSquareRepresentation /. GraphicsComplex[array1_, rest___] :>
GraphicsComplex[(#[[1]] {Cos[#[[2]]],Sin[#[[2]]]})& /@ array1, rest],
PlotRange -> {{-1,1},{-1,1}}
]

a example of superposition :
Show[potentialCylindricalRepresentation,fieldCylindricalRepresentation]

Boundary problems
As one can see on the graphics, the boundaries are :
- The two expected quarters of circle , the lower at 0 Volts, the upper at 1 Volt. That's fine.
- The boundary p=0 (ie angle=0). This boundary is a problem. It is not specified. In that case NDSolve takes the default boundary condition : Neuman=0, that is to say no field transverse to the boundary. This is clearly visible when one observes the field
lines.
- There are also the two quarters of circle complementary to the two quarters that have been specified. Mathematica has seen a boundary because it is the limit of the domain. Once again the default boundary condition Neumann=0 has been used (see the field lines)
... To be continued ...
EDIT 01/01/2020
I have found a solution to the unresolved problem mentionned just above : How to get rid of the boundary at p=0 (ie angle=0)?
The first idea that comes to mind is to apply a periodic boundary condition between the boundaries p=0 and p=2 Pi.
Here is the code :
R = 1; V0 = 1; V1 = 0; e0 = 8.854187817*^-12;
regionCyl = ImplicitRegion[0 <= r <= R && -Pi/4 <= p <= 2 Pi, {r, p}];
laplacianCil = Laplacian[V[r, p], {r, p}, "Polar"];
boundaryConditionCil = {
DirichletCondition[V[r, p] == V0, r == R && 0 <= p <= Pi/2],
DirichletCondition[V[r, p] == V1, r == R && Pi <= p <= 3/2 Pi]};
PeriodicBoundaryCondition00 =
PeriodicBoundaryCondition[V[r, p], p == 2 Pi,
Function[x, x + {0, -2 Pi}]]; (* this is new *)
solCyl = NDSolveValue[{
laplacianCil == 0
, boundaryConditionCil
, PeriodicBoundaryCondition00 (* this is new *)
}, V, {r, 1*^-12, R}, {p, 0, 2 Pi}, MaxSteps -> Infinity];
potentialSquareRepresentation =
ContourPlot[solCyl[r, p], {r, p} \[Element] solCyl["ElementMesh"],
ColorFunction -> "Temperature", Contours -> 20,
PlotLegends -> Automatic];
potentialCylindricalRepresentation =
Show[potentialSquareRepresentation /. {GraphicsComplex[array1_,
rest___] :>
GraphicsComplex[( {#[[1]] Cos[#[[2]]], #[[1]] Sin[#[[2]]]}) & /@
array1, rest]}, PlotRange -> Automatic]

One sees that there is still a problem : The potential is continuous but the field is discontinous.
That is not the solution to the physical problem.
Furthermore, I have done a arbitrary decision in the code just above : The documentation of PeriodicNoudaryCondition
has a notion of source and target, and I have choosen which one is which one randomly. If the roles are interverted, it gives this :
R = 1; V0 = 1; V1 = 0; e0 = 8.854187817*^-12;
regionCyl = ImplicitRegion[0 <= r <= R && -Pi/4 <= p <= 2 Pi, {r, p}];
laplacianCil = Laplacian[V[r, p], {r, p}, "Polar"];
boundaryConditionCil = {
DirichletCondition[V[r, p] == V0, r == R && 0 <= p <= Pi/2],
DirichletCondition[V[r, p] == V1, r == R && Pi <= p <= 3/2 Pi]};
PeriodicBoundaryCondition01 =
PeriodicBoundaryCondition[V[r, p], p == 0 && 0 < r < 1,
Function[x, x + {0, 2 Pi}]]; (* this is new *)
solCyl = NDSolveValue[{
laplacianCil == 0
, boundaryConditionCil
, PeriodicBoundaryCondition01 (* this is new *)
}, V, {r, 1*^-12, R}, {p, 0, 2 Pi}, MaxSteps -> Infinity];
potentialSquareRepresentation =
ContourPlot[solCyl[r, p], {r, p} \[Element] solCyl["ElementMesh"],
ColorFunction -> "Temperature", Contours -> 20,
PlotLegends -> Automatic];
potentialCylindricalRepresentation =
Show[potentialSquareRepresentation /. {GraphicsComplex[array1_,
rest___] :>
GraphicsComplex[( {#[[1]] Cos[#[[2]]], #[[1]] Sin[#[[2]]]}) & /@
array1, rest]}, PlotRange -> Automatic]
Once again, the field is not continuous.
The solution
First one must be aware that the source of a BoundaryCondition is not necessarily a boundary (!), and that in that case, one can use two Boundary conditions, each targeting a boundary : one targeting the boundary p=0, the other one targeting the boundary p=2 Pi. Since it is not possible assign a boundary as target and source at the same time, the sources can be anywhere except at these boundaries.
With these informations, it is now possible to impose continuity of potential and field together.
The trick (2) is to extend the angular domain to, say, [-Pi/4,2 Pi] (1),
it gives :
solCyl = NDSolveValue[{laplacianCil == 0, boundaryConditionCil},
V, {r, 1*^-12, R}, {p, -Pi/4, 2 Pi}, MaxSteps -> Infinity];
potentialSquareRepresentation =
ContourPlot[solCyl[r, p], {r, p} \[Element] solCyl["ElementMesh"],
ColorFunction -> "Temperature", Contours -> 20,
PlotLegends -> Automatic];
potentialCylindricalRepresentation =
Show[potentialSquareRepresentation /. {GraphicsComplex[array1_,
rest___] :>
GraphicsComplex[( {#[[1]] Cos[#[[2]]], #[[1]] Sin[#[[2]]], \
#[[2]]}) & /@ array1, rest]
, Graphics -> Graphics3D}, PlotRange -> Automatic,
BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 0.1}, ViewPoint -> {3.14154, -0.356783, 1.2056}]

and then impose :
1) potential at target boundary p=2 Pi should be equal to potential at p=0 (source)
2) potential at target boundary p=-Pi/4 should be equal to potential at p=2 Pi - Pi/4 (source)
Here is the code :
R = 1; V0 = 1; V1 = 0; e0 = 8.854187817*^-12;
regionCyl = ImplicitRegion[0 <= r <= R && -Pi/4 <= p <= 2 Pi, {r, p}];
laplacianCil = Laplacian[V[r, p], {r, p}, "Polar"];
boundaryConditionCil = {
DirichletCondition[V[r, p] == V0, r == R && 0 <= p <= Pi/2],
DirichletCondition[V[r, p] == V1, r == R && Pi <= p <= 3/2 Pi]};
solCyl = NDSolveValue[{
laplacianCil == 0
, PeriodicBoundaryCondition[V[r, p], p == 2 Pi,
Function[x, x + {0, -2 Pi}]]
, PeriodicBoundaryCondition[V[r, p], p == -Pi/4 && 0 < r < 1,
Function[x, x + {0, 2 Pi}]]
, boundaryConditionCil}, V, {r, 1*^-12, R}, {p, -Pi/4, 2 Pi},
MaxSteps -> Infinity];
potentialSquareRepresentation =
ContourPlot[solCyl[r, p], {r, p} \[Element] solCyl["ElementMesh"],
ColorFunction -> "Temperature", Contours -> 20,
PlotLegends -> Automatic];
potentialCylindricalRepresentation =
Show[potentialSquareRepresentation /. {GraphicsComplex[array1_,
rest___] :>
GraphicsComplex[( {#[[1]] Cos[#[[2]]], #[[1]] Sin[#[[2]]], \
#[[2]]}) & /@ array1, rest]
, Graphics -> Graphics3D}, PlotRange -> Automatic,
BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 0.1},
ViewPoint -> #] & /@ {{3.14154, -0.356783, 1.2056}, {0, 0,
10}, {0, 0, -10}}
The result (global view, top view, bottom view)

There is continuity of potential and field everywhere.
The problem is solved.
For fun, the vector field :
electricField1[r_, p_] = -Grad[solCyl[r, p], {r, p}, "Polar"];
electricField2[x_, y_] =
TransformedField["Polar" -> "Cartesian",
electricField1[r, p + Pi], {r, p} -> {x, y}] /.
ArcTan[x_, y_] :> ArcTan[-x, -y];
fieldCylindricalRepresentation =
StreamPlot[electricField2[x, y], {x, -1, 1}, {y, -1, 1},
StreamStyle -> Black]

(1) and extend the boundary r=1, here it's Neumann=0, so it's automatically done.
(2) which is valid, but to be convinced needs reflexion. By the way, I have not found this solution accidentally.
p
. If you plot solCyl, you will see that the values atp = 2 Pi
are not the same as atp = 0
, but then your bc's are not requiring that. MMa does seem to be honoring the bc's you have specified, however. YourV
at your minimumr
should be pretty constant withp
, but is not, but haven't specified that bc either. As an aside, the capacitance should only depend on the geometry of the system and not the applied potentials, so if C is all you want, you could try more symmetric values as a check. $\endgroup$V[R, 2Pi] ==V0
, but it didn't change my answer. How would you solve the problem if you had total freedom to do so? BTW, I'm trying to solve the problem withV1=-1; V0=1
for that same reason. But Mma converges on the same answer, no matter what potentials I select (which is what should happen, I believe). $\endgroup$