Sustainable Dev.

By Brian Gardner Whatever governments may or may not agree on GHG emissions, the one thing that is likely is that average global temperatures will continue to rise. What is also likely is that the world’s food production capacity will be affected by the change that temperature rises will create.  There is however no consensus on what the overall effect is likely to be by the mid 21st century or later.

By Zoë Casey

If all the costs of fossil fuel power generation were detailed in German power bills they would exceed the costs of renewable energy “by a wide margin”, a study by Greenpeace Energy Germany and the German Wind Energy Association (BWE) says.

Currently German power bills clearly outline the cost of the EEG – the support that is channelled to renewable energy and charged to the consumer as a levy – but the costs of conventional fuels are hidden. “State incentives for nuclear and coal are sometimes part of rules that increase the price of power and sometimes part of government budgets. In both cases consumers cannot directly see the full cost in their power bills,” the report says.

In 2012 the EEG levy cost the consumer €c3.59 per KWh, while the report estimates that if there were a similar levy for fossil fuels it would cost €c10.2 per KWh – almost three times as high as the EEG.

The news comes as Germany enters a critical period of debate on the cost of its stepped-up “Energiewende” – or energy transition away from nuclear and fossil fuels towards renewables following a decision taken by the German government and Chancellor Angela Merkel in May 2011. On 1 January, the EEG – which effectively pays for Germany’s energy transition – was raised to €c5.3, a move which prompted German Environment Minister Peter Altmaier to announce in late January a two-year freeze on the EEG and a cap on raises after that.

While the final outcome of the debate is still to come, it is worth bearing in mind that not only are some fossil fuel and nuclear costs are hidden in power bills, but that fossil fuels and nuclear have been subsidised for decades at a cost of many more billions than subsidies to renewables. Moreover, the societal and environmental costs of fossil fuels and nuclear are high and will remain high.

In figures, the report highlights that the German government has paid a lot more to conventional fuels compared to renewables in direct and indirect energy subsidies between 1970 and 2012. While hard coal-fired electricity generation received a total of €177 billion in financial support, lignite received €65 billion, and nuclear received €187 billion. All renewables, meanwhile, received €54 billion over the same period, the report said.

The study then looks at the additional costs to society and the environment of fossil fuels and nuclear compared to renewables – which are only included to a minor extent in power bills. “The resulting price per of a kilowatt-hour of wind power for society in 2012 is €c8.1…in contrast, the total cost of power from lignite and hard coal add up to €c15.6 and €c14.8 respectively, with nuclear reaching at least €c16.4 per KWh,” the report says.

 

It is no surprise that we see some Swedish Consumer Market giants acting more responsible in their markets. With a step by step approach, both IKEA and H&M, have positively moved their positions in the field of CSR. IKEA, based on its family values, developed its business strategy together with the values from the Natural Step Foundation already 1990. H&M with a strong family owner influence has been taken steps in all field of Sustainability. The latest step, to positioning H&M Conscious work for a more sustainable fashion future can bring a stronger communication voice to the consumer.

With their actions, the societies in developing countries will have a hope to gain better conditions in their working life and a better living standard. But, will government in these countries meet up with rules that will bring in an acceptable social standard that welfare states are built on? A challenge that will need a more intensive dialogue between business and government in developing countries.

But, lets focus on some new promising steps for both the consumer giants and its suppliers. And why not involve the stakeholders around the corporations. Government, Ngo:s and shareholders….

The Ikea Green Tech company announced the 8th of April that it has invested in DyeCoo Textile Systems, a Dutch company that has developed the first commercially available waterless dyeing technology. Using recycled carbon dioxide (CO2), the technology avoids the large amount of water and chemicals used in traditional dyeing processes.

In a press release IKEA said – Still, the biggest climate impact along our value chain happens outside of our operations. That’s why we also want to use our influence to encourage action on climate. This includes working with suppliers, fabric mills and transport providers in a range of voluntary programmes and collaborative initiatives to improve their energy efficiency and overall environmental performance. It also includes inspiring conscious garment care amongst customers.

“DyeCoo’s waterless dyeing technology is a truly innovative system that could bring real environmental and costs benefits for the textile industry by reducing water and chemical use. Through the partnership, IKEA will help to speed up the development and availability of the technology,” says Christian Ehrenborg, Managing Director, IKEA GreenTech AB

The investment will support the delivery of the IKEA Group Sustainability Strategy, People & Planet Positive, which includes challenging commitments for IKEA to make its products, operations and supply chain more sustainable. In the supply chain, IKEA is committed to reaching 100 percent compliance with its suppliers.

The significant potential of the waterless dyeing process has also been recognised by the world’s leading apparel and footwear brand, NIKE, Inc.which invested in DyeCoo in 2012. Nike’s strategic partnerships group worked closely with IKEA GreenTech throughout the investment process.

- This is very promising. We are working hard to implement new technology solutions that bring down both water use and chemicals in all our operations and in the supply chain, said Helene Helmersson, Head of H&M Sustainability, when I spoked to her. She was also aware about the work in both Nike and Ikea around this issues and said, –  this brings new stronger opportunities for us who work with textiles.

The textile industry is one of the largest consumers of water and most of the world’s textile suppliers are located in Asia. The scale of the industry’s activity in the region can put pressure on the availability of clean water and contribute to environmental pollution in the discharges from manufacturing processes. By removing the need to use water in the dyeing process and eliminating the risk of effluent discharge, a known environmental hazard, the DyeCoo system could bring significant benefits to the region.

“IKEA strives to have a positive impact on people and the planet. By helping to scale the DyeCoo system for use with larger production volumes, we could help to make a big difference for the environment as well as workers and communities around textile facilities,” says Steve Howard, Chief Sustainability Officer, IKEA Group

Nike’s VP of Sustainable Business & Innovation, Hannah Jones, welcomed IKEA as a partner in DyeCoo Textile Systems.

“IKEA’s decision to invest in this technology signals an exciting step in cross-industry collaboration. A key objective for Nike, when investing in DyeCoo, was to scale the technology to benefit consumers, business and the environment. We’re delighted IKEA shares a similar objective to accelerate development of more sustainable materials and manufacturing processes.”

The first range of machines developed and manufactured by DyeCoo are for waterless dyeing of polyester fabric. As well as helping to scale the processes for dyeing polyester, the partnership with IKEA will speed up the development of processes and machines for dyeing cotton.

This is all steps in the right direction, but not the last challenge, when we look at the perspective with the needs of 1,5 planets to provide resources for todays population…..

Thats why we need more responsible business leader that bring solutions in front of the governments and NGO:s that say – yes we can –  Are you prepared to work together!

Kaj Embrén

 

By solar panel efficiency we refer to the rate at which a photovoltaic panel converts solar energy into electrical energy. In general, a typical efficiency level of PV panels ranges between 12-16%, though recent technological improvements suggest we will soon be talking of efficiencies in the range well above 20%!

Solar panel efficiency

Solar panel efficiency is a measure of the solar cell’s ability to convert the solar energy to which it is exposed to into useful electrical power.  The solar panel’s energy conversion efficiency is expressed as a percentage of the cell’s output power (watts) over the input sunlight energy (irradiance in W/m²) and the surface area of the solar panel (in m²). Considering a solar panel with a surface area of 1 meter sq. (m²) and with solar panel efficiency of 20%, at standard test conditions, i.e. amongst other conditions at clear weather with irradiance of 1000 W/ m² and temperature of 25 °C, it will produce an output of 200 watts.

Consequently, the solar panel used in our illustration above, will produce more power than the power output of (STC) on a clear day with the sun high in the sky and less power on a cloudy day or when the sun is low.

Given a constant rated power for two different solar panels, e.g. 250 watts, their efficiency level will determine their surface area respectively. For example, a solar panel with efficiency 10% will have twice the surface area of a panel with efficiency 20% given they have the same rated output wattage – see what size of solar panels for home

Factors affecting solar panel efficiency

From above definitions, it can be easily understood that Solar panel efficiency is influenced by many factors. The most significant are gathered and presented below:

Types of solar panels

• Monocrystalline silicone photovoltaic cells, or single crystalline solar panels have been considered to be more efficient primarily because they have been found to exhibit a higher peak efficiency; consequently, monocrystalline solar panels were historically used for residential installations where installation area is limited. However, the statement that monocrystalline panels are more efficient than polycrystalline solar panels is rather controversial and subject to manufacturers’ specifications.
• Polycrystalline solar panels have, up to now, been considered less efficient when compared to monocrystalline sola panels. However, given latest technological evolvement, polycrystalline silicon has managed to cover this gap, if not to surpass the performance of monocrystallic, especially at temperatures higher than STC.
• A third type of solar panel is thin-film solar panels which are less efficient than crystalline silicon cells but also cost less. Being less efficient implies that they need a lot more surface area than crystalline silicon based cells, but they are highly flexible, thin and can be installed onto many different surfaces especially on buildings (commercial or residential solar panels – see Solar panels for green buildings and Best research-Cell Efficiencies (NREL)

Temperature

Depending on where you live, temperature may become a significant source of solar panel efficiency deterioration, especially if you live in a hot climate. The performance of solar panels may drop significantly at temperatures above (STC). One practical way of combating this is to use any means of ventilating installed solar panels to make them more efficient.

Tilt and orientation

To maximise effective exposure of the solar panel to sunlight requires that solar panels are faced to true South (for location sites within the North hemisphere) and vice versa. The inclination angle depends on the season and latitude of the site’s location; to increase exposure of solar panels to sunlight we can adjust our solar panels orientation 2 or 4 times a year according the season. Alternatively we can use a solar tracker, for maximised results, though trackers are mainly used to commercial application and not for residential applications, primarily due to higher costs and town planning restrictions.

Shades

Undoubtedly, shading will greatly affect the output performance of a solar panel. IT is important to note that when solar panels are connected in a module with one single inverter, the maximum module output is determined by the minimum performing cell; thus, in case of shade falling on a particular panel, it will influence the whole row circuit of solar panels connected together. That is why, especially in residential applications where shadings are more likely to occur, it is important to examine installation site, e.g. the roof of the building, and note any sources of shade in order to design the solar panel system accordingly. One possible solution to avoiding this solar panel bottleneck is with the use of micro-inverters; in any case, if you are planning to install solar panels for your home, it is advisable to ask for a proper installation design from potential solar panel installers in your area – you may want to see solar panels for home.

Humidity

By exposing solar panels to sunlight, they are also exposed to all nature’s conditions, including rain and humidity. If humidity manages to penetrate into the solar panel frame, photovoltaic performance will be reduced significantly and might lead to permanent deterioration of the modules performance.

Lifetime and age

Manufacturers always quote expected efficiency levels of their solar panels across their life span. For example, a common quoted is manufacturer’s performance warranty of minimum efficiency within 10 first years to be above 90% of quoted solar panel efficiency and the respective figure between 10 and 20 years around 80% or 85%. A Typical degradation rate is 0.5% per year of use.

Cleaning and maintenance

Solar panels usually require minimum maintenance as they do not incorporate mechanical moving parts; however, because they operate on sunlight passes through glass to reach the solar cell, sunlight quality is of ultimate importance and thus cleaning of the solar panel, especially the panel glass, is very crucial. As solar panels are exposed to natural conditions they gather dirt, dust, bird droppings, etc. which lead to reduction of the effective sunlight reaching the solar cells thus reducing solar panel efficiency and generated output. In cleaning roof mounted residential panels it is always advisable to seek some professional solar panel cleaning advice as any misconduct in doing so may lead to scratching the photovoltaic glass and creating a permanent more serious problem. Usually, solar panels are cleaned with lukewarm light soaped water solution and a soft non-abrasive cloth.

Monitoring performance

Keeping an eye on solar panel performance and efficiency levels through real time on-line platforms is extremely important and highly beneficial. Having access to this continues real-time data will ensure high quality control and security over the photovoltaic investment and subsequently safeguarding energy production. Deterioration or sudden decreases in photovoltaic performance are spotted immediately, thus providing early warning to act proactively and effectively against threats. On line monitoring can provide useful data for deciding on solar panel cleaning frequency, solar panel orientation corrections, and on any sources of malfunction from an early stage.

The importance of solar panel efficiency

Simply put, solar panel efficiency influences how much electricity a solar panels system is generating; this means generating more or less electricity given a constant area of solar panels, i.e. space limitations on a roof, and constant solar panel wattage (solar panel capacity).  The factors influencing the output of your solar panel installation have been outlined and consist of exogenous, such as weather and location conditions, as well as endogenous sources to your solar panels, such as sola panel efficiency – you may want to refer to solar panels properties in solar energy pros and cons.  Irrespective of the solar irradiation potential at your area, obtaining the highest possible output, given your budget for solar panel investment, is a primal requirement. Solar panel efficiency directly influences your output yield in generated electricity (e.g. kwh/year) and consequently influences generated income from rebates or FITs for on-grid installations. Eventually, solar panel efficiency is a primal factor influencing financial viability of your solar panels investment and the end repayment of your solar panels cost. Apart from solar panel efficiency it is crucially important to note that we are always interested in the efficieny and output performance of a solar photovoltaic system as a whole. Efficiency of solar panels, on a single panel level, is only one variable in the solar system. Learn how efficiency of your solar panel system can be affected and how it can be optimised by shoosing the appropriate type of solar inverter in micro-inverter vs string inverter.

Resources:

http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/

cell efficiency records (NREL)

http://www.nrel.gov/ncpv/images/efficiency_chart.jpg

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/51664.pdf

by Lies Craeynest, Oxfam’s EU climate change expert

European funding to help poor countries adapt to a changing climate is dropping remarkably at a time when it needs to be scaled up in line with UN commitments and people are dealing with increasing impacts of extreme weather events.

As part of an assessment that shows significant cuts in development aid to poor nations, the OECD has just revealed that funding for programs mainly focused on helping developing countries adapt to the effects of climate change fell globally from $3.1 billion in 2010 to $1.8 billion in 2011. Although the OECD has not yet released climate finance figures for 2012, research by Oxfam suggests that levels of public climate finance did not improve last year.

European governments appear to have performed particularly badly, with funding falling from €1.4 billion in 2010 to €619 million in 2011. This shocking 55% drop should prompt renewed action at the Ministerial Meeting on Mobilizing Climate Finance in Washington and meetings of EU climate experts in Brussels next week.

At the 2009 Copenhagen talks, developed countries committed to provide climate finance balanced between adaption and emissions-mitigation programs, yet Oxfam analysis has shown that just 21% of funds have gone to adaptation. The EU’s Fast Start Finance has performed slightly better with a 30% destined for adaptation between 2010 and 2012 but is still far off a balanced 50% mark. OECD figures show that European targeted funding principally for mitigation purposes also declined by more than half in 2011.

In recent years, the climate finance conversation appears to have been increasingly focused on the role of the private sector in climate action in developing countries. But governments can’t leave it up to the private sector to fill the enormous adaptation funding shortfall. The private sector has mostly stayed away from funding some of the most important adaptation programs – which help people gain access to the water, food and basic services diminished by climate change – since they offer little or no short-term return on investment.

While at the UN climate talks in Doha last year, some EU governments  like Germany and the UK made announcements on climate finance post the Fast Start Finance period (2010-2012), more substantial answers are now needed. The upcoming EU climate expert meetings as well as the subsequent ministerial meeting on climate finance hosted by the US should therefore not just discuss private finance, but also address the growing shortfalls in public finance. Now would be a good time for the EU to renew its resolve by pressing ahead with new sources of public finance, such as a carbon price on global shipping and aviation emissions or a Financial Transactions Tax.

The period between 2013 and 2015 will be crucial to deliver concrete results on climate finance, as a failure to do so may put at risk a global climate deal in 2015. Oxfam believes developed countries should act at the UN talks (COP19) this December in Poland on these three fronts:

• First, they should ensure they do not come back empty handed but set out what public climate finance they will provide over the period 2013-2015, and towards 2020.

• Second, they should pledge funds to the Green Climate Fund at the latest by the end of COP19.

• Third, they should agree that at least 50% of all public climate finance between now and 2020 will be spent on adaptation.

With such an ambitious agenda to deliver, there is certainly no time to waste.

“The Ministry of Magic has always considered the education of young witches and wizards to be of a vital importance. Although each headmaster has brought something new to this… historic school, progress for the sake of progress must be discouraged. Let us preserve what must be preserved, perfect what can be perfected and prune practices that ought to be… prohibited!”

 

With those words, Dolores Umbridge enters the life of Harry Potter at the start of his 5^th year at Hogwarts School of Wizardry and Witchcraft. A little speech aptly interpreted by Hermione Granger as “The Ministry is interfering at Hogwarts.” Played by Imelda Staunton, these days, Umbridge is being impersonated by UK Secretary of State for Education Michael Gove, or at least according to a post on the UK Youth Climate Coalition (UKYCC) blog, calling Mr. Gove the Climate Change High Inquisitor.

Seriously now, what’s happening?

After the much-talked-about introduction of climate change into formal education curricula across the UK in 2007 — including the Brown ministry being taken to court over the distribution of Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth — the current Cameron ministry, in the person of its Secretary of State for Education Mr. Gove, has decided to take it off again. The change means climate change as such will be scrapped in the so-called Key Stages 1 to 3, roughly corresponding to primary and the first half of secondary school, or everyone under the age of 14.

Are they just reconsidering a small bit of policy then?

According to a spokesperson of the Department of Education, there is no need for concern, as “all children will learn about climate change. It is specifically mentioned in the science curriculum and both climate and weather feature throughout the geography curriculum.” Rita Gardner, director of the Royal Geographical Society, on the other hand, welcomes the change, saying that “in the past, in some instances, young people were going to start on climate change without really knowing about climate” and she expects students to be better prepared by the time they start discussing climate change earnestly at the age of 14.

Various other stakeholders were quick to denounce the Ministry’s move though, and with reason. Arguments range from the desired content of climate education, over the responsibility towards future generations, to what the government’s former science advisor Prof Sir David King calls “a major political interference with the geography syllabus.”

One of the loudest protests against the decision comes from a secondary school student, Esha Marwaha, a member of the UK Youth Climate Coalition (UKYCC). Outraged by the move, Esha launched a petition which collected 25,000 signatures in less than two weeks, calling on Mr. Gove to “Keep Climate Change in the Curriculum.” A call supported by the results of a recent AEGEE survey on sustainability, where 73% of respondents asked for more attention for sustainability education.

Other opponents of the decision include John Ashton, former government climate change envoy, and Jim Hickman, author of “Will Jellyfish Rule the World”, a book about climate change aimed at 8 to 10-year-olds. Both disagree with Ms. Gardner’s claim that kids younger than 14 could not grasp the complexities of climate change. “We must never underestimate a child’s intelligence, or their capacity and eagerness to learn something new,” says Mr. Hickman, while Mr. Ashton also touches upon our responsibility towards the next generation: “We cannot let our children face such a journey without equipping them at the earliest possible stage with a compass.”

An approach which actually seems to work, and is being supported by climate campaigners and scientists who say teaching about climate change in schools has helped mobilise young people to be the most vociferous advocates of action by governments, business and society to tackle the issue. Coincidence then that the UK government is trying to eliminate climate education for young students?

Not according to Esha, who claims that “our government intend to not only fail to act on climate change themselves, but to obscure the truth, and any chance young people have to act.” Camilla Born, international expert at UKYCC shares her point of view: “It appears climate change is being systematically removed from the curriculum.” A frightening perspective, when at the same time in the US, the National Research Council is updating nationwide science standards to include climate change, building on the fact that “only one in five students feel they have a good handle on climate change from what they’ve learned  in school.”

Moreover, effective climate change education should include much more than just the scientific functioning of climate and weather. As Mr. Ashton puts it, “what’s important is not so much the chemistry as the impact on the lives of human beings.” This coincides with the findings of Rosalyn McKeown Ph.D. in her seminal Education for Sustainability toolkit, where she states that we need more than a theoretical discussion at this point, and that education therefore needs to be used “as a tool to achieve sustainability”.

Finally, the Ministry defends its decision by pointing out that the change would not forbid the teaching of climate change — which, luckily, prevents this from being a perfect Umbridge parallel — but allows ‘sensible teachers’ to introduce it whenever they feel ready for it. Mr. Hickman draws a complete comparison between the current and proposed guidelines to prove this possibility, but not every teacher will read those guidelines with the same intent of adding climate change on his own initiative. As Mr. Ashton points out, the changes “would make it legitimate not to do so.”

In conclusion, the Ministry tries to justify removing climate change from the lower curricula by using a list of highly debatable arguments, which have been strongly opposed by both scientists and civil society:

1. Climate change is too complex to teach below 14 — Wrong, we cannot start educating early enough.
2. Teaching climate change is still allowed — Wrong, it will only be effective when clearly supported.
3. Climate change is still sufficiently mentioned — Wrong, this change will decrease kids’ readiness.

AEGEE-Europe/ European Students’ Forum strongly supports actions and campaigns for a wide-spread presence of education for sustainability at all stages of the education curriculum. This was recently reflected in the almost unanimous vote of AEGEE-locals in the Netherlands for the topic as focus for lobbying by the Dutch youth council (NJR), which was subsequently confirmed at the NJR’s general assembly.

In times of increasing attention for sustainability in all parts of social life, removing climate change from the curriculum is not only illogical but also counter-productive in the joint effort for more sustainable ways of living. As Esha puts it: “All the people who are passionate about this issue call for more climate education, not less. We should be taking a step forwards, not backwards.”

AEGEE-Europe therefore supports the petition by Esha and the UKYCC, and urges the British government to reverse its decision and keep climate change firmly rooted in the educational curriculum. In the end, we all have to fight climate change or face its effects, and education is key in providing us with the knowledge and tools for doing this. Ignoring this fact is not serving anyone.

 

Written by Mathieu Soete, AEGEE-Europe Policy Officer on Sustainability

My aim as Policy Officer is to bring the opinion of AEGEE to the policy-makers while sharing opportunities for learning and action. But for this I need your input of course. So contact me at mathieu.soete@aegee.org to share your ideas and questions.

 

Wind power generated enough electricity to power four out of 10 UK homes last week – and that during a freezing March day and at a time when gas prices were at a seven year high.

From 9.30pm last Thursday night for the rest of the night and day, wind power generated 5 GW of electricity consistently over the 24 hour period, meeting over 10% of the country’s electricity needs.

Last week UK gas prices reached a seven-year-high after a pipeline connecting the UK and Belgium was shut down due to a technical fault.

“What this shows is that wind is a stable and reliable source of power generation on the scale we need, when we need it most,” Maria McCaffery, Chief Executive of industry body RenewableUK, said. The news on gas “serves as a timely reminder of the vulnerability of supply and the price volatility of imported fossil fuels,” she added.

While the UK’s recent record is impressive it falls behind countries like Spain – in April last year Spain reached a new wind power record by producing 317 GW hours of electricity, covering 61% of the country’s electricity demand.

Meanwhile in Denmark, wind power has met nearly all of the country’s electricity needs. Copenhagen Capacity reported that wind produced 3,987 MW of power one day in March this year – just 800 MW short of Danish electricity demand.

 

51%. The majority of Sweden’s energy comes from renewable sources.

It is an achievement that has surpassed both the EU’s target of 49% by 2020 and the Swedish parliament adopted target of 50 percent in 2020.The seeds to this success can be traced back to the establishment of the official Oil Commission in 2005, which was charged with reducing Sweden’s  dependence on oil.

A prominent member of that Commission was Volvo’s (former) CEO, Leif Johansson.  He announced that Volvo recognised the threat of climate change and the imperative of reducing dependency on fossil fuels.

Volvo soon became the first vehicle manufacturer to produce prototype carbon neutral trucks. It made  seven in all, each modified for a different type of liquid or gas renewable.

“Volvo is part of the climate problem,’ Mr. Johansson said, ‘but today we have shown that carbon-free transport is a possibility and that we as a vehicle manufacturer can and wants to be part of the solution to climate change.”

Nevertheless transport continues to pose a major challenge to Sweden’s sustainability credentials. Around 90 percent of road vehicles still run on fossil fuels.

By far the greatest contributor to Sweden’s renewable revolution has been bio-energy. Bio-mass, such as firewood, wood chips, pellets, briquettes, ethanol, methanol, biodiesel, bio-oil, bio-gas, dimethyl ether and biomethane accounts for most of Sweden’s renewable energy, Gustav Melin, CEO of the Swedish Bio-energy Association (Svebio) told me in our interview yesterday.

It is a sector that has grown for the third consecutive year, with pioneering projects springing up around the country. In Stockholm, energy giant Fortum has invested $680 million in a new biofuelled combined heat and power plant. The direct and indirect
environmental benefits of the new biofuel-based plant will be significant. The
global CO2 emissions will decrease by 650,000 tons annually”, says Anders
Egelrud, Managing Director of Fortum Värme – Fortum’s heat business in Sweden.

In Norrköping,  E.ON, Lantmännen Agroetanol, Swedish Biogas and the local municipality have invested nearly $1.5 billion into plant that produces steam (used for production of fuel ethanol), electricity and heat from biomass.

While, in Värmland, a $540 million plant are under planning to produce bio-methanol using raw material from the forest.

These are just a few examples of an expanding renewable industry that has been the heart of Sweden’s success.

Such success can, and should, be replicated by other states. But global priorities need to change first. According to the International Energy Agency, the world’s governments spent $409 billion on oil subsidies in 2010.  Only $64 billion went on renewable energy subsidies.

If only things were the other way round! As former U.S. president Bill Clinton put it in an interview in Financial Times:

“For $ 1 million invested in a new coal plant, you have fewer than 900 jobs, to the solar plant you get 1,900 jobs, wind turbine jobs 3300,  (for buildings) retrofit 7000-8000 job … this is jobs, this is investment. Are you really against it? ”

Smart investment in renewables is good for the economy, good for the climate and good for jobs.

Kaj Embrén

 

By Eberhard Rhein 2012 has seen new records in newly installed solar and wind power capacity. Globally installed capacity has now reached almost 400 GW, of which 300 GW wind and 100 GW solar PV. In the last 10 years solar PV has expanded more rapidly than wind power, essentially due to a steep decline of module prices resulting from incredible productivity increases and cut-throat competition that has led to the bankruptcy of the world’s biggest manufacturer, SUNTECH, a week ago.

Salary: None Experience: None necessary

By Barbara Kvac Disappointed by loan disbursements to one of the dirtiest coal projects in Europe, almost 100 organisations have called on two public lenders to not repeat the same mistakes, ever. In the beginning of March, the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development paid out half a billion euros in loans for a new unit at the Sostanj lignite power plant in Slovenia. The reactions I got from fellow environmentalists who had been campaigning against the project expressed a tremendous disappointment over this decision.

It is time for the European Environment Agency (EEA) to get serious and not let their activist dogma guide their publicly funded “research”. In their second version of Late Lessons from Early Warnings (Chapter 2), the EEA pretended to address the issue of precautionary false positives – where decisions taken for precautionary reasons have led [...]

While a lot of attention gets focused on the emissions from aviation released by aircraft in the skies above us, it must also be remembered that a lot of good work is taking place on the ground too – particularly at airports. One of the projects that we are very proud of is led by our colleagues at Airports Council International Europe. Airport Carbon Accreditation was launched in 2009 and has since grown to be what I consider a gold-standard  carbon management certification programme for airports.

Airports across Europe have been leading the way and Airport Carbon Accreditation has now started rolling out in Asia-Pacific as well, with six airports there already taking part and another two to be announced shortly. ACI Europe yesterday announced that 71 airports in Europe are accredited at one of the four available levels of certification: ‘Mapping’; ‘Reduction’; ‘Optimisation’; and ‘Neutrality’. Impressively, the accredited airports represent more than 56% of European passenger traffic. The step-by-step process provides airports with a common framework for active carbon management with measurable goal posts.

While the total carbon emissions reduced through Airport Carbon Accreditation will be announced at the ACI annual meeting in June, I can tell you it is an impressive figure.  You can view a full list of the airports accredited in Europe and the levels of their accreditation here.

I also think it is a significant achievement that the programme has been endorsed by ECAC and EUROCONTROL and received support from the European Commission and ICAO.

For further information, visit the website www.airportcarbonaccredited.org or check out @AirportCO2 on Twitter.

 

What is a “green-roof?” Some say the term conjures up images of green vegetation on a building’s roof; others refer to the concept of making a building’s roof green from an environmental standpoint with green energy solar panels. It turns out that green vegetation on your roof can actually help boost your roof-mounted photovoltaic panels.

Green building roofs

Keeping a garden on the roof is an eco-friendly solution that helps increase the energy performance of a building as it reduces unwanted heat gains in the summer and heat losses in winter – (see green buildings: Rational solutions). The soil and insulation and waterproofing materials that form the infrastructure for planting a roof garden act as an effective insulation for the building at the place where most energy losses occur – the roof. In summer, radiation heat is reduced as it does not reach the roof, thus does not enter inside the building, whereas, in winter, it acts as an effective insulation that keeps the required internal heat inside. The end result may result in energy savings for the building of up to 30 percent.

In addition, apart from the immediate cooling effect of a roof-garden building, green roofs in a community may lead to a micro-climate cooling effect that may be beneficial to the broader related area and community. Consequently, green roofing may help combat “heat island” effects in urban areas – a term used to describe the accumulation of heat buildup in urban areas that eventually remain hotter than rural surroundings.

Research documented in Green Roof Valuation shows that vegetated rooftops can facilitate solutions of complex environmental problems in urban areas. The report suggests that green (vegetated) rooftops, when compared to conventional rooftops, may yield a Net Present Value (over a period of energy savings for up to 40 years) that is 20–30 percent lower; thus, a viable investment over conventional rooftops.

Specifically, the initial additional investment required to make a roof plantable with green vegetation can in fact be recovered, through energy savings, by the time an alternative conventional roof would need replacing. In addition, findings suggests that green roofs may help improve the quality of the urban air, yielding additional benefits in monetary terms and reducing harmful atmospheric emissions. An illustrative example is that a 2000 square meter green (vegetated) roof is estimated to yield approximately $900 to $3300. Consequently, maintaining well vegetated roof-gardens may lead to significant financial, environmental and aesthetic benefits primarily from saving conventional energy but also through urban air quality improvement, and micro-climate cooling effects.

How green roofs can help boost photovoltaic panels’ performance

In addition to these benefits of maintaining a green roof garden, a green roof can boost the performance of roof-mounted photovoltaic panels. One of the biggest and most significant performance parameters of photovoltaic panels is temperature, thus solar panel manufacturers specify their temperature coefficient. The performance boost by combining a solar roof-garden with solar photovoltaic panels has been the object of various research teams; findings suggest a boost effect around 15-16 percent output more than conventional roof mounted panels (i.e. without green vegetation). The increase in photovoltaic performance is mainly due to the cooling effect of the green garden, which is magnified in hot climates and during the hot summer season. An illustration of this result can also be found by comparing the output performance of a photovoltaic panel when it is installed in urban areas (e.g. on a conventional rooftop) with the corresponding performance when installed in rural areas.

Consequently, when having to make a decision about either of these solutions, it is important to note how the combination of both roof solar panels and a green (vegetated) roof, can offer extended benefits that are financial, environmental and architectural. Combining the energy savings from a roof garden, together with the boost effect on the performance of photovoltaic panels, can help reduce the cost of solar panels (see – how much solar panels cost) , thus making photovoltaic panels financially more viable especially for residential applications (solar panels for home).

source: green-roofs-boost-photovoltaic-panels

For the past four years I have shared my views and interpretation of geopolitical and major international developments with you – the regular or occasional readers of Blogactiv. Time has come to branch out. Recently, I have decided that the best answer to the EUsterity affecting us all is to put some of the results of my research in audio-visual form. My first documentary project, Spotlight on the Arctic, is thus meant to reach out to larger audiences and to familiarise them with the leading environmental, geo-economic, geopolitical and IR issues at stake in this region.

I have not chosen the Arctic as the starting point of my new endeavour by accident. From an international relations point of view, the contribution of General George Pomut in the 19^th century was indeed an exceptional one. A Romanian by origin, he was born in the Romanian enclave of Gyula (Hungary), studied in Vienna and, after 1850, immigrated to the United States where he fought in the American Civil War. His bravery earned him a promotion to the rank of general and, later on, a position as a diplomat to the tsarist court in St. Petersburg. In this capacity, he successfully negotiated the purchase of Alaska by the United States for a reported 7.2 million dollars – a state-to-state financial transaction that profoundly affected the balance of power in the Arctic region.

Equally important in my choice of subject is the fact that the Arctic region, although brimming with natural resources, is reasonably free of territorial disputes and conflicts, which is sadly not the rule for the rest of the world. As one observer of the area put it, extreme cold seems to be a very good teacher, that has determined the countries neighbouring the Arctic to cooperate instead of bicker. This is a far cry from the conflicts opposing China, ASEAN and Japan over a few small islands in the South China Sea, for example; the civil wars in the Middle East, or the religious strife affecting African countries like Sudan or Mali.

To finance my documentary, I have selected crowdfunding, which seems to be very well-suited for freelancers such as myself. Alas, I now need to find a crowd. I would therefore like to ask the readers of my blog to help me get this project off the ground financially. So, if you would like to lend me a hand, please click on my Indiegogo campaign here. Thank you for your support !