24 February 2016, Energy Post, What comes after solar PV? BIPV. The time of ugly solar panels is over. Make way for building-integrated photovoltaics. Fereidoon Sioshansi, president of Menlo Energy Economics and publisher of the newsletter EEnergy Informer, notes that BIPV not only look stunningly better, they also reduce costs. They can even lead to energy-producing buildings. Regardless of whether and how they are subsidized, solar photovoltaics (PVs) panels are gaining in popularity around the world, found on increasing number of roofs in sunny and even not so sunny countries. They continue to be installed in significant numbers even in places where they get little credit for any net generation into the network, as in Queensland, Australia. In such cases, customers adjust the size of the installations mostly for self-consumption. Traditionally, a customer with an existing roof would call a contractor to install them, paying out of pocket, or increasingly leasing them with little or no upfront investment. The result is generally an ugly, incongruous after thought, and an expensive one at that. Many roofs have protruding chimneys and other obstacles resulting in panels distributed in odd and unpleasant patterns. Other roofs are in wrong angles to the sun or shaded by neighbours‘ houses or trees, making them unsuitable for solar PVs. Today, an increasing number of architects and engineers are designing individual houses and entire subdivisions with solar panels in mind. The same goes for many commercial buildings, especially warehouses, parking garages, office buildings, shopping malls, airports, train stations – anything with large flat roofs. Including solar panels at the time the roof is being built reduces installation costs substantially, by some estimates as much as 20%. Read More here
hmcadmin
23 February 2016, Climate Home, A flying fairy tale: Why aviation carbon cuts won’t take off. Ten days ago the airline industry stunned the world. After years of prevarication the world’s top airlines and leading manufacturers said they would take climate change seriously. The UN’s aviation body, ICAO for short, announced a carbon emissions standard that would apply to new aircraft from 2020, and to all new deliveries of in-production aircraft – current types, or minor variations on current types – as from 2028. Aircraft that don’t meet the standard will not be allowed to be produced after 2028. None of the operational aircraft currently in the fleet will be affected. The statement was widely acclaimed, notably by the US government. But will it really have any significant impact on reducing emissions? Our contention is it will not, riddled as it is with flaws. It will not be a “rigorous and challenging” standard as industry claimed, nor will it save the 650 megatonnes of CO2 emissions by 2040 that the White House proudly proclaimed. ICAO and states shaped the standard around parochial national manufacturer interests instead of the need to mitigate climate change. Aircraft designers will still face many challenges developing the next generation of airliners, but this standard will not be one of them. Beyond business as usual? New generation aircraft are generally some 10-15% more fuel efficient than those they replace. They need to be to sell. This translates to an average annual efficiency improvement of between 0.5% and 1.0%. Constant market pressures result in a continuously improving line when you plot the average fuel consumption of new aircraft types against their entry into commercial service date. Yet ICAO intends to regulate this ever improving trend with a flat (time independent) carbon standard. Even if the stringency is initially set at a level that will have an impact, its effect will quickly fade over time as market-driven improvements cut in. The maximum theoretical effect of the standard at maximum stringencies is just 1 gigatonne of CO2 between 2020-2040, while total CO2 emissions from aviation over this period will be in the order of some 31 Gtonnes, i.e. a potential saving of just 3%. Read More here
17 February 2016, Climate News Network, Carbon capture could be costly and risky. Attempts to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it safely are all potentially costly gambles with the current technology, scientists say. There’s bad news for those who think that carbon dioxide can be removed from the atmosphere and stored deep in the Earth’s rocks. Even if carbon capture is possible, sequestration in the rocks is fraught because the gas can find multiple ways to escape, according to a report by a team from Penn State University, US, in the International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control. Carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas, but it is the one that drives global warming. It escapes from power station chimneys and motor exhausts. Back in the 18th century, the air contained 280 parts of CO2 per million, but now the level has just reached 400 parts per million. In the same period, the average global temperature has risen by 1°C and will go on rising, to make climate change an increasing hazard. Switch to renewables Last December, 195 world leaders agreed in Paris to take action aimed at containing warming to – if possible – 1.5°C. Climate scientists warn that the world must switch to solar power, wind and other renewable sources. But some think that if the exhaust emissions could be trapped and stored, humans would be able to get a bit more value from their fossil fuel investments. Others see it as the only way of avoiding 2°C of warning − the agreed international safety limit prior to the Paris climate summit. The problem is that nobody is confident that carbon can be captured on a sufficient scale. “Removal of CO2 will be expensive and is currently unproven at the scale needed – so it would be much better to reduce emissions as rapidly as possible” Some projects have been abandoned, and others suggest that the problem is that not enough has been spent on the research. But the Penn State team looked at a different aspect: whether CO2 could be buried and forgotten. So they tested laboratory reactions that involve sandstone and limestone – two of the sedimentary rocks found most often in geological strata – and water and carbon dioxide. Read More here
23 February 2016, The Conversation, Aboriginal fire management – part of the solution to destructive bushfires. As destructive bushfires become more common there is increasing political discussion how we manage them sustainably. Inevitably these debates raise questions of the past ecological effects of Aboriginal fire usage. There are two well-known narratives about Aboriginal fire use. One, popularised by Tim Flannery, stresses the ecologically disruptive impact of Aboriginal fire use. This storyline argues that the megafauna extinctions that immediately followed human colonisation in the ice age resulted in a ramping up of fire activity. This then led to the spread of flammable vegetation which now fuels bushfires. Another, promoted by Bill Gammage, suggests that the biodiverse landscapes that were colonised by the British were the direct product of skilful and sustained fire usage. Such broad-brush accounts give the impression that the specific details of Aboriginal fire usage are well-known and can be generalised across the entire continent. Sadly this is not the case. So rapid was the socio-ecological disruption of southern Australia that researchers have had to rely on historical sources, such as colonial texts and images, and tree rings, pollen and charcoal in lake sediments, to piece together how Aboriginal people burned the land. Such records are open to interpretation and there remains vigorous debate about the degree to which Aboriginal people shaped landscapes. Piecing together the past There are only a handful of detailed observational studies of the ecology of Aboriginal fire usage, and all from northern Australia, so there is dispute whether their findings can be extrapolated in the south. These studies demonstrate skilful use of fire that created fine-grained burn patterns, designed to promote food resources. For instance, a prime motive for burning savannas is attracting kangaroos to nutrient-rich grass that sprouts after the fire. In the desert, Aboriginal patch burning increases the habitat for sand goannas. In sum, there is mounting evidence that sustained Aboriginal fire use shaped many Australian landscapes by sharpening vegetation boundaries, maintaining open vegetation, and creating habitat for game species. Read More here