Green organisations could face steep rises in the cost of legal challenges to Heathrow’s expansion, or air quality policies, under reforms the government is contemplating.
Proposals to expose claimants in environmental cases to higher financial liabilities if they lose their cases could deter people from bringing actions, according to the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE).
The consultation has been launched to update the UK’s responsibilities under the Aarhus convention, which guarantees public participation in decision-making as well as access to information and justice in environmental matters.
But green activists fear the plans, which introduce higher cost caps, coincide with the next stage of major infrastructure projects such as expanding Heathrow to a third runway and the HS2 rail lines linking the north of England and London.
In the past, the prime minister has blamed judicial review cases for delaying economic development. In 2012, David Cameron told the CBI: “We urgently need to get a grip on this. So here’s what we’re going to do: reduce the time limit when people can bring cases, charge more for [judicial] reviews so people think twice about time-wasting, and instead of giving hopeless cases up to four bites of the cherry to appeal, we will halve that to two.”
Ralph Smyth, a barrister and the transport campaign manager at the CPRE, said: “In the run-up to its decision on Heathrow expansion, the government is cynically seeking to make it harder to challenge environmental decisions in the courts.
“What it is spinning as merely ‘measured adjustments’ would in fact impact hugely on the affordability of British justice for individuals, community groups and charities seeking to protect air quality, green belt, tranquillity and the climate.
“With legal costs in England among the highest in Europe, the current system of costs protection brings much needed certainty for those bringing environmental cases.
“Because of the complexity of judicial review, few cases are brought. While the proposals would save negligible costs, they would introduce significant uncertainty about how much a losing party would have to pay, putting the public off seeking justice in the first place.”
Campaigners are worried about consultation proposals to double the caps from £5,000 to £10,000 for individuals and from £10,000 to £20,000 for organisations such as environmental groups – exposing them to higher costs if they lost their cases.
They also allege the MoJ plans contemplate making the higher liabilities apply to each claimant rather than each case, potentially multiplying costs in challenges brought by multiple parties. The department says this is a misunderstanding of the proposals and the cap will still apply to each overall case if bought collectively rather than being applied to every claimant.
It also denies the timing of the consultation has anything to do with Heathrow or other imminent infrastructure projects. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “The proposed changes to the rules around legal costs in environmental cases are designed to make sure challenges can be still be brought without encouraging meritless claims, which cause unreasonable costs and delays.”
Indonesia, one of the world’s biggest carbon polluters, said it would cut greenhouse gas emissions 29% by 2030 compared to what it is currently on course for.
The announcement on Thursday was one of the last big climate plans from a rapidly-developing economy to be unveiled ahead of a summit in Paris in December aimed at limiting warming to 2C.
Indonesia said it was prepared to cut emissions by 41% from a ‘business as usual trajectory’ if it received financial and technological support from industrialised countries. Jakarta put the price tag on that support at $6bn (£4bn).
But the World Resources Institute (WRI), a leading environmental thinktank, said it was near-impossible to judge the scale of Indonesia’s ambition or how it would actually meet those goals because the country was so vague in its plan.
“It doesn’t include a lot of information,” said Taryn Fransen, who leads the Open Climate network at WRI. “The current version does not allow for any accountability because it is simply not transparent enough.”
Most developing countries have been more forthcoming about what they mean by a “business as usual” scenario, she said.
Indonesia’s plan also set a relatively low bar for moving from fossil fuel to cleaner energy sources, setting a target of just 23% of energy coming from renewable sources by 2030.
Indonesia is ranked the world’s sixth biggest producer of greenhouse gas emissions, because of the destruction of its rainforests and carbon-rich peatlands for palm oil and paper plantations. A strong climate promise from the country is critical to fighting global warming.
Indonesia, a coal producer, has also been leaning more heavily on coal for energy generation, after China drastically cut imports. Coal shipments to China have fallen by close to 50%, according to Greenpeace, while local coal use doubled in the six years ending in 2014. Coal now makes up about 35% of domestic electricity, according to Greenpeace.
Indonesia’s promise before Paris lagged behind other developing countries such as Mexico and South Korea, which have been clear about spelling out their emissions reductions targets to the UN.
So far, only three other countries have been as hazy about spelling out their business as usual scenarios and they are all much smaller than Indonesia: Benin, Gabon, and Trinidad and Tobago.
Indonesia committed four years ago to stop opening up new forests and peatlands for plantation expansion – but huge swathes of forest are cut down and burnt each summer to clear land for corporate development or oil palm plantations.
WRI said Indonesia needed a ban on all future forest clearance, including licences that were awarded some years ago, and have yet to be activated.
“If Indonesia wanted to seriously protect its land and reduce carbon emissions than it needs a permanent moratorium,” said Andhyta Utami, a research analyst at WRI in Jakarta.
Indonesia’s vast swathes of forests and peatlands are one of the most important carbon stores. When these are cut down, or drained and burned, to make way for plantations, carbon dioxide is released.
A day after announcing her opposition to the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, Hillary Clinton unveiled a more comprehensive agenda for the US energy infrastructure that seeks to transform the US into “the clean energy superpower of the 21st century”.
The Democratic presidential candidate detailed her proposals on Wednesday in both a blogpost on Medium and a fact sheet distributed by Clinton’s campaign.
Clinton’s plan calls for the existing energy infrastructure in the US to be modernized through a series of steps, such as repairing or replacing oil and gas pipelines that are outdated and risk both oil and methane leaks and other hazardous accidents.
The flaws highlighted by Clinton in the country’s energy infrastructure, including pipeline spills, rail car explosions, and the exposure to cyber-attacks, mirror the findings of the first-ever quadrennial energy review conducted by the Obama administration and released in April.
In addition to exposing the vulnerabilities in energy transmission, storage and distribution infrastructure, the review produced recommendations that included accelerating pipeline replacement, enhancing maintenance programs for natural gas distribution systems, and developing a more modern electric grid.
Clinton said her plan would invest in “grid security and resilience”, and create a threat assessment team to protect against cyber-attack through improved coordination.
Citing challenges that extend across the borders of Canada and Mexico, Clinton also said she would immediately begin negotiations with both nations, if elected president, to forge a North American climate compact with the purpose of producing shared targets and accountability measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and cut energy costs.
Such a pact, Clinton wrote, would ensure that “all three countries demonstrate a commitment to climate action,” as well as “[create] certainty for investors and confidence in the future of our climate, so we can all marshal resources equal to the challenges we face.”
Environmental activists broadly approved of Clinton’s plan, while welcoming the series of recent steps taken by the former secretary of state with respect to energy policy – such as her opposition to Keystone.
Climatologist Michael Mann, director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center, described Clinton’s plan as “very good overall” while singling out her emphasis on building upon the successes of the Obama administration – namely the Environmental Protection Agency’s new rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, known as the clean power plan.
He also praised her outlined commitment to incentivizing clean energy, pricing carbon emissions, and working with international partners in a coordinated effort to lower carbon emissions.
Mann nonetheless maintained that Clinton’s plan was “somewhat conservative” with respect to fossil fuel subsidies.
“Clinton indicates that she is open to the additional leasing of public lands to fossil fuel companies, which – given the cheap nature of those leases – is effectively a subsidy to fossil fuel interests,” he said, while acknowledging that Clinton said she wanted to ensure “taxpayers get a fair deal”.
“The devil is in the details here,” Mann said. “A fair deal would mean charging fossil fuel companies for the damage that is being done by the additional burning of fossil fuels in the form of climate change and its costly impact. Even the fossil fuel industry estimates that to be least $60 per ton of carbon burned.”
Tiernan Sittenfeld, the senior vice-president of government affairs of the left-leaning League of Conservation Voters, said she was pleased with what Clinton had offered thus far and is optimistic about what is yet to come.
“Overall, we’re increasingly excited about her leadership on clean energy and climate change,” she said.
Clinton’s new plan, her opposition to both Keystone and Arctic drilling, as well as the renewable energy proposal she rolled out in July, Sittenfeld said, were all evidence of a ramp-up that placed the Democratic frontrunner squarely at odds with her Republicans opponents.
“If you think about the fact that protecting the environment used to be such a source of bipartisan agreement and now pretty much every single Republican candidate for president wants to permanently block the clean power plan … climate deniers are running rampant amongst the Republicans running for president,” she said. “It’s pretty disgraceful, unfortunately.”
Environmental groups were especially jubilant on Tuesday, when Clinton finally made clear that she opposed the controversial Keystone pipeline – after months of declining to take a position.
“I think it is imperative that we look at the Keystone pipeline as what I believe it is, a distraction from the important work we have to do to combat climate change, and unfortunately from my perspective one that interferes with our ability to move forward to deal with all the other issues,” Clinton said during a campaign stop in Des Moines, Iowa. “Therefore, I oppose it. And I oppose It because I don’t think it’s in the best interest of what we need to do to combat climate change.”
She elaborated on her stance in the Medium post Wednesday, writing: “We shouldn’t be building a pipeline dedicated to moving North America’s dirtiest fuel through our communities .”
The Keystone announcement earned immediate rebukes from Clinton’s Republican rivals – such as former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who accused Clinton of favoring “environmental extremists over US jobs”.
Reviews have suggested the hotly debated pipeline would not, in fact, result in a job-creating bonanza.
The State Department estimated that only 35 permanent positions would be created, while jobs for roughly 3,900 workers required to build the pipeline would last for just a year. Estimates have also varied dramatically for the indirect jobs that Keystone might add, and been lowered amid a drop in oil prices that has reduced the economic viability of further tar sands expansion.
Among the Republican presidential hopefuls, Marco Rubio is one of the few to lay out his own energy agenda. The Florida senator pledged earlier this month to immediately block the Obama administration’s rules on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and also advocated for lifting a federal ban on crude oil exports.
Clinton said last week she would support reversing the 40-year ban only if there were concessions from the oil and gas industry toward cleaner energy.
“I’m not against it under all circumstances but I have not yet seen any legislation introduced that would strike the right balance, in my perspective,” Clinton told reporters in New Hampshire.
We all have terms that we use as a shortcut to collectively describe people who exhibit certain behaviours.
For example, I have one for people who drive too close to your bumper on motorways. They’re called tailgaters, although dickheads is also fine.
Journalists often have to resort to imperfect phrases or generalisations to give readers a short cut to understanding where a person is coming from.
On the issue of climate change, for a long time there’s been disagreement over the most accurate term to use to describe someone who rejects the evidence that human activities are causing the climate to change in ways we should avoid.
Are they skeptics? What about deniers? Contrarians? Tailgaters?
Earlier this week one of the world’s biggest news agencies, the Associated Press, put a marker down with an addition to its Stylebook – the document that sets the house rules for writers.
The AP’s new Stylebook entry on climate change and global warming goes like this:
To describe those who don’t accept climate science or dispute the world is warming from man-made forces, use climate change doubters or those who reject mainstream climate science. Avoid use of skeptics or deniers.
The AP’s decision, explained in a blog post by the agency’s vice president and director of media relations Paul Colford, is important because, as one of the world’s biggest news agencies, so many people around the globe read the stories that its journalists produce.
Seth Borenstein, AP’s respected science and environment journalist, told a critical Erik Wemple at the Washington Post that reaction to the change so far had been mixed.
“We’re getting good and bad from both sides, which is just about right,” he said.
I don’t like the term “climate denier” or “climate change denier” either, because nobody is accusing anyone of holding the view that the world doesn’t have a climate or that it’s climate hasn’t changed in the past.
What we are referring to are people who deny the legitimacy of the scientific evidence on climate change – not only the evidence that emissions of greenhouse gas have all sorts of impacts on the world’s climate but also the evidence that the future looks pretty risky if we don’t do something.
Generally, I’ll go with climate science denier or the slightly softer climate science denialist, because I think it more accurately describes how some deny, ignore or misrepresent (either deliberately or otherwise) the mountains of reliable and credible evidence that’s available.
I’ve also toyed with terms like contrarian, science mangler, doubt spreader anddenialist.
I try not to use the term “sceptic” because it suggests genuine scepticism, when often the behaviour of some “sceptics” gets closer to zealotry.
Genuine sceptics have always hated the way that climate science deniers have co-opted a word that’s central to scientific inquiry.
John Cook, climate change communication fellow at the University of Queensland and founder of the SkepticalScience blog, told me:
There is a growing body of scientific research into the phenomenon of science denial, whether it be denial of evolution, climate change, vaccination or so on. We can’t counter the corrosive influence of denial unless we heed the psychological research into what drives people to reject scientific evidence, as well as the techniques and strategies employed to misinform the public. It’s essential that we take an evidence-based approach to our response to science denial. So running away from the issue of denial is counter-productive and unscientific. Scolding people for using the accurate and informative term ‘denial’ is tantamount to scientific censorship.
Cook offered this video to explain the difference between scepticism and denial, taken from a free online university course Making Sense of Climate Denial that he helped put together.
Personally, I don’t like the AP’s choice of “climate change doubter”. To me a doubter is a person whose views are not strongly held – someone who might readily change their mind when presented with evidence.
But the vast majority of climate science deniers who warrant coverage in the news media are not weather vanes or disinterested observers on climate change. Many are activists. Some get funding from the very industries who stand to lose the most from action to reduce greenouse gas emissions.
Perhaps tellingly, several high profile and newly minted “climate change doubters” have welcomed AP’s decision.
Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a climate scientist who is running as acandidate to be the next chair of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said he personally used the term “climate confusers” in most cases.
Former Guardian writer and now editor of The Carbon Brief, Leo Hickman, commented on Twitter that “using denier just gives needless reason for faux outrage” but didn’t much like “doubter” either.
Joe Romm, founding editor at ClimateProgress, wasn’t at all impressed by AP’s move, describing it as “one of the most pointless – if not most senseless” in the history of the AP Stylebook.
Romm explained why he didn’t like the term “doubter”.
Here’s another reason “doubter” makes no sense. The Senate’s leading climate science denier/denialist/disinformer James Inhofe (R-OK) still maintains “global warming is a hoax.” Is he expressing “doubt”? Is he expressing what Oxford Dictionaries calls “a feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction.” No. He is denying the science.
Last year, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry urged news media to stop “labeling those who deny the scientific consensus behind climate change as ‘skeptics.’”
Ronald A Lindsay, president of the Center for Inquiry, said he was pleased the AP had decided to stop using “skeptic”.
Skeptics use reason and evidence to reach conclusions, and that simply doesn’t apply to those who reject the scientific consensus on our warming planet.
But he didn’t like the term “doubter” either. He explained:
Referring to deniers as ‘doubters’ still imbues those who reject scientific fact with an intellectual legitimacy they have not earned. The general public, we fear, will still not get a clear picture of which public figures are basing their positions on reality, and which are not.
AP said it rejected the term “denier” because deniers had complained that it had a “pejorative ring of Holocaust denier”.
I’ve witnessed this faux outrage over the term denier many, many times. I’ve been accused of trying to make the inference to Holocaust denial when I’ve used it.
Some climate science misinformers make this Holocaust claim in an effort to persuade their audience that their opponents are nasty and thoughtless.
In my opinion this is, to use a term that few could misunderstand, bollocks. Wemple was more graceful, calling it “specious”.
One climate science contrarian/denialist/doubter/whatever is Dr Roy Spencer, of the University of Alabama, Huntsville.
Last year Spencer, who also doubts that the evidence for evolution is as solid as the evidence for creationism, threw a kind of language tantrum over the term “denier”.
Spencer recommended to his fans that anyone using the term denier should be called a “global warming Nazi”, to which an appropriate response might have been, “yes, and your mum smells”.
Step forward global warming Nazis Prince Charles, President Barack Obama, Sir Richard Branson and Sir Nicholas Stern who have all used the term denier.
The term “denier” is now in common use, whether deniers like it or not. When used appropriately, it’s hard to think of another way to describe people who deny the weight of the evidence and its implications.
There are of course many other colourful terms that some might choose to describe paid lobbyists and PR professionals who tell you that burning fossil fuels isn’t bad for the planet.
If you want some ideas then come and sit beside me the next time I go for a drive on a busy motorway.
New South Wales swimmers could soon be able to monitor sharks with real-time tracking apps.
The Baird government’s shark summit, to be held at Taronga Zoo on Tuesday, will review a shortlist of shark repellent technologies in a bid to halt a wave of recent attacks.
The emerging technologies, which could be trialled at the state’s beaches this summer, include electric deterrent, physical and visual barriers, and sonar, satellite and acoustic technologies.
There is a push to develop real-time tracking of tagged sharks which surfers and swimmers could potentially access on a smartphone app or website.
More than 70 shark experts from Australia and around the world will be attending the summit, including delegates from South Africa and Hawaii.
“Making our beaches safer is a top priority for the NSW government,” the minister for primary industries, Niall Blair, said in a statement. “That’s why we are leaving no stone unturned to make sure we look at new and innovative ways to protect our beaches.”
“The world’s best scientists will be in Sydney this week to discuss a number of new technologies to be trialled in NSW waters, which will inform advice to the NSW government on additional measures.”
There have been 13 shark attacks in NSW so far this year, up from three in 2014, and one person – 41-year-old surfer Tadashi Nakahara – has been killed.
Additional aerial patrols will scan for sharks at beaches on the NSW north coast during the school holidays.
The publication last week of the Worldwide Fund for Nature’s (WWF)Living Blue Planet report painted a bleak picture of the state of the world’s oceans: marine populations, including reef ecosystems, have halved in size since 1970 and some species are teetering on the brink of extinction. Coral reef cover has declined by 50% in the last 30 years and reefs could disappear by as early as 2050, the report says, if current rates of ocean warming and acidification continue. WWF estimates that 850 million people depend directly on coral reefs for their food security – a mass die-off could trigger conflict and human migration on a massive scale.
100 million of these reef-reliant peoples live in the Coral Triangle – singled out in the report as “richer in marine natural capital” than anywhere else on earth. Currently, fisheries exports from the Coral Triangle – which encompasses the waters of Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Timor Leste – amount to around $5bn (£3.3bn), including 30% of the global tuna catch, and a lucrative trade in live reef fish for food markets, which is worth nearly $1bn (£655m). But there are serious questions about the sustainability of these fisheries.
A report by Greenpeace published on Monday called out 13 Indonesian and eight Philippines tuna canneries, which it says are failing in three key areas – supply chain traceability, sustainability and employee equity. All but one of the businesses surveyed were graded ‘poor’ and none were classified as ‘good.’ Most of these canneries supply brands in the EU, America, Japan and the Middle East.
The live reef fish for food trade – which has a huge market in Hong Kong and mainland China as well as other southeast Asian cities – has sent stocks of key reef predators such as grouper plummeting in many parts of the Coral Triangle. As with tuna, the industry is poorly regulated and destructive fishing methods like cyanide capture – where a milky solution of potassium cyanide is squirted into reefs to stun fish – remain popular across Indonesia and the Philippines.
But the severest threat is to the reef ecosystems themselves. 85% of reefs in the Coral Triangle are classified as threatened, significantly higher than the global average of 60%. The bioregion’s vulnerability to climate change was further underscored in a report on biodiversity redistribution caused by warming seas that was published in Nature Climate Change on 31 August. It is thought that some marine ecosystems will be able to balance themselves out as temperature changes cause species to migrate from one area to another. But the report authors singled out the Coral Triangle as being especially vulnerable to ‘high rates of extirpation’ (ie complete species eradication) based on a key climate model produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
In the face of these threats, The Coral Triangle Initiative on Coral Reefs, Fisheries & Food Security (CTI-CFF), a multilateral partnership between Coral Triangle countries, NGOs and the Asian Development Bank, is developing collaborative action plans to try and sustainably manage the bioregion’s natural capital. Nature based tourism – thought to be worth $12bn – has become a key priority, since it dovetails with the urgent need to protect key seascapes in the Coral Triangle.
Raja Ampat off the coast of West Papua, thought to be the global epicentre of biodiversity, is one example of a successful collaborative strategy, bringing together local government, communities, tourism operators and non-profits to manage its ecosystems sustainably. In Malaysia, WWF has been working with government agencies to gazette a 1m-square hectare marine reserve off the north coast of Borneo. The Tun Mustapha marine park aims to balance the needs of various stakeholders from industrial fishers to local communities to tourism businesses within a sustainable framework, rather than strictly controlling a very small zone, which was the prevailing model for marine reserves in the past.
But in the face of the slow-moving juggernaut of global warming, it’s difficult not to regard these measures, worthy as they are, as akin to putting a plaster on a gunshot wound. Only around 4% of the world’s ocean is ‘designated for protection’, compared to between 10-15% of its land surface; many marine reserves are poorly managed and enforcement can be non-existent. There is an urgent need to establish more and to shore up existing ones across the Coral Triangle to maximise the benefits of coral reef ecosystems in the short to medium term.
The UN Sustainable Development Summit is taking place in New York this weekend and oceans are on the agenda for the first time. Hot topics include over fishing, food security for island states and pollution. Action in these areas is needed at the very least so as not to exacerbate the impact of the elephant in the room – climate change. Should warming hit the 2C threshold – a target that’s come to be seen somewhat arbitrarily as an upper limit, but that many scientists now regard as unachievable – most reefs will likely be devastated by coral bleaching, according to the IPCC.
The big decisions will be made of course in Paris at COP 21 at the end of November. On Tuesday, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) stated that existing pledges by the international community would only be enough to cap global temperature increases at 3C by the end of the century.
“3C is much better than 4-5C, but it is still unacceptable,” she said. A cap of 3C may represent progress, but for the Coral Triangle and for reefs around the world, it could be catastrophic.
With the prices going up because our natural resources are being exhausted, one other energy that has come under focus is Solar Energy. It is one of those energies that uses Sunlight energy and produces electricity. This is a retrofit business and it is installed on existing buildings because it is installed on roof tops of buildings. Almost 80% of the setup takes place on already made buildings.
There has been a question about if a house is good to go for solar system setup? The answer is that not all houses can support Solar Energy setup because for that they have to have some things in their construction and foundation. To make sure your house can support such systems, for that there are standard by these solar companies which you have to follow in order to get solar energy setup on your buildings. Standard include you have to check whether your roof has ample space and what direction is because the Sun light has to hit the panels to generate energy and electricity which is the most important point. You also have to confirm that your house has an ideal place where it gets sunlight because there are houses who are somewhat covered by trees and stuff which blocks sun rays and hence have a negative effect on your solar energy panels which don’t get much sunlight. Solar Energy in Australia is something that has come to a lot of people interest because in summer is really shinning and solar panels works really amazing. There are a lot of advantages of installing solar energy panels because it lowers your cost. Plus there is a big advantage if you get a solar energy ready home that really helps a lot because it definitely lower the installation charges and also it helps you products more energy by placing the panels at the right place.
They have also shared a solar ready home guide which includes:
Direction of roof
Steepness of roof
Avoid obstructions which include piping etc.
Idea roof type
By looking at the above options you get to know that there are some technicalities involved for a home to be solar ready because there is a specific procedure to it. Solar Energy in Australia also highlights the fact that it only saves you money but also saves natural resources as well. People living in Australia are getting their houses Solar ready because they know this is the next big thing and how convenient it can make their lives and how cost saving their life can become with this setup. The prices are steadily going up but with this solar you can cut some costs because it directly uses sunlight energy and turn it into electricity that saves you a lot. It is safe and it is effective, but you have to make sure your setup is up to the mark.
Reverse cycle ducted air-conditioning has a compressor that is located outside, besides the inside unit which is placed on the roof. This unit which is internal is connected to a number of outlets via ductwork within the house. All the rooms that have these outlets can have warm air or cool air pumped in, according to the climate and the function chosen. You can further save on the energy by shutting off the flow of air in sections of the house where it is not required. You need to get a professional to take a look at your house so that you can be able to make the right choice in accordance to your requirement. The consultants can perform a “heat load” calculation in your house and determine the requirements. You can choose a smaller unit of these air-conditioning systems by using the knowledge of which areas are not being used at what time.
Analyzing Before Making your Choice
The main requirement here is to know what outlets you need to opt for as you find small units with 4 outlets, and then you do find units with 6 and 8 outlets also. It is advisable to find out your exact requirement before you decide to place your order. You do have companies that could get these ducting air-conditioners designed in a specific manner so as to meet your requirements to the tee. When you rightly analyze the scenario, then you can enjoy the comfort of having uniformed temperatures in your house all year round. A well reputed company will boast of skilled and experienced staff that is also insured. You do have companies that buy this material in bulk and thus can add to your savings by offering reasonable prices.
Advantages of Reverse Cycle Ducted Air Conditioning
Reverse cycle ducted air-conditioning is beneficial in many ways and some of these are listed below.
1. You can use only one appliance for cooling and heating, both.
2. These air-conditioners can combine dehumidification, refrigeration cooling and also heating when running in reverse. With these reverse cycle ducting air-conditioners you have a single unit providing the combined effects of a heater and an air-conditioner.
3. You have peace within your house because these are silent while operating. There is no noise pollution.
4. As these are mounted on walls you do not have to worry about children playing with the ducts.
5. There is good temperature control so that you have a constant temperature in your home and that works as a boon to the elderly and babies.
6. The air which is circulated is filtered so free of any pollution.
7. You can be assured of the safety as there are no open flames.
8. These reverse air-conditioners work by transferring the heat which is more energy efficient as compared to heaters that help to reduce the electricity bill besides being a help to the environment.
Considerations Before you Opt for a Reverse Cycle Duct Air-conditioner
Considering some important factors while making the decision will ensure that you opt for the right one. You need to make sure of the size of the area to be cooled along with the energy star rating as more stars indicate more energy efficient. You also need to know the direction your room is facing besides the size of the windows of your room. You need to consider for how long you will be using that specific room and the cost of installation besides the cost of the appliance. Finally, you need to think of how long the appliance might last.
These considerations will help you to decide whether the air-conditioner is worth it or no. You can look out for a company who can help you with these facts and choose accordingly. Want know more about reverse cycle ducted air conditioning? You can contact us here and get more details on it.
Technically, a warm edge spacer is any sealer that is more effective than a cold edge aluminum spacer, including steel spacers. Beyond steel spacers, the technology to improve heating efficiency has produced a number of innovative solutions for window edges.
Why We Should Care About Warm Edge Spacers
A building envelope is an engineering term describing the physical separation between indoors and outdoors and how well they block the transfer of heat, light, noise, and the weather. In this sense, windows can be one of the greatest points of transfer of all the above, which is a cause for environmental concern. Improvements have been made to the glass and the air trapped between the window panes with glazing and optimized air mixes, respectively. Improvements to the construction of window edges hasn’t caught up until recently.
The Benefits from Research and Development in Spacer Technology
Spacers can be made of metals, but other materials will also work, including insulating glass and flexible silicone foam. Both types of material have a high U-value, meaning heat will not be easily lost from the indoors to out in the winter and outside to in during the summer. It may strike some customers as a surprise that companies would use glass as an insulator due to its heavy nature.
Metal is certainly a strong material, but there are other materials that sufficiently preserve the integrity of the window. The insulating glass unit (IG) actually flexes with changes in the environment, therefore an edge spacer that is too rigid may not be ideal. With fluctuations in heat and humidity, the window panes can flex inwards or outwards like two convex or concave surfaces. The application of silicon foam in a spacer makes the material flexible enough to support the changes to the IG, leading to less stress on the window panes and longer period of use without replacement.
In addition to inventive design of new warm edge spacers, some manufacturers fill the spacers withdesiccants to remove moisture from the air between the panes of glass. The reduced moisture can prevent condensation from forming on the inside, which sometimes happen when the trapped air meets the warm inner pane of the glass.
With some spacers, your U-value can increase by 10%. Depending on the number of windows in your building and the difference between room temperature and the weather outside, the improved U-value can lead to a significant saving in heating/cooling costs.
Do you want to make the earth a little bit greener? If so then you can consider embracing alternative energy. Here is how solar and wind energy—the two most popular alternative energy solutions—can help you achieve your goal.
The ever-increasing Carbon Dioxide contents of atmosphere are contributing to the phenomenon of global warming. One way we can offset the damaging effects of global warming is by finding alternatives to the existing energy generation technologies.
The alternative energy is a form of clean energy that is produced using nature’s renewable resources. They help avoid the use of fossil fuels or nuclear power and do not directly emit green house gases. All the major sources of alternative energy, namely solar, wind, hydro, biofuel and geothermal energy get naturally replenished.
With the advancements in technology, various alternative energy solutions are becoming commercially viable. Solar and wind energy in particular have become immensely popular across many high growth US markets such as Tampa.
From generating electricity to handling all your family’s heating needs, solar energy can be used for a number of purposes.
Currently there are two dominant technologies to produce solar energy.
Concentrated solar power or CSP technology leverages mirrors to generate solar energy. The mirrors help concentrate sun light in a large area. The light energy is then converted into heat energy, which is used to run a steam turbine, which generates electricity. CSP has emerged as a commercially viable solution and experiencing a rapid growth not only in the USA but across the globe.
In this system, solar photons are captured by Photovoltaic cells. Made of semiconductors, Solar photovoltaic technologies help directly convert solar energy into electricity. PV solar energy is capable of adding large amounts of power to the existing electric grid.
Benefits of Solar Energy:
Solar energy is hundred -percent pollution free and does not emit greenhouse gases. With a host of innovative technologies out there, it is possible to generate clean, green and cheap electricity using solar energy. It is expected that with new emerging technologies, it will be possible to harness electricity more efficiently. It is hoped that someday solar energy will be to meet majority of the world’s energy needs.
Wind energy is generated by tapping the raw force of unobstructed wind. Multiple wind turbines are erected over a vast area to generate huge amounts of electric power. As the wind blows, it keeps the blades spinning. In case of wind energy, motion is converted into electricity with the help of generator.
Benefits of Wind Energy:
Wind energy has been around for thousands of years. Today wind energy is viewed one of the most promising green energy solution.
With diminishing costs of wind, wind energy is becoming increasingly cheaper and wind energy markets are fast proliferating across the USA.
According to some estimates, the higher capacity wind turbines are capable of generating enough clean electricity to power 600 US homes. Even the comparatively smaller turbines can help meet the electricity needs of small homes and small size commercial establishments.
One of the greatest benefits with wind energy is: operational costs gradually diminish after the successful erection of the turbines.
Another exciting part of wind energy is: wind energy generation is a completely water-less process. As such, it can help save a huge amount of water resources of a country.
Tampa happens to be one of the few US cities that enjoy sunny weather throughout the year. Then, there is no dearth of windy locations in the city. With abundance of sunshine and consistent wind flow, Tampa could well be the USA’s next hot alternative energy destination. In fact alternative energy markets in Tampa are fast expanding. With Tampa people becoming increasingly aware of the advantages of switching to clean and green energies, it seems that, it is only a matter of time when the region’s power grid will incorporate more renewable energy choices.