Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

STSI > General STSI & some indicators as well > Flashcards

General STSI & some indicators as well Flashcards

1
Q

Key aim of course

idea

A

Making us familiar with the wide variety of
modelling tools and indicators
used for studying SD
& for generating usable knowledge

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Planetary boundaries: names

IDEA

A
  1. Climate Change (core boundary)
  2. Novel Entities
  3. Stratospheric ozone depletion
  4. Atmospheric aerosol loading
  5. Ocean acidification
  6. Biogeochemical flows
  7. Freshwater use
  8. Land-system change
  9. Biosphere integrity (core boundary)

Core = are connected to and infleunce all the others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Planetary boundaries: definition

PB: Guiding human development on a changing planet by Steffen et al.

A

Safe operating space for humanity to develop and thrive.
- PBs are scientifically based levels of human/anthropogenic perturbation of the ES beyond which ES functioning may be substantially altered (boundaries).
- Transgression of the PBs thus creates substantial risk of destabilizing the Holocene state of the ES in which modern societies have evolved

–> The PB framework does not dictate how societies should develop. These are political decisions that must include consideration of the human dimensions, including equity, not incorporated in the PB framework. Nevertheless, by identifying a safe operating space for humanity on Earth, the PB framework can make a valuable contribution to decision- makers in charting desirable courses for societal development.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

PB: Yellow, green and red zones

PB: Guiding human development on a changing planet by Steffen et al.

A
  • GREEN
    At the “safe” end of the zone of uncertainty, current scientific knowledge suggests that there is very low probability of crossing a critical threshold or substantially eroding the resilience of the Earth system = PB
  • YELLOW
    This zone encapsulates both gaps and weaknesses in the scientific knowledge base and intrinsic uncertainties in the functioning of the Earth system. This buffer between the boundary and the threshold not only accounts for uncertainty in the precise position of the threshold with respect to the control variable, but also allows society time to react to early warning signs that it may be approaching a threshold and consequent abrupt or risky change.
  • RED
    Beyond the “danger” end of the zone of uncertainty, current knowledge suggests a much higher probability of a change to the functioning of the Earth system that could potentially be devastating

–> This does not mean that transgressing a boundary will instantly lead to an unwanted outcome but that the farther the boundary is transgressed, the higher the risk of regime shifts, destabilized system processes, or erosion of resilience and the fewer the opportunities to prepare for such changes.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

PB: Important to note

PB: Guiding human development on a changing planet by Steffen et al.

A
  • They affect the capacity of the Earth system to persist in a Holocene-like state under changing conditions (henceforth “resilience”)
  • Thresholds: not always a “single” threshold, some regional thresholds generate feedback at larger scales
  • The planetary boundaries framework arises from the scientific evidence that Earth is a single, complex, integrated system—that is, the boundaries operate as an interdependent set –> this emphasizes the need to address multiple interacting environmental processes simultaneously
  • Applies the concepts of stability and resilience on earth as a life support system
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

PB does not take in account

PB: Guiding human development on a changing planet by Steffen et al.

A
  • Regional distribution or historic pattern
  • Issues of equity and causation
  • No guidance on how to achieve
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

PB summary

A
  • Stable state of the environment = holocene allowed for life on earth as we know it, variance of state = scientific reference point for a desirable planetary state
  • Earth as a life support system
  • example of usable knowledge: PBs as a dashboard for earth, a simplified version of what is going on
  • guidelines on how to manage key control variables of our planet
  • large uncertainty on how to quantify the thresholds
  • Global responses with clear thresholds (eg. greenland ice sheet)
  • VS regional processes with unclear thresholds responses (eg. natural carbon sink)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Stability: definition

A
  • A situation in which something is not likely to move or change
  • In ecological systems: Numbers of organisms and the degree of constancy of these numbers. Depends very much on the properties of the systems.
  • There are multiple definitions of stability.
  • Can be calculated in a simple dynamic model
  • ability to return to an equilibrium state after a temporary disturbance - the more rapidly it returns, the more stable it is
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Stability v.s. resilience

A

They overlap depending on the context, more specific approaches are needed to define these concepts to avoid confusion

Stability = constant
Can give a false impression of resilience (no response to change)

Resilience = as long as the function of the system still works even if it is not stable

A system can be very resilient and not stable i.e. if it fluctuates greatly

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Resilience

A

determines the persistence of relationships within a system and is a measure of the ability of these systems to absorb changes of state variables, driving variables and parameters, and still persist

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

PB criticisms

A
  • Equity
  • Oversimplification
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

General info about human behavior

A
  • 7.7 billion population
  • even affect unpopulated areas
  • at the core of S issues
  • Anthropocene
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Socio-economic systems

A
  • Inseperable view of humans and their environment
  • Human behavior affects environment & vice versa
  • Behaviors of humans affect behaviors of other humans
  • Feedback – > complex system behavior –> behaviors & decisions –> higher level complexity
    —-> EMERGENT BEHAVIOR = give birth to larger patterns ex. flock of birds
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Need to understand complex systems

A
  • for extrapolating trends
  • designing intervention strategies
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Need to take into account in complex systems

A
  • interaction
  • feedbacks
  • heterogeneity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Trilemma

A
  • Diet / Health / Environment

Promoting:
- healthy nutrition
- food security for all
- sustainable & adequate food production & distribution systems

  • Better environmental impact does not 100% better health
  • –> Healthy diets with low GHG impacts are needed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Global land use for food production

have a rough notion of the numbers

A
  • Surface: 29 % land surface
  • Land surface: 71 % habitable land
  • Habitable land: 50 % agriculture
  • Agricultural land: 77 % livestock
  • -> Calorie supply mostly from plant-based sources (82%)
  • -> Protein supply a little over a 1/3 from animal sources (37%)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Changes in land use over time

A

increase since 1700s, steady increase since 1950, peak around early 2000-2100 and seems to be plateauing or decreasing since then, depending on country, except Africa & Oceania - therefore world total is still increasing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Tilman & Clark - Global diets link environmental
sustainability and human health: Current trends

A
  • Global dietary transition: one of the greatest challenges facing humanity
  • Rising incomes & urbanization –> global dietary transition (varies per country)
    –> more empty calories, unhealthier diets, more meats, more consumption & waste in general
  • Large emitter of GHG from food production & land clearing/land conversion (25%)
  • Dietary trends, if left unchecked, will lead to increase in emissions –> leading to 1/3 more cropland by 2050
  • Current area cultivated land~1500 ha
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Tilman & Clark - Diets and the future?

A
  • Alternative diets offer substantial health benefits, reduce GHGs and land clearing and species extinction, non-communicable diseases, pollution, biodiversity
  • Offer a counter-balance to increase of population
  • Diet types determine expected future land use change
  • Great uncertainty of dietary patterns and lifestyle change

–> If trends BAU: 80% increase in agricultural GHG emissions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Population trends

A
  • Increase in coming decades
  • Stabilization around 2100 at around 11 billion
  • Logistical growth curve
  • depends on continents/countries
  • Africa - rise rise
  • Asia - stabilises later than Europe & N&S Am
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Fundamental process in biological productivity: Photosynthesis

A

Solar energy –> carbon fixation –> primary productivity

Photosynthesis (CO2 & water) <–> Respiration (Sugar and O2)

—> Energy for living and reproduction for nearly all organisms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Key determinants for photosynthesis

A

Water
Co2
Light
Temperature
Nutrients
–> There is an optimal for each for optimal production

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Percentage of water taken up by plants actually used for photosynthesis?

A

0.5 - 3 %

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Regulation of water loss: Stomata (gas exchange pores)

A
  • Challenge: Gas exhcange pore for CO2 and water vapor are coupled
  • Stomata regulate exchange loss and intake of these
  • If leaves dry out, stomata close & limit dessication & photosynthesis
  • ## Stomata typically close a night to not dry out
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Light sensitivity of photosynthesis (3)

A
  • Incident light energizes electrons for further reactions
  • More light –> more available electrons until saturation
  • they reach this saturation point actually quite quickly!
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

CO2 sensitivity of photosynthesis (3)

A
  • Higher atmospheric COs concentration –> more photosynthesis
  • Saturation of CO2 ‘fertilization’ happens at different moments for different types of plants (C2, C3, C4…)
  • Most plants are C3 and some are C4
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Key nutrients for plants

A
  • Phosphorus (DNA & seeds!)
  • Potassium (stomata & enzyme processes)
  • Nitrogen (enzyme for carbon fixation)

–> Will increase yield at first but will eventually stabilise: saturation point !

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Net Primary Productivity (NPP) & unit

A

Increase in biomass per unit time and surface area
[gC/m2/yr] grammes of carbon

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Yield is link between:
& unit

A
  • productivity
  • agricultural techniques
  • land-use

[ton crop/ha/yr]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

1 ha

A

10’000 m2

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Global patterns in productivity & climate

A
  • Yield has incresed slowly
  • Fertilizer use as well…
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

The world population without Nitrogen (fertilizers)?

A

About half the current population

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Demand for agricultural land
& Units

A

Supply:
agricultural production & food industry
based on yield & land use
[ton/ha/yr]
–>
TOTAL LAND REQUIREMENT FOR FOOD
<–
Demand:
[kcal/cap/day]
Human consumption (Population size + diet)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Agricultural Area per Person required to produce their food
& Unit

A

Demand / Supply
= aapp [ha/cap]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

HALF index & unit & equation

A

Human Appropriation of Land for Food [%]
HALF = ((Pg * Aaapp)/Atlsi) * 100

Pg = global population [cap]
Aapp [ha/cap]
Atls = total ice free land surface of our planet [ha]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Driving principles for land-use change

A
  • Population dynamics
  • Dietary preferences (Lifestyle)
  • Biological productivity (Yield & technology)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Tilman & Clark - GHG emissions of foods

A
  • varies widely among foods
  • production of food also impacts its emissions
  • varies within food groups
  • nutritional value of foods & amount consumed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Tilman & Clark - Dietary inequalities

A

In poorer countries, diets don’t meet nutritional needs (quality & quantity)
& in richer countries, diets surpass quantities & have lower quality

40
Q

Tilman & Clark - Alternative diets

A
  • Vegetarian
  • pescetarian
  • Mediterranean (high fruit & veg, seafood, nuts, grains, animal products & moderate meat)

–> IE less meats and empty calories, more grains and pulses and veg and nuts

–> These would reduce emissions by a lot, and if the world ate an average diet of this:
there would be not increase in food-related GHG emissions compared to population growth

41
Q

Tilman & Clark - Additional changes to bring about

A

● Reduce by 2050 all forms of crop and food wastage by 50%
● Increases in use efficiencies of animal feeds, fertilizer and irrigation
● improvements in pasture management and aquaculture increase food production, decrease GHG emissions and improve water quality
● Increases in yields of under-yielding nations could also reduce emissions

42
Q

Living planet report: alarming information in 2022

A
  • 69% decline of the LPI since 1970 (in 48 years)
  • alarming overshoot of ecological footprint
  • if BAU: decline will not stop
  • Poorer countries: bearing the brunt
43
Q

Living planet report: Main drivers of species loss (5)

A
  1. Changes in land and sea use: human have altered 75% of land and 66% of marine environment since pre-industrial times.
  2. Direct exploitation of organisms: in 2015, a third of marine stocks were being fished at unsustainable levels
  3. Climate change: Global warming has already impacted almost half of threatened mammals and one quarter of birds
  4. Pollution: Marine plastic pollution has increased tenfold since 1980, with an average of 300-400M tons of waste dumped annually into the world’s waters
  5. Invasive alien species: The numbers of invasive alien species per country have risen by about 70% since 1970
44
Q

Living Planet Report: Who is causing this

A
  • For the first time, humans are driving this.
  • Extinctions have gone up since the 1900s.
  • There is also a decline in species survival, especially corals.
45
Q

Living Planet Report: Biodiversity loss, Proximate causes (5) & underlying causes (3)

A

Proximate causes:
* Habitat loss due to land use changes
* Overharvesting of natural resources
* Pollution
* Invasive species
* Climate change

Underlying causes:
* Human population growth
* Growth in human per capita energy and materials consumption
* Institution and incentive failures

46
Q

Living Planet Report: Monitoring populations

A
  • Uneven distribution of monitoring points across the globe
  • Research information is not always shared
  • Remote areas are not really monitored
  • Ocean - still a lot of unknowns
  • lack of resources for monitoring
47
Q

Living Planet Report: Freshwater species decline

A
  • We have lost 83% of freshwater species in 43 years.
  • Habitat loss (or degradation) and overexploitation are the main threats to declining populations of vertebrate
  • More vulnerable than saltwater species because they need high quality habitats
48
Q

Living Planet Report: Temperate v.s. tropical LPI

A
  • increase for temperate
  • decrease for tropical (up to 2008)

Why?
GN has realized this problem and is trying to introduce new species again (ex. Wolves in NL), more money and resources are available in reintroducing these species.
Includes all species for ex. “New species that immigrated to a new place”

49
Q

Living Planet Report: Biodiversity loss & ecosystem services

A
  • Drivers (e.g. consumption & finances)
  • Pressures (eg. agriculture & fishing)
  • Threats (eg. habitat loss & overexploitation)
  • Biodiversity (eg. ecosystems & species)
  • Benefits from nature (eg. provisioning & cultural)
50
Q

Living Planet Index: taken into account

A
  • only vertebrate species are included
  • so fauna not flora nor insects
  • only know species
  • and for which we have multiple data points over time, i.e. series of observations over time.
51
Q

Living Planet Index: Reference point?

A

1970
- The GN most biodiversity decline happened BEFORE
–> therefore explains the “upwards trend”

52
Q

Living Planet Index: Weight of species

A

Species are weighed per species group
Numbers are standardized

53
Q

Living Planet Index: Exotic vs Invasive species

A

Exotic
according to historical data, the species was not part of this ecosystem = non-native

Invasive
a species has certain characteristics that favor its replication, they become dominant in a short period of time, native species with no more natural predators can become invasive

54
Q

Living Planet Index: extra infoooo (3)

A
  • Low income countries have faced a larger decline of LPI.
  • Regional differences regarding consumption: most of GN imports a lot of products (coffee, soy, paper, wood, palm oil, etc) this has impact on biodiversity where the products are produced, usually low income countries in the tropic.
  • Scenarios for biodiversity suggest that conservation efforts are the key to change this decline. Especially if the efforts are made by both the supply and the demand side
55
Q

Ecological Footprint: elements of (8)

A
  1. Biodiversity
  2. Built-up land
  3. Forest
  4. Fishing
  5. Grazing
  6. Biofuels
  7. Cropland
  8. Carbon

Best Building For Fishing Beautiful Crazy Catfish

56
Q

Ecological Footprint: general info

A
  • Aggregation is helpful to avoid partial solutions and problem of exchange between different sectors
  • Although an aggregated indicator, the EF is still transparent and could be calculated for separate components/sectors/commodities
  • Reserving land for CO2 absorption stimulates an integrated approach for the problem of emissions and loss of biodiversity
  • There is a need for aggregated indicators (next to single indicators) such as the EF to counterbalance GDP, especially for communication purposes
57
Q

Ecological Footprint: Criticism of EF as an indicator

A
  • Calculation method/data are not fully transparent
  • The indicator is incomplete, e.g. no waste/toxic substances
  • Loss of biodiversity not (directly) included

Disputable
* Use of global hectare is contestable
* Including forest for CO2 absorption is disputable

58
Q

Ecological Footprint: What it can do (5)

A
  • Tell us about our impacts upon the natural world that sustains us
  • Provides us with a ‘time-bound’ snapshot of our demand upon nature
  • Allows us to compare footprints around the world
  • Tells us about our available global biocapacity (productive land and sea
    area)
  • Tells us whether we are meeting the minimum requirements for sustainability
59
Q

Ecological Footprint: What it cannot do (4)

A
  • Cannot tell us what to do
  • Tells us nothing about our quality of life - although it can indicate what
    our conditions may be like in the future if we continue our ‘business as
    usual’ trajectory.
  • Does not account for pollutants
  • Does not tell us whether land is managed in a sustainable way
60
Q

Can we measure sustainability?

A

No
It’s complex
But we can measure some aspects of it

61
Q

Ecological Footprint (EF): Carrying capacity

A
  • What is the maximum population that can be supported by a given area?
  • Measuring for humans: IPAT equation : environmental impact on population, affluence, technology
62
Q

EF: human appropriation

A
  • humans appropriate nearly 40% of net primary productivity
  • rich countries appropriate land from elsewhere
  • -> all urban regions appropriate the carrying capacity of distant ‘elsewheres’
  • -> Wealthy nations appropriate more than their fair share of the planet’s carrying capacity
63
Q

EF: Definition

A
  • What area of biologically productive land and water population needs to support its consumption and to assimilate its waste
  • Unit of measurement: global hectare (gha)
    –> A hectare of bioproductive area with world average productivity
  • A measure of human demand for (renewable) natural resources
64
Q

EF: Footprint vs. biocapacity

A

Footprint
human demand for bioresources

Biocapacity
natural supply of bioresources

Footprint < biocapacity => sustainable

65
Q

Ingredients of EF &
Biocapacity lands –> Its footprint?

A
  1. Cropland - Cropland footprint
  2. Grazing land - Grazing footprint
  3. Forest land - Forest product footprint & Carbon footprint
  4. Fishing ground - Fish footprint
  5. Built-up land - Built-up land
66
Q

EF: Ecological balance

A

National biocapacity - ecological footprint

67
Q

EF: Limitations - Ecological balance (B-EF)

A
  • cannot serve as an overall indicator of environmental sustainability as it does not include all types of environmental degradation: Source and sinks
  • Can it serve as a minimum condition for sustainability?
  • ->when an EF is < the country’s biocapacity = it has a biocapacity reserve
68
Q

EF: Methodological critique (3 & 3)

A
  1. EF assumes perfect substitutability between all types of bioproductive areas (eg. forest compensating for over-fishing)
    1. EF does not address unsustainable land use (does not take into account “boosted” land-use with fertilzers)
  3. EF uses a dubious conversion method for carbon emissions (arbitrary methods that overestimates carbon footprint)

Has been critiqued as pretty bad eg.
–> EF represents “bad economics and bad environmental science”
–> its calculations are “of no descriptive value”

69
Q

EF: Carbon footprint definition

A

= forest land area required to sequester (absorb) the CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels
- CF is a dominant part of global EF (61%)
- Arbitrary conversion method (Hypothetical scenario of afforestation, Upward bias as renewable energy is more efficient approach, Afforestation is not a long-term solution)

EF’s methodology translates atmospheric emissions into land area, a hypothetical area of forests required to sequester anthropogenic carbon emissions not absorbed by the oceans
~arbitrary

70
Q

Global ecological footprint

A
  • Surpassed 1 earth around 1971
71
Q

EF: Meaning and interpretation

A
  • A what scale?
  • Ecological footprint or ecological balance?
72
Q

EF: Sustainability for a Self-sufficient local bioeconomy (SLB) (gha per capita)

A

Comparing EF vs. national biocapacity
For SLB model of sustainability, high consumption lifestyle is not a sign of unsustainability as long as it is supported by regenerative capacity of given political territory

73
Q

EF: Ecological balance and population density

A
  • Current spatial planning is an outcome of various factors and patterns that lead to certain dense cities etc.
  • Not fair to compare large to small economies and countries (eg. Rwanda vs. Canada)
74
Q

EF: Egalitarian global bioeconomy (EGB) (gha per capita, 2012)

A

Comparing EF to average world biocapacity
–> Gives a better “overview” of consumption

more as a global indicator
So entitlement to certain allocation of global resources per person
Because we are all randomly born somewhere.

75
Q

EF: Two types of ecological balances

A

(gha per capita)
SLB: Self-sufficient local bioeconomy
EGB: Egalitarian global bioeconomy

76
Q

Prevailing interpretation of the EF concept is based on:

A

SLB as a sustainability standard:
- Ecological principle of carrying capacity and implied self-sufficiency
- Political principle of control over territory
- Trade is important

77
Q

EF & Consumer responsibility

A
  • Prevailing interpretation of EF is moral principle of consumer responsibility
  • This means:
    –> Overusing your biocapacity base is sustainable as long as it is for other
    countries’ consumption
    –> If your ecological deficit is covered by using other countries’ bioresources, you are unsustainable
  • A different sustainability perspective would require a country to maintain its biocapacity base to preserve its services
78
Q

EF: General concluding remarks

A
  1. EF is a popular communication tool
    - That translates renewable resource consumption to required land and compares it with available land
  2. EF suffers from severe methodological shortcomings
    - Conversion to land – allowed substitutability, non-identification of overshoot, dubious carbon footprint
  3. Positive consumption-based local ecological balance does not necessarily define sustainability (conceptual ambiguity)
    - Is a country whose consumption exceeds its domestic (bio)resources unsustainable?
    - Is a country who draws on (bio)resources of other countries – rather than on its own – more or less sustainable?
78
Q

EF: Perspective

A
  1. Measuring sustainability is complex (more than measuring development) – conceptual and methodological reasons
  2. Definition of country sustainability is ambiguous (responsibility toward whom?)
  3. No reliable comprehensive indicator for countries
  4. Way forward
    –> Distinguishing between (and aggregating within?) categories of resource (Domestic, foreign, global)
    –> Dashboard of indicators for global resources? (PBs etc.)
    –> Only environmental resources?
79
Q

EF: the average global biocapacity

A

1.7 ha per capita

80
Q

EF: From the perspective of a national sustainability policy…

A
  • it is safer to saturate domestic consumption with foreign biocapacity. It is also more feasible to regulate the rates of harvest and waste emission on the production side (i.e. where firms are extracting resources and releasing emissions) than on the consumption side.
81
Q

Power

A

W
amount of energy transferred/converted/required per unit of time

82
Q

How much energy do you need to run 1 bulb of 10 W for 1 h

A

You need 10 Wh (energy)

83
Q

Energy is…

A
  • electricity
  • heat
  • etc.
84
Q

Biofuels

Ethanol

A

= Fuel produced from biomass
- can make a significant contribution to reductions of GHGs
- EU wants to stimulate use of sustainably produced bio-fuels
- US & Brazil big producers of biofuels
- Biofuels are currently the only available bulk renewable fuel
- limited expansion potential due to high land requirements and associated risks for biodiversity, food security, and land conflicts

85
Q

Ethanol!

Ethanol

A

Sugarcane produces sugar… but can also produce ethanol

86
Q

Ethanol in Brazil

Ethanol

A
  • Sugarcane has been important for economical development in rural areas
  • Is a cause of land use and land cover change
  • Bio-ethanol as massive utilization as fuel for transportation
  • High-potential for land based carbon mitigation
  • Is a key elements to achieve the renewable energy targets of the NDCs

–> Sugarcane ethanol could increase GDP and create many jobs
Has a strong political and industrial support
- bioethanol production from sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) shows high potential for land-based climate change mitigation

87
Q

Controversies of sugarcane ethanol

Ethanol

A

Land-use change
- soil biodiversity losses
- structural soil degradation
- pollution and depletion of water resources

Indirect land-use change
- drives expansion of pasture areas (lower carbon storage) into natural forests (higher carbon storage)
- limit the CO2 savings potentials of sugarcane ethanol and endanger a variety of forest ecosystem services

  • Competition for arable land reveals negative impacts on food security and small-scale family agriculture
88
Q

Arable land

Ethanol

A

land under temporary agricultural crops (multiple-cropped areas are counted only once), temporary meadows for mowing or pasture, land under market and kitchen gardens and land temporarily fallow (less than five years)

89
Q

Scientific community proposes alternatives to minimise land-use impact

Ethanol

A
  • Land-sparing - intensifying agricultural production, restoration of degraded pastures (cultivation of SC on these pastures sustainably) and the integration of crop-livestock-forestry systems
  • second generation ethanol production technology: one technical option to increase land-use efficiency by using a different production process, however this process produces less surplus electricity
  • combinations of both
  • and producing renewabe fuels?
  • they present a new land-neutral methanol pathway and assess by how much the fuel output can be increased if the total plantation area is fixed at current levels of ethanol production - removing “negative effects”
90
Q

Case study in Brazil

Ethanol

A
  • complex system
  • Where to put the system boundaries?
  • Balance between scenarios we want to asses and data accessibility
  • largest ethanol producer from sugarcane
91
Q

Luis ethanol paper: summary

A

increase output from ethanol refineries in a land-neutral methanol pathway by:

We propose to synthesize methanol using CO2 from the fermentation process in ethanol plants and H2 produced from electrolysis powered entirely by on-site variable renewable energy sources (VRES)
–> higher efficiency, big efficiency leap with this new technology in comparison to efficiency increases of the past 20 years

–> fuel output of existing ethanol generation facilities can be increased by almost 50% without using additional land
–> This amount is sufficient to cover projected growth in Brazilian biofuel demand in 2030
- We identify a trade-off between renewable energy generation technologies: wind power requires the least amount of land whereas a mix of wind and solar costs the least.
- In the cheapest scenario, green methanol is competitive to fossil methanol at an average carbon price of 95€ tCO2−1

We optimize power-to-methanol processes at all Brazilian sugarcane plants in a spatially and temporally explicit way that accounts for the seasonality of sugarcane production, and the variability of PV and wind power at all plant sites

92
Q

cost and magnitudes of the required infrastructure -
land-neutral methanol pathway

A
  • generally expensive, they **propose more efficient and cost-reduced solutions **with more efficient storage
  • We find that the cost of methanol in the proposed pathway is most significantly impacted by the cost of the electrolyzer, the solar PV system, and the CO2 storage
  • The spread in methanol cost across the sets of assumptions is significant but is consistently lower under the solar–wind scenarios than the wind scenarios
  • more expensive than fossil methanol
  • Higher wind availability has two effects on cost: first, the levelized cost of electricity at those locations may be lower than for PV, thus reducing the production cost. Furthermore, wind output is also available during the night.
  • Multi-annual CO2 storage is one way of addressing this challenge, but was not assessed by us - lower cost than electricity storage.
93
Q

Biofuel: discussion

A
  • The implementation of the land-neutral methanol pathway would substantially decrease Brazilian CO2 emissions by about 34 Mt annually, which amounts to almost 9 and 4% of total Brazilian CO2 emissions related to energy conversion and land-use change, respectively
  • could pave the long term road to CO2 direct capture instead of capture by biomass
  • To achieve the full potential of social, environmental, and industrial co-benefits of the land-neutral methanol pathway and to make it economically competitive,** a supportive land-use policy would have to be implemented**. Only under such a policy could potential rebound effects from increased demand be prevented
  • support of Brazilian land conservation policies such as a rigorous enforcement of the Brazilian Forest Code & additional carbon pricing are necesary to make the proposition competitve
  • Policymakers also have to consider that the highly capital-intensive pathway may lead to increasing the profit share of capital owners at the cost of the labor share, compared to ethanol production only.
94
Q

Biofuel: uncertainties

A
  • demand changes, reduction of FF demands
  • electrification of transport
  • increase in renewable fuels demand, because they are key for decarbonisation
  • production fluctuations
  • cost of future PV generation and, to an even greater extent, of electrolyzers, which strongly affect the cost-competitiveness
  • investment in the technology
  • Finally, little is known about the environmental impacts of substituting sugarcane plantations by PV and wind turbines. presumably, they will decrease –> but these need to be researched.
95
Q

Trade in global renewable energy systems

A

Recent global modelling studies suggest a decline of long-distance trade in energy carriers in future global renewable energy systems, compared to today’s fossil fuel based system. In contrast, we identify four drivers that facilitate trade of renewable energy carriers:
1. new land-efficient technologies for renewable fuel production become increasingly available and may become cost-competitive until 2050 and therefore can allow for long-distance trade of renewable energies. Could be made compatible fore existing FF infrastructure. costs of imported renewable fuels may be lower than local production, as the production costs depend on highly diverse climatic conditions
2. regional differences in social acceptance and land availability for energy infrastructure support the development of renewable fuel import and export
3. the economics of renewable energy systems, i.e. the different production conditions globally and the high costs of fully renewable regional electricity systems
4. a reduction of stranded investments in the fossil fuel sector is possible by switching from fossil fuels to renewable fuel trade

STSI (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions