• Energy Research
• 11. Sustainability close
• GB close
• AU close
• DK close
• University of North Texas close

AbstractThe U.S. Department of Energy has launched the commercial building initiative (CBI) in pursuit of its research goal of achieving zero‐net‐energy commercial buildings (ZNEB), i.e., ones that produce as much energy as they use. Its objective is to make these buildings marketable by 2025 such that they minimize their energy use through cutting‐edge, energy‐efficiency technologies and meet their remaining energy needs through on‐site renewable energy generation. This paper examines how such buildings may be implemented within the context of a cost‐ or CO2‐minimizing microgrid that is able to adopt and operate various technologies: photovoltaic (PV) modules and other on‐site generation, heat exchangers, solar thermal collectors, absorption chillers, and passive/demand‐response technologies. A mixed‐integer linear program (MILP) that has a multi‐criteria objective function is used. The objective is minimization of a weighted average of the building's annual energy costs and CO2 emissions. The MILP's constraints ensure energy balance and capacity limits. In addition, constraining the building's energy consumed to equal its energy exports enables us to explore how energy sales and demand‐response measures may enable compliance with the ZNEB objective. Using a commercial test site in northern California with existing tariff rates and technology data, we find that a ZNEB requires ample PV capacity installed to ensure electricity sales during the day. This is complemented by investment in energy‐efficient combined heat and power (CHP) equipment, while occasional demand response saves energy consumption. A large amount of storage is also adopted, which may be impractical. Nevertheless, it shows the nature of the solutions and costs necessary to achieve a ZNEB. Additionally, the ZNEB approach does not necessary lead to zero‐carbon (ZC) buildings as is frequently argued. We also show a multi‐objective frontier for the CA example, which allows us to estimate the needed technologies and costs for achieving a ZC building or microgrid. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

AbstractThe U.S. Department of Energy has launched the commercial building initiative (CBI) in pursuit of its research goal of achieving zero‐net‐energy commercial buildings (ZNEB), i.e., ones that produce as much energy as they use. Its objective is to make these buildings marketable by 2025 such that they minimize their energy use through cutting‐edge, energy‐efficiency technologies and meet their remaining energy needs through on‐site renewable energy generation. This paper examines how such buildings may be implemented within the context of a cost‐ or CO2‐minimizing microgrid that is able to adopt and operate various technologies: photovoltaic (PV) modules and other on‐site generation, heat exchangers, solar thermal collectors, absorption chillers, and passive/demand‐response technologies. A mixed‐integer linear program (MILP) that has a multi‐criteria objective function is used. The objective is minimization of a weighted average of the building's annual energy costs and CO2 emissions. The MILP's constraints ensure energy balance and capacity limits. In addition, constraining the building's energy consumed to equal its energy exports enables us to explore how energy sales and demand‐response measures may enable compliance with the ZNEB objective. Using a commercial test site in northern California with existing tariff rates and technology data, we find that a ZNEB requires ample PV capacity installed to ensure electricity sales during the day. This is complemented by investment in energy‐efficient combined heat and power (CHP) equipment, while occasional demand response saves energy consumption. A large amount of storage is also adopted, which may be impractical. Nevertheless, it shows the nature of the solutions and costs necessary to achieve a ZNEB. Additionally, the ZNEB approach does not necessary lead to zero‐carbon (ZC) buildings as is frequently argued. We also show a multi‐objective frontier for the CA example, which allows us to estimate the needed technologies and costs for achieving a ZC building or microgrid. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Developing Asia is the driver of today’s emissions intensive global economy. As the principle source of future emissions, the region is critical to the task of global climate change mitigation. Reflecting this global reality and a range of related domestic issues, the governments of the People’s Republic of China, India, Indonesia, Thailand, and Viet Nam have embarked upon an ambitious policy agenda. This report reviews the present and future policy settings for climate change mitigation and green growth in Asia’s major emerging economies.

Developing Asia is the driver of today’s emissions intensive global economy. As the principle source of future emissions, the region is critical to the task of global climate change mitigation. Reflecting this global reality and a range of related domestic issues, the governments of the People’s Republic of China, India, Indonesia, Thailand, and Viet Nam have embarked upon an ambitious policy agenda. This report reviews the present and future policy settings for climate change mitigation and green growth in Asia’s major emerging economies.

Over the past decade, long-term socio-ecological research (LTSER) has been established to better integrate social science research and societal concerns into the goals and objectives of the International Long-Term Ecological Research (ILTER) network, an established global network of long-term ecologicalmonitoring sites. TheHorizon 2020 eLTER project, currently underway, includes as one of its key objectives to evaluate the performance of LTSER platforms.This article reflects part of this evaluation: six LTSER platformswere assessed through site visits of the lead author, coupledwith reflections and insights of the platform managers, whoare also co-authors.We provide background for the mission and goals of LTSER, then assess the six international LTSERplatforms—Baltimore Ecosystem Study LTER, USA; Braila Island LTSER, Romania; Cairngorms LTSER, UK;Doñana LTSER, Spain;OmoraEthnobotanical Park CapeHorn LTER,Chile; and Sierra Nevada LTSER, Spain. While based on a strong theoretical foundation in socio-ecological research, there has been a steep learning curve for scientists applying the concept in practice at LTSERplatforms.We show positive impacts that have been achieved, including contributions to policy, land-use planning, and natural resourcemanagement.Weexplain key aspects of LTSERplatforms that have proven challenging, includingmanagement, interdisciplinary integration, and stakeholder collaboration.Wecharacterize the tensions between top-down desires for network harmonization, bottom-up demands such as local policy relevance, and platform-level constraints such as time and budget. Finally,we discuss challenges, such as local context dominating the character of LTSERplatforms, and the fact that scientists are often disincentivized from engaging in transdisciplinary science. Overall, we conclude that while the internationalnetwork offers important advantages to itsmembers, a more productive balance between local and global goals could be achieved, and membersmay need to temper their expectations of what the network can and cannot offer at the local level. Peer reviewed

Over the past decade, long-term socio-ecological research (LTSER) has been established to better integrate social science research and societal concerns into the goals and objectives of the International Long-Term Ecological Research (ILTER) network, an established global network of long-term ecologicalmonitoring sites. TheHorizon 2020 eLTER project, currently underway, includes as one of its key objectives to evaluate the performance of LTSER platforms.This article reflects part of this evaluation: six LTSER platformswere assessed through site visits of the lead author, coupledwith reflections and insights of the platform managers, whoare also co-authors.We provide background for the mission and goals of LTSER, then assess the six international LTSERplatforms—Baltimore Ecosystem Study LTER, USA; Braila Island LTSER, Romania; Cairngorms LTSER, UK;Doñana LTSER, Spain;OmoraEthnobotanical Park CapeHorn LTER,Chile; and Sierra Nevada LTSER, Spain. While based on a strong theoretical foundation in socio-ecological research, there has been a steep learning curve for scientists applying the concept in practice at LTSERplatforms.We show positive impacts that have been achieved, including contributions to policy, land-use planning, and natural resourcemanagement.Weexplain key aspects of LTSERplatforms that have proven challenging, includingmanagement, interdisciplinary integration, and stakeholder collaboration.Wecharacterize the tensions between top-down desires for network harmonization, bottom-up demands such as local policy relevance, and platform-level constraints such as time and budget. Finally,we discuss challenges, such as local context dominating the character of LTSERplatforms, and the fact that scientists are often disincentivized from engaging in transdisciplinary science. Overall, we conclude that while the internationalnetwork offers important advantages to itsmembers, a more productive balance between local and global goals could be achieved, and membersmay need to temper their expectations of what the network can and cannot offer at the local level. Peer reviewed