Search

The role of energy transition amidst the energy crisis and how policymakers can drive down emissions while focusing on energy security are critical. Given the geo-political situation, energy crisis volatility, energy shortage and climate change all affect the green transition and the short-term priorities for energy companies and policymakers. Energy security is not an isolated issue but has widespread implications as various sectors depend on energy supply to function properly. Governments around the world are faced with this trilemma, how to balance energy security with energy sustainability while also considering energy affordability. Sustainability has been in focus for about a decade. However, energy security is suddenly becoming one of the most important priorities that policymakers need to consider. Unfortunately, the renewable energy infrastructure is not yet ready to replace the growing volume of energy demand from hydrocarbon, which the world has been dependent on. This means, for now, a surge in energy generation through hydrocarbon to meet the existing energy demand deficit. However, it is important not to lose focus on the challenge of energy sustainability and climate change adaption and mitigation. Where trends like carbon capture and storage; solar, wind, hydro, green hydrogen, etc.; renewable energy infrastructure and integrations, with supply chain and engineering services consideration [in aspect for the growing market in this space] need better attention with regards to investment and full-scale implementation. This paper aims to analyze this 1st energy crisis of green transition with a priori on energy poverty with consideration of major influences and associated impacts. Furthermore, it proposes a specific framework for inclusive investigations, which considers the entire energy ecosystem with consideration of major influences, to enable the policymakers to better drive the green transition. This involves formulating energy policies that are not entirely conservative towards renewable energy sources but instead promote investments in both green and relatively more environmentally benign energy sources compared to high emission hydrocarbons. In this regard, this paper renders exhaustive prospects and recommendations. • The nexus between energy transition, energy poverty and their impacts are investigated. • Influence of climate change, COVID-19, geo-politics, and energy infrastructure on energy transition. • Exhaustive prospects and recommendations are rendered. • Requirement for inclusive investigations and recognition of energy poverty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Limiting global warming well below 2 °C requires substantial increase in the installation of low-carbon electricity generation technologies (EGTs). EGTs however require several critical materials and materials associated with considerable energy, water and CO 2 emissions. This paper assesses the implications of materials and energy efficiencies for climate change mitigation potential of global energy transition scenarios (GETS). The analysis is carried out using a dynamic material flow-stock model for 21 materials and 15 scenarios combining GETS developed by international organizations including International Energy Agency (IEA) and Greenpeace (GP), materials scenarios, and energy, water, and emissions intensities scenarios. Materials related CO 2 emissions are expected to constitute between 4% and 14% the emissions reported in the IEA Sustainable Development scenario, while expected to be between 10% and 28% in GP Advanced Revolution scenario. Increasing material efficiency and reducing emissions intensities (driven by increasing energy efficiency, renewable technologies in energy supply mix, and recycling) reduce cumulative emissions by 73.2% and 26.3% respectively, while both reduce emissions by 79.5%. Increasing materials efficiency in EGT, energy and water efficiency in mining activities mainly for iron, aluminium, and nickel, and recycling, combined with careful selection of EGTs are significant to realize the full potential of GETS in climate change mitigation. • Materials and energy efficiencies implications for climate change mitigation potential of energy scenarios are assessed. • Dynamic material flow-stock model for 21 materials and 15 combined materials and energy scenarios are used. • Materials related CO 2 emissions constitute between 4% and 14% of emissions reported in IEA Sustainable Development scenario. • Increasing material efficiency and reducing emission intensities reduce cumulative emissions by 79.5%. • Increasing materials efficiency and recycling, and careful selection of EGT are significant for climate change mitigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change, driven by greenhouse gas emissions, is a growing global concern, threatening world-wide environment, health and economy. Energy needs for buildings are a large source of greenhouse gas emissions. As the energy needs of buildings strongly depends on weather patterns, this paper investigates how climate change may impact building heating and cooling loads, cost-optimal efficiency measures, and renewable energy production. Eight locations (Stockholm, Milan, Vienna, Madrid, Paris, Munich, Lisbon, and Rome) highlight differences among European climates. Weather datasets, commonly used in building energy simulations, are evaluated to see how climatic parameters have changed over recent decades. A future climate change scenario (with uncertainties) is analyzed for the year 2060. Weather files are used to drive building energy simulations for a standard baseline and a (Nearly Zero Energy Building) NZEB residential building whose design is improved using a cost-optimization approach. The analysis indicates most currently available weather datasets cannot assure reliable results with building simulations. We find the energy balance in European buildings will significantly change under future conditions: heating will decrease by 38%–57%, while cooling will increase by +99%–380% depending on location. In future NZEBs, efficiency measures to reduce cooling needs and overheating will be favored (e.g. roof insulation, window type, solar shading, envelope finishes), illustrating how improving energy efficiency will be more crucial within climate change scenarios. Compared to the baseline, more efficient NZEBs will enable renewable energy to much better cover building needs. There will also be advantages from reducing winter and summer peak demand, particularly when coupled to short-term electrical storage. When solar resource is limited in winter, more airtight, better-insulated NZEBs improve PV self-consumption. • Climate change impact is studied in baseline and NZEBs in different climates. • Different weather datasets and a climate change scenario are simulated. • Future heating loads decrease by 38%–57%, cooling increase by +99%–380%. • Energy efficiency measures to reduce cooling and overheating are favored. • NZEBs enable renewable energy to much better cover building needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Local and state governments find it challenging to adopt aggressive residential building codes that require energy-efficiency upgrades beyond those with a reasonable payback. Thus, economic considerations inhibit the progress towards a more energy-efficient housing stock and often account for direct utility savings. A widely discussed solution is to look beyond energy costs and consider other impacts of energy-saving strategies that affect their financial attractiveness. In this paper, we examine the case of a public housing project in Phoenix, AZ, using several tools to calculate different economic, environmental, and health metrics associated with the three levels of energy efficiency. Our results show that while the payback calculated from direct energy costs may not be attractive, we should consider other savings. We demonstrate that avoided health and climate costs could total around 40% of the direct utility savings. In addition, we quantify how energy-saving strategies can cool the neighborhood, make buildings more resilient to heat, improve indoor air quality, and reduce the transmission of airborne disease. These benefits could be translated to avoid costs in the future. • We demonstrate looking beyond utility cost in assessing building energy efficiency. • Avoided health/climate costs are in the order of magnitude of direct utility savings. • We show that building efficiency can increase the hours comfortable for window use. • Thus reducing the risk of indoor airborne disease transmission per Wells-Riley method. • Efficiency reduces indoor & outdoor (shown via an urban canyon model) heat exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]