In the following article, we will take a closer look at the various ways in which casinos are promoting sustainability, and the benefits that these efforts bring not only to the industry but also to the planet as a whole

1. Constructing Energy-Efficient Buildings

One way casinos are becoming more environmentally friendly is by constructing energy-efficient buildings. This can be achieved through the use of solar panels, green roofs, energy-efficient lighting, and other types of HVAC systems.

An example of a casino promoting sustainability is the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino in Las Vegas. It has implemented the use of solar energy by installing over 4,000 solar panels on its roof. This allows the resort to generate a significant portion of its daytime electricity from the sun, on average it provides 15% of the resort’s energy needs. The resort’s efforts to become more energy-efficient were recognized with a Gold-level certification in LEED ratings.

2. Using Sustainable Materials

In addition to utilizing solar energy, casinos are also implementing other strategies to reduce energy consumption in their construction and renovation projects.

This includes the use of reclaimed wood, low-VOC paints, and carpeting made from recycled materials. The Wynn Casino in Las Vegas, for instance, has used reclaimed wood in its construction, and the Bellagio has used volatile organic compound paints.

3. Replacing Unfriendly Practices

To become more environmentally friendly, gambling establishments are implementing changes in their operations as well. This includes replacing electronic games with human-operated options and reducing the number of machines that use electricity.

Instead, they are adopting sustainable practices such as recycling programs, using eco-friendly cleaning products, and transitioning to electric or hybrid vehicles for transportation. An example of this is the Mohegan Sun Casino in Connecticut, which has implemented a recycling program that covers paper, plastic, and glass and also uses eco-friendly cleaning products.

4. Promoting Practices Outside the Gaming Floor

Apart from making changes to their operations, some casinos are also encouraging environmentally-friendly practices in their hotels and other areas beyond the gaming floor.

This can include giving guests the choice to reuse towels and linens, as well as providing recycling bins in guest rooms. One example is the Aria Resort and Casino in Las Vegas, which has launched a “Green Choice” program that allows guests to opt out of daily linen and towel changes in order to conserve water and energy.

5. Creation of ecological culture

Many gaming clubs have begun to create an environmental culture in their companies – recycle, use environmentally friendly materials and recycled products, create social initiatives or use other sustainable business solutions. There are many factors that influence the sustainability practices that a company adopts over the course of a day, a week, or even a year. This is a big enough contribution to support the ecology in the world.

Conclusion on the article

It can be concluded that the casino is involved in many environmental initiatives. As they want to increase the sustainability of their establishments, the overall picture of the world is growing. If every business does this, the environmental situation in the world will improve significantly. That’s why it’s important to get everyone’s attention, whether it’s big gambling clubs or small local businesses. So we recommend that you pay attention to such things, because in our time it is a necessary thing for our ecological environment.

The post How Casinos Are Promoting Environmentally Friendly Practices appeared first on Transitionbristol.

Climate change and reforestation/afforestation is a popular topic for essays, as it highlights the intersection of environmental and societal issues. This essay would cover the impact of climate change on forests and the efforts to mitigate these impacts through reforestation and afforestation. It would discuss the causes of deforestation in northern Europe, such as logging and land use change, and how these practices exacerbate the effects of climate change on forest ecosystems. It would also explore the benefits of reforestation and afforestation, including carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, and mitigating the impacts of natural disasters. The essay would examine the current initiatives and projects in northern Europe and the challenges faced in implementing these efforts. Additionally, it would discuss the potential of reforestation and afforestation as a means of adapting to the impacts of climate change on forests and mitigating its effects. The essay would conclude with recommendations for future actions to promote reforestation and afforestation in the context of climate change. In case of facing difficulty with writing an essay on this topic, IB Student Help can be an excellent resource for students seeking help with their IB assignments.

Causes of Deforestation in Northern Europe

Logging is one of the main causes of deforestation in northern Europe, as the demand for wood products such as lumber, paper, and furniture has led to the clearcutting of large areas of forest. Clearcutting, which involves removing all the trees in a given area, can have a devastating impact on the ecosystem, destroying habitats and reducing the ability of the forest to provide ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, water regulation, and biodiversity conservation.

In addition to logging, agriculture and urbanization are also major drivers of deforestation in northern Europe. As human populations grow, more land is needed for cropland and housing developments, leading to the conversion of forested areas to these uses. For example, forests are cleared to make way for agriculture, and it is a common practice to drain peatland to make them arable. Urbanization also requires land and often it is the nearby green areas that get transformed.

Climate change is also having a significant impact on northern European forests. Increased temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns can lead to drought, which can stress trees and make them more susceptible to pest and disease outbreaks. Drought can also increase the risk of wildfire, which can further damage forests. In addition, shifting climate patterns can alter the distribution of pests and diseases, leading to new threats to forest health.

Overall, the causes of deforestation in northern Europe are complex and multifaceted, and addressing them will require a comprehensive approach that considers the multiple factors driving forest loss. This would include implementing sustainable logging practices, promoting sustainable agricultural and urban development, and taking steps to address the impacts of climate change on forests.

The benefits of reforestation and afforestation

Reforestation and afforestation have many benefits for northern Europe. Carbon sequestration is one of the most important benefits, as trees absorb and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, helping to mitigate the effects of climate change. In addition to this, reforestation and afforestation can also help to conserve biodiversity by providing habitat for a wide variety of plants and animals. Soil conservation is also improved as tree roots help to stabilize and protect soil from erosion. Furthermore, reforestation and afforestation can provide recreational and educational opportunities for local communities.

There are many reforestation and afforestation projects currently being implemented in northern Europe. One example is the “Green Belt” project in Estonia, which aims to reforest a strip of land along the country’s border with Russia to help protect against soil erosion, conserve biodiversity, and provide recreational opportunities for local residents. Another example is in northern Poland, where the organization “Green Forest” plant trees in cooperation with local communities and farmers, with the goal of mitigating the effects of climate change, improving air and water quality, and promoting sustainable economic development.

However, there are also many challenges and obstacles to reforestation and afforestation in northern Europe. Funding and resources are often limited, and securing adequate funding for large-scale reforestation and afforestation projects can be difficult. Land tenure and property rights can also be a barrier, as obtaining permission to plant trees on private land can be difficult. In addition, ensuring that the right tree species are planted and protecting them from invasive species can be a challenging task. Also, community engagement and participation is important in reforestation and afforestation projects, as it can ensure that local residents are invested in the success of the project and willing to take care of the planted trees.

In conclusion, reforestation and afforestation are essential tools for restoring the health and resilience of northern European forests and addressing the many threats they face. While there are many challenges and obstacles, there are also many successful reforestation and afforestation projects currently being implemented in northern Europe. Through these efforts, northern European forests will be able to continue providing vital ecosystem services and support biodiversity for future generations.

The post Reforestation and afforestation in Northern Europe appeared first on Transitionbristol.

Current efficiency levels of perovskite solar cells

One of the key advantages of perovskite solar cells is their efficiency. Efficiency refers to the amount of sunlight that a solar cell can convert into usable electricity. Traditional silicon-based solar cells have an efficiency of around 20%, while perovskite solar cells currently have an efficiency of around 22%. This may not seem like a significant difference at first glance, but it is important to note that even small increases in efficiency can have a big impact when applied on a large scale.

The potential for perovskite solar cells to reach efficiencies of up to 30% is particularly exciting. This means that perovskite solar cells can generate significantly more electricity from the same amount of sunlight as traditional solar cells. This increased efficiency can translate to a smaller area of solar panels required to generate the same amount of electricity, which can save on costs and land usage. Additionally, the higher efficiency allows more electricity to be produced with the same amount of sunlight, which is especially important during times when sunlight is limited, such as in the early morning or late afternoon, or on cloudy days.

Moreover, perovskite solar cells also have the potential to surpass silicon-based solar cells even under lower-light conditions, performing better under low light, low irradiance, and diffuse sunlight. This properties make them more versatile, and enables to generate electricity in places and condition where traditional solar cells are not able to function well.
It’s also worth noting that while traditional silicon solar cells are approaching their theoretical maximum efficiency limit, perovskite cells are still in early stages, and the potential for further increase of efficiency is high.

All these characteristics are making perovskite solar cells a highly promising technology and a potential game-changer for the solar energy industry.

Current costs of perovskite solar cells compared to traditional silicon-based solar

Another major advantage of perovskite solar cells is their cost. The cost of solar energy is a major barrier to widespread adoption, and reducing this cost is essential for making solar energy a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Traditional silicon-based solar cells are relatively expensive to produce, but perovskite solar cells are less costly to manufacture. This is due to the fact that perovskite materials are cheaper and easier to work with than silicon.
Perovskite materials are primarily made of lead, halides, and organic compounds which are abundant and cheaper than silicon. Because of this, the cost of raw materials used in perovskite solar cells is lower than that of traditional silicon-based solar cells. This also means that perovskite solar cells can be manufactured in a simpler and less energy-intensive process than traditional solar cells, which can also contribute to cost savings.

Furthermore, as the technology and knowledge advance, the cost of perovskite solar cells is expected to decrease even more. As the production process becomes more efficient and larger scale manufacturing begins, economies of scale will be able to drive down the cost per unit of solar cell. Additionally, as researchers continue to work on developing new materials and technologies, it is likely that the efficiency of perovskite solar cells will increase.

This can lead to an increase in the power output per area of the solar cell which decreases the cost per watt. This decrease in cost per watt is critical for making solar energy cost-competitive with traditional fossil fuels, and thus increasing adoption of solar energy.
Additionally, perovskite cells can be combined with other types of solar cells, such as silicon solar cells, in a technique called tandem solar cells, which can potentially increase their efficiency even more and decrease the cost by optimizing their performance in the different parts of the solar spectrum, this is a key research area that is actively been studied.

Potential for cost reductions through advancements in manufacturing techniques and economies of scale

All in all, the low cost and ease of manufacturing make perovskite solar cells an attractive option for the solar energy industry. As technology and knowledge continue to advance, it is likely that the cost of perovskite solar cells will continue to decrease, making them even more competitive with traditional fossil fuels.

Conclusion

Despite these advantages, perovskite solar cells do have some challenges and limitations that must be overcome before they can be widely adopted. One of the main challenges with perovskite solar cells is their stability. These cells are sensitive to heat and moisture, which can cause them to degrade over time. Researchers are working on developing new materials and technologies to address these stability issues, but it is still a work in progress. Additionally, as perovskite cells are still a new technology there are still technical challenges that need to be addressed in order to improve their durability and lifespan.
In conclusion, perovskite solar cells have a lot of potential to increase the efficiency and lower the cost of solar energy. These cells are a relatively new technology, but they hold a lot of promise for the future of solar energy. The efficiency levels and cost are already showing advantages over the traditional solar cells, but there is still work to be done to overcome the challenges and limitations of perovskite solar cells. However, as the technology and knowledge advance, the potential of perovskite solar cells to help us achieve a sustainable energy future is exciting.

The post Perovskite Solar Cells: The Future of Solar Energy? appeared first on Transitionbristol.

So far, carbon dioxide removal technology is not widely used anywhere, so it is difficult to calculate the environmental impact of it. The method itself requires a large amount of energy and water resources, which may in the future simply offset the positive effect of CO2 removal and cause the opposite result. Moreover, large-scale construction of facilities to capture greenhouse gases could have a negative impact on terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.

Scientists agreed that the most effective way to combat climate change is to directly reduce emissions. “The focus should be on mitigation, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It will not be easy, but it will certainly be easier than applying carbon-negative technologies on a significant scale,” says Gideon Henderson, professor of Earth Sciences at Oxford University.

According to Mikhail Yulkin, CEO of the Environmental Investment Center and CarbonLab, businesses should not be limited to their direct emissions. “If a company claims to be carbon neutral only in terms of its direct emissions (Scope 1), it’s a bit like greenwashing. The carbon footprint includes all of the company’s emissions related in one way or another to its activities: raw materials, production, supply, use, disposal and recycling, i.e. the entire life cycle of the product,” the expert notes.

The Russian oil and gas sector faces difficulties in understanding the necessity to account not only for direct emissions from its production, but also for indirect ones, i.e. those which are formed when using oil products. According to Yulkin, the automobile industry in Russia has similar difficulties. They are willing to account for direct emissions, but at the same time they shift responsibility for automobile emissions to consumers.

What’s wrong with planting trees?

Reforestation or afforestation (growing a forest where there never was one) is for companies the clearest and easiest way to offset the carbon footprint. But this method has its disadvantages.

First, the forest takes a very long time to grow. It takes 15-20 years for a tree to start absorbing carbon dioxide before it grows from a seedling into a mature tree. Secondly, trees do not absorb CO2 as quickly, which means that the goals of the Paris Agreement cannot be met this way. The average (which depends very much on the species of tree) is around 4 tonnes of CO2 per 1 hectare of forest per year. For example, a flight from Moscow to Sochi produces 13 tons of carbon dioxide.

Another problem arises from this – huge areas are needed for planting. The head of the oil and gas concern Shell, Ben van Beurden, has stated that a rainforest the size of Brazil must be grown to keep warming within the 1.5 °C prescribed by the agreement, which is almost 6% of the world’s land area.

The most important question is, can tree planting be considered sustainable reforestation? “For an activity to be considered reforestation or afforestation, the areas must be converted to a forest fund and must be monitored and accounted for. The company must be fully responsible for what happens on the property. If you just plant trees on a picnic, it has nothing to do with absorbing carbon from the atmosphere, it’s just fun,” explains Yulkin from CarbonLab.

Often many trees simply do not take root or die before they reach maturity. In this case, no emission offsetting will occur. You also need to understand what happens to the tree after it dies, when it starts to emit CO2 back. If the company (or responsible contractor) doesn’t monitor and control its plantings, and relies on chance, it’s more like greenwashing than offsetting.

Yulkin suggests first analyzing your own technology to see how effective it is in eliminating direct greenhouse gas emissions. Then minimize your own indirect emissions (Scope 3), and compensate only the remainder. It is better to invest in those projects that are guaranteed to remove the source of greenhouse gases, such as renewable energy. “Forest is not a universal way to offset emissions, on the contrary, one of the most difficult, although it seems to be the most affordable, but there are many pitfalls,” says the expert.
How do companies achieve carbon neutrality?

The head of the IT giant Google Sundar Pichai made a statement in the fall of 2020 that in 2007 the company managed to become carbon-neutral. In addition, it has already offset all the emissions it has produced in its history. Google has also become the world’s largest purchaser of renewable energy. The corporation plans to be completely self-sufficient in renewable energy by 2030.

What is Google doing to be a carbon-neutral company? Like many other companies, it is planting trees and sponsoring projects that reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, such as cleaning up emissions from pig farms and landfills.

Another IT giant, Microsoft, has pledged to remove all the carbon it has produced since its founding, that is, since 1975. By 2030, Microsoft plans to become not just a neutral company, but a carbon-negative one, that is, to remove more CO2 from the atmosphere than it produces.

Apple has also joined similar statements about carbon neutrality. It announced that it would invest in the development of solar energy for its own use and for low-income families in the Philippines, in the restoration of mangrove forests, the development of carbon-free aluminum smelting process and more.

Plans to become carbon-neutral are evidenced by one of the “dirtiest” industries – the fashion industry. The Kering group of brands, which includes Gucci, Saint Laurent, Balenciaga, Alexander McQueen and others declared that it will strive for the carbon neutrality and by 2025 will reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions twice. House of Gucci has already declared itself a completely carbon-neutral brand.

Not only companies but also international events are striving to be carbon neutral. The FIFA strategy has an obligatory clause about the compensation of emissions which can be directly controlled by the soccer federation.

In fact, more than 50% of all greenhouse gas emissions from international tournaments come from international flights. These emissions are compensated by FIFA on a leftover principle – for the money paid by passengers in the form of a voluntary environmental fee. During the 2018 FIFA World Cup that took place in Russia, FIFA compensated more than 243,000 tons of controlled emissions and 16,000 tons of emissions from flights.

What projects did the money go to? Although the championship was held in Russia, the money was distributed all over the world.

For example, in the Kostroma region during the 2018 World Cup was invested in the transition of the wood processing plant from fossil fuels to biomass as a source of energy. Biomass became the wood waste of the plant itself, i.e., in fact, the plant introduced a circular economy. Before that, the waste was simply dumped in a nearby landfill, releasing methane.
Another six projects were invested outside of Russia. In India, a hydroelectric power plant was built on the Rangit River. As compensation for greenhouse gas emissions, FIFA also sent money to a project to modernize the treatment of waste from a pig farm in Chile. In Kenya, electric cooking stoves have been produced and used primarily in rural areas to replace traditional “three-stone hearths. A palm oil factory in Thailand bought new purification equipment. Two hydropower plants were built in Brazil, and a project to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions was launched in Pakistan.

The next FIFA World Cup, to be held in Qatar in 2022, is expected to be carbon-neutral for the first time in history. However, there are plenty of problems here – the federation can only be responsible for its own emissions, but not those produced by fans.

The post Why offsetting emissions won’t solve the climate problem appeared first on Transitionbristol.

Overproduction and the constant growth of consumption is another issue of concern for many countries, since industrial production leads to pollution and overconsumption of energy. On a domestic level, it is popular among Swedes not to buy unnecessary things, trying, where possible, not to create unnecessary demand for certain “non-environmental” goods. It is quite common, for example, to buy used furniture, clothes and appliances to prevent overproduction, even on a small scale.
Almost all Swedish industrial companies are constantly innovating to increase efficiency and reduce energy consumption at the same time. The government also supports the industry in these endeavors. In 2005, it introduced tax incentives for energy-intensive industries in exchange for their development of measures to reduce energy consumption.
Every municipality (of which there are 290 in Sweden) has an energy advisor whom people can turn to for help and guidance. Advice is provided on issues such as the use of low-energy lighting and switching to greener heating systems.
If you want to save the planet, take out your trash

More than 99% of trash in Sweden is recycled and reused in one way or another, a phenomenon already dubbed the “Swedish Recycling Revolution”. No other country in the world has yet come so close to the dream of zero-waste production and clean water and air. How did the Swedes achieve this?
When you consider that each inhabitant of the planet produces on average several tons of household waste a year, it is easy to imagine what the Earth will look like in at least a few years if no measures are taken.
Städa Sverige (Clean Up Sweden) is a network of non-profit sports organizations that involve their students in environmental projects.

Sweden is among the countries that have succeeded in recycling and waste management. Only 1-0.7 percent of household waste in Sweden is disposed of by landfills, compared to 34 percent in the European Union as a whole.

Every Swedish family has several bins with stickers in their apartment and house. One for glass, one for cardboard, one for metal, one for plastic, and one for newspapers. A separate container is for food waste. In these containers, the appropriate waste is placed and then taken to a waste collection station. The importance of sorting garbage is so ingrained in the minds of Swedes that many do it automatically. Paint, nail polish, old batteries, light bulbs and electrical appliances are hazardous waste that is disposed of in designated areas. Municipalities are responsible for organizing trash collection and recycling, and they are also responsible for making sure their residents are aware of the rules and recycling options.

Another way in which Sweden is trying to show other countries how to turn the planet into an ecological paradise is through innovative environmental solutions. The Swedish government has already invested more than 400 million kronor in research and development in the field of ecology and environmental protection. Among the most prominent developments are biofuels, smart power grids, and carbon capture and storage. In 2019, spending on research and development amounted to 3.41% of GDP.

Concern for clean air has forced the Swedes to look for ways to replace combustible fuels and gasoline. Alternative fuel sources that have become widespread in Sweden include biofuels derived from food and organic waste, electricity and ethanol. Many Swedish companies and almost all public institutions are replacing their vehicle fleets by getting rid of combustible fuels and switch to environmentally friendly electric cars. Almost all city and intercity buses have switched to biofuels and ethanol. These are just some of the measures by which Sweden aims to remove combustible gases from circulation and contribute to cleaning the air from harmful emissions. Targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2020 compared to 1990 and to completely rid the car fleet of fossil fuels by 2030. – are among the priorities of Sweden’s environmental policy.
From the background

Sweden is credited with being a pioneer in the field of the environment back in the 1960s and 70s. For example, Sweden was the first country to establish an Environmental Protection Agency in 1967. It was Sweden that hosted the first United Nations Conference on the Environment in 1972, which led to the creation of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the leading international authority on the environment today.

Sweden was also one of the first states to sign and ratify the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to take action on climate change.

Green cities

According to UN statistics, by 2050, two-thirds of the world’s population will live in cities. That is why the problem of overpopulation in cities and their growth is a concern to environmentalists in all countries. Here, too, Sweden may set an example, since sustainability has played a decisive role in the planning of many Swedish cities.
Stockholm

In the mid-1990s, the Stockholm city council decided to turn the former industrial area of Hammarby into a model of ecological urban planning. The rebuilt residential area has smart power grids, accessible and environmentally friendly public transport, bicycle lanes and parking lots, waste management and recycling.
Malmö

A similar transformation of an industrial area into a residential area took place in Malmö. Today the Västra Hamnen area is a zero-carbon district that uses a thermal energy storage system. Water is stored during the summer, then pumped in with wind power to heat houses during the cold season. The water is then reused to cool buildings in the summer.

The post Environmental protection in Sweden appeared first on Transitionbristol.

There are no technical barriers to increased integration of various renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind, into the grid. At low prevalence, grid connection costs will be negative or modest, but may increase as these technologies become more widespread. Even so, given the environmental effects of fossil fuels locally and globally, the cost of grid connection seems a much lesser evil, even if various renewable sources account for 40 percent of the total energy supply. In other words, all other things being equal and considering all external factors, renewables remain fundamentally competitive.

Each type of renewable energy has its own nuances when it comes to connecting to the electricity system, but the principle is the same in all cases: to meet the daily changing demand, a set of different production technologies in different locations will be required. Water, biomass, geothermal, and concentrated solar energy in thermal energy storage are basic, or controllable, technologies and present no particular problem for grid operations.

The additional system-wide costs that can be considered over and above the costs of generating energy from the various renewable sources are relatively small. The increase in costs in transmission and distribution systems is usually minimal. At the same time, system-wide costs may increase due to the need for additional reserve for voltage fluctuations and to account for cyclical changes in weather conditions so as not to cut off power supply during periods of weak wind or reduced solar intensity.

However, the environmental and health consequences of using fossil fuels as an energy source must also be considered. In the absence of such an analysis, renewable energy cannot compete on an equal footing with conventional energy. When the harm to human health from burning fossil fuels for energy production is considered in economic terms, as well as the externalities associated with CO2 emissions (based on values in the range of $20-80 per ton of CO2), the cost of fossil fuel energy production would increase by $0.01-0.13 per kWh (depending on the country and the technology used), which would increase the cost of fossil fuel-based electricity to $0.07-0.19 per kWh

Prospects for further reductions in the cost of generating energy from renewable sources

Back to the title of this article. “How Renewable Energy Can Become Price-Competitive” is not quite the right title, because renewable energy generation technologies are already competitive. The question should be how to reduce costs even further and what are the challenges in striving for that goal.

This is the key question we face today. IRENA’s analysis shows that the competitiveness of renewable energy has its nuances. The cost of installing equipment varies significantly, not only between countries, but also within individual states. Some of these differences are related to structural or project-specific issues, but in many cases this issue can be resolved through better policies.

At the same time, there remain untapped opportunities to reduce equipment and project costs. However, in an era of low equipment prices, further cost reductions are possible primarily through lower project balances, as well as lower activity, maintenance, and financing costs.

Realizing this cost reduction potential and reducing cost differentials between markets is crucial to achieving global economic, environmental, and social goals. The next step in the rapid development of renewable energy will be to make it more competitive. Countries such as Chile, India, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates are gradually realizing that renewable energy is often the most economical way to meet electricity demand. But the pace of such change will be too slow for our planet, even as renewables become more competitive.

Now is the time to seize the opportunity and accelerate the spread of renewable energy to achieve our common goals of safe, reliable, affordable and sustainable energy. It can be done cheaper now than ever before, and this option will increasingly prove to be the most economical for consumers today and in the long term.

The post Using various renewable energy sources makes economic sense appeared first on Transitionbristol.