The sun is an important source of solar energy which provides us with numerous benefits. All of us utilize sunlight to produce vitamin D at the same time, animals and plants depend on the sun for their everyday lives. Various ways of utilizing the energy of the sun are always created, and presently, solar hot water is one of them.
The solar hot water system is not just a meticulous acquisition for the environment because it has obvious and feasible benefits for you as a homeowner too. Certain studies showed that most homeowners who have purchased this system have been thrilled with their expenditure.
A solar hot water system or solar domestic hot water system can be an economical way to produce hot water for your home. You can utilize it in any weather plus the material used on it to provide energy is the sun which is free. Listed below are the benefits that you can get from installing a solar hot water system in your home.
According to some studies, installing a solar hot water system in your home can lessen your monthly energy bills. And by utilizing the sunshine to heat your water, it helps you reduce the hot water costs in half annually.
This innovative product is much more effective than electric or gas heaters. However, solar hot water systems are typically more expensive to install and purchase compared to the traditional water heating systems. But you can save a fortune in the long period.
The solar energy component is determined as the generated power brought by the system divided by the gas or electrical energy embed into the system. The scope of the solar energy factor is from is from 1.0 to 11.0. Generally, the higher the number, the more it saves energy.
Do not merely depend on the efficiency of the system. Consider also the size and the total cost of the solar hot water system.
Increase Your Homes Worth
Most people consider their home as their substantial asset and preserving it appropriately is essential to guarantee its value. The various modification and maintenance of your real estate can improve the way you live and probably increase your home’s market value.
Boosting the worth of your property makes much sense, but what is the excellent approach to doing this? Hardly not all improvement increase the worth of your home to keep up with the cost of doing it all.
One of the improvements that will most likely increase the worth of your home is solar power. Everybody needs electricity in their home, and by installing solar power systems, the citizens will prospect your home positively when it is open for sale.
Solar hot water systems have been here for a long period, and most people used to utilize solar power instead of other forms of energy. Furthermore, setting up solar hot water system will not only increase the value of your home, but it helps you market it faster.
Cuts Water Heating Bills
The best thing about purchasing a solar hot water system is that it mostly save a lot of money throughout the time. However, it relies upon the quantity of hot water a user utilizes and the worth of the traditional fuels.
You can check out the solar hot water panels in many reputable online stores like GStore because they offer the best products with the highest quality. It cuts down your water heating bills as much as 50%.
If you live in a sunny place, then purchasing a solar hot water system is the best move. The solar hot water panels will take in much sunlight that will turn out to be saving plenty of money on your water heating bills instead of using another form of a water heater.
Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In wherever part of the house, all of us utilize plenty of liters of hot water each week. If you are compensating for those liters of water to be warmed, the amount of money and environmental effect might be tremendous.
When you are heating your water for whatever you’ll need them, there are 25% of energy utilized in a typical home and is accountable for 23% of the total greenhouse gas emissions from the energy used.
Therefore, by using the solar hot water system with its renewable source of energy to heat water is an excellent way to minimize your impact on the environment. And by installing a GStore Solar Hot Water can lessen the greenhouse gas emissions by likely up to 1.8 to 2.8 metric ton per year.
To not danger the environment, use to your advantage the energy that is freely given on Earth which is the sun. Opt for a solar hot water system to absorb the heat of the sun and warm your water naturally with no risk on the environment.
Nowadays, heating water is costly and requires a lot of energy. However, utilizing solar hot water system in your home are cost-effective and environmental-friendly to warm the water for all your needs. It utilizes the sun’s heat to generate hot water.
Solar hot water is energy efficient, increases the worth of your home, cuts water heating bills, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions which can improve your lifestyle and your home.
The government of the Netherlands has been ordered to cut greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by 2020, in a case environmentalists hope will set a precedent for other countries.
Campaigners brought the case on behalf of almost 900 Dutch citizens.
They argued the government had a legal obligation to protect its citizens from the dangers of climate change.
Government lawyers did not immediately comment on the ruling at the court in The Hague.
Jasper Teulings from Greenpeace called it a “landmark case”.
He says: “It shifts the whole debate. Other cases are being brought in Belgium, the Philippines. This is the start of a wave of climate litigation.”
The court ruled that based on current policy, the Netherlands would only achieve a 17% reduction at most in 2020, which is less than other nations.
“The parties agree that the severity and magnitude of climate change make it necessary to take measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” it said.
The lawsuit was brought under human rights laws by the sustainability foundation Urgenda, which said – and the court agreed – that the Netherlands had a duty of care to its citizens and to improve the environment.
It argued that unless rapid action was taken, the next half of this century would see extreme weather, shrinking ice caps and shortages of food and water.
Low-lying Netherlands is especially vulnerable, and must now cut its emissions by a quarter compared with 1990 levels.
Coal and gas provide much of the Netherlands’ energy needs, with the country lagging behind neighbors Denmark and Germany in the use of renewables.
The Dutch government can appeal to a higher court and it is not clear yet how the ruling will be enforced.
The European Union recently set a target of reducing emissions by 40% by 2030.
A major conference on climate change is due later this year, with negotiators aiming to strike a global deal limiting temperature increases to no more than two degrees over pre-industrial levels.
A recent United Nations report reveals that the food the world wastes produces more greenhouse gas emissions than any country except for China and the US.
Every year about a third of all food for human consumption, around 1.3 billion tonnes, is wasted, along with all the energy, water and chemicals needed to produce it and dispose of it.
Almost 30% of the world’s farmland, and a volume of water equivalent to the annual discharge of the River Volga, are in effect being used in vain.
In its report, released this week, entitled The Food Wastage Footprint, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated that the carbon footprint of wasted food was equivalent to 3.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.
If it were a country, it would be the world’s third biggest emitter after China and the United States, suggesting that more efficient food use could contribute substantially to global efforts to cut greenhouse gases to limit global warming.
The food the world wastes produces more greenhouse gas emissions than any country except for China and the US
In the industrialized world, much of the waste comes from consumers buying too much and throwing away what they do not eat. In developing countries, it is mainly the result of inefficient farming and a lack of proper storage facilities.
“Food wastage reduction would not only avoid pressure on scarce natural resources but also decrease the need to raise food production by 60% in order to meet the 2050 population demand,” the FAO said.
The report suggested improving communication between producers and consumers to manage the supply chain more efficiently, as well as investing more in harvesting, cooling and packaging methods.
It also said consumers in the developed world should be encouraged to serve smaller portions and make more use of leftovers. Businesses should give surplus food to charities and develop alternatives to dumping organic waste in landfill.
The FAO estimated the cost of the wasted food, excluding fish and seafood, at about $750 billion a year, based on producer prices.
The wasted food consumes about 250 cubic km of water and takes up about 1.4 billion hectares – much of it diverse natural habitat that has been cleared to make it arable.
UN climate talks in Doha, Qatar, have closed with a historic shift in principle but few genuine cuts in greenhouse gases.
The summit established for the first time that rich nations should move towards compensating poor nations for losses due to climate change.
Developing nations hailed it as a breakthrough, but condemned the gulf between the science of climate change and political attempts to tackle it.
The deal, agreed by nearly 200 nations, extends to 2020 the Kyoto Protocol.
It is the only legally-binding plan for combating global warming.
The deal covers Europe and Australia, whose share of world greenhouse gas emissions is less than 15%.
But the conference also cleared the way for the Kyoto protocol to be replaced by a new treaty binding all rich and poor nations together by 2015 to tackle climate change.
The final text “encourages” rich nations to mobilize at least $10 billion a year up to 2020, when the new global climate agreement is due to kick in.
There was last-minute drama as the talks were thrown into turmoil by the insistence of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus that they should be allowed extra credit for the emissions cuts they made when their industries collapsed.
After a long delay, the chairman lost patience, re-started the meeting and gavelled through the agenda so fast there was no chance for Russia to object.
A cheer exploded into prolonged applause. Russia bitterly objected at what it said was a clear breach of procedure, but the chairman said he would do no more than reflect the Russian view in the final report.
The big players, the US, EU and China accepted the agreement with varying degrees of reservation. But the representative for the small island states at severe risk from climate change was vociferous.
“We see the package before us as deeply deficient in mitigation (carbon cuts) and finance. It’s likely to lock us on the trajectory to a 3,4,5C rise in global temperatures, even though we agreed to keep the global average temperature rise of 1.5C to ensure survival of all islands,” he said.
“There is no new finance (for adapting to climate change and getting clean energy) – only promises that something might materialize in the future. Those who are obstructive need to talk not about how their people will live, but whether our people will live.”
The island states accepted the agreement because for them it is better than nothing. Other diplomats will point to the immense complexity of the UN process, which is attempting to move away from the old Kyoto Protocol into a new phase binding rich and poor nations together in the task of tackling climate change.
The proposed new Loss and Damage mechanism is held up as an example of the success of the diplomatic process.
UN climate talks in Doha, Qatar, have closed with a historic shift in principle but few genuine cuts in greenhouse gases
Until now rich nations have agreed finance to help developing countries to get clean energy and adapt to climate change, but they have stopped short of accepting responsibility for damage caused by climate change elsewhere.
But in Doha that broad principle was agreed.
“It is a breakthrough,” said Martin Khor of the South Centre – an association of 52 developing nations. “The term Loss and Damage is in the text – this is a huge step in principle. Next comes the fight for cash.
“What helped swing it was [US President Barack] Obama asking Congress for $60bn for the damage caused by [Hurricane] Sandy,” he said.
Saleem ul-Huq, from the think-tank IIED in Bangladesh, told me the text should have been firmer, but he said: “This is a watershed in the talks. There is no turning back from this.”
Nick Mabey, from the UK think-tank E3G, said: “This agreement really opens a can of worms – it might be applied to countries damming transboundary rivers, for instance. It could be very significant in future.”
The US had been adamant that this measure would be blocked, and the EU nearly vetoed it, too.
Todd Stern, the US head of delegation here, was seen for much of the past few days walking in circles near the tea bar on his mobile phone to Washington. He told me: “We don’t like this text, but we can live with it.”
The key to US agreement was the positioning of the Loss and Damage mechanism under an existing process promising to mobilize $100 billion a year for poor nations to adapt to climate change.
Facing tough budget decisions at home over the “fiscal cliff” it was essential for the US to avoid the impression that it was giving away more cash at this time.
The UK Climate Secretary, Ed Davey, told me: “We haven’t agreed to set up a new institution – and there’s no blank cheque. But there is clearly an issue if, say, an island state is lost underwater.”
Ronny Jumea, from the Seychelles, told rich nations earlier that discussion of compensation would not have been needed if they had cut emissions earlier.
“We’re past the mitigation [emissions cuts] and adaptation eras. We’re now right into the era of loss and damage. What’s next after that? Destruction?” he said.
The US has been blamed on finance and on failure to cut its emissions more aggressively.
The EU has also been under fire for failing to raise its promised cuts from 20%, which it is reaching easily, to 30%. (Scientists say it should be 40%.)
The EU has been held back by Poland, which insists on its right to burn its huge reserves of coal.
Warsaw was refusing to sign the extension to the Kyoto climate protocol until it had a reassurance from the EU that it would receive flexible treatment on emissions cuts.
Russia, Belarus and Ukraine then further delayed the endgame of the conference with an argument over so-called “hot air” – the pollution permits they were given to allow their heavy industries to thrive.
Those industries collapsed but Poland and Russia insist that – as they suffered economic pain during the collapse – they should be allowed to use up the pollution permits as their economies grow again.
In effect, they want to be able to increase their emissions as other nations are obliged to cut theirs.
The nature of the Russian objection was unclear, but an EU negotiator told me he believed the Russians were making a point of principle and did not expect further action.
The major task of this two-week conference has been untangling of the diplomatic spaghetti from climate agreements that have grown piecemeal over the past 15 years.
It is widely agreed that a useful house-keeping job was done to help the UN move towards the next phase, which aims at a globally-encompassing agreement.
Preliminary discussions were held on this, and it was quickly evident that making a global agreement fair to all parties will be monumentally difficult.
The talks were chaired by Abdullah bin Hamad al-Attiyah, a former head of the oil cartel Opec.
He was widely criticized for his laid-back style earlier in the week but at the last there was the unlikely spectacle of environmentalists cheering the ruthlessness of the chair in crushing the Russian revolt.
Climate change diplomacy makes strange bedfellows.