Smart Louvres - Solar Heating and Convective Cooling

Smart louvres / Glass cladding / Shutters

Greenhouse effect: for passive heating, and cooling

Currently, buildings are sometimes clad with 3 to 5 inches of polyurethane panels. (Or polystyrene, in the case of the UK Grenfell Tower/s). As a measure to combat climate change. While insulation panels do help retain more heat (in winter) and postpone excessive heat gain (in summer), they do not of themselves add to any natural heating or cooling.

This project - in further development - will explore the feasibility, heating savings, and costs, of some kind of "smart louvres" or "mini-glasshouse cladding", and "shutters". To achieve:

• passive heating in winter (with no condensation)
• passive cooling in summer
• with convective ventilation
• (?) for modular installation (?)
• in retrofit / new construction
• with application to Cambridge / UK buildings

Like http://www.sonnenschutz.com.au

Or the principles at the Centre for Alternative Technology (Wales) http://info.cat.org.uk/questions/wise/how-was-natural-passive-stack-and-mechanical-ventilation-used-wise/

Do you know of any firms working on this?

Or what the (theoretical) maximum heating (and cooling) that might be possible with such a system, and (realistic) specified thermal mass?

Why achieving the Paris Agreement requires reduced overall consumption and production

The recent paper ​of Philip Vergragt is extremely timely and helpful, in my view.

===
2018-05-10 1:44 PM (2 hours ago) to SCORAI
===
We are proud to present a new paper, written by members of the KAN SSCP Working group on Political Economy, criticizing the dominant message that technology and renewable energy will be sufficient to resolve the climate crisis:
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15487733.2018.1458815

"Why achieving the Paris Agreement requires reduced overall consumption and production"

Philip
===

The need is pretty clear?

===
Global production =
===
224 kg of steel/capita/year,​
and
13 imp. cwt. (>650kg) of farm produce /capita/year (ex livestock)
and
580 kg of cement/capita/year
...
===

You Cannot Do Anything? ... a query to StockholmResilience.org

----------------------------------
Stiftelsen för miljöstrategisk forskning
Kund-id : LKH1365
FE 108
105 69 STOCKHOLM
SWEDEN

From M.A. Reader mar58@cam.ac.uk

Dear Kontakt - Mistra,

Please could you be so kind as to suggest why nobody, from the Stockholm Resilience Centre, replied to my polite enquiries.

I emailed to an officer, followed up, and then emailed to her manager.

But I received no response whatsoever.

Are they all
- paranoid?
- just plain unhelpful?
- free riders?
- too overwhelmed with emails?

I do not think that my question was very difficult. So it seems strange to me that nobody from the SRC responded.

Best wishes
etc

Rural Business Unit
Department of Land Economy
University of Cambridge
UK

------------------------
To: xxxx@su.se
From: Mark A Reader mar58@cam.ac.uk
Subject: Fwd: [query] -- investment in communications

Dear xxxx

We share allied goals, and I respect the expertise of your institute, so I wrote to one of your colleagues, working on communications strategy. Asking for advice. However no response was received.

Perhaps you might like to comment, on how one person (with modest resources) can most effectively work for the public good? In communications and media.

Best wishes
etc

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "M.A. Reader" mar58@cam.ac.uk
Subject: [query] -- investment in communications
To: yyyy@albaeco.com

Dear yyyy

I have a sum to invest each month in communications - for resilience, or for accident prevention.

Buying Eikon, for awareness and alerts, is one possibility. Or a subscription to the Gorkana media database is another possibility, for contacts.

And finally, I could do a paid campaign on Adwords, Twitter or LinkedIn - but I wonder how much cut-through I can achieve there.

Would you like to suggest which you think will be best?

Best wishes
etc

--
Rural Business Unit
Department of Land Economy
University of Cambridge

+44 1223 337 163
www.twitter.com/world_farmer
www.landecon.cam.ac.uk/directory/mark-reader

The Great Evils in Society: 1942 and 2017

In 1942 William Beveridge MP was given the responsibility to find out what was needed for Britain to take care of the basic needs of the people and create a set of reforms that would look after the basic needs of the people giving everyone a basic standard of living.

In his report, Beveridge proposed a new system of social security, which would include everyone and provide benefits 'from the cradle to the grave' and tackle what he saw as the 5 Giant Evils of society.

The Five Giants

Beveridge believed that want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness stood in the way of social progress.

GIANT EVIL	Beveridge in 1942
WANT	Too many people were living below the poverty line
IGNORANCE	Too many children left school at 14 without any qualifications and went into low paid jobs
SQUALOR	Many people lived in overcrowded slums and there was a shortage of good houses
DISEASE	Many people suffered from poor health because they could not afford medical treatment
IDLENESS	Unemployment was very high before the war and caused poverty

To fight these giants a proper system of sickness and unemployment benefit was needed. This would include a proper national health service, family allowance and a full employment policy.

GIANT EVIL	in 2017 (???)
WASTE	Obscene levels of consumption (structured into an economy that requires waste to distribute resources equitably)
IGNORANCE	Social expectations and advertising are highly unrealistic - low uptake of opportunities - evil agencies
AGEING	Need for care and financing of the ageing population
DISEASE	Obesity and sedentary living - drunkeness, tobacco and opiates
IDLENESS (automation)	Economy may not provide meaningful jobs for the skills and capacities of all people
POLLUTION and EXTINCTIONS	Greenhouse gases, habitat loss and depletion of biodiversity - owing to reliance on inefficiencies and resource intensive infrastructure

To fight these giant evils a proper system of allocation (economy) that rewards all virtues and an ecosystem services policy is needed. This would include a proper set of behavioural signals and incentives. And, coordination of the monetarised sector with ecosystems and with the family sector.

GIANT CHALLENGES	Conservative Party 2017 Election Manifesto	[comment]
1. The need for a strong economy.	We need to make the most of our existing strengths, invest in infrastructure and people, and ensure that the whole of our economy across the whole of our country can grow. Without a strong economy, we cannot guarantee our security, our personal prosperity, our public services, or contented and sustainable communities.	l.o.c. - meaningless bollocks - ?more is better?
2. Brexit and a changing world.	We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union and forge a deep and special partnership with our friends and allies across Europe. As there is increasingly little distinction between domestic and international affairs in matters of migration, national security and the economy, Britain must stay strong and united – and take a lead in the world to defend our interests.	l.o.c. - meaningless bollocks
3. Enduring social divisions.	For too many people, where you end up in life is still determined by where you were born and to whom. We need to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to make the most of their talents and hard work, whoever you are and wherever you are from.	an important challenge
4. An ageing society.	We need to respond to the reality of an ageing society, giving people security in old age and caring for those with long-term health conditions, whilst making sure we are fair to younger generations.	an important challenge
5. Fast-changing technology.	For the sake of our economy and our society, we need to harness the power of fast-changing technology, while ensuring that our security and personal privacy – and the welfare of children and younger people – are protected.	an important challenge

SUV's and Cleantech Events - Sustainability

In Cambridge, UK, we work to address the issues of our era. It was, one-time, a centre of the Reformation and home to Erasmus, and lately host to the discoveries and sequencing of DNA.

So today we have Cambridge Cleantech (www.cambridgecleantech.org.uk) and the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (www.cisl.cam.ac.uk).

And, until recently, there was the Cambridge Centre for Climate Change Mitigation Research (4CMR), headed by the very keen Prof Doug Crawford-Brown. However the inertia and reluctance to spend anything means that change in Cambridge is moving at a glacial pace, unlike global warming, which is fast outpacing any move to mitigation.

In this context I wonder how does the media impact of "SUVs New York auto show" (eg [1]) (or "Iran to buy 100 Airbus") compare to the overall media impact of cleantech?

How will it be possible to change the main game (which might soon be the survival of humanity)? And, what is the main game (which might be winning tokens for myopic shareholders, Trump and loons)?

Or is there, actually, no hope?

[1] www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2016/03/22/suvs-take-center-stage-new-york-auto-show