Renewable energy in copper production: A review on systems design and methodological approaches

Renewable energy systems are now accepted to be mandatory for climate change mitigation. These systems require a higher material supply than conventional ones. Particularly, they require more copper. The production of this metal, however, is intensive in energy consumption and emissions. Therefore, renewable energy systems must be used to improve the environmental performance of copper production. We cover the current state of research and develop recommendations for the design of renewable energy systems for copper production. To complement our analysis, we also consider studies from other industries and regional energy systems. We provide six recommendations for future modeling: (a) current energy demand models for copper production are overly simplistic and need to be enhanced for planning with high levels of renewable technologies; (b) multi-vector systems (electricity, heat, and fuels) need to be explicitly modeled to capture the readily available flexibility of the system; (c) copper production is done in arid regions, where water supply is energy-intensive, then, water management should be integrated in the overall design of the energy system; (d) there is operational flexibility in existing copper plants, which needs to be better understood and assessed; (e) the design of future copper mines should adapt to the dynamics of available renewable energy sources; and (f) life cycle impacts of the components of the system need to be explicitly minimized in the optimization models. Researchers and decision-makers from the copper and energy sector will benefit from this comprehensive review and these recommendations. We hope it will accelerate the deployment of renewables, particularly in the copper industry

Late 1920s film theory and criticism as a test-case for Benjamin’s generalizations on the experiential effects of editing

This article investigates Walter Benjamin’s influential generalization that the effects of cinema are akin to the hyper-stimulating experience of modernity. More specifically, I focus on his oft-cited 1935/36 claim that all editing elicits shock-like disruption. First, I propose a more detailed articulation of the experience of modernity understood as hyper-stimulation and call for distinguishing between at least two of its subsets: the experience of speed and dynamism, on the one hand, and the experience of shock/disruption, on the other. Then I turn to classical film theory of the late 1920s to demonstrate the existence of contemporary views on editing alternative to Benjamin’s. For instance, whereas classical Soviet and Weimar theorists relate the experience of speed and dynamism to both Soviet and classical Hollywood style editing, they reserve the experience of shock/disruption for Soviet montage. In order to resolve the conceptual disagreement between these theorists, on the one hand, and Benjamin, on the other, I turn to late 1920s Weimar film criticism. I demonstrate that, contrary to Benjamin’s generalizations about the disruptive and shock-like nature of all editing, and in line with other theorists’ accounts, different editing practices were regularly distinguished by comparison to at least two distinct hyper-stimulation subsets: speed and dynamism, and shock-like disruption. In other words, contemporaries regularly distinguished between Soviet montage and classical Hollywood editing patterns on the basis of experiential effects alone. On the basis of contemporary reviews of city symphonies, I conclude with a proposal for distinguishing a third subset – confusion. This is an original manuscript / preprint of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Early Popular Visual Culture on 02 Aug 2016 available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/17460654.2016.1199322