‘Sub-Prime’ Water, Low-Security Entitlements and Policy Challenges in Over-Allocated River Basins: the Case of the Murray–Darling Basin

Environmental policy is often implemented using market instruments. In some cases, including carbon taxing, the links between financial products and the environmental objectives, are transparent. In other cases, including water markets, the links are less transparent. In Australia’s Murray–Darling Basin (MDB), financial water products are known as ‘entitlements’, and are similar to traditional financial products, such as shares. The Australian water market includes ‘Low Security’ entitlements, which are similar to ‘sub-prime’ mortgage bonds because they are unlikely to yield an amount equal to their financial worth. Nearly half the water purchased under the Murray–Darling Basin Plan for environmental purposes is ‘Low Security’. We suggest that the current portfolio of water held by the Australian Government for environmental purposes reflects the mortgage market in the lead-up to the global financial crisis. Banks assumed that the future value of the mortgage market would reflect past trends. Similarly, it is assumed that the future value of water products will reflect past trends, without considering climate change. Historic records of allocations to ‘Low Security’ entitlements in the MDB suggest that, in the context of climate change, the Basin Plan water portfolio may fall short of the target annual average yield of 2075 GL by 511 GL. We recommend adopting finance sector methods including ‘hedging’ ‘Low Security’ entitlements by purchasing an additional 322–2755 GL of ‘Low Security’, or 160–511 GL of ‘High Security’ entitlements. Securing reliable environmental water is a global problem. Finance economics present opportunities for increasing the reliability of environmental flows

USE OF HIGH SURFACE NANOFIBROUS MATERIALS IN MEDICINE

n/

Effect of collector slope and orientation on solar energy utilization

The study is based upon the measured values of daily global and diffuse solar radiation on a horizontal surface which are taken in Izmir, Turkey. The optimum tilt angle of solar collector is determined between 0° and 61° and changed by the time period through the year. In winter (December, January, and February) the tilt should be 55,7°, in spring (March, April, and May) 18,3°, in summer (June, July, and August) 4,3°, and in autumn (September, October, and November) 43°. Annually, optimum tilt is found to be 30,3° as a fixed tilt throughout the year. Also, these measured values are compared with other equations put forward for calculating the optimum tilt angles. Small deviations are observed between 2,87o and 5,90o. The equations that give a result higher then 3o as a deviation are not suitable to calculate the optimum tilt angle. If solar collector is installed on the monthly optimum tilt angle, optimum azimuth angle (γ) has to be 0o for all months of the year. However, azimuth angle of the solar collector has to be (γ=± 60°) if the slope is chose (β≥60°) in April. In addition, azimuth angle of the solar collector has to be (γ= ±75°) if the slope is chose (β≥40°) in May and August, azimuth angle of the solar collector has to be (γ= ±90°) if the slope is chose (β≥30°) in June and July, azimuth angle of the solar collector has to be (γ= ±45°) if the slope is chose (β≥70°) in September

Environmental and energetic effects of insulation over the building stock in Turkey [Türkiye'deki bina stokunda optimum yalitim uygulamasinin enerji ve çevre etkileri]

Scope of this study is, to examine the impacts of improvements made on building envelope and roof on existing buildings, to evaluate the waste gas emissions caused by the construction properties and energy consumption types of existing buildings. Calculations are done by creating model building that represents all existing building of which has 7.8, m height, 156 m 2 floor area, 3 stored and wooden framed single-glazed window system. Heating and cooling periods are taken up separately in different degree-day sections and optimum insulation thicknesses are obtained between 6 cm and 16 cm. Heating-cooling period of model building is 7 months-5 months for 1st DD section, 8 months-3 months for 2nd DD section, 10 months-2 months for 3th DD section and heating period is 10 months, no cooling period for 4th DD section. It is adopted that heating load is satisfied by natural gas, fuel-oil and coal and cooling load by electricity. Emission saving values which are dependent to fuel type and heating cooling period are determined between 28 % and 80 % for CO 2, 58 % and 80 % for SO 2 emissions. Results show that, dealing heating and cooling periods together in the analysis, produce effective solutions in order to ensure comfort conditions