Solar water heating

Solar water heating or solar hot water is water heated by the use of solar energy. Solar heating systems are generally composed of solar thermal collectors, a fluid system to move the heat from the collector to its point of usage. The system may use electricity for pumping the fluid, and have a reservoir or tank for heat storage and subsequent use. The systems may be used to heat water for a wide variety of uses, including home, business and industrial uses. Heating swimming pools, underfloor heating or energy input for space heating or cooling are more specific examples.

In many climates, a solar heating system can provide up to 85% of domestic hot water energy. This can include domestic non-electric concentrating solar thermal systems. In many northern European countries, combined hot water and space heating systems (solar combisystems) are used to provide 15 to 25% of home heating energy.

In the southern regions of Africa like Zimbabwe, solar water heaters have been gaining popularity, thanks to the Austrian-and other EU-funded projects that are promoting more environmentally friendly water heating solutions.

Residential solar thermal installations can be subdivided into two kinds of systems: compact and pumped systems. Both typically include an auxiliary energy source (electric heating element or connection to a gas or fuel oil central heating system) that is activated when the water in the tank falls below a minimum temperature setting such as 50 °C. Hence, hot water is always available. The combination of solar water heating and using the back-up heat from a wood stove chimney to heat water can enable a hot water system to work all year round in cooler climates, without the supplemental heat requirement of a solar water heating system being met with fossil fuels or electricity.

Among pumped options, there is an important distinction to be made regarding the sustainability of the design of the system. This relates to what source of energy powers the pump and its controls. The type of pumped solar thermal systems which use mains electricity to pump the fluid through the panels are called low carbon solar because the pumping negates the carbon savings of the solar by about 20%, according to data in a report called “Side by side testing of eight solar water heatings” by DTI UK. However, zero-carbon pumped solar thermal systems use solar electricity which is generated onsite using photovoltaics to pump the fluid and to operate its control electronics. This represents a zero operational carbon footprint and is becoming an important design goal for innovative solar thermal systems.

Today homeowners even can make their own solar water heater.

History of Six Sigma

Six Sigma was originally developed as a set of practices designed to improve manufacturing processes and eliminate defects, but its application was subsequently extended to other types of business processes as well. In Six Sigma, a defect is defined as anything that could lead to customer dissatisfaction.

The particulars of the methodology were first formulated by Bill Smith at Motorola in 1986. Six Sigma was heavily inspired by six preceding decades of quality improvement methodologies such as quality control, TQM, and Zero Defects, based on the work of pioneers such as Shewhart, Deming, Juran, Ishikawa, Taguchi and others.

Like its predecessors, Six Sigma asserts that –

• Continuous efforts to achieve stable and predictable process results (i.e. reduce process variation) are of vital importance to business success.
• Manufacturing and business processes have characteristics that can be measured, analyzed, improved and controlled.
• Achieving sustained quality improvement requires commitment from the entire organization, particularly from top-level management.

Features that set Six Sigma apart from previous quality improvement initiatives include –

• A clear focus on achieving measurable and quantifiable financial returns from any Six Sigma project.
• An increased emphasis on strong and passionate management leadership and support.
• A special infrastructure of “Champions,” “Master Black Belts,” “Black Belts,” etc. to lead and implement the Six Sigma approach.
• A clear commitment to making decisions on the basis of verifiable data, rather than assumptions and guesswork.

The term “Six Sigma” is derived from a field of statistics known as process capability studies. Originally, it referred to the ability of manufacturing processes to produce a very high proportion of output within specification. Processes that operate with “six sigma quality” over the short term are assumed to produce long-term defect levels below 3.4 defects per million opportunities (DPMO). Six Sigma’s implicit goal is to improve all processes to that level of quality or better.

Six Sigma is a registered service mark and trademark of Motorola, Inc.^[8] Motorola has reported over US$17 billion in savings from Six Sigma as of 2006.

Other early adopters of Six Sigma who achieved well-publicized success include Honeywell (previously known as AlliedSignal) and General Electric, where the method was introduced by Jack Welch. By the late 1990s, about two-thirds of the Fortune 500 organizations had begun Six Sigma initiatives with the aim of reducing costs and improving quality.

In recent years, Six Sigma has sometimes been combined with lean manufacturing to yield a methodology named Lean Six Sigma.

PRINCE2 project management methodology

PRINCE2  project management methodology is a process-driven project management method which contrasts with reactive/adaptive methods developed by Office of Government Commerce (OGC). PRINCE2 defines 45 separate sub-processes and organizes these into eight processes as follows:

Starting up a project (SU)

In this process the project team is appointed and a project brief (describing what the project is going to achieve and the business justification for doing so) is prepared. In addition the overall approach to be taken is decided and the next stage of the project is planned. Once this work is done, the project board is asked to authorize the next stage, that of initiating the project.

Planning (PL)

PRINCE2 project management method advocates product based planning which means that the first task when planning is to identify and analyze products. Once the activities required to create these products are identified then it is possible to estimate the effort required for each and then schedule activities into a plan. There is always risk associated with any work and this must be analyzed. Finally, this process suggests how the format of plans can be agreed and ensures that plans are completed to such a format.

Initiating a project (IP)

This process builds on the work of the Start Up (SU) activity and the project brief is then form into a Business Case. The approach taken to ensure quality on the project is agreed together with the overall approach to controlling the project itself. Project files are also created as is an overall plan for the project. A plan for the next stage of the project is also created. The result can be put before the project board for them to authorize the project itself.

Directing a project (DP)

These sub-processes dictate how the Project Board should control the overall project. As mentioned above, the project board can authorize an initiation stage and can also authorize a project. Directing a Project also dictates how the project board should authorize a stage plan, including any stage plan that replaces an existing stage plan due to slippage or other unforeseen circumstances. Also covered is the way in which the board can give ad hoc direction to a project and the way in which a project should be closed down.

Controlling a stage (CS)

PRINCE2 project management method suggests that projects should be broken down into stages and these sub-processes dictate how each individual stage should be controlled. Most fundamentally this includes the way in which work packages are authorized and received. It also specifies the way in which progress should be monitored and how the highlights of the progress should be reported to the project board. A means for capturing and assessing project issues is suggested together with the way in which corrective action should be taken. It also lays down the method by which certain project issues should be escalated to the project board.

Managing product delivery (MP)

This process consists of three sub-processes and these cover the way in which a work package should be accepted, executed and delivered.

Managing stage boundaries (SB)

The Controlling a Stage process dictates what should be done within a stage, Managing Stage Boundaries (SB) dictates what should be done towards the end of a stage. Most obviously, the next stage should be planned and the overall project plan, risk log and business case amended as necessary. The process also covers what should be done for a stage that has gone outside its tolerance levels. Finally, the process dictates how the end of the stage should be reported.

Closing a project (CP)

This covers the things that should be done at the end of a project. The project should be formally de-commissioned (and resources freed up for allocation to other activities), follow on actions should be identified and the project itself be formally evaluated.

Yearly green investments of $440bn needed to meet climate target

Some $440-billion a year of additional global investments would be required between 2010 and 2015 to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the levels outlined in the Copenhagen Accord, a new United Nations report argues.

The ‘World Investment Report 2010', which was published earlier this week by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (Unctad), adds that, by 2030, up to $1,2-trillion a year of additional investment will be needed to sustain warming below 2 °C above the preindustrial temperatures, or 1,2 °C above current temperature levels.

The yearly report, which records foreign direct investment (FDI) flows and stocks, noted that low-carbon FDI would be a necessary component to meeting this climate targets.

It added that such FDI flows were already significant, with FDI into renewable energy, recycling and the production of green technologies having fallen relatively marginally to $90-billion in 2009, from $120-billion in 2008, despite the recession. Such investment had been a mere $10-billion in 2003.

Global FDI inflows, meanwhile, slumped by 37% to $1,1-trillion in 2009, having declined by 16% in 2008, from record levels of around $2,1-trillion in 2007.

South African policymakers had already identified so-called green industries as a key growth driver, with Economic Development Minister Ebrahim Patel having estimated that some 300 000 jobs could be created in South Africa's renewable energy sector over the next ten years, of which 20 000 jobs could be generated in the next two years.

Further, South Africa's State-owned Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) plans to inject R11,7-billion into ‘green' industries over the next five years as part of a larger R100-billion disbursement plan between 2010 and 2015.

The IDC was already studying 11 wind-power projects, seven solar ventures (photovoltaic and concentrating solar power), two biomass projects and a hydropower project.

Unctad stressed the importance of private sector investment in making economies more climate-friendly, but said that government had a key role to play in creating low-carbon policies that attracted foreign investment.

The organisation argued for the creation of a global partnership to stimulate low-carbon investments, embracing five components, including:

    * Establishing clean-investment promotion strategies.

    * Enabling the dissemination of clean technology.

    * Securing international investment agreements to support cli¬mate change mitiga¬tion.

    * Harmonising corporate GHG emissions disclosure.

    * And, Setting up an international low-carbon technical assistance centre to support developing countries in formulating and implementing national climate change mitigation strategies and action plans.

"Channelling investment and technology, including from transnational corporations, to meet the challenge of climate change is crucial," Unctad concluded.

SA confirmed as top developing country investor in Africa

South Africa was the largest "developing country" foreign direct investor (FDI) in Africa between 2006 and 2008, with South African companies having invested an average of $2,61-billion a year over the period, which was even higher than FDI flows from China, whose companies invested an average of $2,53-billion a year on the continent during the same period.

Confirmation of South Africa's growing role as an investor in Africa was provided in the twentieth edition of the 'World Investment Report' (WIR), which was released by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (Unctad) on Thursday evening.

Speaking at the South African launch of the publication in Sandton, University of Johannesburg development economics professor Stephen Gelb, whose Edge Institute contributed to the compilation of the WIR 2010, said that South Africa companies participated in 2 250 Africa projects in 2009.

The share of Africa host countries in the outward stock of South African FDI had increased from less than 5% before 2000 to 22% in 2008. In fact, South African FDI stock on the continent had climbed to $10,8-billion by 2008, covering sectors such as telecommunications, construction and infrastructure, financial services, retail, hospitality and tourism and mining.

Further, South African FDI, along with flows from transnational corporations (TNCs) in other developing countries, such as China and India, had proved less volatile during the recent economic crisis than had been the case with flows from developed economy TNCs, which slumped markedly.

That said, the total stock of developing-country assets in Africa was still only 7,4% of overall FDI stock, with developed country TNCs accounting for the 91,6% balance. In fact, Africa still only accounted for 4% of China's outward FDI, and 9% of India's outward flows, in 2009.

The Unctad report also showed that Africa was relatively resilient, but not immune, to the fall-off on FDI flows during 2009.

Global FDI inflows slumped by 37% to $1,1-trillion in 2009 - in 2008, global inflows fell 16% from the record of around $2,1-trillion achieved in 2007.

The Industrial Development Corporation's research and information head Jorge Maia, who also briefed journalists on the report on Thursday, reported that inflows into Africa, which climbed in 2008, fell 19% to $59-billion in 2009, officially ending what have been seven consecutive years of expanding FDI flows into the continent.

South African FDI inflows also slumped to around $5,7-billion in 2009, from around $9-billion in 2008. This made South Africa, Africa's fourth-largest FDI recipient after Angola ($13-billion), Egypt ($6,7-billion) and Nigeria ($5,85-billion).

As with global FDI flows, Africa was expected to show a recovery in 2010.

The WIR argues that global flows should exceed $1,2-trillion this year, rising to between $1,3-trillion and $1,5-trillion in 2011, and to between $1,6-trillion and $2-trillion in 2012.

South Africa is also expected to record a recovery during 2010, having been ranked in the WIR's top 20 "priority economies" for global FDI for the first time, coming in at 19. China leads that list, followed by India, Brazil and the US.