How Influenza Vaccines Are Made / Kako se izrađuju cjepiva protiv gripe

 

Egg-Based Flu Vaccines

The most common way that flu vaccines are made is using an egg-based manufacturing process

that has been used for more than 70 years. Egg-based vaccine manufacturing is used to make both inactivated (killed) vaccine (usually called the “flu shot”) and live attenuated (weakened) vaccine (usually called the “nasal spray flu vaccine”).

The egg-based production process begins with CDC or another laboratory partner in the WHO Global Influenza Surveillance and Response System providing private sector manufacturers with candidate vaccine viruses (CVVs) grown in eggs per current FDA regulatory requirements. These CVVs are then injected into fertilized hen’s eggs and incubated for several days to allow the viruses to replicate. The fluid containing virus is harvested from the eggs. For inactivated influenza vaccines (i.e., flu shots), the vaccine viruses are then inactivated (killed), and the virus antigen is purified. The manufacturing process continues with quality testing, filling and distribution. For the nasal spray flu vaccine (i.e., the live attenuated influenza vaccine – LAIV), the starting CVVs are live, but weakened viruses that go through a different production process. FDA tests and approves all influenza vaccines prior to release and shipment.

There are several different manufacturers that use this production technology to make flu vaccines for use in the United States. This production method requires large numbers of chicken eggs to produce vaccine and may take longer than other production methods.

More about Egg-Based Flu Vaccines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza_vaccine

Cell-Based Flu Vaccines

There also is a cell-based production process for flu vaccines that was approved by FDA in 2012. Until recently, this production process also began with egg-grown CVVs per FDA regulations. However, on August 31, 2016, FDA issued an approval for Seqirus, the sole FDA-approved cell-based flu vaccine manufacturer in the United States, to begin using cell-grown CVVs. Cell-based manufacturing is used to make inactivated flu vaccines (e.g., the flu shot).

The process of creating cell-based flu vaccines involves several steps. First, CDC or one of its laboratory partners, use influenza viruses that have been grown in cells to make CVVs, which are then provided to a vaccine manufacturer. Next, the vaccine manufacturer inoculates the CVVs into cultured mammalian cells (instead of into eggs) and allows the CVVs to replicate (i.e., make copies) for a few days. Then, the virus-containing fluid is collected from the cells and the virus antigen is purified. The manufacturing process continues with purification and testing. Finally, FDA tests and approves the vaccines prior to release and shipment.

Cell-based flu vaccine production does not require chicken eggs because the vaccine viruses used to make vaccine are grown in animal cells. Cell-based technology also has the potential for a faster start-up of the flu vaccine manufacturing process.

While viruses used in previous seasons’ cell-based vaccine have been grown in cells, prior to the 2019-2020 season some of the viruses provided to the manufacturer had been originally derived in eggs. For the 2019-2020 influenza season, all four flu viruses used in the cell-based vaccine are cell-derived, making the vaccine egg-free.

More about Cell-Based Flu Vaccines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cell-based_vaccine

Recombinant Flu Vaccines

There is a third production technology for flu vaccines that was approved for use in the U.S. market in 2013 and that involves using recombinant technologyexternal icon. Recombinant flu vaccines do not require having a candidate vaccine virus (CVV) sample to produce. Instead, recombinant vaccines are created synthetically. To make a recombinant vaccine, flu scientists first obtain DNA, i.e., genetic instructions, for making a surface protein called hemagglutinin (HA) found on influenza viruses. HA is an antigen, which is a feature of a flu virus that triggers the human immune system to create antibodies that specifically target the virus. This DNA for making flu virus HA antigen is then combined with a baculovirus, a virus that infects invertebrates. This results in a “recombinant” virus. The role of the baculovirus is to help transport the DNA instructions for making flu virus HA antigen into a host cell. Once the recombinant virus enters a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) qualified host cell line, it instructs the cells to rapidly produce the HA antigen. This antigen is grown in bulk, collected, purified, and then packaged as recombinant flu vaccine. These vaccines are then quality and potency tested by FDA prior to FDA approving release of the vaccine lots to the public.

This production method does not require an egg-grown vaccine virus and does not use chicken eggs at all in the production process. While there are other vaccines on the U.S. market that use similar recombinant manufacturing processes, there is only one influenza vaccine produced using recombinant technology approved by the FDA for use in the United States at this time. This production process is the fastest because it is not limited by the selection of vaccine viruses that are adapted for growth in eggs or the development of cell-based vaccine viruses.

CDC and FDA monitor the safety of all vaccines licensed in the United States, including seasonal influenza vaccines.

More about Recombinant Flu Vaccines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_genetics

Cjepiva protiv gripe na bazi jaja

Najčešći način izrade cjepiva protiv gripe je postupak proizvodnje na bazi jaja

koja se koristi više od 70 godina. Proizvodnja cjepiva na bazi jaja koristi se za izradu i inaktiviranog (ubijenog) cjepiva (obično nazvanog „vakcina protiv gripe“) i živog oslabljenog (oslabljenog) cjepiva (obično nazvanog „nazalno cjepivo protiv gripe“).

Postupak proizvodnje zasnovan na jajima započinje s CDC-om ili drugim laboratorijskim partnerom u Svjetskom sustavu za nadzor i reagiranje na gripu, koji pruža proizvođačima iz privatnog sektora potencijalne viruse cjepiva (CVV) uzgojene u jajima prema trenutnim regulatornim zahtjevima FDA. Zatim se ti CVV ubrizgavaju u oplođena kokošja jaja i inkubiraju nekoliko dana kako bi se virusi mogli replicirati. Tekućina koja sadrži virus sakuplja se iz jajašaca. Za inaktivirana cjepiva protiv gripe (tj. Vakcine protiv gripe) virusi cjepiva se zatim inaktiviraju (ubijaju), a antigen virusa pročišćava. Postupak proizvodnje nastavlja se ispitivanjem kvalitete, punjenjem i distribucijom. Za cjepivo protiv gripe za nos (tj. Živo oslabljeno cjepivo protiv gripe - LAIV), početni CVV su živi, ​​ali oslabljeni virusi koji prolaze kroz drugačiji proces proizvodnje. FDA testira i odobrava sva cjepiva protiv gripe prije puštanja i otpreme.

Postoji nekoliko različitih proizvođača koji koriste ovu tehnologiju proizvodnje za izradu cjepiva protiv gripe za upotrebu u Sjedinjenim Državama. Ova metoda proizvodnje zahtijeva velik broj kokošjih jaja za proizvodnju cjepiva i može potrajati dulje od ostalih metoda proizvodnje.

Cjepiva protiv gripe na bazi stanica

Također postoji postupak proizvodnje cjepiva protiv gripe zasnovan na stanicama, koji je FDA odobrila 2012. Donedavno je ovaj proizvodni postupak također započeo s CVV-ovima uzgojenim u jajima prema FDA propisima. Međutim, 31. kolovoza 2016. FDA je izdala odobrenje za Seqirus, jedini proizvođač cjepiva protiv gripe utemeljen na FDA-i u Sjedinjenim Državama, koji započinje s korištenjem staničnih CVV-a. Proizvodnja na bazi stanica koristi se za izradu inaktiviranih cjepiva protiv gripe (npr. Vakcina protiv gripe).

Proces stvaranja cjepiva protiv gripe na stanicama uključuje nekoliko koraka. Prvo, CDC ili jedan od njegovih laboratorijskih partnera, koriste viruse gripe koji su uzgojeni u stanicama za stvaranje CVV-a, koji se potom dostavljaju proizvođaču cjepiva. Dalje, proizvođač cjepiva inokulira CVV u kultivirane stanice sisavaca (umjesto u jaja) i omogućava CVV-ima da se repliciraju (tj. Prave kopije) nekoliko dana. Zatim se iz stanica sakuplja tekućina koja sadrži virus i pročišćava antigen virusa. Postupak proizvodnje nastavlja se pročišćavanjem i ispitivanjem. Konačno, FDA testira i odobrava cjepiva prije puštanja i otpreme.

Za proizvodnju cjepiva protiv gripe na bazi stanica nisu potrebna pileća jaja, jer se virusi cjepiva koji se koriste za izradu cjepiva uzgajaju u životinjskim stanicama. Stanična tehnologija također ima potencijal za brže pokretanje procesa proizvodnje cjepiva protiv gripe.

Iako su virusi korišteni u cjepivima na staničnoj osnovi u prethodnim sezonama uzgajani u stanicama, prije sezone 2019. - 2020. neki od virusa dostavljenih proizvođaču izvorno su nastali u jajima. Za sezonu gripe 2019.-2020., Sva četiri virusa gripe koja se koriste u cjepivu na staničnoj osnovi potječu od stanica, što cjepivo čini bez jajašaca.

Rekombinantna cjepiva protiv gripe

Postoji treća tehnologija proizvodnje cjepiva protiv gripe koja je odobrena za uporabu na američkom tržištu 2013. godine i koja uključuje upotrebu vanjske ikone rekombinantne tehnologije. Rekombinantna cjepiva protiv gripe ne trebaju imati uzorak kandidata za cjepivo protiv virusa (CVV) za proizvodnju. Umjesto toga, rekombinantna cjepiva stvaraju se sintetički. Da bi napravili rekombinantno cjepivo, znanstvenici gripe prvo pribavljaju DNK, tj. Genetske upute, za proizvodnju površinskog proteina nazvanog hemaglutinin (HA) koji se nalazi na virusima gripe. HA je antigen, što je značajka virusa gripe koja pokreće ljudski imunološki sustav da stvori antitijela koja ciljaju virus. Ova DNA za stvaranje HA antigena virusa gripe kombinira se s bakulovirusom, virusom koji inficira beskičmenjake. To rezultira „rekombinantnim“ virusom. Uloga bakulovirusa je pomoći u transportu DNA uputa za stvaranje HA antigena virusa gripe u stanicu domaćina. Jednom kada rekombinantni virus uđe u staničnu liniju domaćina koja je nadležna za hranu i lijekove (FDA), on upućuje stanice na brzu proizvodnju HA antigena. Ovaj se antigen uzgaja u rinfuzi, sakuplja, pročišćava i zatim pakira kao rekombinantno cjepivo protiv gripe. Zatim FDA testira kvalitetu i snagu prije nego što FDA odobri puštanje cjepiva u javnost.

Ova metoda proizvodnje ne zahtijeva virus cjepiva uzgojenog u jajima i uopće ne koristi kokošja jaja u proizvodnom procesu. Iako na američkom tržištu postoje druga cjepiva koja koriste slične rekombinantne proizvodne procese, postoji samo jedno cjepivo protiv gripe proizvedeno rekombinantnom tehnologijom koje je FDA odobrila za uporabu u Sjedinjenim Državama u ovom trenutku. Ovaj postupak proizvodnje je najbrži jer nije ograničen odabirom cjepiva virusa koji su prilagođeni rastu u jajima ili razvoju cjepivnih virusa na staničnoj osnovi.

CDC i FDA nadziru sigurnost svih cjepiva licenciranih u Sjedinjenim Državama, uključujući sezonska cjepiva protiv gripe.

Agrošumarstvo / Agroforestry

 

"Umjesto jedne godišnje berbe, možete ih imati nekoliko. Umjesto jednog usjeva koji nosi profit, imat ćete ih četiri, pet"- Željko Serdar, HCOIE

Agrošumarstvo ili poljošumarstvo predstavlja širok pojam, no najčešće se opisuje kao sistem koji uključuje namjernu sadnju drvenastih trajnica na usjevima ili pašnjacima. Star je nekoliko tisuća godine, točnije koristio se još prije 6000 godina. Moderan način života je promijenio i stav prema poljoprivredi pa je tako agrošumarstvo s vremenom postajalo sve manje zastupljeno i prepustilo svoje mjesto industrijskoj proizvodnji.

Kroz jačanje svijesti o klimatskih promjenama, gubitku bioraznolikosti i naglom povećanju proizvodnje hrane u posljednjih par godina, agrošumarstvo se ponovno otkriva kao "spasonosno novo rješenje" aktualnih problema.

U Zajedničku poljoprivrednu politiku (ZPP) agrošumarstvo je ušlo tijekom financijskog razdoblja 2007.-2013. godine. Od tada je podržano unutar mjere 222 koja potiče osnivanje poljoprivredno-šumarskih sustava na poljoprivrednim gospodarstvima. Međutim, problem je bio što agrošumarstvo nije prepoznato kao sistem različitih praksi. Zbog ograničene definicije, samo mali broj prijavljenih je mogao dobiti novčanu potporu.

U sljedećem razdoblju 2014.-2020., agrošumarstvo je ostalo neprepoznato unutar različitih sekcija ZPP-a. Mjera 8.2. drugog stupa politika Europe unije za ruralni razvoja jedina je direktno podržala uspostavljanje i održavanje agrošumarskih sustava i to tako da pokriva troškove uspostave (do 80%) i održavanje s godišnjom premijom za razdoblje od pet godina.

Onda je pojam agrošumarstva spomenuto i u Europskom zelenom planu i novoj strategiji Od polja do stola. Činilo se kako EU konačno prepoznaje agrošumarstvo kao vrijedan poljoprivredni sustav, no, dobivanje poticaja i dalje je ostalo komplicirano i poljoprivrednici nisu htjeli riskirati isplatu EU potpora sadnjom stabala na poljoprivrednim gospodarstvima.

Ekonomske prednosti

Dobrobiti agrošumarstva su višestruke, od ekonomskih, ekoloških do socijalnih, ističe UN-ova Organizacija za prehranu i poljoprivredu (FAO).

U ekološkom smislu, agrošumarstvo može poboljšati plodnost tla i kvalitetu vode, zaštiti usjeve i stoku od vjetra, spriječiti eroziju tla, ograničiti štetnike i obnoviti degradirana zemljišta. Ako se dobro primjenjuje, može pomoći u borbi protiv klimatskih promjena i pridonijeti očuvanju biološke raznolikosti.

Što se tiče ekonomskih dobrobiti, agrošumarstvo potiče povećanje produktivnosti poljoprivrednih sustava, smanjenje proizvodnih troškova i diverzifikaciju proizvodnje.

Željko Serdar iz nevladine organizacije Hrvatski centar obnovljivih izvora energije (HCOIE) kaže kako postoje velike ekonomske prednosti za usvajanje agrošumarstva u Hrvatskoj, ali da je postotak hrvatskih poljoprivrednih gospodarstva koji se ovime bave "gotovo statistička pogreška".

"Studija HCOIE pokazala je da parcela od 100 hektara pod agrošumarskim praksama daje ekvivalent od 136 hektara pod standardnim principima korištenja", objašnjava Serdar, i dodaje da agrošumarstvo umjesto jedne, osigurava nekoliko godišnjih berbi i umjesto jednog usjeva koji nosi profit, daje njih četiri ili pet.

Povećanje ekonomske dobiti pozitivno bi utjecalo na poboljšanje životnih uvjeta u ruralnim krajevima, kao i na kvalitetu prehrane.

U isto vrijeme, postoji velik broj izazova, kako na razini Europske unije, tako i na nacionalnoj razini.

Serdar smatra da su najveći problemi slabog primjenjivanja agrošumarstva u Hrvatskoj davanje potpora za određenu monokulturu zbog čega su poljoprivrednici "vezani" samo uz jednu monokulturu, davanje koncesija na mali broj godina gdje koncesionar ne vidi profit u sadnji drveća, nedostatak vještina i znanja, ali i usvojene navike industrijskog načina poljoprivrede.

"Hrvatska je pogodovanjem velikim sustavima kod dodjele zemljišta kroz koncesije stvarala megalomanske sustave koji su kasnije iscrpljivali proračun svojim milijunskim zahtjevima za potpore, čak i sada kada su u rukama stranaca. Što smo naučili- ništa. Resorno ministarstvo priprema donošenje Zakona o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o poljoprivrednom zemljištu, kojim otvara mogućnost prijave velikih poslovnih subjekata na natječaje i tako im dopušta ulazak u dio koji je predviđen za OPG-ove", dodao je Serdar.

Neprofitna organizacija Europska agrošumarska federacija (EURAF) upozoravala je godinama kako plan nije dobro postavljen na razini bloka. Prema sadašnjem ZPP-u, poljoprivrednici smiju posaditi najviše 100 stabala po hektaru ako ne žele riskirati isplatu EU potpora. Ističu kako je u novom ZPP-u to ipak bolje postavljeno i da države članice imaju "slobodu osigurati da poljoprivredna površina s agrošumarskim sustavom u potpunosti prihvatljiva kada je to opravdano lokalnim specifičnostima i dodanom vrijednošću prisustvom stabala kako bi se osiguralo održivo poljoprivredno korištenje zemljišta".

Stoga predlažu da države članice pojašnjavaju poljoprivrednicima da prema sljedećem ZPP-u neće biti kažnjeni ako posade stabla na poljoprivrednim zemljištima. Poslali smo upit savjetodavnim službama na koji način su hrvatski poljoprivrednici informirani o ovome, ali nam do objave ovog teksta nisu odgovorili.

Olakšani uvjeti

FAO razlikuje tri glavna sustava agrošumarstva: agrosilvikultura (kombinacija usjeva i drveća), silvopastoral (kombinacija šumarstva i ispaša domaćih životinja) i agrosilvopastoralni (drveće, životinje i usjevi na istom zemljištu).

EURAF ističe kako je trenutno u Europskoj uniji oko 20 milijuna hektara agrošumarskih zemljišta, a gotovo 90 posto čine silvopastoralni sustav. Istraživanje iz 2017. godine (den Herder, Moreno, Mosquera-Losada, 2017) pokazuje pak kako je tada u EU bilo oko 15, 4 milijuna hektara, što je jednako 3,6% od ukupnog teritorija EU. Države s najvećim površinama agrošumarskih sustava su u velikom djelu zemlje Mediterana - Španjolska, Francuska, Grčka.

Dalmacija se stoga ističe kao strateški važno područje koje može implementirati agrošumarstvo kao gospodarsko rješenje koje bi doprinijelo ruralnom razvoju. Hrvatsko agrometeorološko društvo je još 2013. godine u zborniku radova objavilo da za agrošumarstvo može značajnije pozitivno utjecati na gospodarski razvoj uz temeljenje tog razvoja na načelima održivog življenja. Takav je pristup potreban osobito na području kontinentalnog i mediteranskog krša Hrvatske uz ispunjavanje ekološke, socijalne i gospodarske uloge. Predlažu utvrđivanje prednosti i nedostataka izabranog sustava putem pokusa na manjim površinama.

"Vezano uz donošenje nove EU strategije za šume, Hrvatska je podržala najavljene aktivnosti, naglasivši da treba zadržati nacionalnu nadležnost u pitanjima povezanima sa šumarskom politikom", stoji u priopćenju za medije Ministarstva poljoprivrede.

Serdar smatra kako bi široko korištenje agrošumarstva moglo imati veliku ulogu u prelasku na održive okolišne prakse u dugoročnom razdoblju. Predlaže olakšane uvjete prelaska na agrošumarstvo za male, srednje i mlade poljoprivrednike na lokalnoj, nacionalnoj i međunarodnoj razini.

"Pravednija raspodjela potpora, pri čemu treba više treba ići prema malim i srednjim gospodarstvima, a manje velikim – smjernice su i Europske Komisije koje bi trebale zaživjeti u novoj Zajedničkoj poljoprivrednoj politici. Točnije, smanjenje primljenih izravnih plaćanja iznad 60.000 eura i ograničenje plaćanja na maksimalnih 10.000 eura po poljoprivrednom gospodarstvu. Nova pravila Zajedničke poljoprivredne politike trebala bi se početi primjenjivati u državama članicama, pa tako i u Hrvatskoj, od 1. siječnja 2023. godine. Strpljen, spašen!", zaključuje Serdar.

Piše: IVA BADANJAK

Više na: https://euractiv.jutarnji.hr/euractiv/hrana-i-poljoprivreda/razvoju-agrosumarstva-nedostaje-sustavna-podrska-na-europskoj-i-nacionalnoj-razini-15007804

Ova publikacija [objava] odražava samo stajalište autora te se Europska komisija ne može smatrati odgovornom ni za kakvu upotrebu informacija sadržanih u njoj.

Energy Saving Tool

Energy Saving Tools is a web page that includes a set of tools for introducing energy saving actions in our daily life. It is possible to receive tips for energy efficiency in the field of building performances, electrical appliances, use of renewables and mobility.

 

In particular, for improving the energy performance of the building, the tool requests a set of basic information, in order to understand the current situation:

• Year of construction
• Residential area and number of floors
• Average electricity bill (per bimonth)
• Type of water heating system
• Type of space heating system
• Usual hot water temperature setting
• Usual Indoor Temperature setpoint in Winter and in summer
• Temperature setting of the fridge and freezer
• Level of insulation of the walls, roof, windows
• Presence of Solar Water Heater or photovoltaics

The list of questions aims to define the main features of the building, and accordingly the tool provide a series of eco-tips, characterized by a certain level of comfort improvement and energy-saving potential.

 

In particular, there is an interesting section on building operation, with a series of actions with a very simple implementation For example to seal well with insulating material the doors and windows in order to reduce leakage, or to avoid standby on devices (TV, decoder, charger, DVD, computer, playstation), to lower the temperature in 1 wash of the washing machine (dishwasher from 60°C to 30°C or washing machine at 30° C - 40°C).

 

Concerning the renewables, by specifying hot water usage data and usual habits, the program calculates the area of the panels to be installed.

 

The energy savings have been estimated based on the average sunshine, and with an average electricity price of 20 cents / KWh.

 

Although the local specificities, the tool can provide a very quick estimation on the surface of panels to be installed and the potential benefits (in terms of energy and energy bills) for a preliminary assessment.

 

Finally, the tool offers an overview of the potential savings for the building appliances: lighting, tumble drier, vacuum cleaner, oven, washing machine, air conditioner, refrigerator, TV, dish washer.

 

By providing the year of purchase and the current energy class, the tool evaluate the potential savings (in e and kWh) given by the purchase of a new one, considering the life time of the appliance and an average cost of electricity.

 

If you want to try the tool, visit the web page here and request your evaluation! 

Zeljko Serdar, CCRES

Beehives in the EU

Honeybee colonies are essential for agriculture and the environment, they ensure plant reproduction by pollination, whilst beekeeping contributes to the development of rural areas.

Beekeeping is practised in all EU countries and is characterised by diverse production conditions, yields and beekeeping practices. The EU is the second most important honey producers after China, however, the EU is also a net importer of honey from third countries. EU countries with the largest honey production (Romania, Spain, Hungary, Germany, Italy, Greece, France and Poland) are located mainly in Southern Europe where climatic conditions are more favourable to beekeeping.

The EU offers a variety of apiculture products rather than just honey, including pollen, propolis, royal jelly and beeswax. All honey marketed in the EU must fulfil the rules on quality and labelling laid down in the "honey directive" 2001/110/EC.

Each EU country may draw up a national apiculture programme, this is then supported by the EU. These programmes cover a three-year period. Apiculture programmes for 2020-22, were approved by EU implementing decision 2019/974 in all EU countries.

Under the programmes 8 specific measures are eligible for funding:

technical assistance: for example, training for beekeepers and groups of beekeepers on topics such as breeding or disease prevention, extraction, storage, packaging of honey etc;

combating beehive invaders and diseases, particularly varroasis; varroa is an endemic parasite, which weakens bee immune systems and, when untreated, leads to the loss of bee colonies;

rationalisation of transhumance which is important for pollination but also for bee nutrition;

analyses of apiculture products: honey, royal jelly, propolis, pollen and beeswax;

restocking of hives;

applied research;

market monitoring;

enhancement of product quality with a view to exploiting the potential of apiculture products on the market.

Every third year the European Commission presents a report to the European Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the measures concerning the apiculture sector.

For the apiculture years 2020-22, €240 million will be spent on national apiculture programmes in the EU, an increase of 11% compared to the funding available for 2017-19. Half of this will come from the EU budget and the other half from EU countries, as approved by EU implementing decision 2019/974. Allocation of the EU funding for these programmes is based on the number of beehives in each EU country, notified to the European Commission in accordance with article 3 of EU delegated regulation 2015/1366.

The legal basis for this support is EU regulation 1308/2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products supplemented by EU delegated regulation 2015/1366.

EU implementing regulation 2015/1368 sets out the detailed rules for the application of the national apiculture programmes.

Various committees, composed of government representatives and chaired by a European Commission representative, meet regularly to ensure that the Commission's responsibility for adopting implementing acts is exercised under the control of EU countries.

The committee for common organisation of agricultural markets discuss areas such as the evolution of market prices, production and trade in the EU and non-EU countries.

The civil dialogue group and working group on animal products maintains the role of assisting the European Commission in maintaining a regular dialogue on all matters related to honey.

Zeljko Serdar, Croatian Center of Renewable Energy Sources (CCRES)

More info : https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/food-farming-fisheries/animals_and_animal_products/documents/market-presentation-honey_autumn2020_en.pdf

Incentives for ‘sustainable’ biomass

My digression, lack of management. Where sustainable forest management is not practiced or where natural forests are damaged by human intervention, unsustainable forestry occurs, which the EU is fighting against, and therefore, the Republic of Croatia should. 

Yesterday in the presidential debate, Trump touched on just that.

"The forest floor is full of trees, dead trees left there for years and everything else. If you throw a cigarette inside, the whole forest burns down. Every year they call me California burns. If it was cleared, if you had forest management, good forest management, you wouldn't get those calls. "

Trump compared the situation in California, where hundreds of thousands of people have been displaced by fires, to a Europe where they properly manage forest assets. "In Europe, people live in cities that are literally in the woods, maintaining their forest, managing their forest. There should be no such problem. Hundreds of thousands of hectares of land can't just burn to ashes every year. It's burning for lack of management."

In this part, I completely agree with President Trump. In recent years, we have extinguished fires in the Republic of Croatia due to the biomass left after pruning, illegal dumps and thrown glass that caused it, (not to mention arsonists who are the subject of some other texts and institutions).

All of us should aim to manage and use forest land in a way and speed that maintains their productivity, biodiversity, productivity, regenerative capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfill relevant environmental, economic and social functions at local, national and European level now and in the future. level without causing damage to other ecosystems. Zeljko Serdar, CCRES

Moja digresija, nedostatak upravljanja. Tamo gdje se održivo gospodarenje šumama ne prakticira ili gdje su prirodne šume oštećene ljudskom intervencijom, dolazi do neodrživog šumarstva protiv čega se bori EU, a samim time, trebala bi i Republika Hrvatska. Jučer u predsjedničkoj debati Trump se dotakao upravo toga. 

"Šumska su tla krcata drvećem, mrtvim stablima ostavljenim tamo godinama i svime ostalim. Baciš li cigaretu unutra, cijela šuma izgori. Svake godine kad me nazovu Kalifornija gori. Da je to očišćeno, da imate gospodarenje šumama, dobro upravljanje šumama, ne biste dobivali te pozive." 

Trump je usporedio situaciju u Kaliforniji, gdje su stotine tisuća ljudi raseljene zbog požara, s Europom u kojoj pravilno upravljaju šumskim dobrom. "U Europi ljudi žive u gradovima koji su doslovno u šumama, održavaju svoju šumu, upravljaju svojom šumom. Ne bi trebao postojati taj problem. Ne može svake godine stotine tisuća hektara zemlje samo izgorjeti do pepela.To gori zbog nedostatka upravljanja." 

U ovome dijelu u potpunosti se slažem s predsjednikom Trumpom. Prošlih godina gasili smo požare po RH zbog ostavljene biomase nakon obrezivanja, divljih deponija i bačenog stakla koje ga je prouzročilo, (da ne spominjem piromane koji su tema za neke druge tekstove i ustanove).

Svima nama cilj bi trebao biti upravljanje i korištenje šumskih zemljišta na način i brzinom koja održava njihovu produktivnost, biološku raznolikost, produktivnost, sposobnost regeneracije, vitalnost i njihov potencijal da sada i u budućnosti ispunjavaju relevantne ekološke, ekonomske i socijalne funkcije na lokalnoj, nacionalnoj i Europskoj razini, a da to ne uzrokuje štetu drugim ekosustavima. I to je to. Željko Serdar, HCOIE    

While recognising the positive role of forests in mitigating global warming, the European Commission has riled the agroforestry and biomass industries by stating its intention of limiting growth in the sector.Will the EU impose a cap on the number of trees that can be felled in Europe each year? Judging by the Commission’s 2030 climate plan, presented last week, this is now looking like a distinct possibility.The capacity of forests to act as a “carbon sink” – absorbing more CO2 than they emit – is decreasing and needs to be reversed, the Commission said in its new climate plan for 2030. The EU executive argues that “we need a growing sink in order for the EU to achieve climate neutrality by 2050” and calls for improved forest management as well as “re- and afforestation” initiatives to restore degraded land and preserve biodiversity. “We really have to take care of our forests,” said Frans Timmermans, the EU executive vice-president in charge of climate action. “We need to make sure our forests stay healthy and this is going to be a momentous task,” he told journalists. Forest owners wouldn’t contradict the Commission on this point. Time and again, they have highlighted the role of “sustainable forest management practices” in environmental conservation and how those can support the EU’s biodiversity and climate objectives. However, they say the Commission’s 2030 climate plan places too much emphasis on the role of forests as carbon sinks. “This approach is rather unfortunate as it omits two other major climate benefits provided by forests: carbon storage in EU forests and wood products and carbon substitution with wood replacing fossil-based products and energy,” said Fanny-Pomme Langue, secretary-general of the Confederation of European Forest Owners (CEPF).

For forest owners, the key is to maintain forests as “productive” economic tools providing them with the revenues necessary to take care of their land. And that implies thinning, harvesting and replanting trees as part of “active” forest management practices. “Forest owners are custodians of forests’ future and their focus is to maintain productive, healthy and vital ecosystems,” said Sven-Erik Hammar, board member of CEPF. This was the view espoused by the European Parliament’s agriculture committee, which backed a report earlier this month charting “the way forward” for the EU’s upcoming forest strategy, expected to be published in the coming months.

Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, seemed to acknowledge the role forests can play for the climate. In her state of the union speech last week, she said Europe’s buildings could be turned “from a carbon source into a carbon sink if organic materials like wood” are being used. Because trees absorb CO2 as they grow, harvesting them to make wood products is indeed considered as a “climate positive” economic activity which sequesters carbon in the form of furniture or building materials. More controversial however is when wood is burned in biomass plants to produce electricity, or as a way of heating people’s homes. Critics say burning wood immediately releases CO2 which took years or even decades to accumulate during the tree’s growth phase. This, they argue, creates a “carbon debt” for future generations until new trees can grow back and suck an equivalent amount of CO2. And since time is running out to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 2°C, they argue urgent action must be taken now to prevent a further increase in biomass burning for energy generation. The European Commission seemed to pay heed to those concerns when it placed the emphasis on the need to restore carbon sinks in Europe.

“Projected increases in bioenergy use by 2030 are limited compared to today,” the Commission pointed out in its 2030 climate plan, guarding against any “further increases in harvesting” that could see the EU’s carbon sink decline further. “Any unsustainable intensification of forest harvesting for bioenergy purposes should be avoided,” the EU executive warned, saying “the use of whole trees and food and feed crops for energy production – produced in the EU or imported – should be minimised” in order to limit the impact on climate and biodiversity. Bioenergy producers dispute this, saying “active forest management” practices “will optimise the carbon flow” and promote carbon sinks in addition to providing much-needed jobs and economic activity for rural areas. “It is important to stress that bioenergy is not a driving force of forest harvesting,” said Bioenergy Europe, a trade association. In fact, forest cover in the EU increased by 5.8% in 1995-2015 while bioenergy consumption “more than doubled” during the same period, it points out. “The increase in bioenergy has been possible thanks to a better use of residues from the forest-based industries and increased synergies with the wood-based industry,” said Jean-Marc Jossart, secretary-general of Bioenergy Europe.

Importantly, Jossart said a distinction should be made between “carbon sinks” – the capacity of forests to capture carbon – and the “carbon stock”, which is the total amount of carbon stored in the forest at a certain moment in time. “A forest management based on maximising the carbon stock will not deliver efficiently against climate change because of maturation of trees and carbon losses” due to fires and insects, which are becoming more frequent because of climate change, he argued. In reality, “a better managed forest reduces the risks of forest fires as there will be less dead wood on the ground helping the propagation of fire,” Jossart told EURACTIV in emailed comments, saying landowners need to be incentivised to take care of their land. “Planting, thinning, harvesting and replanting are part of virtuous operations of climate-friendly forests, as well as taking infected trees out of the forests,” he said. 

The Commission doesn’t deny this, saying “the promotion of sustainable forest management” combined with strict enforcement of EU green criteria for biomass will help make the sector more sustainable. But it wants guarantees that biomass used in Europe is genuinely sustainable. Although it keeps the door open to bioenergies in general, the Commission’s 2030 climate plan says “a shift towards growing woody biomass,” and “advanced biogas and biofuels could alleviate the situation” and help restore healthy forests. “Bioenergy production should come from better use of biomass wastes and residues and sustainable cultivation of energy crops, rather replacing the production of first-generation food-crop-based biofuels,” the EU executive says. If those solutions are implemented swiftly in the coming years, “this could already reverse the current trend of a diminishing EU land carbon sink by 2030, increasing it again to levels above 300 million tons CO2eq,” it adds.

By the end of the year, the Commission is expected to publish an extensive review of biomass policies. And much of the debate from now on is expected to focus on the incentives that are needed to support sustainable forestry practices and carbon removals.

“Definitely, we want to recognise the removals that are being done in agriculture and forestry more strongly than what we did in the past,” said a senior EU official who was briefing journalists after the Commission presented its 2030 climate plan last week.

“That will require incentives for those who are responsible – and that’s the farmers and the foresters,” the official said.

In Germany, the government is currently debating a “tree premium” of €125 per hectare as a way to reward forest owners for reducing carbon emissions. The premiums would be linked to the EU carbon market, meaning that if CO2 prices rise, the tree premium would also increase.

Another option is to bring agriculture under an EU regulation dealing with land use, land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF).

“For somebody who is responsible for agriculture and forestry, it’s probably much easier to handle that as a policy field and to make the right trade-offs within the sector,” the official explained, saying any EU proposal on the matter would need to be backed by a cost-benefit analysis and fall in line with the Common Agricultural Policy.

For the bioenergy sector, incentives are fine as long as they allow foresters to “actively manage their forests through planting, thinning, harvesting and replanting”.

“If conversely, these subsidies are there to leave the forests untouched, this will have the adverse effects of reducing their resilience,” it argues.

Regenerative Agriculture

The theory is simple: Combine trees or woody shrubs and pasture grasses to foster greater livestock yields. Sound too good to be true? In a five-year study of intensive silvopasture in which trees were incorporated with grasses and Leucaena leucocephala, the rate of carbon sequestration was roughly three tons per acre, a high rate for any land use.



Farmers in Croatia will have the opportunity to see first hand a project which seeks to demonstrate the feasibility and profitability of combining trees, forage crops and livestock. Through new plantings and thinning of existing woodlands, CCRES will show three stages in the development of a silvopastoral system. Starting at year 2016, trees were planted o­n an existing mature pasture. Tube shelters protect the trees from animal damage and improve growing conditions. In this silvopastoral system, pasture crops will provide short term income while tree crops of different rotation lengths will yield medium and long term returns. Nitrogen-fixing forage species, pasture fertilization and animal manure all help improve the soil and tree nutrition. Grazing controls competing brushy species and reduces fire hazard. Trees create a sheltered microclimate to protect animals from heat and cold. Shelter also improves forage quality and lengthens its growing season.



One visible effect of including trees in pastures is the shady haven which they provide for livestock o­n hot summer days. The benefits of providing protection from the hot rays of the summer sun are obvious. It easily follows that animals, which are unable to shelter from the direct sun during the heat of the day, will have to expend energy to deal with their discomfort and/or reduce their feeding activity. Their productivity should decline in proportion to the time spent under these unfavorable conditions. Increased livestock production during hot weather is promoted by CCRES as o­ne of the benefits of having trees. However, there is very little published research available to either verify or disprove this widely held belief.



The prunings of some trees can also be used as fodder, e.g. poplar. The result is better livestock growth. Birds can use conifer trees as perches. From the tops of tree rows, they can easily survey the pasture alleys for insects, worms, and other food items.



Careful observation of animals behavior is necessary to detect and correct potential problems with browsing or rubbing of trees.



In summary, our experience is that silvopastures planted in rows are far superior for livestock production than are either grid or cluster plantings. Trees planted in rows with wide open spaces for pasture production between them, support high forage production and facilitate agricultural operations and animal herding. The large amount of edge created and maintained long into the timber rotation tends to maintain high biodiversity. Electric fencing or individual tree guards may be necessary to protect trees if animals are introduced when they are still small. Fencing is also used in rotational grazing methods to better control forage consumption. Throughout the duration of the CCRES project at CCRES Research facility, Zeljko Serdar and others will monitor tree growth, crop and animal yields, fuel use and soil fertility. The practical results of the project will be shared with other farmers, both through o­n-site field days and educational displays at other meetings.

Chestnut permaculture plantation

Castanea sativa – sweet chestnut.
Sweet chestnuts are permaculture trees. They can be coppiced, providing sustainable timber for fencing and building whilst also being a food source. Their nuts can be eaten roasted, raw or even turned into flour! Zeljko Serdar shares his thoughts for this multipurpose tree.
If you are wondering how to grow chestnut trees, the most important consideration is soil. All chestnut tree types require well-drained soil to thrive. They can grow in partially clay soil if the land is on a slope, but they will grow best in deep, sandy soils. Be sure your soil is acidic before growing chestnut trees. If you aren’t sure, get the pH tested. You need a pH of between 4.5 and 6.5.
If you read up on chestnut tree information, you’ll find that growing chestnut trees is not difficult if they are planted in an appropriate site. When planted on good, deep soil, the trees are very drought tolerant when established. Young seedlings require regular irrigation. If you are growing chestnut trees for the nut production, however, you’ll need to provide more chestnut tree care. The only way you can be sure of getting abundant, large-sized nuts is if you water the trees regularly throughout the growing season. Most chestnut tree types only begin to produce nuts after they are three to 7 years old. Still, keep in mind that some chestnut tree types can live up to 800 years.
Chestnut trees are attractive, with reddish-brown or grey bark, smooth when the trees are young, but furrowed with age. The leaves are a fresh green, darker on the top than the bottom. They are oval or lance-shaped and edged by widely separated teeth. The flowers of the chestnut tree are long, drooping catkins that appear on the trees in spring. Each tree bears both male and female flowers, but they cannot self-pollinate. The potent fragrance of the flowers attracts insect pollinators.
Analysis of chestnut flour:
Moisture – 14.0%
Oil and fat – 2.0%
Proteins – 8.5%
Starch – 29.2%
Dextrin and soluble starch – 22.9%
Sugar – 17.5%
Ash – 2.6%
Cellulose – 3.3%
Any plant that can be planted and then , once established , is productive, especially as food, and requires little or no inputs, qualifies as a Permaculture favorite.
More info: https://solarserdar.blogspot.com/sear...
Thanks.
Zeljko Serdar, CCRES Team

Clean Energy Transition 2020.

Over a fifth of Europe’s energy was generated by solar panels and wind turbines in the first half of 2020. Solar and wind energy generation was higher in some European countries. Denmark came out on top, generating 64 per cent of its energy from these renewable sources, closely followed by Ireland (49 per cent) and Germany (42 per cent), according to the report from independent climate think-tank Ember. In a half-year review released in July by the think tank, all renewables - including wind, solar, hydroelectricity and bioenergy - were found to have exceeded fossil fuel generation for the first time ever. They produced 40 per cent of the EU’s power from January to June with fossil fuels contributing 34 per cent.

This report shows evidence that wind and solar have quickly increased to become a major source of electricity in most countries in the world, and are successfully reducing coal burn throughout the world.

Main findings:

Wind and solar generation rose 14% in the first half of this year (H1-2020) compared to H1-2019, generating almost a tenth (9.8%) of global electricity. In the 48 countries analysed, wind and solar generation rose from 992 terawatt hours in 2019 to 1,129 terawatt hours in H1-2020. That meant wind and solar’s share of global electricity has risen from 8.1% in 2019 to 9.8% in H1-2020; and their share more than doubled from 4.6% in 2015, when the Paris Climate Agreement was signed. Wind and solar generated almost as much CO2-free power as nuclear power plants, which generated 10.5% of global electricity in H1-2020 and whose share remained unchanged from 2019.

Many key countries now generate around a tenth of their electricity from wind and solar: China (10%), the US (12%), India (10%), Japan (10%), Brazil (10%) and Turkey (13%). The EU and UK were substantially higher with 21% and 33% respectively; within the EU, Germany rose to 42%. Russia is the largest country so far to shun wind and solar, with just 0.2% of its electricity from wind and solar.

Global coal generation fell 8.3% in the first half of 2020, compared to H1-2019. This breaks a new record, following on from a year-on-year fall of 3% in 2019, which at the time was the biggest fall since at least 1990. The fall in H1-2020 is because electricity demand fell globally by 3.0% in H1-2020 due to COVID-19, as well as due to rising wind and solar. Although 70% of coal’s fall in H1-2020 can be attributed to lower electricity demand due to COVID-19, 30% can be attributed to increased wind and solar generation. The US and the EU are racing to reduce coal, with falls of 31% and 32% respectively. China’s coal fell only 2%, meaning its share of global coal generation rose to 54% so far this year, up from 50% in 2019 and 44% in 2015.

Wind and solar have captured a five percentage points market share from coal since 2015. Coal’s share fell from 37.9% in 2015 to 33.0% in the first half of 2020, as wind and solar grew from 4.6% to 9.8%. India’s change was even more dramatic: wind and solar’s share rose from 3% of total generation in 2015 to 10% in the first half of 2020; at the same time, coal’s share fell from 77% to 68%. For the first time, the world’s coal fleet ran at less than half of its capacity this year.

The global electricity transition is off-track for 1.5 degrees. Coal needs to fall by 13% every year this decade, and even in the face of a global pandemic coal generation has only reduced 8% in the first half of 2020. The IPCC’s 1.5 degree scenarios show coal needs to fall to just 6% of global generation by 2030, from 33% in H1-2020. The IPCC shows in all scenarios most of coal’s replacement is with wind and solar.

Wind and solar generation rose 14% in the first half of 2020 (H1-2020), compared to the first half of 2019. In the 48 countries analysed, wind and solar generation rose from 992 terawatt hours to 1,129 terawatt hours. Solar generation rose by 19% and wind generation rose by 11%. Although solar generation is catching up with wind generation, wind generation was still twice the level of solar generation in the countries analysed.

Wind and solar generated almost a tenth (9.8%) of global electricity in H1-2020. Global wind and solar generation was at 9.8% in the first half of 2020, up from 8.1% in 2019. This was calculated globally by scaling up 2019 for every country in the world by the 14% growth rate observed in the 48 countries analysed in this report. That means wind and solar generated almost as much CO2-free power as nuclear power plants, which generated 10.5% of global electricity in H1-2020.

Major countries across the world all had a similar level of wind and solar generation, in line with the global average: China 9.8%, the US 12.0%, India 9.7%, Japan 9.6%, Brazil 10.4% and Turkey 12.6%. The European Union was substantially higher, with 21.4%, the UK was at 33.2%, and Australia was also above-average. Within the EU, Germany rose to 42%. Russia (0.2%) is the largest country to so far shun wind and solar. Canada and South Korea stood out as having low levels of wind and solar share, at 5.3% and 4.0% respectively in H1-2020.

Wind and solar have doubled their share of global electricity generation since the Paris Climate Agreement was signed in 2015. They rose five percentage points, from 4.6% to 9.8%. Most large countries more than doubled their market share from 2015 to H1-2020: coincidentally China, Japan and Brazil all increased from 4% to 10%; the US from 6% to 12%. India’s almost trebled from 3.4% in 2015 to 9.7% in H1-2020.

But other countries are lagging behind the global average: Canada’s share has barely changed since 2015. South Korea’s share has been increasing, but at 4.0% is still less than half the global average, and Vietnam is making up for lost time increasing from 0.2% in 2018 to 6.4% in the first half of 2020. 

However, although wind and solar growth is high, it is not accelerating. IRENA data shows that the amount of wind and solar capacity installed in 2019 rose only 7%, and in 2018 rose only 5%. And the IEA estimates that renewable capacity growth in 2020 will fall by 13% due to the impact of COVID-19, compared to 2019. The year-on-year additions are helping to reshape the global electricity mix, but the rate of wind and solar deployed every year is not rapidly accelerating. 

 Wind and solar have captured five percentage points in market share from coal. Coal’s share of global generation has fallen from 37.9% in 2015 to 33.0% in the first half of 2020. That fall of five percentage points has effectively been replaced by wind and solar, whose share rose from 4.6% to 9.8% in the first half of 2020. 

That’s a trend that happened across the world. For example, China’s coal share has fallen by 7 percentage points as wind and solar increased by 6 percentage points. 

Most remarkable is perhaps India, where wind and solar’s market share has risen from 3% of its total generation in 2015 to 10% in the first half of 2020; at the same time, coal’s share fell from 77% to 68%. Even in Vietnam, where coal has risen, wind and solar have risen six percentage points in just two years, thus reducing the pace of coal growth, and further weakening the case to build new coal power plants.

There are nuances, of course. In China, rapidly rising electricity demand means that although coal’s share has fallen from 68% in 2015 to 62% in the first half of 2020, its absolute level of generation actually rose by 17% from 2015 to 2019. The US has replaced coal with gas more than with wind and solar: as coal’s market share reduced by 17%, the share of gas increased 9% from 33% to 42% from 2015 to H1-2020, and wind and solar increased 6% from 6% to 12%.

So how far are countries into the transition? Well, much depends on where they started from. Most countries in Asia have a very large share of their electricity coming from coal, therefore, they have the most work to do.

Unfortunately, this rapid change isn’t enough to limit global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees. The IPCC published scenarios on how to limit global temperature rises to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. Carbon Brief’s analysis of the IPCC scenarios shows unabated coal use needs to fall by about 79% by 2030 from 2019 – a fall of 13% every year throughout the 2020s. 

Climate Analytics analysis is consistent, showing that coal needs to fall to just 6% share of global electricity generation; it was 33% in H1-2020. All 1.5-degree compatible IPCC scenarios show most of coal’s fall needs to be replaced with wind and solar generation. The median of the scenarios show wind and solar reaching a 28% share by 2030. 

It’s clear that even with the rapid trajectory from coal to wind and solar over the last five years, progress is so far insufficient to limit coal generation in line with 1.5 degree scenarios.

The drop in electricity demand due to COVID-19 barely impacted wind and solar generation in the first half of 2020. That’s because wind and solar generation is lagged compared to when wind and solar are actually built; most of the rise in the first half of this year came from new wind and solar built last year. However, COVID-19 has impacted the rate of new wind and solar installed in 2020; a forecast by the IEA shows it will fall 13% in 2020 to its lowest level since 2015. Stimulus packages focusing on a clean transition can help that bounce back, but if stimulus is not forthcoming, wind and solar will struggle to achieve the levels of growth required this decade to limit warming to 1.5 degrees.

The disruption caused by COVID-19 severely impacted electricity demand, pushing down global electricity demand by around 3.0%. It was also particularly mild in the winter months of 2020 in many parts of the northern hemisphere, contributing to lower electricity demand. In H1-2020, demand was down in most countries – for example, 7% in the EU and 8% in India; the US fell only 4% as the COVID-19 impact was smaller, and China fell only about 1% due to large electricity demand growth in Q2-2020. The IEA has analysis on the falls by country throughout 2020 so far. 

Coal generation fell by 8.3% (-346 TWh). 30% of coal’s fall was due to increased wind and solar, and 70% was due to reduced electricity demand due to COVID-19. In the 48 countries examined, electricity demand fell by 311 TWh and wind and solar grew by 137 TWh, meaning conventional generation needed to fall by 448 TWh – that’s a split of 70% due to lower electricity demand and 30% due to increased wind and solar power. Of that 448 TWh fall in conventional generation, 346 TWh was from lower coal generation, although all other forms were also down. Other factors contributing to the fall in coal include an increase in Chinese nuclear generation and a pick up in gas generation in the US.

Gas fell 1.6% (-30 TWh). Gas generation also fell slightly due to COVID-19 reducing electricity demand. Gas generation increased significantly in the US as gas replaced coal. This was offset by a large fall in Russia due to a very early snowmelt season due to record warm temperatures, and a large fall in European countries where coal generation was already near zero and thus gas generation took the brunt of the fall in demand (in the UK, Spain and Italy). However, this analysis misses key gas-generating countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Egypt, because electricity data is not easily available, and therefore this global gas generation estimate has a higher error margin than the other fuel types.

Nuclear fell 3% (-39 TWh). COVID-19 severely impacted EDF’s nuclear output in France, as operational plants needed to close, and plants on maintenance needed to stay offline for longer. This was partly offset by the continued uptick in Chinese nuclear output as they continued to build new reactors.

Coal generation fell by 8.3% in the first half of 2020. Two-thirds of this was due to the large falls in the US of 31% and the European Union of 32%. India’s large fall of 14% happened even after a fall of 3% in 2019. China’s fall was one of the smallest at just 2%, due to strong electricity demand growth in Q2-2020. Vietnam increased, but the increase in coal generation was similar to the fall in hydro generation.

As the US and Europe reduce their coal use, China’s share of global coal generation continues to increase. The fall in coal generation in the US and EU means that their share of global coal generation has reduced from 23% in 2015 to 12% in H1-2020. Coal use in India and some other Asian countries is not increasing as some observers had expected. That means that China’s share of global coal generation rose to 54% so far this year, up from 50% in 2019 and 44% in 2015. 

For the first time, coal plants were needed for less than half the time. Coal generation has fallen by 9%, but coal capacity fell only 0.1%. That means utilisation of coal plants has fallen to 47% in the first half of 2020, from 51% utilisation in 2019. That’s the first time that coal plant utilisation has fallen below 50% over six months.

The fall in coal capacity in the first half of 2020 was the first time net global coal power plant capacity has fallen over six months. Global Energy Monitor (GEM) research showed that net coal capacity fell by 0.1% – by 2 gigawatts, against a total of 2047 gigawatts of operational coal plants. GEM showed that coal capacity rose in China, but fell in the rest of the world, meaning that China for the first time is home to over 50% of the world’s coal capacity. 

India coal plant utilisation fell as low as 42% in April and May, averaging 51% so far this year. With lower-than-expected demand for electricity, and wind and solar eating into coal’s market share, there is an increasing surplus of coal capacity. 

China

Data from China Electricity Council showed wind and solar generation grew by 10% in H1-2020 compared to the same period last year, a slower rate than the global average of 14% in H1-2020, so China’s share of wind and solar slipped from above-average to average. Wind and solar generation supplied 8.6% of China’s electricity in 2019, above the global average of 8.1%, but in H1-2020 both China and the global average were 9.8%.

Wind and solar are replacing coal’s share of the electricity mix – as the wind and solar share rose from 4% in 2015 to 10% in H1-2020, coal’s share has fallen from 68% to 62% – a change of six percentage points each. However, because China’s electricity demand has been rising so fast, even as coal’s share of electricity generation is dropping fast, its coal generation is not. Even with COVID-19, China’s Electricity Council predicted in July that electricity demand will return to rise 6% in the second half of this year. Hydro and nuclear generation are also growing, but they are struggling to even hold their market share against fast-increasing electricity demand. 

China’s share of global coal generation increased from 50% in 2019 to 54% in H1-2020. Thermal generation fell by 1.6% in the first half of 2020, compared to the same period last year, while the fall in coal generation was around 2%. Globally coal fell by 8% in H1-2020 compared to the same period last year, so a fall of just 2% means China is lagging as the world moves away from coal.

United States

The US seems to be in a race with the EU to ditch coal. Its coal generation fell 31% in H1-2020 (compared to H1-2019) as the EU fell 32%. In 2019, US coal generation fell 16% year-on-year, versus the EU falling 24%. The US increased its wind and solar generation by 16% in H1-2020 compared to the same period last year, slightly above the global average of 14%. But the US gas bridge continues to grow, with gas generation up 7% in H1-2020 despite COVID-19. Gas’s share of US electricity generation has now risen from 33% in 2015 to 42% in H1-2020.

Europe (EU-27)

In July Ember published a European half year update, which showed renewables generation exceeded fossil generation for the first time, in the first half of this year. Wind and solar alone reached a record of 21% of Europe’s total electricity generation, and reached even higher penetration in Denmark (64%), Ireland (49%) and Germany (42%). That – alongside the fall in electricity demand from COVID-19 – meant coal generation fell 32% year-on-year, and even gas generation fell 6% as well. Since 2015, coal’s share has fallen from 24% to just 10%, whilst wind and solar’s share has risen from 13% to 21%. 

India

Wind and solar continue to grow in line with the global average, reducing India’s reliance on coal. Wind and solar generation grew by 13% in H1-2020 compared to the same period last year (in comparison to 14% growth globally), and that meant wind and solar generated 9.7% of India’s electricity (compared to 9.8% globally). Meanwhile, India’s coal generation fell 14% in H1-2020 (compared to H1-2019). Coal’s share of India’s electricity has now fallen from 77% in 2015 to 68% in the first half of 2020, at the same time as wind and solar rose from 3.4% to 9.7%.

Russia

A large fall of 13% in thermal generation in H1-2020 (compared to H1-2019) was due to a one-off factor, rather than as part of the transition like in other countries. It was due to a 4% decrease in electricity demand and record hydro generation due to an early and aggressive snowmelt season. Wind and solar showed growth from a near-zero start, contributing 0.2% of Russia’s total generation, one of the lowest rates in the world.

Japan

Wind and solar generation in Japan increased by only 9% in H1-2020 (compared to H1-2019), in comparison to the global average of 14% growth. That meant the proportion of Japan’s electricity from wind and solar fell from above the global average in 2019, to below the global average in H1-2020. Wind and solar generation supplied 8.6% of Japan’s electricity in 2019, above the global average of 8.1%, but in H1-2020 Japan increased to only 9.6% as the global average increased to 9.8%.

Canada

Canada’s wind generation actually fell 5% in H1-2020 (compared to H1-2019), presumably due to lower wind speeds. The installed wind capacity in Canada has increased only from 11.2 gigawatts in 2015 to 13.4 gigawatts by the end of 2019. So whilst wind and solar power have almost doubled globally (from 4.6% of global generation in 2015 to 9.8% in H1-2020), Canada’s share of electricity from wind and solar has barely budged, increasing from 4.5% in 2015 to 5.3% in H1-2020. Consequently neither coal nor gas have changed since 2015, still at 9% of the share each.

Brazil

Thermal generation rose by 38% in H1-2020 (compared to H1-2019) to fill the gap left by low hydro generation in 2020. Electricity demand fell by 5% in H1-2020 (compared to H1-2019), which moderated the rise in thermal generation. Brazil’s wind and solar share is 10%, in line with the global average.

South Korea

The share of wind and solar was 3.6%, almost two-thirds lower than the global average. But wind and solar generation increased by 26% from H1-2019 to H1-2020, twice the average global growth rate, so it is slowly closing the gap albeit from a slow start. Coal generation fell 7%/7TWh, as electricity demand fell 2%/5TWh during H1-2020 compared to the same period last year.

United Kingdom

The UK saw its wind and solar share extend to one of the highest rates in the world, 33%. Also it’s one of the few countries (alongside Spain and Italy), where wind and solar are significantly reducing gas generation, now that coal generation is already mostly phased out. 

Turkey

Wind and solar generation increased by 12% from H1-2019 to H1-2020, increasing wind and solar generation to 12.6% of Turkey’s electricity, against a global average of 9.8%. Lower electricity demand (-4%/-6TWh) almost completely offset the fall in hydro generation (-12%/-7TWh), leaving coal and gas generation mostly unchanged. This has reduced Turkey’s need for new coal power plants.

Vietnam

Vietnam recorded probably the largest increase in solar generation of any country in H1-2020, rising 5.35 times compared to H1-2019. Vietnam is making up for lost time increasing its share of wind and solar from 0.2% of its electricity mix in 2018 to 6.4% in the first half of 2020. Coal generation rose, but this was mainly to cover a fall in hydro generation. Wind and solar are clearly weakening the case to build new coal power plants.

This report includes data to end-June 2020, except for South Korea, Chinese Taipei and Japan, where assumptions are made for June which isn’t yet published, and Canada for May and June. United States data for June 2020 has been estimated using hourly data for the lower-48 states. The biggest countries missing from this analysis are Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Iran, Indonesia, and South Africa, for which timely sources of monthly generation data do not exist. This global view scales up 2019 generation into H1-2020 for the changes observed in the 48 countries.

Press coverage highlights:

• Reuters
• Bloomberg
• Al Jazeera
• Asia Times
• ESI Africa
• China: East Money & China 5e
• India: Economic Times, Jan Prahar, CNBCTV18 & Business Line
• Bangladesh: Dhaka Tribune & Bonik Barta
• Vietnam News Agency
• Indonesia: The Jakarta Post
• Thailand: The Bangkok Post
• Russia: Pop Mech & Expert 
• US: Axios & The Verge 
• UK: Independent & Daily Mail 
• & wider coverage across the EU and globally and in energy and climate sector news