Most users have been consuming electricity in the same way our entire lives. We simply know that we can plug in the electrical device wqe want at any time, and that, in return, at the end of the month, we get a bill (for many, more difficult to understand than an Egyptian hieroglyph, by the way). But this way of consuming electricity can change very soon (if it hasn´t already). Not for a long time, we can contribute with our own energy to the main grid without many complications, decide when is the best moment for us to consume, or partner with other users to benefit each other…or all these options at the same time.
In other words, the energy sector is moving from a model in which the user had a merely passive role, to a totally different one, where the user can have an active participation in the production, management and consumption of electricity. For this paradigm shift, a new word has emerged as a result of combining producer and consumer: prosumer.
Although the concept of prosumer is now broader, it originally refers to users who produces their own energy for their own consumption, and discharge the surpluses to the electrical network. In this way, not only we can consume less from the grid, but our electricity is also supplied to the main system, and we contribute to achieving a more sustainable model while we reduce our bill.
Given the rise of distributed generation facilities for self-consumption, largely driven by the publication of RD 244/2019 in Spain, it is not surprising that this type of prosumer is the most common. However, the options for prosumers are more and more varied, and are not only limited to installing solar panels on our roof.
For example, the interaction of the user with the main grid can also be more proactive by combining responsible electricity consumption with electricity tariffs which depend on the market price (rates indexed to the electricity pool market-the hourly market-, also called PVPCs tariffs in the case of Spain-stating for Small Consumer Voluntary Price-, for users with a contracted power lower than 10kW).With this type of tariff, every day you can know the hourly price of electricity for the next day, so that if today we are told that tomorrow morning the price of electricity will cost almost 90% less than it costs right now (as happened a few days ago in the Iberian Peninsula(, we can decide if we prefer no to turn on certain appliances today (e.g. washing machine, dryer or dishwasher, in the case of residential consumers), and use them tomorrow, hence getting some savings due to the energy term associated to their consumptions.
But, what happens when there is hardly any sun or wind, and the prices of the electricity market soar to all-time highs, as happened a few weeks ago during the storm Filomena in Spain? In the previous case,basically we would have to ´´ endure the downpour´ and pay it at the end of the month. How ever, if we had energy storage solutions, we could avoid these type of scenarios, and in general we could reduce our consumption from the grid durign periods when the price of energy is high. This prosumer alternative is also very simple: at night or in the morning, when electricity is cheaper, we could program the charging of our energy storage equipment (electric batteries, including our own electric vehicle, but also thrmal systems of thermoelectricc), so that when the price of electricity went up, we would not have to pay its exorbitant costs, but could use our stored energy.
Precisely, this combination of prosumer options– installation of a renewable production system, storage, dynamic rates and active management of our demand- is part of the study that is being considered in the MiniStor Project, where CARTIF has participated since last year. In this project, a thermoelectric storage system that integrates lithium batteries, phase change materials and a thermochemical reactor is being developed, also including hybrid solar panels that produce both heat and electricity and an optimal energy management, considering both the prediction of our consumption, the prediction of our systems production, and the electricicty costs. A very interesting challenge for which we will be able to tell you more about very soon.
As we have seen, the prosumers´ participation options go far beyond having our own self-consumption facility (which is not a small thing), and, although this time we have presented a few, the alternatives where this actor has a fundamental role are almost infinite (demand aggregators, blockchain integration, microgrids, energy communities…) Surely, in a short time others options will emerge, that at the moment we cannot imagine. What is clear, is that the role of prosumers is already considered as decisive, we are at the beginning of what can be a true paradigm shift in the energy sector, and from CARTIF we are on the trail to be leaders in this revolution.
The BIM approach (Building Information Modelling) is all around Architecture, Engineering and Construction professionals, but when it comes down, very few companies are founding their daily work on this paradigm and applications are really far from being homogeneous. BIM is many times (let’s say “usually”) incorrectly identified as a specific software package or a type of 3D digital model. However, BIM is much more than a newer version of CAD or a 3D visualisation tool.
The BIM approach provides a digital featuring of a building or infrastructure throughout its whole life-cycle, adding extra information to help making better and more-timely decisions upon a 3D model that allows a multidimensional analysis: 4D (evolution); 5D (costs); 6D (sustainability -including energy efficiency-); 7D (maintenance).
Although there is still a lack of knowledge on how BIM and associated digital innovations are applied across European countries, the European Directive 2014/24/EU imposes BIM Level 2 for government centrally procured projects. Level 2 refers a collaborative process of producing federated discipline specific models, consisting of 3D graphical data (those visually represented) and semantic data (those significant additions) as well as associated documentation (for instance: master plans). Information is exchanged using non-proprietary formats, such as Industry Foundation Classes (IFC).
Consequently the built heritage is subject to BIM for the purposes of documentation, conservation and dissemination, but the distinctiveness and sensitivity to meet heritage demands requires technological and methodological particularizations leading to the concept of Heritage-BIM (H-BIM). The purpose of H-BIM is to provide a 3D parametric model as a “container” of information generated all over time by different procedures, by different people, and from different sources (hw & sw). The model would capture the multidisciplinary nature of Heritage, far away from the simplicity and modularity of conventional construction, and would be very useful to study, evaluate the state of conservation and plan interventions on the assets in a profitable way. It is quite a challenge for a sector where digitization is a pending issue.
This technologically means facing many challenges, starting with the minimum amount of graphical and semantic data that would be adequate to support the activities of the sector. Two of the most important are:
The combination of 3D data with different types of images (thermography, high resolution photographs or multispectral recordings) to produce a really useful H-BIM model for exhaustive assessment.
The photorealistic texturing of 3D models for a rigorous representation of reality.
Both aspects are being worked by CARTIF to decisively help companies, managers and public administrations in the digitization of Cultural Heritage.
It seems unbelievable, but 5 years have passed since CARTIF inaugurated the blog with the post on Industry 4.0 in which I analysed some of the keys to the so-called “fourth industrial revolution” and how it could affect the industry in our country. It has always seemed risky to me to try to define this revolution from within itself. I suppose that time and the historical perspective will make it clearer if it really has been a revolution or simply a technological mantra. Fasten your seat belts because if we have not yet assimilated this revolution now they “threaten” us with the next one, Industry 5.0, they call it. Original, isn’t it?
If the fourth promised to interconnect the productive means of the entire value chain to make a transition to the intelligent industry or Smart Industry (everything has to be Smart as when many years ago any self-respecting appliance needed to carry “fuzzy logic” on-board). The fifth industrial revolution tries to humanize the concept beyond just producing goods and services for economic profit. The challenge of this revolution is to include social and environmental considerations in its purpose. Keywords if this revolution, as defined by the European Commission, should include human-centric approach, sustainability and resilience.
By developing innovative technologies with a human-centric approach, Industry 5.0 can support and empower workers, rather than replace them. Likewise, other approaches complement this vision from the consumer’s point of view in such a way that they can have access to products that are as personalized as possible or adapted to their possibilities. Thus, concepts such as personalized food or tailor-made clothing could be virtually applied to any consumer product.
The sustainability in the development of the industry needs to reconcile the economic and environmental progress objectives. To achieve such common environmental objectives, it is necessary to incorporate new technologies and integrate existing ones by rethinking the manufacturing processes by introducing environmental impacts in their design and operation. Industry must be a leading example in the green transition.
Industry resilience means developing a greater degree of robustness in its production, preparing it against disruptions and ensuring that it can respond in times of crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. The current approach to globalized production has shown great fragility during the pandemic that devastates us. Supply chains must also be sufficiently resilient, with adaptable and flexible production capacity, especially in those aspects of products that satisfy basic human needs, such as healthcare or security.
Just as the fourth needed digital enablers, this new revolution needs technological aspects to make it happen. From a practical point of view, we can say that the enablers we reviewed a while ago are fully up-ot-date for Industry 5.0. We could include some additional ones such as quantum computing or block-chain, incipient ones 4 or 5 years ago. If the enablers are similar, why are we talking about a new revolution? It is a matter of priorities. If the fourth spoke abou hyper-connection of processes to the digital world through cyber-physical systems or the IoT, in the fifth, a cooperation between human and digital technology is sought, either in the form of collaborative industrial robots, social robots or artificial intelligence systems that complement or assist in any task related to production, from installing a door in a car to deciding how to organize the next work shift to meet the productivity goal of the manufacturing plant.
NutriScore, is a nutritional traffic light intended to help consumers make healthier buying decisions by providing information on nutritional quality at a glance. It does this by using a algorithm that gives a lower (healthier) score for protein, fibre, fruit, nuts and vegetables and a higher (less healthy) score for kilocalories, saturated fat, total sugars and salt. Based on this score, the product is given a letter with the corresponding colour code, from the healthiest which would be green (letter A) to the least healthful which would be indicated by the colour red (letter E).
But not everything is perfect in the world of the colourful algorithm. Since its birth in France (2017), it has been the subject of numerous criticisms arguing that the NutriScore not only fails to meet the objectives for which it was created but is even misleading for consumers. As expected, we are facing a divided Europe. On the one hand, the governments of France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Luxembourg and Germany have adopted the Nutriscore label on a voluntary basis. However, Italy considers that such labelling poses a risk to products “made in Italy” and to the Mediterranean diet, and has even presented to the Commission an alternative to NutriScore called NutrInform (which has also been widely criticised). Major food multinationals such as Nestlé, Kellogg’s and Danone have already implemented NutriScore in their own brand lines and some of the largest retail chains such as Carrefour, Erosky, Aldi and Lidl have also included NutriScore in their own brand products.
The pro-NutriScore group argues that it is an easily interpreted tool that can encourage healthy food choices and motivate industry to reformulate its products. By contrast, another group sees the NutriScore as an unfair system, which may discriminate against certain categories of food, as it does not include comprehensive nutrient information and is not based on the reference intakes of the average consumer, leading to an unbalanced diet.
The NutriScore also fails to convince the European Commission. In fact, in its Farm to Fork strategy published in March 2020, the Commission faces the challenge of implementing a single mandatory labelling system across the EU, by the last quarter of 2022, but has so far not committed itself to the NutriScore. In fact, it has proposed to launch an impact study on the different types of front of pack labelling.
Despite all this variety of opinions, today the NutriScore is one of the most widely accepted front labels in Europe and the one chosen by Spain for implementation during the first quarter of 2021.
In this situation we must not forget that the most important thing is to inform (not influence) the consumer. This situation is reminding me of what happened with Regulation 1924/2006 whose initial objective was also very worthy, as it was published to protect consumers on nutrition and health claims on food. That was a Regulation under strong pressure from the food industry which did not take the consumer into account. In fact, to this day, consumers are still not aware of the difference between a “fat-free”, “low-fat” or “reduced-fat” product, to name just one example. It was a regulation made “for” and “by” the food industry and which in my opinion has not guaranteed consumer protection either. At the very least, the NutriScore would expose a regulation that is allowing a fried roll filled with vitamin D enriched cream to claim that it “contributes to the normal functioning of the immune system”. However, the NutriScore is also being used as a marketing tool by the food industry, and the algorithm has even been modified to improve the rating of certain products.
One of the main criticisms of NutriScore is that products with low nutritional value may give the impression of being healthy after reformulation. In my opinion, the NutriScore would actually be continuing a situation that Regulation 1924/2006 has not been able to resolve. We should focus on health policies by reformulating those products with too much salt, saturated fat and sugar so that consumers can actually make healthier choices.
We already know that NutriScore is not perfect, in fact no labelling system will ever be perfect in isolation. In parallel, complementary nutrition information systems will need to be put in place. Nutrition education will of course be essential for any labelling system to be effective, but here the food industry really needs to lose its fear of being more transparent. Marketing departments must understand that including “sodium palmitate” (Latin name) or “elaeis guineensis” (name of the plant) as an ingredient instead of “palm oil” is not transparent and can confuse even a PhD in nutrition.
In the food area of CARTIF during 2021 we are preparing business initiatives related to the improvement of the nutritional profile of certain foods and actions aimed at improving nutritional labelling so that consumers can make more informed choices.
New technologies bring important changes in all sense of humanity life. Specifically, artificial intelligence (AI) is going to change the very meaning of the concept of ‘human being’ and even the concept of work, which has always been so closely linked to us.
The ‘Episteme’ is a term reformulated by Michel Focault in the 20th Century and consists of knowledge linked to a temporary ‘truth’, imposed by the power of the time in which it is generated. Therefore, people who are outside this time frame of knowledge will have serious difficulties to understand or conceive it.
The concept of humanity, held in the theocentric view of the world during much of the Middles Ages, in which everything revolved around God, was totally different from the anthropocentrism that emerged from the Renaissance humanism of the 15th Century. In the first case, man is a tool for the glory of God, who is measure of everything in the universe. But, from humanism, man will be the centre of everything and from him it will be from which you are going to classify, measure and evaluate the universe. Since then, all the phenomena and elements that appear and stop appearing are related to us.
Let’s put ourselves in the position of the existence of an alien race. If this race had manifested itself before us in the Middle Ages, we would have related their existence to some divine design, we would have included them in the category of angels or demons. Currently, the same fact would be interpreted by and for us. What benefits would be arrival of these stellar neighbours bring to earth? What threat would it pose to us? Would they look like us? Could we take advantage of them or establish peaceful relations? As we are the top of the intellectual pyramid, will they repeat our behaviour and subdue us if they have superior technology?
Something similar happens with the concept of ‘work’. The work has gone from being ‘God’s punishment of man for original sign’ to ‘a way of honouring God’, and currently, the work is theoretically linked to terms such as ‘passion’ or ‘vocation’.
Currently, considering many paid human legal activities as work is difficult, such as Content Creator on Youtube, Social Media Manager, Influencer, etc. And not to mention the ethical and moral debates about clones as human being or not. The episteme is changing, but, as it has happened throughout history, we are resisting the evidence, two concepts that for us have been fundamental for last centuries, and that are beginning their decline. Humanity is no longer just superior intelligence, four limbs and a brain, a clone can also have four limbs, and intelligence, as we currently measure it, is far surpassed by a computer.
With work is the same story, not only must it be in tune with people’s values, but there must also be continuous motivation, with incentives that go far beyond mere economic retribution, everything points to the new concept of ‘work’ will not be linked to a specific place, but rather to objectives to be met. Until now, the challenge of the world of work consists on that people, through several training steps (school, degrees, courses, masters, etc.) try to adapt to what the labour market offers, but what if in the future, people train for themselves through their natural talents generates wealth? Who knows? It won’t be many years before we see the new episteme of work.
Ideas change according to the time of the people who develop the, so it is worth wondering if we are going to participate in those changes that will eventually end up being imposed, or if, on the contrary, we will be watching as mere spectators watching the world continue its course while we cling to nostalgia for the past, for when humanity and work defined us as people.
Mining activity has defined civilization since its inception and in approximately 90% of our daily activities we use chemical and mineral elements extracted from the interior of the earth.
Currently, mining contributes to sustainable processes, such as the European Green Deal, which try to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, ensuring the supply of raw materials, particularly critical or fundamental raw materials. Critical raw materials are those that are economically and strategically important for Europe, but with a high supply risk.
The EU list for 2020 contains thirty critical raw materials, used in electronics, health, steel, aviation, etc., and some of them are increasingly present in renewable energy. An example of this is the addition to this list of lithium, used in batteries for electric and hybrid vehicles, and bauxite, the main source of aluminum, which with steel and copper represents approximately 90% of the total weight of a wind turbine . The permanent magnets in the generators of these same turbines also contain other critical raw materials such as some rare earths, cobalt and boron.
In photovoltaic solar energy, more than 90% of the solar cells installed in the panels are made of silicon, in addition to containing other critical raw materials such as indium, gallium and germanium.
At the same time, the mining activity is implementing sustainable measures as new techniques in restoring the impacts generated and the use of remote sensing to monitor environmental behavior. Another measure is the reprocessing of waste, for example iron, zinc and platinum, turning these into secondary raw materials, moving towards a circular economy that will increase jobs in the EU by 2030.
More and more, electric and hybrid mining machinery is being used with autonomous and geolocation systems, saving costs and fuels, and various projects are being launched where there are wind and solar photovoltaic energy installations for self-consumption in mining operations.
Another mechanism that contributes to the European Green Pact is the Just Transition with the diversification of activities in regions with high dependence on coal, where there are sources of raw materials used in renewable energy.
Finally, in achieving the zero-emission target in the EU, the environmental and social risks posed by strategic agreements to guarantee the supply of critical raw materials with some countries outside the EU will be taken into account.
As a conclusion, the mining sector is important for the decarbonisation of Europe and the use of renewable and clean energy by integrating these into its own mining operations.
