What does it take to succesfully transition to a green energy economy?

[Kegemusha]

Time, Brain and work.

We know how to solve many issues already, I think that is in place, but greedy companies and try to profit a lot plus some big burocracy in many countries is an issue.

 

[tomtoo]

We know how to solve many issues already, I think that is in place, but greedy companies and try to profit a lot plus some big burocracy in many countries is an issue.

I can only talk for germany. But this fu**ing war is the bigest game changer.

 

[Marc v E]

I can only talk for germany. But this fu**ing war is the bigest game changer.

Strangely, before the war, the EU intended to use gas mainly as a way to transition to green energy. Now that is of the table, I see a surge in solar panels uptake and more sense of urgency on the EU, government and grid side.

Which reminds me that to make a transition happen, there needs to be an urgency or financial benefit. We have both now in the EU.

 

[tomtoo]

Strangely, before the war, the EU intended to use gas mainly as a way to transition to green energy. Now that is of the table, I see a surge in solar panels uptake and more sense of urgency on the EU, government and grid side.

Which reminds me that to make a transition happen, there needs to be an urgency or financial benefit. We have both now in the EU.

Now are more cole plants in use. And we have to import more gas on a less invoremently friendly way. We needet more time.

 

[Marc v E]

According to this TEDx presenter, it's:

1 the reluctance to build
2 and the challenges with permitting

In installing grid systems that are the main obstacles to overcome. Cost is not an issue.

 

[Willem]

Such challenges have little to do with the technology or the economics but a lot with country specific rules and politics. The Dutch government is about to introduce legislation to shorten the planning procedure and make it harder to raise objections. Underground cables and offshore turbines will help a lot

 

[levimax]

Then you should make that argument and not the incorrect statements above. I kind of get your point here, but I would counter it with another perspective:

Global warming is currently around 1.1 K compared to pre-industrial. We are on a path to 2.5 K and more. Dangerous and unpredictable tipping points lure somewhere around 2.5 to 3.5 K. If we reach those tipping points, it's unclear where we would end up. It would be devastating and would make whole regions of the planet uninhabitable and kill thousands of species. To make it short: Efficiency of funding isn't our main concern right now, as a species. It might be for individuals or companies, but governments should care about more than that. They should care about all citizens - those of today and those of tomorrow. Therefore, I'd argue that some inefficiences in subsidies are a very small price to pay if those still result in a faster transition to a carbon-neutral society.

I respect your perspective. My perspective is that we can not afford to waste time and money on schemes that are well meaning but misguided (and unfortunately subject to abuse) and that in the long run more harm to the environment will result from policies made by central planners trying to pick winners rather than let technologies compete on a more level playing field. Resources are always limited.... if we waste a bunch of time and money on the wrong solution we may not have the resources for the correct solution when it becomes apparent. For example it seems like central planners are ignoring Toyota and their hydrogen cars and are pouring subsidy money into EV's. I have no idea which is the better solution long term but I would like to see all ideas be able compete and let the best idea(s) win.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Such challenges have little to do with the technology or the economics but a lot with country specific rules and politics. The Dutch government is about to introduce legislation to shorten the planning procedure and make it harder to raise objections. Underground cables and offshore turbines will help a lot

What can you say about the situation with forcing closure of some Dutch farms or is that necessarily political?

 

[Ornette]

For example it seems like central planners are ignoring Toyota and their hydrogen cars and are pouring subsidy money into EV's. I have no idea which is the better solution long term but I would like to see all ideas be able compete and let the best idea(s) win.

Widespread hydrogen cars would require an absolutely massive investment in infrastructure to enable the required distribution and storage of hydrogen fuel. Meanwhile, essentially every residence in the US already has ready access to electricity. As such, how much consideration do hydrogen cars merit as a serious alternative to EVs? None, in my view. They will always be niche vehicles at best.

 

[levimax]

Widespread hydrogen cars would require an absolutely massive investment in infrastructure to enable the required distribution and storage of hydrogen fuel. Meanwhile, essentially every residence in the US already has ready access to electricity. As such, how much consideration do hydrogen cars merit as a serious alternative to EVs? None, in my view. They will always be niche vehicles at best.

Hydrogen is currently the only way excess solar energy can be stored at scale and it may always be that way. The current grid can not handle everyone plugging in EV's without massive expenditures. Battery production and recycling is an ecological disaster. The range issue for EV's has not been solved. Toyota and their engineers are not dumb. Again I don't know which is better and both technologies need a lot of work in order to replace internal combustion engines (which also continue to get better). Why should EV's be subsidized over hydrogen or anything else? Why does it have to be "all or nothing"? Why not let the best technology win?

 

[Thomas_A]

Just wonder how fast the roof-top solars will be implemented the next 10-20 years. Problem is how to store the excess when the sun shines. Hydrogen?

High resolution global spatiotemporal assessment of rooftop solar photovoltaics potential for renewable electricity generation - Nature Communications

Though a global assessment of rooftop solar photovoltaic (RTSPV) technology’s potential and the cost is needed to estimate its impact, existing methods demand extensive data processing. Here, the authors report a machine learning method to realize a high-resolution global assessment of RTSPV...

www.nature.com

 

[Timcognito]

For example it seems like central planners are ignoring Toyota and their hydrogen cars and are pouring subsidy money into EV's. I have no idea which is the better solution long term but I would like to see all ideas be able compete and let the best idea(s) win.

There is no high volume process producing hydrogen, no storage, transportation means, and no distribution facilities. Cars are the only one part of the problem. Electricity in is every structure in the modern world. Solar and wind turn the suns energy directly into electricity and put into the grid, and homes and businesses. Hydrogen will have all the cost, processes, transportation, storage, distribution and middlemen the gasoline has. California is already getting 1/4 of electricity usage from solar. Virtually every large auto manufacturer is committed to electric cars with very savvy people betting it is the next step to CO2 reduced future. Hydrogen is in its infancy and could be the solution for nighttime power generation, aircraft and large trucks. Seems like many believe in highly electric future in the short term for sure but there will always be skeptics and bumps in the road.

 

[Timcognito]

Congress Eyes $235 Billion in Clean-Energy Subsidies

The incentives cover established sectors, such as wind and solar, as well as emerging technology, such as green hydrogen

www.scientificamerican.com

 

[levimax]

There is no high volume process producing hydrogen, no storage, transportation means, and no distribution facilities. Cars are the only one part of the problem. Electricity in is every structure in the modern world. Solar and wind turn the suns energy directly into electricity and put into the grid, and homes and businesses. Hydrogen will have all the cost, processes, transportation, storage, distribution and middlemen the gasoline has. California is already getting 1/4 of electricity usage from solar. Virtually every large auto manufacturer is committed to electric cars with very savvy people betting it is the next step to CO2 reduced future. Hydrogen is in its infancy and could be the solution for nighttime power generation, aircraft and large trucks. Seems like many believe in highly electric future in the short term for sure but there will always be skeptics and bumps in the road.

Seems like it is all figured out then and the central planners have it right. If this is the case then why are we spending trillions on subsidies to pick winners when the answer is so clear?

 

[Timcognito]

If this is the case then why are we spending trillions on subsidies to pick winners when the answer is so clear?

Because Florida might go under water if we wait for the generous private sector.
In Texas most of the solar and wind production is owned by large energy producers who are buying up independent new tech companies. They are betting on it too.

 

[levimax]

Because Florida might go under water if we wait for the generous private sector.
In Texas most of the solar and wind production is owned by large energy producers who are buying up independent new tech companies. They are betting on it too.

We might have a little more time than some think. If you re-watch "An inconvenient truth" Florida should have been underwater by now and in fact pretty much nothing predicted came true except that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have continued to rise and are now past the supposed "point of no return". I will offer a potential alternative reason for the massive subsidies which is an exaggerated sense of urgency is created to justify spending trillions of dollars allowing governments to gain more power and connected businesses to make huge profits. My guess is the truth lies somewhere in between the sky is falling and my cynical musing.

 

[SIY]

Why should EV's be subsidized over hydrogen or anything else? Why does it have to be "all or nothing"? Why not let the best technology win?

That's CRAZY talk!

“No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?” - Eric Blair

 

[A Surfer]

The barrier to a Green Economy is people. The more of them that you add to the equation, the more unbalanced the equation becomes.

 

[A Surfer]

And we do have to subsidize the Green Economy. Is any rationale person here suggesting that the fossil fuel economy wasn't extensively subsidized? If so you are 100% wrong, wrong as in silver cables sound bright wrong.

 

[blueone]

Because Florida might go under water if we wait for the generous private sector.

Nonsense and political.