H'mm, you make it sound easy. But you left out cubic amounts of money and sacrifice's of the people's wants & needs.
-
Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
What does it take to succesfully transition to a green energy economy?
- Thread starter Marc v E
- Start date
KSTR
Major Contributor
First step is people's awareness about their own energy consumption footprint and how to reduce it without sacrificing much.
Like, for example, disable all gimmick AI features of their browsers, search engines, general OS, etc and use AI assistance only when really needed.
Like, for example, disable all gimmick AI features of their browsers, search engines, general OS, etc and use AI assistance only when really needed.
Noske
Active Member
Will those "strong" (define strong) policies include guarantees about social justice measures so that those who are disadvantaged in any manner will not be financially compromised by any transition?
No, they'll make everyone more poor. Maybe that counts, though.
Steal from the rich and the middle class so that they can make everyone equally poor, so they can control ALL.
That is: they can control all except their own elite (as to who designates the elite, now that is an issue)
seems to be their motto.
Noske
Active Member
Well I wasn't being conspiratorial.
What I meant (if I was unclear) is that should any transition compromise the financially disadvantaged, that would need to be addressed as some form of guarantee. Because I am not convinced that this sector (defined widely) is well represented when it comes to making good public policy either on a domestic or international level.
The words "strong policy" was used, and that would be part of a strong (my preferred word would be robust) policy framework.
That would likely be anyone who is not actually rich.
I do not know how it is political, but OK, if you say so.
Maybe you don't like the facts about the way it has been happening and the failures
with massive super wasted spending that the governments have been involved in.
That actually could have gone to help the less fortunate and made a difference in everyone's lives.
It's just about control by controlling the money.
Last edited:
Noske
Active Member
I did not say anything about politics. Or control. I did not say "not rich". I mean disadvantaged by a transition - as it happens, this would most likely be financially disadvantaged people/s should there be extra burdens imposed.
I really fail to understand what you mean either in this comment or your previous comment. Try explaining your statements with some logical analysis.
JayGilb
Major Contributor
Probably time to move away from personal politics in this thread.
Since the original discussion the EU has been progressing on the way to more green energy. There have been three major reasons for doing this. The first is geopolitical. Russia has served us badly, and we do not want to be blackmailed again, so we want to become independent with energy. The second is concerns about climate change, and the third is cost. Wind and solar have become cheaper than fossil fuel, so to be competitive in the global economy, and for our populations to prosper, cheap energy matters.
The trajectory has been along two important lines. The first has been energy conservation. If you use less energy there is less to transition from. It has been a mix of regulations to make energy use more transparent, such as labelling of appliances for energy consumption, or mandatory labelling of houses for rent or when they are sold. This is classic economics if you want a market to function smoothly and fairly. Another route has been mandatory standards of energy conservation for new houses. Such standards dramatically increase the market for energy saving solutions like triple glazing, heat pumps and the like. The result has been that such things have quickly become rather cheaper because they are now common rather than rare. A second trajectory has been subsidies, to accelerate the process. In the Netherlands home owners have been offered about 25% subsidies for home insulation, and that has clearly stimulated the transition. The biggest issues have been that there has been a shortage of skilled labour on the one hand, and a lack of convenient procedures for rental property, which obviously disadvantages mostly poorer people.
The second line has been to generate more durable energy, and wind and solar in particular. This is moving along at pace, and is mostly held back by a lack of skilled labour, and in particular by the limited capacity of the grid. This is rapidly being expanded, but it is a truly major challenge. Here again, beefing up the grid rapidly is impossible without govenrment intervention. Public action is also required to set standards for smart appliances that modulate their electricity consumption in response to dynamic prices, such as smart charging poles for EVs, smarter heat pumps or dishwashers, washing machines and the like.
In the meantime, it is all coming together. We had our large house insulated to a much higher standard than before, already had solar panels, and now also have a heat pump for heating and tap water. The natural gas connection was removed to save on the connection charge. Our net electricity consumption is now about 5000 kWh for a whole year, and at a cost of about 1500 euros a year (for a large detached house). We still have a gasoline car, but when that dies it will be replaced by an EV that we can charge cheaply when our solar panels have excess production. In our case the transition was motivated by a combination of a sense of ecological responsibility, hard nosed economics in response to prices, and govenrment incentives. And that, of course, is how those transitions mostly happen.
The trajectory has been along two important lines. The first has been energy conservation. If you use less energy there is less to transition from. It has been a mix of regulations to make energy use more transparent, such as labelling of appliances for energy consumption, or mandatory labelling of houses for rent or when they are sold. This is classic economics if you want a market to function smoothly and fairly. Another route has been mandatory standards of energy conservation for new houses. Such standards dramatically increase the market for energy saving solutions like triple glazing, heat pumps and the like. The result has been that such things have quickly become rather cheaper because they are now common rather than rare. A second trajectory has been subsidies, to accelerate the process. In the Netherlands home owners have been offered about 25% subsidies for home insulation, and that has clearly stimulated the transition. The biggest issues have been that there has been a shortage of skilled labour on the one hand, and a lack of convenient procedures for rental property, which obviously disadvantages mostly poorer people.
The second line has been to generate more durable energy, and wind and solar in particular. This is moving along at pace, and is mostly held back by a lack of skilled labour, and in particular by the limited capacity of the grid. This is rapidly being expanded, but it is a truly major challenge. Here again, beefing up the grid rapidly is impossible without govenrment intervention. Public action is also required to set standards for smart appliances that modulate their electricity consumption in response to dynamic prices, such as smart charging poles for EVs, smarter heat pumps or dishwashers, washing machines and the like.
In the meantime, it is all coming together. We had our large house insulated to a much higher standard than before, already had solar panels, and now also have a heat pump for heating and tap water. The natural gas connection was removed to save on the connection charge. Our net electricity consumption is now about 5000 kWh for a whole year, and at a cost of about 1500 euros a year (for a large detached house). We still have a gasoline car, but when that dies it will be replaced by an EV that we can charge cheaply when our solar panels have excess production. In our case the transition was motivated by a combination of a sense of ecological responsibility, hard nosed economics in response to prices, and govenrment incentives. And that, of course, is how those transitions mostly happen.
Last edited:
Noske
Active Member
If policy regarding welfare economics is denied in any discussion of a green energy economy because it may be embarrassing (? because it certainly isn't political from my perspective), "successful" transition will be an oxymoron.
Well, I guess that you haven't lived in a place (an Island in Oceana for 17 years) and seen what happens. Everyone except the wealthy are hurt because the economy tanked, the 36 factories moved to other countries, leaving the locals that had stores supplying food, goods and rental housing to the factory workers (some of whom were also locals) and the factory executives. Because the place became poor (and started looking poorly) the tourism stopped, the wind mills stopped as they could not be maintained, as did the solar and the wave/water generators and the economy tanked and has stayed that way (starting to go that way in 2009 & bottoming out and staying that way since 2014).
These things also caused the tourism industry to also fail. The remaining people have had to have their younger family members leave to get jobs elsewhere to send money back to their elders, spouses & minor children.
Maybe YOU should get LOGICAL and make sense.
Because you absolutely have no clue.
But I have lived it.
Maybe that's not what happens everywhere. But that is certainly what happened where I no longer live because of what happened that was caused by the way the "green energy" was handled.
Only those with income from elsewhere (usually the most wealthy), are still living decently.
Noske
Active Member
A willingness to build large new generation plants despite massive local objections and picayune litigation about suddenly discovered endangered species.
A nationwide network of small salt-thorium reactors : solve the grid and security problems along with power supply.
A nationwide network of small salt-thorium reactors : solve the grid and security problems along with power supply.
I think this whole "green economy transition just needs proper policies and some tech and some personal collaboration" a bit simplistic. Our lifestyle is supported by fossil fuels (long distance travel, overnight shipping, personal vehicles, suburban sprawl, to name just a few -- and things which I also enjoy, so I mention these not from a judgmental standpoint). Fossil fuels are (very) energy dense, readily available, versatile and our technology is built with this in mind. Renewables are (way) less energy dense, have much lower energy returns on energy investment, are hard to store, are intermittent, more expensive in most cases. They also require major infrastructure which cannot magically appear overnight.
Can we have a greener economy? Probably, and in a sense we are doing this. Will it come in a few years or decades? Not without major disruptions and loss of welfare. Is a 100% renewable society possible? Not this society, which is built upon fossil fuels. We would need to invent something else (please do not read this last bit as a capitalism vs. socialism).
Can we have a greener economy? Probably, and in a sense we are doing this. Will it come in a few years or decades? Not without major disruptions and loss of welfare. Is a 100% renewable society possible? Not this society, which is built upon fossil fuels. We would need to invent something else (please do not read this last bit as a capitalism vs. socialism).
I never said it would be easy, but it is both ecologically necessary (and not limiting climate change would be far too expensive according to all economists), but it will also provide cheaper energy. Right now it is often already somewhat cheaper, but the trend is that the advantage will only get bigger. And for Europe, there is also the geopolitical neccessity. Yes, there will be challenges, and maybe we will not replace fossil fuels completely, but that is no reason not to move from where we are now.
What would you expect them to say, your not saving any energy?
How about the contamination of all those batteries?
Mostly a bunch of PC BS.
Todays ICE engines are very efficient, very low polluting solutions to the transportation issue.
Toys run on batteries.
Similar threads
- Locked
