-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. 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
Crapping in your nest then deciding how to best live in the shit filled nest is not good planning imo.
My policy and I think it is a good one is to get one's own house in order and lead by example.
Inaction over the past 40 years has lead us to this point, which will get worse. More inaction and plans to live in our squalor will net us a worse position yet and provides little chance for those that follow us. Many advantages to moving to a higher level of energy consumption than burning dinosaur residues for the remainder of our short term thinking lives.
I wouldn't listen to those that will would simply do nothing or do the same. Always continuous improvement.
My policy and I think it is a good one is to get one's own house in order and lead by example.
Inaction over the past 40 years has lead us to this point, which will get worse. More inaction and plans to live in our squalor will net us a worse position yet and provides little chance for those that follow us. Many advantages to moving to a higher level of energy consumption than burning dinosaur residues for the remainder of our short term thinking lives.
I wouldn't listen to those that will would simply do nothing or do the same. Always continuous improvement.
I don't care about what the Netherlands has emitted or emits now. GHG emissions are a global issue, and whatever 18 million people do is irrelevant. If you want to get off the hook, fine by me. Or, if you enjoy spending your national wealth on low emissions, or if you just like lesser levels of pollution caused by eliminating fossil fuel burning, that's fine too. This whole notion that we all have to contribute and die trying if necessary to reduce GHG emissions strikes me as silly and often irresponsible emotion. The problem is global, the solution has to be global, or we should conserve our wealth for the hugely expensive mitigation investments that will be necessary as the oceans rise and the environment worsens. Since I have no faith at all that there will be a global strategy anytime before we get a 2C global temperature rise, this entire feel-good process you advocate looks to me like a waste of time and resources, and an expensive diversion from the remedies that will ultimately be necessary.
The Dutch government has just announced its plans for emission reduction in the context of EU planning, and to meet the international Paris agreement goals. The plan is to reduce emissions by at least 55% and preferably more by 2030, compared to the Benchmak 1990 level. The budget is about 3.5 billion euros a year, so not that much for a rich country such as ours. We still have to wait for the details, but speeding up the planning and connecting infrastructure for far more wind turbines in the North Sea will be an important part of it, as will be mandatory batteries for large PV panel parks. Building insulation standards have already been tightened, both for office spaces and new private homes, and existing subsidies of about 25-30% for home insulation and conversion to heat pumps will be extended from homeowners to rented social housing. New homes no longer get a gas connection, and as from I think 2026 new traditional gas boilers can no longer be sold unless there are overwhelming obstacles such as with some historic houses. Following EU plans all rented and owned accomodation will have to have a certificate to document their energy efficiency if and when new renters move in or when a house is sold (to make the housing market more transparent). Gas supplies to domestic consumers will be discontinued by 2050 at the latest. Reducing industrial emissions will be harder, and are currently about half of all our emissions, given our big petrochemical industry and a big old fashioned steel mill. Coal firing of power stations was reintroduced to cope with the boycot of Russian gas, but will be discontinued again as soon as possible. Gas fired powered stations will be closed once we have enough electricity from wind towards the end of the decade. Planning will start for two nuclear power stations. The European tradable emission credit system will be extended to more sectors of the economy. The number of charging posts for EVs will be augmented in some rural districts where their number lags behind (most parts of the country already have many, both private and public).
All of this is done in the international context of EU agreements, and the Paris agreement, to make sure we meet our international obligations. It is a global challenge indeed.
All of this is done in the international context of EU agreements, and the Paris agreement, to make sure we meet our international obligations. It is a global challenge indeed.
And those are?
Seems like the move to renewable energy have many benefits beyond Co2 mitigation that I outlined in last post. Your recalcitrance against it seems unwarranted given the number of gains that have been made with batteries, transportation, solar, wind, and device efficiency in lighting and heating/AC to name a few. My home's (3200 sq ft) solar system was a net energy producer in 2022 and will pay for itself in les than 7 yrs from installation. The Netherlands it the tip of spear of that needs to happen, completely opposite of what you say. Read the title of thread.
~40% of the US population lives in coastal areas, the oceans are going to rise... we'll need expensive infrastructure upgrades to protect existing cities, roads, bridges, and relocate those that can't be saved. I'm not sure which sea level increases to believe, but they all look expensive.
I agree with that. I'm just against mandating the adoption of early-stage technologies when we're only 10-11% of the global GHG emissions, and other countries seem to be going their own way. I'm not a believer in the value of spending just to demonstrate leadership.
As you've posted countless times. You live in NorCal, somewhere in/near the Bay Area? If so, you live in one of the most benign environments on the planet. Low energy consumption is easier. I know, I used to live there. Or are you more inland, with actual summer heat and cold snowy winters? Then I'd be more impressed.
I'm not into religious rituals.
I am not sure we deserve to be called the tip of the spear: our per capita emissions are relatively high. We benefit from our prosperity, high level of education and the presence of world class research institutions. I guess it also helps that we have a tradition of coalition politics and compromise. The result is a quite widely shared consensus.
I will try to dig up data on the cost of our planned coastal defenses to deal with rising sea levels, but be prepared for astronomical figures.
Right now we first remember our war dead.
I will try to dig up data on the cost of our planned coastal defenses to deal with rising sea levels, but be prepared for astronomical figures.
Right now we first remember our war dead.
Last edited:
Yeah but the thread is:
What does it take to successfully transition to a green energy economy?
That's very funny. Anyone who doesn't agree with you needs to stay on your notion of on-topic. I think I've been pretty clear with my message, when the economics and utility of low or zero emission technologies are equal to or better than those that directly emit GHGs, they'll get adopted without all the subsidies, mandates, and just for show leading-by-example agendas. That's my view of what it takes to transition to a green energy economy. Oh yeah, it'll surely expedite the transition to get the NIMBYs and anti-people and anti-development environmentalists out of the way of infrastructure improvements.
Agree, but how about innovation, development and adoption. Seems to be working for solar panels and EVs. In California the solar credits did what they where expected to do faster than expected and are being dialed down. EVs get a premium price if you can find one and all makers are racing to deliver them to meet demand. Both technologies are no longer in their infancy or at least not as the public is concerned. One is no longer an early adopter.
A quick search turned up large quantities of engineering and economic documents on the cost of dealing with rising sea levels from government, engineering companies and research institutes. Unfortunately nothing in English yet. The lowest cost estimates are a few times more than the 28 billion of the recent government plan to reduce emissions, and only take us to the end of the century, which is quite a bit shorter than the normal timeframe our coastal defence planners work with.
Solar panels are still an expensive and ugly PITA, in my opinion, and I live in one of the best places in the country to deploy them. The technology also seems to still be on a moderately steep improvement curve, which is a very good thing, but it tends to dull my excitement about investing until I see it start to flatten. Buying early doesn't look like a good deal unless you use a lot of electricity (I know people who do, but not us) or you have a local utility which is forced by regulations or statute to pay high prices to buy surplus panel generation from customers.
EVs are a special case, because with the exception of Tesla all of the major automakers appear to be losing money on them. Ford, for example, expects to lose $3B in 2023 on its EV operations. EV production from the traditional automakers is supply chain limited for now. Automakers don't appear to be racing to meet demand, they're racing to get production high enough to contend with mandates limiting or eliminating sales of new ICE vehicles.
Similar population (18MM vs 20MM). We make better wine here, though.
The Netherlands does not have the extended warm weather and sandy loamy soil for grapes from what I am aware of.Similar population (18MM vs 20MM). We make better wine here, though.
I lived in a Okanagan wine orchard for months, it smelled glorious and we nibbled on wine type grapes as we where living in the orchard. The birds where a issue and there where bird bangers and shotgun shells going off intermittently but one became used to the noises and birds. It was one heckuva summer! Never forget it...
The Dutch have a sooper wealth of flowers I understand. Fractional distillation of the fragrances and oils from them would be very productive and valuable I imagine. A entire industry waiting to be born I think it might be.
They are ugly but I can think of real estate as only physical thing that pays for itself and then pays you when you sell it. The panels in 7-10 years they adding cash to your pocket. Maybe some collector stuff I guess.
OP
Marc v E
Major Contributor
- Thread Starter
- #579
Good. I like wine.Similar population (18MM vs 20MM). We make better wine here, though.
We are a very densily populated country. Sadly, for good wine you have to travel 1000 kms south or contend with white wine.
The upshot of our country is that we have a relatively long coastline and a steady supply of wind. I wouldn't mind more sun, but that's how it is.
Don't forget the cheese. In No. Cal. we make and love cheese.
Similar threads
