Habeck claims anyone could quite easily use 10% less energy

111 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, Dembo said:

So I recommend an Indian takeaway as a way of saving energy.

When I dine at a 3-star Michelin Restaurant I "save" the energy I would otherwise use for cooking.

Not sure this saves overall energy, or money, tough.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dembo said:

 

Reading the book from Bill Gates on climate change right now.

Most of the CO2 we produce (and I think this applies to energy too) is actually indirect, in the manufacturing processes for making stuff. Any stuff from industry and agriculture, specifically concrete, steel, and meat. I used to think this is because manufacturing takes energy (chemical reactions, for example to cook cement, or melting mineral to make steel and aluminium, occur at high temperatures), so if we finally have clean energy we solve the issue for good. But unfortunately not so. Even if we had 100% clean energy, beyond the high temperatures required, it's really the chemical reactions themselves, used by industry and agriculture, that release greenhouse gases. So even switching to 100% clean energy we would still be emitting CO2.

 

By the way the book is very good, I recommend it. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany to stop Russian oil imports by end of this year

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61164894

 

I think this is good. Of course short term industry will take a dent and we all end up poorer, or less rich, than we are now. I think it's a price worth paying.

 

What do you think?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this open talk of stopping gas imports sometime seems a bit like talking about looking for a new job in front of your boss: Putin might turn around and decide to turn off the taps now, figuring he hasn't got that much to lose long term.

 

An interesting question is how quickly a rich country like Germany could get on with the Energiewende if it were forced into it. Say there was no more gas and oil from Russia but enough gas reserves to last a year and thereafter only the drastically reduced amount that could be secured from other parts of the world. So there's about a year and a half to convert as many heating systems as possible to heat pumps (or something else) as well as building wind turbines and installing solar panels. No more vague promises about targets for 2050; got to get on with it because people will literally be freezing in winter 2023.

 

Short term would obviously be catastrophically expensive, but a country that did that would likely emerge the world leader.

 

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dembo said:

An interesting question is how quickly a rich country like Germany could get on with the Energiewende if it were forced into it.

If you have command of German, this interview with the former CEO of EON will open the eyes of those of you who think it´s merely waiving 2 or 3% of GDP. He predicts that public support for a gas embargo would dwindle within a few months as the actual damage caused by such an embargo would become obvious (hint: gas isn´t needed just for power generation). Which I bet is a correct prediction. Let´s not forget that Orban won an absolute majority for saying he won´t stop buying Russian gas and that this war isn´t Hungary´s war. And let´s not forget that a stop of Russian gas imports into the EU won´t affect Putin´s war efforts anyway for reasons I pointed out earlier already.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Monbiot described in the Guardian recently how the US upgraded to war production in 1942. Manufacture of automobiles was forbidden for the duration, factories were converted in a few months to make tanks, planes, guns instead. He was talking about the Energiewende, making wind turbines, solar panels and the like.

 

No more new cars would be a good idea, whatever.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jeba said:

If you have command of German, this interview with the former CEO of EON will open the eyes of those of you who think it´s merely waiving 2 or 3% of GDP. He predicts that public support for a gas embargo would dwindle within a few months as the actual damage caused by such an embargo would become obvious (hint: gas isn´t needed just for power generation). Which I bet is a correct prediction. Let´s not forget that Orban won an absolute majority for saying he won´t stop buying Russian gas and that this war isn´t Hungary´s war. And let´s not forget that a stop of Russian gas imports into the EU won´t affect Putin´s war efforts anyway for reasons I pointed out earlier already.

I suspect that more than public impact, this would have much more chemical plants impact, and to avoid closing them for a year or so, they scare the public. So we are paying for big companies to keep working, especially with cheap electricity cost.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

this would have much more chemical plants impact,

This is a bis part of what I was hinting to. According to Tysssen, the chemical industry can´t do without natural gas. And without it´s products other industries would be severly damaged as well. If one wheel in a wheelwork is jammed, the others will be affected, too.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats why we have to go slow enough in the transition to avoid major disruption, but quick enough so Russia can feel an impact. In any case using less gas/coal/oil is good for the planet and its now cheap to use solar anyway. However mining materials for solar needs to be cleaned up somehow.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jeba said:

This is a bis part of what I was hinting to. According to Tysssen, the chemical industry can´t do without natural gas. And without it´s products other industries would be severly damaged as well. If one wheel in a wheelwork is jammed, the others will be affected, too.

Is that cannot do without, or it's difficult to do without?

https://www.dena.de/fileadmin/dena/Publikationen/PDFs/2019/Feedstocks_for_the_chemical_industry.pdf

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the main thing is using less, of whatever energy. Air-Con buildings, trains, buses are a big problem, they are designed to use/waste lots of energy. Often there are no windows to open.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/04/2022, 21:19:08, robinson100 said:

 

Actually saw a report on the TV once, about saving money - apparently, by filling the fridge, you do save money by not losing so much cold air when you open the door, as Dembo said.

The solution shown was to put clothing in there that wasn´t really dirty, but needed to be freshened up a bit - it filled the spaces, and the cold air helped neutralise smells in the clothing.

 

The 20 year old freezer was pulling 400w, vs todays one which is 100w or at least 3-4x cheaper. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Fietsrad said:

I think the main thing is using less, of whatever energy. Air-Con buildings, trains, buses are a big problem, they are designed to use/waste lots of energy. Often there are no windows to open.

AC on IC (and ICE) trains tends to fail when it is very hot.  Windows cannot be opened, not even with a key.  Then the train gets cancelled.  The old IC had nice big windows that could be opened wide. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovely weather today, outside at least. I read my book a while sitting on the platform waiting for a train, maybe 12°C.

 

Got on the train, felt like being roasted alive, maybe 30°C. Do they expect us to strip off to t-shirts and then tog up again ten minutes later before getting off?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Biggest mistake Germany did, was shutting down nuclear plants, All this energy crisis is consequence of that. With cheap electricity many households would choose heat pumps instead of gas or even oil. And lets be honest, solar and wind energy don't work without the sun and wind, and they are anyhow to unreliable.

And all this will lead for us (middle and lower) class having to save energy, reducing heating and being cold, and at the same time, richest people are flying into space just to make a selfie and having yachts consuming gallons of fuel every minute. Oh, and I cannot  imagine them to reduce heating and use blankets in their big mansions.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a physicist, and I'm also a green extremist, and I'm in favour of nuclear energy.

 

In short: the damage caused by neutral is minuscule compared to the damage caused by CO2.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now