The Issue with going all Electric

Personnaly, I wouldn't stand on the idea that the problem is 100% political. Politics are like Oprah Winfrey. They animate debates, they are not responsible for Tom Cruise's swimsuit color, but they aim at finding the majority view, helping lawers to built already agreed regulations, which may be applied with a minimum of resistance among a society.

At this point of the talk, it may be sensible that the "heart of the war" is money, as always... Politics are just animating the show, knowing that there will be no good viewers figures in the end. Investments should be made, but no one has really gathered the adequat reserves to do these investments. Investments are necessary to sustain the transition for prize control. And prize control is essential to our economies - mine in particular -.

When I read this, I just can't avoid being shocked.

Sorry, the electrical consumption of my house in July was 469 kW. I surely cannot afford right now, nor next year, to pay 2 345$ !!! Today, I pay 0.1885 euros per kW. In approximation, should I multiply by 25 my money spend for energy ? Or should I use 25 times less home energy ? How can I do that ? In july, my four children were in holidays, at home. Should we eat cold raw products, should we wash our laundry in the near river ?

Technical solutions do exist, but our investments are too late to sustain these solutions. Governments are more endebted than ever, having paid onerous politics to "manage" the COVID situation and sustain economies. Industries have applied the "no stock" rule during more than 2 decades, unable to keep sufficient operational margin. And like all of us, they are now demanding more money from Governements to implement the energy transition.

This is the true problem. This is the reason why coal power plants are re-open, in many places on the planet, despite the announced objectives in reducing CO2 footprint. Too much time to built efficient solutions. Not enough money !
Germany to reactivate coal power plants as Russia curbs gas flow https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/08/germany-reactivate-coal-power-plants-russia-curbs-gas-flow
Despite climate commitments, the EU is going back to coal https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2022/09/02/despite-climate-commitments-the-eu-is-going-back-to-coal_5995594_19.html
'Unimaginable': Austria prepares to reopen coal power station https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220628-unimaginable-austria-prepares-to-reopen-coal-power-station
France may restart coal-fired power plant ahead of winter energy spike https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20220627-france-may-restart-coal-fired-power-plant-ahead-of-winter-energy-spike
Britain to keep coal-fired power plants open this winter https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/britain-keep-coal-fired-power-plants-open-this-winter-2022-07-29/
U.S. coal plants delay closures in hurdle for clean energy transition https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/us-coal-plants-delay-closures-hurdle-clean-energy-transition-2022-08-10/
Brazil extends coal use to 2040 under new 'just transition' law https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/brazil-extends-coal-use-2040-under-new-just-transition-law-2022-01-06/
Austria to reopen closed coal power station despite climate goals https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/06/28/austria-to-reopen-closed-coal-fired-power-station-despite-climate-goals

 

Duh, of course it's money. Huge amounts of money accumulated in the past century by vested interests in the fossil fuel industry in this case. Interests furiously defending their position while having an enormous budget. Exactly the reason the only answer to this problem is a political one.

We need more scientists influencing political will and less money doing the talking. And the only way to achieve that shift is trough politics.

 

When a resource is exhausted, change will happen regardless of politics. For example, the passenger pigeon was hunted into extinction. In spite that laws allowing hunting of pigeons still exist, hunting passenger pigeon is impossible.

 

The question is how many more species we let go extinct, how many more people will have to suffer and how many will die before we let change happen. And the answer to that question is inherently political.

 

@Alan Cattelliot



I never said anything like this, stop mis quoting me.

 

Ok Flotation, correction done ! it should have been a wrong copy paste. Don't go big !!

 

Scientific people are not more rational than others. Like monks, they work for the good of all the people, sometimes very isolated from the rest of the society. There is no scientific concensus. Science is questionning, science is contradiction. If not, we could not talk about Science. One should talk about Dogma. Science history is paved by the constant struggle between true scientific discourses, and dogmatic ideas dressed by pseudo science, used for oriented purpose. That is why : Never thrust scientific assessments without being able to verify yourself the results. Science is the faith that we progress only by putting in question our knowledge. That is why science only cannot draw our path to the future. This is epistemology ground level.

Truth is multiple. When talking about environnement, and our destiny, everybody's voice is to be heard equally, disregarding their social position in the society. It is the work of politics not to exclude some of us, under fallacious pretexts, when constituting the majority view. It is the work of the entrepreneurs to build the scene according to the majority view, not according to some private lobbyists. It is the work of the governement to sit at the desk of the theater, not selling to much of a price the ticket to enter the show.

 

The part in the square brackets you left out is crucial:

"We need more scientists influencing political will and less money doing the talking. And the only way to achieve that shift is trough politics."

So first you mis quote me and next you spend a couple of paragraphs based on some of my words pulled out of context.

This doesn't make any kind of sense.

 

We do not need more scientists influencing political will. This should not be their goal. We need to spend more money in bringing the maximum amount of point of view on the subject. For the rest, Flotation, you are free of your opinion. I let everyone judge for himself the relevance of the image I made, trying to make clear that everybody has a role, regarding the decision that shoould be made to de-carbonized our world. Everybody should stay at his place, and from this place, everybody's voice should be heard equally on the forum - according to its antique definition -.

The actual tendancy to confound the role of the science in the society is very dangerous, and should be fought with every force that we have. It comes from a lack of education, and it has for consequences people enslavements to the benefice of a few. There is nothing more dangerous than justifying social action by science. It is a first step to totalitarism.

 

You seem to have forgotten about the crucial "without conscience" part in your rebuttal.

 

Let's imagine one moment that our world could be a theater, like in William Shakespeare's view.



I try to illustrate, in short, some of the role that we could have, in this imaginary world. Some are to feel what kind of show is going to have some success. Some are to build the theater and the decorations that will fit with the play. And some are good to manage the entrance. In the end, we are all invited to the show, which is very modern, because we are all a part of it. Scientists do not build the future. They show the way. Business men & women, and entrepreneurs are the ones in charge of the achievement of their views, with respect to the reality of the entrepreneurship.

 

No. The science is the field of the knowledge , the conscience is about being ethical and moral. The knowledge is a philosophical matter, the moral is another. This is philosophy ground zero.

How do you define Conscience? - Ethics Explainer by The Ethics Centre https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-conscience/

 

conscience
/ˈkɒnʃ(ə)ns/

noun

1. a person's moral sense of right and wrong, viewed as acting as a guide to one's behaviour.

I'm worried about the "conscience" part with entrepreneurs. In general businessman seem to care more about money than morals. And we have seen where that leads us for what the environment is concerned.

 

You dont need to be sorry: It is ok to disagree (if we can agree to disagree) So you think $5 per kwh is a lot, but I think it's a fair price. The extra energy taxes should be sent to nations that did not cause historical emissions. Similarly a 10 euro/liter tax added to the price of fuel such as diesel should be sent to help people who have never used diesel but suffer from the consequences of it.

As for 25 times more money, or 25 times less energy: you could also do 1/5th the energy and pay 5 times more for it as well, Now its only $500 a month which is manageable. 469kW (hours?) in a month is huge energy use. This is multiple kwh per person per day! I have no idea what you could be powering with all that, but I am sure that there is no reason for it. It is many times the energy that most people consume. You can compare yourself to rich people and claim it is normal, but there are 8 billion people, not only rich people. Is it really fair that recently now billions of people think I owe them something for destroying the climate just because I live amongst those who do not even try to conserve energy?

You might find using personal solar panels the most affordable way to produce energy, but its fair to say that solar panels are also too cheap, and should have a higher price to ensure proper disposal (they have cadmium) and to minimize their use, as they do cause harmful pollution to produce.

cold raw products? I am not sure what that is about. I cook each day using a solar oven, and this type of cooking is actually the cheapest way even with current energy prices. If you are trying to save money I think you would cook the way I cook. I dont think I could cook it any better way for taste or nutritional value either.

I wash my clothes by hand using rainwater... most people in the world dont have washing machines and I dont really think its reasonable that the same people in rich countries who cause all the emissions etc are so entitled to think they should also get to have things like refrigeration, AC clothes washers etc that the vast majority of humans do not have, and so obviously do not need. Washing machines could be considered, maybe, for people who have never flown on an airplane (85% of humans) or for people who have never owned a combustion engine (myself) but somehow these people are expected to sacrifice more and more as time goes on, so that a relatively tiny portion of the human population can continue to live in excess, why?

I dont think having X number of children is a valid excuse to cause pollution that harms other people. It is really to the contrary, as the pollution caused from excess energy use will punish your own children in the future, but you also could end up with kids that refuse to speak to you or have much of a meaningful relationship when they grow up and realize just what you have done as opposed to what you could have done without any significant sacrifices.

 

List of countries by electricity consumption - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption

From these statistics I did a simple calculation.
38% of people live in countries that consume more electricity than world average. Those countries that consume more than average account for 80% of the total electricity consumed. This leaves only 20% of electricity for the remaining 62% of people. This is yet another obscene statistic involving energy/resource consumption.

This takes me back to the topic of the thread "the issue with going electric": people accustomed to consuming excessive amounts of energy may find electric propulsion inconvenient and limited. People who have never used a combustion engine to power a boat find electric propulsion to be a potential minor convenience but not really necessary or important.