Reflections
After several weeks of intense debate, on Monday entered into force the ultimate measure of our government to contain, even reduce our energy bill. For the past few days, our highways and freeways can not move more than 110 miles per hour. The truth is that this time I have come to Aranda umn twice since Madrid and well, I have to admit that this time is partly right around the world. My car has cut its consumption of 5.8 liters per 100 kilometers to 5.1 on the outward journey (which gives some reason to Rubalcaba) has fallen from 5.4 to 5.1 to the turn (giving you some truth to Joseph White and experts claiming that the reduction is not linear and depends on the vehicle and the journey) and Fernando Alonso, because I do not know if it would be for accumulated fatigue or because at that speed you lose some concentration, but my dream has come both the outward and return.
Joking aside, the measure is controversial and has shades of improvisation. It can be seen from different points of view. For example, my own empirical evidence shows that, as several experts have pointed out in multiple media (and are you going to forgive me not to put the link, but I heard an interesting debate on the radio the other day), lower speed does not imply less consumption per se. Depending on the engine and its torque, consumption could occur in certain cases even increased. Rubalcaba which speaks of a savings between 11 and 15%, while the White encrypted between 5 and 12% demonstrates that many issues have not been made, or at least not with all the rigor that a measure of such major deserves.
On the other hand, I think no one has noticed business costs resulting from this measure. Carriers will take longer in its distribution, sales may serve fewer clients and so many more that will result in our battered competitiveness. Lest I tachéis an opportunist, acknowledge beforehand numbers did not do this, but that time is a major economic well is unquestionable. As much as the energy debate is something very serious is not resolved exclusively light bulbs and lowering the speed limit.
Be fair. The Government has gone beyond the 110 km / hour. Intends to remove official cars, boost public transport (although it has not said how), and provide a rolling plan of tires, so it has been published in the press, it seems that something can take still take place. Anyway, I insist that this falls far short. The world in general is facing a paradigm shift in energy as a result of different phenomena. On the one hand, by rising to the train of development of the two most populous countries (India and China), which coupled with political instability in oil producing countries (remember that this is, with 40%, the power source greater weight in our mix) condemns us to a scenario with high prices for oil. Furthermore, the impact of our current model of the environment under the indiscriminate use of fossil fuels, whose impact on the current economy was well detailed by Nicholas Stern in 2006 in his report to the Government of Tony Blair . Spain in particular, and in proportion to address the above, has the handicap of its energy dependence, at about 84%, placing it well above other countries in the European Union (EU). That is, although the actions of our executive to be valid within a well defined strategy, failing that, those are just a patch.
Our politicians have to lose their fear of multistakeholder open a serious debate about energy issues, involving experts and non-interested voices, because all sources have their advantages and disadvantages. It is openly talking, saying things like are and banish misconceptions, so that, once all the cards on the table, we have a roadmap for running over the next 15 or 20 years.
If the bet is nuclear, which apart from its virtues, that is now many "gurus" remind us of another week, week also, we also have its risks and paradoxes, and that uranium is so small or more than oil, that enrichment can have very serious military implications or power, take time to build many years, almost as many as are estimated to take to make them profitable since its opening (15 - 20 years), what the road will to seek other alternatives.
If the bet is renewable, we talk about opportunity costs above the costs of energy production, because those who now deny it saying how expensive it is obviously the concept of experience curve (for which I recommend reading any article of the Boston Consulting Group). Let us explain why Merkel, for example, has installed over 18,000 MW of solar and Spain less than 4,000 MW despite having more hours of sun, or why, despite being an energy aparrentemente "face", Germany has grown by 3.6% in 2010. Even why there is a regulatory stability and this has been changed four times in four years of legislation (which discourages clearly the investment), or why the Teutons see photovoltaics as a reliable energy future while we see it as expensive and upset.
probably find virtue in the middle. That is, our energy mix will require fossil fuels, nuclear and renewable energy. Although the natural tendency is to bet on the latter, can not be naive in the short term that may be our only source. This brings us back to the beginning of the post. Can you reduce oil consumption and, therefore, our dependence on foreign? The answer is yes and that is why they should be promoting energy saving measures. In that scenario, of course that could have accommodated the measures provided by our government, but they should not go from being the "icing on the cake." Implement, as has been done with water, a fee in installments that encourages savings and penalize waste, would be an important first step.
have used in their day the "Plan E" to rehabilitate buildings and make eco-efficient, limiting access to the inner cities as in other countries (remember that the Metro de Madrid is the best in the world), to promote the "carsharing" and promote public transport to reach the 19,000 industrial sites which still is not available this alternative, priority should be measures to encourage savings in a firm and active. No less interesting is the other measures outlined in the report of the Foundation Conama "Global Change in Spain 2020/50" : construct new buildings to be self-sufficient from an energy point of view, for which should be built with certain guidelines, with thermal envelopes, efficient lighting, renewable energy facilities to heat water, etc., so that the building is capable of producing energy consuming, but something that could be washed into the mains.
Proposals
many do not know if all viable, but they most certainly stronger than those proposed by our executive. Energy and development go hand in hand. The debate is serious, much more that the action raised at least pretend.
0 comments:
Post a Comment