The many terms used under the heading of energy transition sometimes lead to confusion. Is sustainability something different from circularity? Are we solving grid congestion through the energy transition or is it a consequence of it? AND perhaps even more importantly: what is an energy transition actually?
You cannot leave a very long pause in a piece of text, but I hope that everyone who reads this will now think for a moment about what it indeed is or should be.
Thought? In my view, we have two ideas about 'the energy transition'. There may be more definitions, but I experience a theoretical and a practical explanation of the term. The theoretical seems logical: we replace all fossil fuels with alternative energy sources. With the practical explanation you come across less logical discussions. Is biomass a sustainable energy source or not? Is that source efficient and effective? Should we use nuclear energy or not? What about hydrogen and water pumps?
During the practical implementation of the energy transition, opinions, media expressions and fierce discussions on social media all overlap. In addition, I do not understand why everyone seems to think it is logical that we could simply switch from one system to another. We want to be able to continue talking on our smartphones about the 'stupid opinions' that are out there, but we don't think the data centers that are needed for this are really necessary. (Or we would rather not have the data centers anymore).
What 'we' think is difficult to determine. So many people, so many opinions. Who has the authority to really explain that? Anyway, if we find the theory logical and the practice difficult, then it seems to me to be a technical problem and a solution. Where in the past the Nobel Prize winner Lorentz was allowed to do important work for the Afsluitdijk, I would now expect a team of super technicians who could create a 'Delta plan' for the energy transition. Long term, logical reasoning and looking across government periods.
Nederlands