Germany makes huge and effective effort on energy efficiency

http://phys.org/news/2014-04-energy-efficiency-trump-card-german.html

"...

Its website, "efficiency-from-germany.info", highlights that Germany, which has traditionally had to import most of its energy, has achieved reductions in energy usage despite growing economic output.

It says that in the early 2000s, German researchers and companies submitted between 30 and 40 percent of global patent applications in the areas of energy-efficient building services and industrial processes and technologies.
..."

Good for them! But, what angers me is, if they can do this, why cannot OUR UK government and this country do this? There is absolutely NO excuse! The politicians are being extremely stupid and irresponsible with their inaction. All their pathetic token gestures came to nothing. They must stop talking and, instead, take REAL action for once to really push for both renewables and energy efficiency -a spin-free radical ( "radical" for UK politicians, not for rational reasonable people ) hands-on approach.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26820405

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26820405

Arr so the German politicians there have got it very far from right! I guess it is the same everywhere then.

hopefully this would come to something: http://phys.org/news/2014-04-imf-world-bank-price-carbon.html

Both energy efficiency and renewable's have one thing in common: high upfront costs and savings in the long term. Humans are simply not good at investing. They want their money now.
With energy efficiency, there is the added problem that the builder benefits from not including energy efficiency, whereas the buyer does. But the builder makes the decision.
With renewable's, the investment is made by the individual rather than by power companies.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Both energy efficiency and renewable's have one thing in common: high upfront costs and savings in the long term. Humans are simply not good at investing. They want their money now.
With energy efficiency, there is the added problem that the builder benefits from not including energy efficiency, whereas the buyer does. But the builder makes the decision.
With renewable's, the investment is made by the individual rather than by power companies.

Both energy efficiency and renewable's have one thing in common: high upfront costs and savings in the long term. Humans are simply not good at investing. They want their money now.

I think the the term for that is short termism.

With energy efficiency, there is the added problem that the builder benefits from not including energy efficiency, whereas the buyer does. But the builder makes the decision.

perhaps that problem could be remedied with some sort of government 'energy inefficiency' tax that it such that, the greater the energy inefficiency of the final building, the more of this 'energy inefficiency' tax the builder manager and/or architect must pay?

Originally posted by humy
Germany makes huge and effective effort on energy efficiency

I'd say - they have to!

Nuclear - they are going to halt nuclear energy, a decision after the japaneese tragedy.
Cole - they know this has to halt because of the CO2 emissions.
Gas - their gas comes mainly from Russia. They don't want to be dependant of Russia after the russian Crimean activities.

What's left?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I'd say - they have to!

Nuclear - they are going to halt nuclear energy, a decision after the japaneese tragedy.
Cole - they know this has to halt because of the CO2 emissions.
Gas - their gas comes mainly from Russia. They don't want to be dependant of Russia after the russian Crimean activities.

What's left?

Lots of bicycles with little generators on them, run at home for your stuff?

Seriously, they have to invest big time in solar and wind. The new gearless wind generators coming online should help lower the cost of wind power.

You can probably get some energy out of geothermal anywhere on Earth but you have to drill several kilometers deep for that energy and even that will be rather low density, say 120 degrees C max unless you drill 10 or 20 km deep.

Then there is hydro power which is cheap but not as good on the environment as people like to say, for instance, using up land that was viable agricultural and now is just underwater which alters the local biome environment.

Long term there is fusion power and if we are very very lucky, cold fusion.

There SEEMS to be data coming out now supporting cold fusion but I will believe it when I can independently test those systems myself!

Originally posted by sonhouse
Lots of bicycles with little generators on them, run at home for your stuff?

Seriously, they have to invest big time in solar and wind. The new gearless wind generators coming online should help lower the cost of wind power.

You can probably get some energy out of geothermal anywhere on Earth but you have to drill several kilometers deep for that ene ...[text shortened]... supporting cold fusion but I will believe it when I can independently test those systems myself!

I don't think solar and wind will satisfy their energy hungry industries. And hydro from the rivers, well, I think they don't have more places to build dams anymore.

Nuclear? Well, their population is not happy with nuclear rectors anymore.

So there isn't anything left.

Originally posted by humy
perhaps that problem could be remedied with some sort of government 'energy inefficiency' tax that it such that, the greater the energy inefficiency of the final building, the more of this 'energy inefficiency' tax the builder manager and/or architect must pay?

In general, it requires government policy interventions of some sort rather than leaving it up to 'the market'.

Originally posted by sonhouse
You can probably get some energy out of geothermal anywhere on Earth but you have to drill several kilometers deep for that energy and even that will be rather low density, say 120 degrees C max unless you drill 10 or 20 km deep.

Nevertheless, geothermal is a good solution in many places especially in places where heating is a major use of energy.

Then there is hydro power which is cheap but not as good on the environment as people like to say, for instance, using up land that was viable agricultural and now is just underwater which alters the local biome environment.
Which is not always a bad thing. I personally believe the Kariba Dam in Zambia is beneficial in many ways in addition to the power generation. For example the fish it produces is major source of cheap protein used throughout Zambia. It also provides significant tourism opportunities.
Also don't forget that using land for agriculture also 'alters the local biome environment.'

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't think solar and wind will satisfy their energy hungry industries.

It could.

Originally posted by humy
http://phys.org/news/2014-04-energy-efficiency-trump-card-german.html

"...

Its website, "efficiency-from-germany.info", highlights that Germany, which has traditionally had to import most of its energy, has achieved reductions in energy usage despite growing economic output.

It says that in the early 2000s, German researchers and companies submitted be ...[text shortened]... radical ( "radical" for UK politicians, not for rational reasonable people ) hands-on approach.

Only yesterday I was reading that the Dutch had successfully employed luminous paint that absorbs energy from sunlight during the day and uses it during the nightime to light up roads. Pure awesomeness! they are then able to turn off the street lights at night.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Lots of bicycles with little generators on them, run at home for your stuff?

Or, they can install generators in all the local gyms. With health fanatics ever increasing, I bet they can power an entire industry that way. 😏

Originally posted by twhitehead
It could.

I don't think so. Possible, perhaps, but who want to pay the high price?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I don't think so. Possible, perhaps, but who want to pay the high price?

At least at some time eventually in the future, it wouldn't be a 'high' price by any stretch of perception because the advances in renewable technology would eventually make it extremely cost effective.