it like the Blind Men and an Elephant story because what is my experience in that way I am looking elephant.
please insight.
I agree with Artur Braun and add corporate social responsibility must be institutionalized in the developed and underdeveloped worlds.
Awareness and education to policy makers about green energy security.
its a contribution from social responsibility and policy maker . in addition to nation awareness
Gents, these are all far too simplistic ans superficial answers. Instead, the question deserves more sincerity. In Germany, we have reached quite some results in both material science and the field of energy policy, but not all really positive.
30 years ago, we started from a situation with a world-class nuclear and energy science. There was something like an energy policy that defined the energy mix, anti air pollution were in place that improved the environment drastically over the past decades. Material science was leading too, and our large chemical industry learned to organize closed-ended production cycles, where the products of one chemical process was turned into an educt of the next one.
I'll more familiar with the energy sector. In the early 1990ies, we started a large field experiment with solar and wind energy. In 2000, the industrial-scale feed-in-tariff system was introduced for all sorts of environmental energies (hydro, solar, wind, biomass AD, biomass thermal, and geothermal). All sorts of institutions were put into place to support the 'energy transition' away from thermal power plants towards environmental energies.
Today, we need to acknowledge that the experiment has failed. The ecological footprint of environmental energies is devastating, security of supply is still an open issue that lacks any reasonable solution, de-carbonization of the power sector is not advancing, and the cost of electricity is highest compared to all other European countries.
Why is this so? In all decision bodies that were installed to prepare the steps in the energy transitions, there were many theologists, artists, ecologists, economists and politicians, but no technicians or natural scientists. In the image of the elephant in a room, there were only dwarfs who could sense the elephant's legs, but no one could reach up to the trunk, the belly, the tail or the head.
Humanities are hence the by far smallest part in achieving sustainability. It requires well-trained, inventive people from the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) in order to ask the right questions in this context and to find the relevant answers. You can always teach a STEM graduate the social aspects of what they are doing, but try the other way round!
@Björn Peters: Despite its length, I consider also your statement as simplistic and superficial in a way.
The nuclear sector in Germany has always been opposed by some people; industry favored nuclear mainly because it was motivated politically. If you look at modern nuclear projects in Europe (Olkilotu, Flamanville, Hinkley Point C) it is obvious that at least newly constructed nuclear has difficulties on the market.
I do not deny that renewables have their own problems and that security of supply is important, but at least at the current level, I do not consider it a threatening issue.
However, I would support Artur Braun in his views based on an anecdote: An engineer at an NPP once talked to me and crtitized that "there is too much emotion in the energy discussions". In the next sentence, he said that despite nuclear decommissioning being a complex and demanding task in itself, he just did "not like it, because engineers like building and not removing". Now what is that, if not an emotional statement. Would be very interesting if a psychologist had participated in the discussion...
To clarify the debate: I didn't say that humanities should not be involved into the decision making. The issue is that in Germany, politicians think that the decisions on the future energy sector can be made without any single STEM graduate in the room. (I will not enter into the debate whether the Chancellor still qualifies as such.) This was the case in the Ethics Commission that debated the nuclear phase-out, and now in the Structure Commission that debates coal phase-out. In consequence, we don't have an energy policy that deserves this name in Germany at the moment.
I fully agree with Artur Braun that there is no energy policy without external cost, social impact and subsidies. This is why it is so important to leave the taboos in nowadays energy policy field behind us, and are willing to debate the ecological footprint, the cost and the social impact of all energy technologies, and then take an informed decision. However, this debate cannot be initiated without engineers explaining the technological options, biologists explaining the current scientific understanding of various sorts of ecological impact, and historians explaining the social impacts of past decisions.
In contrast, the German Government chose practically no expert in any of these fields for both the Ethics and the Structure Commissions. Instead: Local and national politicians and leaders of social movements such as Greenpeace. Their recommendations will be again ill-informed and devastating for both the German economy and the environment. Definitely no role model for the world.
(The poor results of too much social sciences and too less economic and scientific understanding in sustainability, I published recently in an editorial (in German): https://deutscherarbeitgeberverband.de/energiefrage/2018/2018_08_24_dav_aktuelles_energiefrage_59_worldovershootday.html )
We can achieve sustainable and abilities concerning with material and energy filed by using Buddhis meditation chapal.
Björn Peters:
I looked up the members of the Kohlekommission. It is just not true that there are no STEM graduates in the room. I was too lazy to check all members, but there are at least 3 physicist, 1 chemist and 1 technical engineer.
Artur Braun
We (probably) all know what odd decisions are made from time to time within our own scientific organisations, by scientific people based on technical arguments. Obviously, we do not need social science, religion, environmentalists or anyone else to introduce irrationality.
Good question.. Please share me the best answer might you get...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Materials Science