Policy and solutions in the Netherlands

[nanning]

Let's close all industrial (large scale) pig farms. Close them on the grounds of morality.

[kassy]

The nitrogen budget fixing emergency law is going through the motions. It should be or already has passed the Tweede Kamer (Second Room). Those are our directly elected representatives. The current ruling coalition has a majority there.

They do not have one in the Eerste Kamer (First chamber, based on votes by provincial colleges so they are indirectly elected. Their job is to check laws on general principles). So they are negotiating over extra votes there.

*

In a measure not aimed at climate change but maybe helpful:

Het kabinet komt met een verbod op het recreatief gebruik van lachgas. Uit onderzoek is gebleken dat het aantal ernstige gezondheidsincidenten toeneemt en dat mensen "veel overlast door zwerfvuil" ervaren als gevolg van rondslingerende lachgaspatronen.

...

Volgens Blokhuis is het dan ook de bedoeling dat de eigenlijke aanbieders van lachgas, zoals groothandels, detailhandels, horeca en gasproducenten, zo min mogelijk geraakt worden door het besluit. Daarom zullen er gesprekken met deze aanbieders gevoerd worden.

So finally the recreational use of laughing gas or nitrous oxide is banned again.

It used to be banned but then there was some EU law that unbanned stuff that did not have strict medical uses. The N2O is sold in metal cannisters for whipped cream.

The main reasons to act are more related health problems and the nuisance. They quote the pollution problem (which is bad, discarded aluminium (?) cannisters plus 1 kg of the shit equals 298 kg of CO2 so please just smoke weed).

Also they want to regulate it in a way that does not hurt wholesale or retail etc. So not ure if it is going to work at all.

PS: These assholes also drive shortly after. One nearly wiped me out but then skidded onto the big road and nearly went into the buildings on the other side (it was summer).

[nanning]

I think I was wrong on the harmful effects in an earlier post. Apologies for my error kassy.
"just smoke weed"
Good advise

[Rob Dekker]

2030 was already the end date for the gas field. This has now been pulled forward to mid 2022.

The field will not be dismantled so we can use it if needed in a very cold winter in the 2020s.

At least we acknowledged that we cannot use this resource for much longer then 2030 for a long time. On paper we were committed but nothing much happened but increased earthquake damage forced the politicians hand...then again russian nat gas should be coming soon and that could have factored in but it is not something they talk about.

Russian gas comes with strings attached.
Ask Ukraine how it went to cut these strings.

Austria is another example of a nation that got hooked on Russian gas, especially under FPÖ rule (2017-2019) :
https://www.worldoil.com/news/2019/3/7/gazprom-s-natural-gas-supplies-to-austria-increase-33-in-2019

Austria can't cut these strings any more.  They are hooked on Russian gas until Austria starts to rely on their OWN (renewable) energy resources.

Ask Neven when that will happen.

[Rob Dekker]

I'm sorry guys. I'm a Dutch, but living abroad, so I'm not very familiar with Dutch policy and politics. I am an engineer, and as such I'm really curious how the Netherlands plans to implement the pledge to the Paris agreement.

If you look at the world map, the Netherlands is joining the rest of the EU in the lead to reduce CO2 emissions by 40%.



Other countries like China and the US have insufficient pledges, and there are even countries like Russia, Turkey and Iran that did not even bother to pledge anything, so the EU is clearly in the lead here.

But even with that, how is the Netherlands going to reduce CO2 emissions by 40% ?

Clearly closing some pig farms is not going to do it, and importing Russian gas is not helping either.

[kassy]

I will be reporting when they figure it out.

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/klimaatverandering/klimaatbeleid

It seems that the Urgenda appeal is already done and the government lost that so at the end of next year we have to be 25% below the 1990 emissions. I think we were only going to end up a bit short (something like 23%).

They are possibly closing some extra older coal or gas based energy plants.

I am curious how soon the EU can come up with an effective collective strategy...we will see.

[nanning]

Biomass is pushed massively as a 'solution' and is counted as zero emissions. Those coal plants have to keep burning biomass (our government helping the big polluters with our money and policies to stay afloat). The idea is to cut foreign trees, turn them into pellets, ship them to The Netherlands and burn them to heat water into steam.

Re: EU/NL. I don't believe in pledges and commitments anymore until I see some real action. 4% per year reduction is nowhere on the horizon and is much too weak anyway imo.

Rob, I don't know what your engineering field is but maybe you have a better view on what the necessary adjustments to our dykes have to be, our protection from the seas, in a hypothetical situation of 2 meter SLR by 2100 and much more severe and frequent storms.

[Rob Dekker]

Thank you Kassy and Nanning.

I understand that the Netherlands does not have many "renewable" options.
There is no altitude, so no hydro power.
There is no geo-thermal hot spot, so no geo-thermal power.
The Netherlands latitude is high, and the sky often cloudy, so solar power is not that popular either, even though I think it would complement wind very nicely.

Tidal and wave energy are a joke, so the only native (non-fossil) energy sources remaining are wind and nuclear.

I understand that the Dutch don't like nuclear too much, so there is only wind, I guess ?

You are not doing bad there :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_Netherlands

But the rate of increase from 14% to 16% renewables from 2020 to 2023 is dreadfully slow. At that rate, you will be getting to the target 40% reduction in about 60 years.

Biomass is pushed massively as a 'solution' and is counted as zero emissions. Those coal plants have to keep burning biomass (our government helping the big polluters with our money and policies to stay afloat). The idea is to cut foreign trees, turn them into pellets, ship them to The Netherlands and burn them to heat water into steam.

I thought that planting trees and growing them would be a much more effective way of reducing carbon emissions than chopping them down, transporting them over long distances, and then burning them.

But that's just my opinion.

[kassy]

Yeah that biomass law must be revised (on the EU level, it is a EU law).

The emergency law against nitrogen pollution has been passed.
One of the more concrete measures will be altered feedstock which contain less nitrogen (or as another article stated it will be feedstock with less excess protein).

That measure if succesful could be used elsewhere.

There will also be a better form of registration of the actual pollution.

https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/meerderheid-voor-spoedwet-stikstof-in-eerste-kamer~b87271a0/


Most of the rest is watered down:
Zo zal er geen sprake zijn van een ‘generieke krimp’ van de veestapel, worden boeren niet gedwongen te stoppen en worden de drempelwaarden voor stikstof regionaal geregeld.

https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/kabinet-en-boerenorganisaties-sluiten-akkoord-over-stikstofmaatregelen~b50e85c6/

No generic shrinking of the total lifestock, no forced closures and the treshholds will be handled at a regional level.

In Noord Brabant they still want to get rid of a whole lot of farms , not sure what they want to do in the eastern intensive zone.

Basically the politicians once again chose short term gains over actual solutions.

We should examine the whole chain again and then future proof it.

No subsidies for factory farming.
Subsidies for ecological farming. Grow the food for the animals locally, eat them locally.
Possibly a system to work out how much soil gets restored over time and pay the farmers for that.

The current system is not really fun farming (lots of stress about debts) nor is it sustainable.

Maybe we need to visit them and talk about the issue. Is this sustainable for your lifetime? The kids? Grandkids?

A group of 12 farmers who borrowed to enlarge and or modernize their farms rather recently so in the time that the nitrogen issue was bound to surface as a problem is suing the Rabobank for not doing their due diligence. The banks have an obligation to not give out bad or unsustainable loans so they figure that Rabobank should not have lent them the money to modernize.

It would be good if they won that because that would make the Rabobank much more critical about these type of loans and they are the big lender to the farmers. The BO in RaBo stands for Boerenleenbank.

No link for the last bit since that was a short article in one of our newspapers.

PS: As to the dykes that came up earlier this year in another thread and we have quite a bit of margin. Can´t recall which thread.

If actual SLR from climate change overshoots the 2 meter mark the next question is how much more meters are coming over the next century after that and since the rise could accelerate after that building bigger dykes might not be an option. Yes we could build higher dykes but the salt water intrudes in land while in the same time frame we lose most meltwater inputs into the big rivers so they will mostly dry which means a loss of freshwater pressure.

We will move into Germany and then we can sell diving trips to the former Red Light district.

The whole choice is keeping this world in a holocene range or we go straight for the dumbassic as A-team coined it.

[Rob Dekker]

Rob, I don't know what your engineering field is but maybe you have a better view on what the necessary adjustments to our dykes have to be, our protection from the seas, in a hypothetical situation of 2 meter SLR by 2100 and much more severe and frequent storms.

I'm sorry Nanning. I'm an Electrical Engineer. Mostly IC design.
Not much use for assessing Dutch dykes.
But you have excellent engineers who can do that, and you have the monetary means to address these issues.

So I'm not that concerned about Holland and SLR specifically.

More concerned about global SLR and global climate change, and long term energy security for the planet (including long term energy security for the Netherlands).

[NeilT]

Over a decade ago I read that NL was planning for both sea level rise and management of inland water flow from the East and how to pass it through the country and out to sea.

I didn't follow it up but I expect it has continued.

[pietkuip]

I didn't follow it up but I expect it has continued.

Yes, it is continuing, there was an article about this in Politico this week:
https://www.politico.eu/article/when-will-the-netherlands-disappear-climate-change/

Awareness is growing, but there is also denial of the fundamental problem that 410 ppm means many meters of sea level rise.

[kassy]

The appeal i wrote about in post 55 was actually today.

English link

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-change-netherlands/dutch-court-says-government-must-cut-greenhouse-gases-faster-idUSKBN1YO12A?rpc=401&

Basically similar to what i wrote above.
The 2030 target is 49% below the baseline.

[nanning]

Thank you kassy.

From the link:
"AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - The Dutch High Court upheld on Friday a ruling ordering the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions faster than planned and to ensure they are at least 25% below 1990 levels by the end of 2020.

The court said the government had not done enough to protect its citizens from the dangerous effects of climate change, which can “threaten their lives and wellbeing”.

Emissions in the Netherlands were 15% lower than in 1990 last year, and are expected to be reduced by around 23% in 2020, the government’s environmental advisory body PBL said last month. "


I wonder about their accounting methods. The stated numbers are hard to believe because energy use has gone up in an accelerating fashion for decades and renewables (without creative accounting) are not an important part of the whole Netherlands energy situation.

[gerontocrat]

Thank you kassy.

From the link:
"AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - The Dutch High Court upheld on Friday a ruling ordering the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions faster than planned and to ensure they are at least 25% below 1990 levels by the end of 2020.

The court said the government had not done enough to protect its citizens from the dangerous effects of climate change, which can “threaten their lives and wellbeing”.

Emissions in the Netherlands were 15% lower than in 1990 last year, and are expected to be reduced by around 23% in 2020, the government’s environmental advisory body PBL said last month. "

I wonder about their accounting methods. The stated numbers are hard to believe because energy use has gone up in an accelerating fashion for decades and renewables (without creative accounting) are not an important part of the whole Netherlands energy situation.

So I went into the Netherlands Statistics Bureau and got it to tabulate 1990 & 2018 energy data (in Peta Joules ?) https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/en/dataset/83140eng/table?ts=1576859247811

I still can't figure how they get to 15% less CO2 emissions than 1990 in 2018 unless renewables have gone zooming up, because
- in 2018 less than 10% of domestic energy consumption came from renewables
- a good deal less than coal that has declined by almost nothing,
- and domestic total energy consumption has risen, though slowly.

But who am I to question how the EU / Netherlands massage adjust the data?

[Rob Dekker]

Thanks gerontocrat. Good overview of fossil fuel emissions in the Netherlands, and it is clear that fossil fuel burning did not reduce much (at all) since 1990.

However, that CBS overview does not include various non-CO2 GHG emissions.
This report presents a more complete overview :
https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/2019-0020.pdf

In the graph below, you can see that most gain since 1990 was caused by reduction of non-CO2 GHG emission reductions, such as N2O, methane and F-gases. It may even be 15%.

It is unclear how the Netherlands can reduce GHG emissions by any meaningful (like the 40% pledge) way beyond this without seriously moving away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energy.

[NeilT]

I read, a while back, that power to the UK, from the FR interconnect, was designated as CO2 free.  But reality is that it sometimes comes from NL and BE Coal peaker plants through their interconnect lines to France.

Hard to work out how they calculate it.

[kassy]

I had a look around the CBS site (our Central Bureau of Statistics) and i found this:

In 2018 bedroeg de uitstoot van broeikasgassen in Nederland 189,3 miljard CO2-equivalenten. Dit is 2 procent lager dan in 2017 en 15 procent lager dan in 1990. In 2018 was de Nederlandse economie bijna 80 procent groter dan in 1990. De bevolking nam met 15 procent toe.
....
Dat meldt het CBS op basis van nieuwe emissiecijfers die door RIVM/Emissieregistratie vastgesteld zijn.

In 2018 stootte de industrie 30 miljardCO2-equivalenten minder uit dan in 1990. De sectoren gebouwde omgeving (stoken van aardgas voor verwarming) en landbouw realiseerden allebei een reductie van 6 miljard CO2-equivalenten. Bij de elektriciteitsbedrijven en in de sector mobiliteit (binnenlands verkeer en vervoer) was er een toename van 6 miljard en 3 miljard CO2-equivalenten. Alle vijf sectoren zijn omvangrijker geworden.

In 2018 is al een reductie van 30 miljard CO2-equivalenten bereikt. Slechts 16 procent van deze reductie komt door een kleinere CO2-uitstoot. De andere 84 procent komt voor de helft door een steeds kleinere methaanuitstoot door afvalstortplaatsen, voor een kwart door het uitbannen van fluorhoudende gassen (eind jaren negentig), en voor een kwart door een kleinere lachgasuitstoot bij de salpeterzuurproductie (in 2008). Hierdoor is het aandeel van CO2 in de industriële broeikasgasuitstoot toegenomen van 63 procent in 1990 naar 87 procent in 2018.

https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2019/37/lagere-broeikasgasuitstoot

Translation

2018 emissions are 189,3 billion CO2-equivalents.
This is 2 percent lower then 2017 and 15 percent lower then in 1990.
In 2018 the dutch economy was 80 percent bigger then 1990. Population increased with 15 percent.
....
Reported by CBS based on emission numbers produced by RIVM/Emissieregistratie.
(so the numbers are calculated by the RIVM which is the Rijks Institute voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu or the Government Institute for Public Health and Environment. Emission registration is just a subgroup of them, K)

In 2018 industry emitted 30 billion CO2-equivalents less then in 1990.
The sectors build environment (or natural gas used for heating) en agriculture both realized a 6 billion reduction in CO2eq.
For electricty and mobility (traffic and transport) there was a gain of respectively 6 and 3 billion CO2eq. All 5 sectors grew.

Now here come the tricks (and it gave me at least 1 aha moment)

In 2018 a reduction of 30 billion CO2eq was reached.

Only 16 percent of this reduction is actual CO2-reduction.

The other 84 percent reduction is:

Half is reduction of methane emissions by garbage dumps
A quart is the banning of CFK gasses (at the end of the nineties)
A quart by lower NO2 emissions in the production of nitric acid (in 2008).

The percentage of actual CO2 in industrial emissions has isen from 63 percent in 1990 to 87 percent in 2018.

So that was the trick, of course this 25% free reductions from the Montreal protocol are in the numbers of every country.

This also proves in hindsight how amazing the effect of that protocol was. Even though it fooled us into thinking or governments were actual rational humans.... 

PS: NeilT lets get rid of the peaker plants that does wonders for the calculation.

[kassy]

RIVM/Emissieregistratie has a website with maps and other stuff:
http://www.emissieregistratie.nl/erpubliek/erpub/default.nl.aspx?submodule=kaarten

CBA to look at it now but looking at the maps should give a broad idea.

[TerryM]

Is the court demanding real reductions, or will it accept the same distorted data for their 25% reduction from the 1990's?
Terry

[NeilT]

No problem with that kassy, but in order to stop drawing on them we need to track where the power ends up and make them account for burning it.

Only then will everyone be held accountable correctly. At which point they can be made to stop doing it.

[gerontocrat]

Before the court made the judgement...

The Dutch government has set a target of 6,000 MW of onshore wind power by 2020 and 4,450 MW of offshore wind power by 2023. This will contribute towards the Dutch target of 14% renewable energy use out of total energy use by 2020 and 16% by 2023.
Wind power in the Netherlands - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Wind_power_in_the_Netherlands

Lots of MW but not much as %, which when you look at the map looks a bit pathetic. (https://globalwindatlas.info/)

Solar power is also increasing

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_the_Netherlands
Solar power in the Netherlands has an installed capacity of around 4,300 megawatt (MW) of photovoltaics as of the end of 2018. Around 1,397 MW of new capacity was installed during 2018, the second highest figure in Europe for that year.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/11/04/netherlands-to-reach-27-gw-of-solar-by-2030/
Netherlands to reach 27 GW of solar by 2030
The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency expects the nation’s solar generation capacity to have increased by another 5 GW by the end of next year, from around 4.4 GW at the end of 2018. By the end of 2023, installed PV capacity is predicted to reach approximately 15 GW.

But I am surprised they have not gone for wind power in a much bigger way. A vast shallow inland sea just asking for it. Maybe because Germany already sometimes has wind power generation greater than demand?

[kassy]

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/duurzame-energie/windenergie-op-zee

Do check map on the link. You see that our ´vast inland sea´ is not that big. We also call it the IJssellake. 

[gerontocrat]

https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/duurzame-energie/windenergie-op-zee

Do check map on the link. You see that our ´vast inland sea´ is not that big. We also call it the IJssellake. 

But surely big enough, and beyond it the North Sea is pretty shallow (and sea level rise might make it much bigger - unless loads of wind power for even bigger pumps?)

[kassy]

For some context the ´climate stripes´ for the Netherlands as calculated by the KNMI:

https://www.knmi.nl/over-het-knmi/nieuws/klimaatstreepjescode-warming-stripes

https://cdn.knmi.nl/system/updates/image2s/000/002/724/xlarge/Klimaatstreepjescode_DeBilt.gif?1578305450

[kassy]

Also so many pig farmers signed into the stopping subsidy program that they ran out of subsidy.
The ministry refuses to give numbers but 1 company doing consulancy for farmers have filed 425 applications for the prgram to date.

The total amount of money was 180 million euros. Maybe we should expand that for a quick gain (because we need houses more then ag exports).

A Rabobank research bureau estimates 7-10% of ´pig rights´ to be taken out of the market.
Historically this is the first ever reform which actually reduces the amount of farm animals...

[nanning]

I had this saved and wanted to post it just for our Netherlandic readers because it's in Netherlandic.

It is about the vulnerability of our infrastructure, about the vulnerability to collapse from our national coordinator for anti-terrorism and safety (NCTV, https://english.nctv.nl/):
(apologies for this off-topic interesting post)

[kassy]

Nederland maakt van alle lidstaten van de Europese Unie het minst gebruik van duurzame elektriciteit, zo blijkt vrijdag uit cijfers van Eurostat. 7,4 procent van de Nederlandse energie kwam in 2018 van hernieuwbare bronnen, terwijl dat percentage dit jaar 14 zou moeten zijn.

https://www.nu.nl/binnenland/6026230/nederland-gebruikt-minste-duurzame-elektriciteit-van-alle-eu-landen.html

In 2018 the Netherlands was last of all EU countries in the amount of renewable energy used at 7,4%. We should be at 14% at the end of this year. Lets see if we make that.

The Renewable energy in the EU in 2018 shows share of renewable energy in the EU up to 18.0%:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/10335438/8-23012020-AP-EN.pdf/292cf2e5-8870-4525-7ad7-188864ba0c29

[rboyd]

With the Groningen field closing in 2022, and production already down by nearly half, would be in the interests of the Dutch to move to renewables as fast as possible. The alternative is a high degree of dependency upon LNG and Gazprom.

Output at Europe’s giant Groningen gas field plunges in Dec, dents Dutch stocks

https://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/output-at-europes-giant-groningen-gas-field-plunges-in-dec-dents-dutch-stocks/

[nanning]

http://news.trust.org/item/20200131163953-u6n1q/
  by Reuters

Climate change activists block Shell headquarters, 30 detained


THE HAGUE, Jan 31 (Reuters) - Environmental activists chanting "keep it in the ground" blocked the entrance to Shell's headquarters in The Hague on Friday, protesting at the energy company's role in climate change, until police dragged them away, detaining 30.

Some of the environmentalists from the Extinction Rebellion and Shell Must Fall! lobby groups wedged themselves between the glass front doors of the building. Others held banners and splashed a black liquid on its front steps, chanting slogans including "ExxonMobil, BP, Shell: take your oil and go to hell!"

"Shell is one of the biggest polluters," said one woman who had glued herself to a railing outside the building. She declined to give her name. "If we want to have a chance for stopping climate change, Shell is one of the first companies that has to go."

In a statement, the groups said they were motivated by what they said was hypocrisy by Shell.

"Shell claims regularly that it is 'part of the solution' to the climate crisis, but at the same time the company announced its intention last year to increase its tens of billions of (dollars in) investments in fossil fuels."

Police spokesman Stefan van Sande said 30 activists had been detained because they did not have a permit.

In a reaction to the protest, Shell said it respects the activists' right to demonstrate.

"We ask only that they do so within the law and with their safety and the safety of others in mind".

The company said that its strategy is in alignment with international climate treaties. "In that sense we have the same goal as the activists. We only disagree about the methods."

(Reporting by Toby Sterling; Editing by Andrew Cawthorne)

[kassy]

Netherlands' $515 billion pension fund to accelerate cuts to fossil fuel investments

AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - The Netherlands’ biggest pension fund, ABP, said on Monday it aims to reduce the carbon footprint of its asset portfolio by 40% from 2015 levels by 2025.

ABP, which already set a target to cut the carbon footprint of its assets by 25% from 2015 levels by this year, follows moves by other leading funds - notably Norway’s $1.1 trillion sovereign wealth fund - to divest heavy polluting energy companies from its portfolio.

...

It plans to exit coal and tar sands investments, with some exceptions, by 2030, it said

Full details:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-climate-change-netherlands-abp/netherlands-515-billion-pension-fund-to-accelerate-cuts-to-fossil-fuel-investments-idUKKBN1ZX1AK

[kassy]

Het kabinet trekt ongeveer een half miljard euro uit om boeren vrijwillig uit te kopen en om boeren die willen blijven te helpen hun stallen te verduurzamen. Er is ook de hoop dat provincies en marktpartijen op termijn financieel bijdragen. Eind deze week worden de plannen naar verwachting gepubliceerd, laten Haagse bronnen dinsdag weten aan NU.nl.

Het kabinet maakt zo'n 350 miljoen euro vrij om de zogenoemde 'piekbelasters' vrijwillig uit te kopen. Het gaat om boerenbedrijven die veel stikstof in de buurt van Natura 2000-gebieden uitstoten. Omdat de provincies nauw betrokken zijn bij dit proces, is de hoop van het kabinet erop gevestigd dat ook die overheden meebetalen aan de regeling.

Deze uitkoopregeling is een stuk kleiner dan de vrijwillige sanering van varkensboeren uit het regeerakkoord. Vanwege de beperkte omvang is er ook geen toestemming uit Europa nodig wegens de staatssteunregels.

Dat geldt ook voor bedrijven als het zogenaamde extern salderen mogelijk wordt gemaakt. Als een onderneming door middel van een verbouwing of uitbreiding extra stikstof uitstoot, kan die uitstoot op een andere plek worden gecompenseerd. Bijvoorbeeld door een boerenbedrijf in de buurt op te kopen en die stikstofrechten over te kopen.

Daarnaast wordt er een kleine 200 miljoen euro vrijgemaakt voor boeren die willen blijven. Dat geld wordt ingezet om stallen te verduurzamen.

https://www.nu.nl/politiek/6028355/kabinet-steekt-half-miljard-euro-in-opkopen-en-verduurzamen-boerenbedrijven.html

The government has reserved 0,5 billion Euros for a voluntary buy out of farmers and for improving the stables/sheds.

350 million to buy out peak emitters near Natura 2000 areas.
They are hoping the provinces will also chip in moneywise. I guess that is on top and pretty likely for Brabant.

This measure is smaller in scope so no EU permission is needed.

I think that the previous measure was for all farmers in the whole country and this is targeted to very limited areas.

Then there is something about external offsets. You can increase the farm then but you need to buy out other nitrogen rights. This bit will hopefully become clearer in the next few days.

Another 200 million is reserved to improve the sheds in the remaining companies.

Full plans will be released on friday.

[nanning]

The speed limit on the freeways has been changed from 120/130 kph (74/80 mph) to 100 kph (62 mph) as a measure to bring down air pollution and GHG emissions.

Domestic gas use had a transport costs that were the same regardless of the amount you used. That has been changed this year so users pay per cubic meter of gas used.
For me this is good news because I don't use any gas but still had to pay for the transport costs before.

kassy, have I put this correctly you think? I can't find the links right now.

[blumenkraft]

I wish it was like that in Germany also.

[TerryM]

nanning


Both lowering speed limits and charging for natural gas based on the amount of gas used are examples of good governance. I'm envious.


In the US they lived quite happily with a maximum speed of 55MPH. Happy that is but for those who depended on tow trucks, ambulances, or auto body repair for a livelihood.


Here in Ontario it's still possible to rent an apartment with utilities included. No financial incentive to conserve at all.


Terry

[kassy]

A bunch of links on the speedlimit are on page 1.

There have been some changes in the energy bill with some taxes like general energy tax + reuseable energy tax* going up and the tax refund per household also going up.

The idea is that this stimulates using less energy.

Can´t see anything about transport cost per se. Possibly it might be a divide between small and big energy users.

Nanning, i think the easiest way for us to find out is to see what your next energy bill says about the transport costs. Would be cool if they came to zero.

*this is a tax to pay for the transition to renewable energy

[nanning]

Thanks kassy.
I may have mixed up costs.
My energy bill lists an estimated preliminary gas use which is not zero. I have to call the provider. Again. I have called several times and they should know I use no gas. If I find out more about NL domestic energy policy I'll post it here.

[kassy]

Dierenpopulaties Nederland sinds 1990 gehalveerd, herstel mogelijk

Populaties van wilde dieren in zowel open natuurgebieden als in het agrarisch landschap, zijn sinds 1990 gehalveerd. Wel kan de schade nog worden hersteld, schrijven onderzoekers in het Living Planet Report Nederland, dat donderdag door het Wereld Natuur Fonds (WWF) is gepubliceerd.

...

Volgens het rapport is de hoge stikstofneerslag, die grotendeels wordt veroorzaakt door de veehouderij, de grootste oorzaak van de halvering. Vooral de dierenpopulaties in de heidegebieden gingen er de afgelopen dertig jaar op achteruit. In bepaalde heidegebieden is de omvang van dierenpopulaties zelfs met zeventig procent afgenomen.

Door een te hoge stikstofneerslag worden bijzondere plantensoorten, die belangrijk zijn voor vlinders en insecten, overwoekerd door snel groeiende grassen die van stikstof houden. De insecten die deze planten nodig hebben verdwijnen, wat weer een negatieve invloed heeft op insectenetende dieren, zoals vogels.

https://www.nu.nl/dieren/6028711/dierenpopulaties-nederland-sinds-1990-gehalveerd-herstel-mogelijk.html

Report (in dutch) :
https://www.wwf.nl/globalassets/pdf/wwf-living-planet-report-nederland-2020-natuur-en-landbouw-verbonden.pdf


Populations of wild animals in open nature and agrarian spaces have halved since 1990.
The damage can be fixed. But it will cost some money and it requires that we fix the nitrogen pollution.

They blame nitrogen mainly by farming.
Decline is especially bad in heather landscapes (up top 70%).

The nitrogen pollution promotes the growth of grasses which crowd out the specialist plants important for butterflies and insects.

The populations in varied forests is doing well as the forests gets more diverse and forests where nitrogen pollution went down there was a 24% recovery.

[kassy]

Garnalenvissers hebben het aantal uren dat zij in beschermde natuurgebieden mochten vissen in zowel 2017 als 2018 fors overschreden, meldt de NOS zaterdag op basis van verkregen documenten. Er zouden geen straffen zijn uitgedeeld aan de vissers.

Het gaat om de Waddenzee en Noordzeekustzone, waar een limiet van 130.000 uur geldt. In beide jaren zou er meer dan 200.000 uur gewerkt zijn. Door capaciteitsproblemen bij de Nederlandse Voedsel en Warenautoriteit (NVWA) bleven de vissers echter onbestraft.

Drie personen zouden verantwoordelijk zijn voor de controles van ruim tweehonderd schepen. Technische middelen waarmee vissers zichzelf kunnen controleren, blijken al vijf jaar niet goed te werken.

https://www.nu.nl/economie/6031003/beschermde-nederlandse-natuurgebieden-fors-overbevist-boetes-blijven-uit.html

This is how our environmental protection works...

There is a limit of 130k hours of fishing for two coastal zones. In 2017 and 2018 both zones saw more then 200k hours of work (shrimp fishing).

No penalties were handed out because only 3 persons have to check in the 200 ships.
The technical aids the fishermen can use to control themselves don´t work properly.

So this is yet another example were the economic needs win over environmental concerns. This is basically normal which is also why we ended with the agricultural sector we have now.

Basically the only thing you need is constant location data which ships have anyway?

So the rules are simple. Location on. Timing starts from you going into the zone.
If the location beacon inexplicably fails you return to port to fix it.
Ignoring this rule should lead to an automatic one or two month grounding. No sailing no fishing.

[pietkuip]

A saw this interesting paper on ASLR's thread:

In this regard, I provide a second link to a Dutch reference on how they address adapting to uncertain rates of SLR due to the risk of Antarctic ice mass loss.


M Haasnoot et al (2020), "Adaptation to uncertain sea-level rise; how uncertainty in Antarctic mass-loss impacts the coastal adaptation strategy of the Netherlands", Environmental Research Letters, Volume 15, Number 3, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab666c

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab666c
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab666c/pdf

Abstract: "Uncertainties in the rate and magnitude of sea-level rise (SLR) complicate decision making on coastal adaptation. Large uncertainty arises from potential ice mass-loss from Antarctica that could rapidly increase SLR in the second half of this century. The implications of SLR may be existential for a low-lying country like the Netherlands and warrant exploration of high-impact low-likelihood scenarios. To deal with uncertain SLR, the Netherlands has adopted an adaptive pathways plan. This paper analyzes the implications of storylines leading to extreme SLR for the current adaptive plan in the Netherlands, focusing on flood risk, fresh water resources, and coastline management. It further discusses implications for coastal adaptation in low-lying coastal zones considering timescales of adaptation including the decisions lifetime and lead-in time for preparation and implementation. We find that as sea levels rise faster and higher, sand nourishment volumes to maintain the Dutch coast may need to be up to 20 times larger than to date in 2100, storm surge barriers will need to close at increasing frequency until closed permanently, and intensified saltwater intrusion will reduce freshwater availability while the demand is rising. The expected lifetime of investments will reduce drastically. Consequently, step-wise adaptation needs to occur at an increasing frequency or with larger increments while there is still large SLR uncertainty with the risk of under- or overinvesting. Anticipating deeply uncertain, high SLR scenarios helps to enable timely adaptation and to appreciate the value of emission reduction and monitoring of the Antarctica contribution to SLR."

Extract: "The Netherlands has adopted an adaptive plan that allows for adaptation over time depending on how the future unfolds. Recent SLR observations and projections have raised concerns about the plausibility of an uncertain strong acceleration of SLR after 2050 due to rapid mass-loss of the Antarctic ice sheet, which is not accounted for in the current adaptive plan."

[nanning]

Wind turbine parks to generate electricity for electrolysis to generate hydrogen as non-GHG fuel.

https://tweakers.net/nieuws/163972/windparken-op-noordzee-moeten-waterstoffabriek-in-groningen-voeden.html

my translation:
Planned large windpower parks in the North Sea called 'NortH2' will start generating 3-4 GW from 2030. To be expanded to 10 GW by 2040.
In Eemshaven, near the northern German border an 'elektrolyser' will be build to generate hydrogen from the windpower using electrolysis. This will be part of a north western Europe network to generate 800000 tonnes of hydrogen [per year I presume].

Related: In the northern province of Fryslân some trains running on hydrogen are tested and used in stead of the diesel/electro trains.
44s video:
https://www.omropfryslan.nl/nijs/942464-fideo-earste-wetterstoftrein-yn-nederlan-wurdt-test-yn-ljouwert

edit: finished post after site crashed yesterday whilst writing

[kassy]

Winderig februari leidt tot recordaandeel hernieuwbare energie

Het aandeel van energie uit hernieuwbare bronnen bereikte in februari een record. Vorige maand kwam 10,3 procent van de totale verbruikte energie uit hernieuwbare bronnen, blijkt maandag uit cijfers van energieopwek.nl.

De groei van het aandeel hangt voornamelijk samen met de harde wind in februari, waardoor windturbines in staat waren meer energie op te wekken.

Ruim 32 procent van de hernieuwbare energie kwam voort uit windturbines op het land en in de zee. Dat is een groot aandeel: normaliter ligt het aandeel van windenergie rond de 10 procent.

...

Storm Dennis leverde de meeste energie aan het net: op 22 februari werd in totaal ruim 4 gigawatt aan energie opgewekt

https://www.nu.nl/economie/6034484/winderig-februari-leidt-tot-recordaandeel-hernieuwbare-energie.html

Some background numbers.

February was so stormy renewables were up to 10,3% of all used energy sources.
32% was wind power where 10% is its normal part in the mix.

Storm Dennis was good for 4 GW.

*

I will  have to look up a newspaper article critical of the hydrogen production.

[kassy]

Also need to add a bit about the powers of the city vs the laws of the land because they are very much the core of this thread.

The city and the laws of the country part 1

The city of Utrecht tried to change the way paper door to door advertisements and free local ´papers´ are handled.

Those local papers are usually just disguised adds with only some newslike crap on page 1 (picture of major visiting couple that has a golden marriage level) maybe some more on page 3.
Some have a bit more but it is not your critical press more a local thing.

The thing we have generally is stickers. You can get one that says No Yes which is no door to door paper adds but yes to the newspapers (who have their own folded in advertisement folders).

Or you get the No No variant which gets rid of all of them.

For some reason many people never even get stickers but just the add stuff away (in its plastic wrapper among the other paper recycling stuff which is a nuisance).

So Utrecht wanted to change the system. From this year you needed a YES YES or No YES sticker.

YY for all the crap NY for just the paper.

This was challenged by the free newspaper organistions and they won that over a freedom of press thing. Which is ironical because they write about local stuff and usually not the local politics either more like regional events.

Not sure if they are going to fight it in court.
Maybe a different approach would be in order.

The whole problem is that many people just get the crap and then throw it away.

Maybe we should organize a volunteer force and ring every doorbell of every door without a sticker then ask peope for their choice and put the sticker there.

Alternatively you could handle this on a national level but our national politicians are to lame for that.

Of course this is ´small beer´ compared to global warming but it is a small battle on waste.

*

In part 2 the city of Utrecht needs to find a way so everybody in Overvecht gets to transition from gas to electricity. The local gas network is nearly 50 yo so it needs replacement and Utrecht applied for a grant to the national government to test the transition (i think it was the only application from one of the big cities). The whole neighborhood needs to switch but how do you get everyone along? You don´t want to maintain a network for a couple of people.

[kassy]

Dutch Government doubles renewable energy subsidies to €4bn

The Dutch Government has announced it will double the amount of money available under its renewable energy subsidy programme to €4 billion (£3.4bn) in 2020, in a bid to meet its obligations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25% by the end of 2020.

The government previously planned to offer a total of €2 billion (£1.7bn) in clean energy subsidies.

Eric Wiebes, Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy said: “The extra money is intended to help the country meet its promise to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

“There are a large number of projects that can offer a cost-effective contribution.”

https://www.energylivenews.com/2020/03/05/dutch-government-doubles-renewable-energy-subsidies-to-e4bn/

Good news. When you don´t have original ideas throw money at it. That is not bad but if i were in  the government i would also directly invest into upgrading the grid.

Having better connections to the parts where there is relatively little energy use but lots of land will allow us to build additional solar or wind power. We can already build that but we cannot get the energy to where it is needed.

Upgrading takes years but the government could improve that. Basically have more people on these projects. At least in government so they can do their response times a lot quicker.

[kassy]

The dutch government earmarked 200 million to connect 55.000 rental houses to local or regional warming grids (warmtenet). So max 5000 per house. Can also be used tfor houses that are connected to the warming grid but still use gas for cooking/warming water. Subsidy available from may this year.

https://www.nu.nl/economie/6039620/kabinet-maakt-200-miljoen-vrij-voor-aardgasvrij-maken-van-huurwoningen.html

[kassy]

Het kabinet wil de energieproductie van drie overgebleven kolencentrales, twee op de Maasvlakte en een in de Eemshaven, dit jaar flink terugschroeven. Dat kan eventueel gepaard gaan met sluiting. Zo moet het CO2-doel uit het Urgenda-vonnis alsnog worden gehaald: voor het einde van dit jaar minimaal 25 procent minder uitstoot van broeikasgassen vergeleken met 1990.

De inzet van het kabinet is dat de capaciteit van twee centrales wordt teruggeschroefd tot 25 procent van de totale capaciteit, in combinatie met de sluiting van de derde centrale.

...

De kolencentrales zijn relatief nieuw, ze werden in 2015 en in 2016 opgeleverd.

https://www.nu.nl/politiek/6042191/kabinet-schroeft-productie-kolencentrales-terug-voor-klimaatdoel-urgenda.html

I like this one.

Because of the Urgenda case we are turning down the coals output.

We have 3 coal plants. 2 in Rotterdam , 1 in Groningen. Two of them will run at 25% capacity and a third will be closed. They are all rather new and at least one was opened on some scheme to possibly do carbon capture but they never got round to that (not that the VVD cared but basically it was fraud or a really crap way to make those kind of arrangements).

I think they will close 1 in Rotterdam because there is quite a lot of industry around Eemshaven so it makes sense to keep that.

 

[kassy]

More of a consequence but lets note this:

Nederlandse zonnepanelen wekken de afgelopen dagen recordhoeveelheden elektriciteit op. Zaterdagmiddag steeg de piekproductie tot bijna 5 miljard watt en was zo'n 40 procent van de elektriciteit in Nederland afkomstig van de zon. Dat dit aandeel zo groot is, komt mede doordat we door de coronacrisis iets minder elektriciteit gebruiken.

https://www.nu.nl/klimaat/6044230/zonnepanelen-breken-records-in-zonnig-april-terwijl-stroomvraag-zakt.html

It was 4,96. Since the day is already half an hour longer current production is way up.

Last year solar grew by 50%.
They now provided 11% of our energy needs compared to half that last year.

Numbers will go up with a peak in june.

[kassy]

GOV’T READY TO SLASH CO2 EMISSIONS; ACTIVISTS CRITICIZE NITROGEN PLAN

On Friday, Ministers Erik Wiebes of Economic Affairs and Climate and Carola Schouten of Agriculture presented how they plan to reduce CO2 and nitrogen emissions. One goal is to reduce carbon emissions by 25 percent by the end of this year, compared to 1990, and thereby comply with a Dutch Supreme Court ruling in a case brought by sustainability foundation Urgenda. This goal will likely be achieved in 2020 solely due due to external factors like the mild winter and the coronavirus crisis, according to the PBL Envirionmental Assessment Agency which looked at the impact of both a short-term and long-term crisis caused by the pandemic.

However, the reduction in emissions from the crisis is not expected to continue beyond 2021, and the Cabinet would rather put a system in place to comply with the Urgenda ruling now and remove future barriers to economic recovery, Wiebes said in a letter to Parliament on Friday. The biggest decrease in emissions would then come from cutting coal-fired electricity. The government plans to implement an emissions cap on its remaining coal-fired power plants, with penalties in place if the plant exceeds that limit.

The Economic Affairs Ministry had also been investigating the possibility of shutting the country's last coal power plants. However, Wiebes wants the plants to be able to provide a higher energy output should there be a shortfall in supply. The situation with coal will be re-evaluated later in the year, but in the meantime, Wiebes has allocated four billion euros to get more sustainable energy projects up and running, which can then increased the country's power supply.

The government is also taking on a number of recommendations made by Urgenda. This includes a subsidy scheme for LED lighting and energy efficiency in greenhouse horticulture. Those who replace their old refrigerators and freezers with more efficient models by trading them in with the purchase of a newer model will also qualify for at least 35 euros cash back from the government.

Subsidy schemes will also be introduced for making homes energy-neutral and for solar panel installations, but this will likely only affect emissions in the coming years. More resources will also be made available to combat the illegal trade in fluoridated gasses.

continues on:
https://nltimes.nl/2020/04/25/govt-ready-slash-co2-emissions-activists-criticize-nitrogen-plan

or

Dutch officials reveal measures to cut emissions after court ruling

The Dutch government has announced measures including huge cuts to coal use, garden greening and limits on livestock herds as part of its plan to lower emissions to comply with a supreme court ruling.

Climate litigation activists described the move as “an enormous win”. The small non-profit Urgenda Foundation, which filed the initial legal challenge in 2013, said this and earlier compliance measures totalled about €3bn euros, which confirms the impact of the world’s most successful climate lawsuit to date.

Under the new package, coal-fired power stations will have to scale back or close completely , cattle and pig herds will be reduced, subsidies will be provided to home owners to use less concrete and more plants in their gardens, and industry will have to find alternatives for several polluting processes.

and much more on:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/dutch-officials-reveal-measures-to-cut-emissions-after-court-ruling

[nanning]

Living in the Netherlands, I provide here my monthly energy bill to show that I am being punished for having a low electricity use and no gas use. Punished because I pay a high price for electricity/KWh and pay an infinite price for gas.

I only use electricity, which is 4.83 euro's without tax (BTW). I use no gas at all.
What do you think of this?

[oren]

 I don't know details about the Netherlands but in many places the cost of providing the service (infrastructure, connectivity, maintenance, managing the customers, billing) is actually higher than the cost of generation. This will become even more true with renewables, where the marginal cost of kwh ia often zero.
Question: can you disconnect from the gas network, since you're not using it at all?