Skip navigation
3comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Perry Grossman

Jun 10, 2016
03:37

Catalyst


1 |
Share via:

Congratulations on making the semi-finals!

Could you explain more on why a bridge fuel is needed? Why do energy efficiency; demand response; smart grid; Time-of-use (TOU) pricing; wind; solar; battery advancements not address the current and near future needs?

I still have a fear of frying; and fear about nuclear waste. Does you proposal address that?

Perry


Alexandra Marksteiner

Jun 16, 2016
10:20

Member


2 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

Hi Perry!

Thank-you for your comment. I stated why I believe a bridge technology is necessary in my introduction and in the first paragraph of the "actions" section. While European investment into renewables has skyrocketed over the last decade, the increase in the renewable energy share has only been able to offset the increase in demand and the shutting-down of NPPs. The share of fossil fuels has only declined slighty. Large-scale renewable energy infrastructure will have to be constructed in order for us to transition to a 100%-renewable energy mix. During this construction phase, continuing to rely on fossil fuels is not an option. Using a bridge technology would be able to solve this issue. Fossil fuels could be rapidly phased out, while the renewable share grows at a healthy and sustainable pace. As you may know, the European Union is at the forefront of climate change mitigation action. Yet, even providing incentives to shift consumption to energy-efficient technology, phasing out old light bulbs and investing in renewables isn't enough to reduce the fossil fuel share.

I address the issue of nuclear waste in the second paragraph of the "actions" section. A portion of the nuclear fuel tax revenue will also be allocated to the development of a permanent nuclear waste storage site.

Again, thank-you for your comment.

Regards,

Alexandra

 


Alexandra Marksteiner

Jun 16, 2016
10:20

Member


3 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

Hi Perry!

Thank-you for your comment. I stated why I believe a bridge technology is necessary in my introduction and in the first paragraph of the "actions" section. While European investment into renewables has skyrocketed over the last decade, the increase in the renewable energy share has only been able to offset the increase in demand and the shutting-down of NPPs. The share of fossil fuels has only declined slighty. Large-scale renewable energy infrastructure will have to be constructed in order for us to transition to a 100%-renewable energy mix. During this construction phase, continuing to rely on fossil fuels is not an option. Using a bridge technology would be able to solve this issue. Fossil fuels could be rapidly phased out, while the renewable share grows at a healthy and sustainable pace. As you may know, the European Union is at the forefront of climate change mitigation action. Yet, even providing incentives to shift consumption to energy-efficient technology, phasing out old light bulbs and investing in renewables isn't enough to reduce the fossil fuel share.

I address the issue of nuclear waste in the second paragraph of the "actions" section. A portion of the nuclear fuel tax revenue will also be allocated to the development of a permanent nuclear waste storage site.

Again, thank-you for your comment.

Regards,

Alexandra

 

ADD YOUR COMMENT
You must be logged into your account to post a comment.