As the parent of a 4-grader I've found some major gaps in the curriculum with regard to energy education. Basically, children are taught to protect nature, which is always commendable, but they are also taught the official EU line on clean vs dirty energy. To me, energy frugality is the essential thing, both environmentally and economically. What's your take?
Apr 22, 2022·edited Apr 22, 2022Liked by Irina Slav
I'm in the same place as a parent of 4th, 5th and 7th graders and also found curriculums really lacking. I created a slide deck (and have presented it many times now) that fills in the gaps. It can be downloaded here: www.bijou-insights.com/resources
I use slide 11 to point out how much energy is "rejected" through process loss or wasteful energy consumption behaviors (why your parents harp on you to turn off lights). There are big opportunities to become more efficient...but I do think it is likely that increases in efficiency tends to lead to higher demand overall which will offset the efficiency impact.
It was an opinion statement and I don't have specific evidence or a case study to point at. It just seems probable to me that more efficient production of end-use of energy (less process loss especially) will lower the unit cost of supply to the consumer and allow great share of the population (still 3 billion in the world today cooking and heating with solid fuel campfires) to access modern forms of energy.
I wish world leaders were as concerned about the people without access to other forms of energy as they are to investing in inefficient energy sources driving up the cost for everyone - making clean energy even more out of reach for those 3 billion people cooking with dung. 😞
Energy frugality, you said it. It manifests in al our actions and day to day behavior. Kids need to be explained the basics of respect for all we use and consume as a result of energy flowing through the universe. Why I need a disposable plate or a cup to eat/drink my food? Why a family reunion should end with a full can of trash, plastic and disposable items ready for a landfill? why not use re-usable items as much as possible? wash and reuse? In all aspects of our life, this simple concept stands behind energy frugality...
My thinking is the same. I was raised to be mindful (I hate this word but can't think of a better one) of the resources I use and I'm now trying to pass this on to the net generation.
Thank You for this topic. Check out what JP Warren is doing in Houston. His Connection Crue is starting a Kids Crue to educate children about the energy industry.
Children should be taught to distinguish between good and evil. And they learn such nonsense as saving ten dollars by reducing the speed of a car from the television programs of the enemies of humanity.
I agree with the importance of distinguishing between good and evil but I do like to save money by driving at 90 km/h rather than 140. Money is money and fast driving is more dangerous, anyway. :)
Apr 22, 2022·edited Apr 22, 2022Liked by Irina Slav
Labels are used to divide. Labeling Hydrogen, Natural Gas, Oil, and Coal into "Fossil Fuels" is for propaganda purposes and is unscientific.
Each of those fuels are starkly different. For example, coal has a Hydrogen to Carbon ratio of 1:1 while natural gas is 4:1. Natural gas meanwhile packs 51.6 kJ/g of energy density while coal is more disparate at 39.3 kJ/g. Thus, natural gas is far cleaner and provides more to society in the form of energy than coal is capable of. Hydrogen has zero carbon atoms in its molecular formula.
So why lump these fuels together? It hurts understanding and increases division, just like creating labels like White and Black for people to self-segregate into.
In some states here in the US (California for one) the Curriculum is influenced significantly by State level bureaucrats who get their marching orders from whoever is in power. What you see then is curriculum driven by the left so that "clean" energy gets the lead and the message is "we have to do this otherwise the earth will die". There are many other directions driven (some say it's indoctrination) to "educate" our youth. I can't say they stress "energy frugality" so much as clean energy since that is in favor at the moment. Frugality I would say would normally be something one is taught in both one's home and community usually driven by parents.
All meaningful educations begins and progresses in the family. Schools are for formal education in sciences and subjects the family is not necessarily expert in. But what you're describing does sound like indoctrination.
Today I gave a talk for Earth Day today to college students where I spoke briefly about the following definition of green energy:
"Any energy type that is generated from natural and renewable resources–such as sunlight, wind or water–that does not harm the environment nor emit greenhouse gasses."
Of course, that definition is full of problems. I contrasted it with my preferred definition:
"Energy that enables human flourishing while minimizing humanity’s impact on nature."
The thing is that wind and solar's alleged minimisation of humanity's impact on nature is questionable. Look at all the metals and minerals that need to be mined in order to build all these installations and battery storage.
Apr 23, 2022·edited Apr 23, 2022Liked by Irina Slav
Yes, exactly. That's why wind and solar fail on my preferred definition of green energy. That definition actually requires some evaluation of impact instead of an assumption that "natural" energy (whatever that is) is virtuous and that all other "unnatural" energy (whatever that is) is not.
Nuclear energy is bar far the greenest energy sources we have. I imagine you saw the UNECE study from last year that confirms that:
Apr 23, 2022·edited Apr 23, 2022Liked by Irina Slav
Natgas burned in your stove to cook bacon has much lower emissions than: burning the gas at the power plant, taking efficiency losses through steam production, through turbine generators, through transformers, high volume transmission lines and then transforming it back to 220v to plug in your electric stove. Efficiency losses along each step. But NYC is banning the cleanest option - direct transfer of energy from natgas to the bottom of your frying pan! My son has worked as an energy engineer making buildings as energy efficient as possible and saving the owners lots of cash. There is a lot we can do regarding efficiency. I put in a new gas furnace this year because when you consider that my grid is 33% coal and 33% natgas fed with the efficiency losses for each, a gas furnace putting Btus directly into my house is more efficient. We should do everything as efficiently as possible and add in renewables where they fit without putting people into poverty. One day nuclear with its 0 carbon emissions will make electric stoves and heaters an option for me.
However, reducing consumption has limits which must be recognized. A human requires 2500 large calories a day on average. A human requires heat, shelter, clothing, transportation, and much more. Today, an average human consumes about 8 times more energy than the medieval counterpart. We do not really want to return to a medieval energy intensivity limited by how much biomass was available. That also means return to a medieval population under 1 billion. Yes, population implosion is inevitable.
In fact, energy IS available, just not in the renewable wind and solar form now a part of a consensus among the elite who do NOT expect to bear any part of the burden of energy constrictions which will result in the mass starvations; the first cold, whispering winds of which we are now seeing.
In my view this conservation/scarcity/Malthus mindset is a huge problem. I don’t agree with everything in this article, but at least it is starting down the right track.
We need radical abundance- cheap clean energy would make recycling more cost competitive, and dramatically improve the lives of everyone, including especially the poorest among us.
For curriculum, check out Scott Tinker’s Switch Energy Alliance work. It really focuses better on trade offs and how important energy is for everyone.
Using an appropriate model is the best way to ‘teach’, so that ‘learning’ can occur. There is no better model for ‘energy’ than human body, the alpha and omega of life; use it wisely and ‘you will see many moons’. Children already know about ‘energy’: when they get hungry, they need ‘energy’, when they overeat, they don’t feel well, etc. Teach them, but more importantly, show them by your own example how to be healthy, what food to eat, how to spend the ‘energy’ gained, how to recover/cope. If children are healthy, so will be the planet and all other ‘energy’ concerns will be put in an optimizing light.
I'm in the same place as a parent of 4th, 5th and 7th graders and also found curriculums really lacking. I created a slide deck (and have presented it many times now) that fills in the gaps. It can be downloaded here: www.bijou-insights.com/resources
Thank you Ryan.
This is brilliant, thank you!
I use slide 11 to point out how much energy is "rejected" through process loss or wasteful energy consumption behaviors (why your parents harp on you to turn off lights). There are big opportunities to become more efficient...but I do think it is likely that increases in efficiency tends to lead to higher demand overall which will offset the efficiency impact.
Great stuff, Ryan. I’m interested in your statement that increases in efficiency lead to higher demand. Can you elaborate a little bit for me?
It was an opinion statement and I don't have specific evidence or a case study to point at. It just seems probable to me that more efficient production of end-use of energy (less process loss especially) will lower the unit cost of supply to the consumer and allow great share of the population (still 3 billion in the world today cooking and heating with solid fuel campfires) to access modern forms of energy.
That would be a good thing if the people without access to energy could have such a blessing. Thank you for the reply!
I wish world leaders were as concerned about the people without access to other forms of energy as they are to investing in inefficient energy sources driving up the cost for everyone - making clean energy even more out of reach for those 3 billion people cooking with dung. 😞
Look up Jevons Paradox - derived from 19th century coal use increases as technological progress enabled efficiency increases
These slides are excellent. There is a lot of good info there. Good job.
Energy frugality, you said it. It manifests in al our actions and day to day behavior. Kids need to be explained the basics of respect for all we use and consume as a result of energy flowing through the universe. Why I need a disposable plate or a cup to eat/drink my food? Why a family reunion should end with a full can of trash, plastic and disposable items ready for a landfill? why not use re-usable items as much as possible? wash and reuse? In all aspects of our life, this simple concept stands behind energy frugality...
My thinking is the same. I was raised to be mindful (I hate this word but can't think of a better one) of the resources I use and I'm now trying to pass this on to the net generation.
Thank You for this topic. Check out what JP Warren is doing in Houston. His Connection Crue is starting a Kids Crue to educate children about the energy industry.
Children should be taught to distinguish between good and evil. And they learn such nonsense as saving ten dollars by reducing the speed of a car from the television programs of the enemies of humanity.
I agree with the importance of distinguishing between good and evil but I do like to save money by driving at 90 km/h rather than 140. Money is money and fast driving is more dangerous, anyway. :)
Labels are used to divide. Labeling Hydrogen, Natural Gas, Oil, and Coal into "Fossil Fuels" is for propaganda purposes and is unscientific.
Each of those fuels are starkly different. For example, coal has a Hydrogen to Carbon ratio of 1:1 while natural gas is 4:1. Natural gas meanwhile packs 51.6 kJ/g of energy density while coal is more disparate at 39.3 kJ/g. Thus, natural gas is far cleaner and provides more to society in the form of energy than coal is capable of. Hydrogen has zero carbon atoms in its molecular formula.
So why lump these fuels together? It hurts understanding and increases division, just like creating labels like White and Black for people to self-segregate into.
In some states here in the US (California for one) the Curriculum is influenced significantly by State level bureaucrats who get their marching orders from whoever is in power. What you see then is curriculum driven by the left so that "clean" energy gets the lead and the message is "we have to do this otherwise the earth will die". There are many other directions driven (some say it's indoctrination) to "educate" our youth. I can't say they stress "energy frugality" so much as clean energy since that is in favor at the moment. Frugality I would say would normally be something one is taught in both one's home and community usually driven by parents.
All meaningful educations begins and progresses in the family. Schools are for formal education in sciences and subjects the family is not necessarily expert in. But what you're describing does sound like indoctrination.
Today I gave a talk for Earth Day today to college students where I spoke briefly about the following definition of green energy:
"Any energy type that is generated from natural and renewable resources–such as sunlight, wind or water–that does not harm the environment nor emit greenhouse gasses."
Of course, that definition is full of problems. I contrasted it with my preferred definition:
"Energy that enables human flourishing while minimizing humanity’s impact on nature."
The thing is that wind and solar's alleged minimisation of humanity's impact on nature is questionable. Look at all the metals and minerals that need to be mined in order to build all these installations and battery storage.
Yes, exactly. That's why wind and solar fail on my preferred definition of green energy. That definition actually requires some evaluation of impact instead of an assumption that "natural" energy (whatever that is) is virtuous and that all other "unnatural" energy (whatever that is) is not.
Nuclear energy is bar far the greenest energy sources we have. I imagine you saw the UNECE study from last year that confirms that:
https://www.hlnewnuclear.com/2021/12/un-report-trumpets-nuclear-as-having-the-lowest-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-any-electricity-generation-source-among-other-environmental-co-benefits/
Natgas burned in your stove to cook bacon has much lower emissions than: burning the gas at the power plant, taking efficiency losses through steam production, through turbine generators, through transformers, high volume transmission lines and then transforming it back to 220v to plug in your electric stove. Efficiency losses along each step. But NYC is banning the cleanest option - direct transfer of energy from natgas to the bottom of your frying pan! My son has worked as an energy engineer making buildings as energy efficient as possible and saving the owners lots of cash. There is a lot we can do regarding efficiency. I put in a new gas furnace this year because when you consider that my grid is 33% coal and 33% natgas fed with the efficiency losses for each, a gas furnace putting Btus directly into my house is more efficient. We should do everything as efficiently as possible and add in renewables where they fit without putting people into poverty. One day nuclear with its 0 carbon emissions will make electric stoves and heaters an option for me.
Waste is always unfortunate.
However, reducing consumption has limits which must be recognized. A human requires 2500 large calories a day on average. A human requires heat, shelter, clothing, transportation, and much more. Today, an average human consumes about 8 times more energy than the medieval counterpart. We do not really want to return to a medieval energy intensivity limited by how much biomass was available. That also means return to a medieval population under 1 billion. Yes, population implosion is inevitable.
In fact, energy IS available, just not in the renewable wind and solar form now a part of a consensus among the elite who do NOT expect to bear any part of the burden of energy constrictions which will result in the mass starvations; the first cold, whispering winds of which we are now seeing.
In my view this conservation/scarcity/Malthus mindset is a huge problem. I don’t agree with everything in this article, but at least it is starting down the right track.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/scarcity-crisis-college-housing-health-care/621221/
We need radical abundance- cheap clean energy would make recycling more cost competitive, and dramatically improve the lives of everyone, including especially the poorest among us.
For curriculum, check out Scott Tinker’s Switch Energy Alliance work. It really focuses better on trade offs and how important energy is for everyone.
https://classroom.switchon.org
I second your endorsement of Switch Energy Alliance's classroom modules!
Using an appropriate model is the best way to ‘teach’, so that ‘learning’ can occur. There is no better model for ‘energy’ than human body, the alpha and omega of life; use it wisely and ‘you will see many moons’. Children already know about ‘energy’: when they get hungry, they need ‘energy’, when they overeat, they don’t feel well, etc. Teach them, but more importantly, show them by your own example how to be healthy, what food to eat, how to spend the ‘energy’ gained, how to recover/cope. If children are healthy, so will be the planet and all other ‘energy’ concerns will be put in an optimizing light.