In my newest blog post, I elaborate on the use of hydrogen. Hydrogen has many advantages (easy storage). However, to produce it, a lot of electricity is needed which can better be deployed directly. The import of hydrogen from countries where the production of electricity is much cheaper is a feasible solution. But as the countries most eager to export hydrogen are the Gulf states, many doubts are arousing.....
A slightly different version in Dutch can be found here: https://hmjvandenbosch.com/2018/12/17/waterstof-vooral-geopolitiek-bepaalt-toekomstige-rol%EF%BB%BF/
Maybe you will also like these updates
Herman van den Bosch,
professor in management development
,
posted
The global distribution of the 15-minute city idea 5/7
A previous post made it clear that a 15-minute city ideally consists of a 5-minute walking zone, a 15-minute walking zone, also a 5-minute cycling zone and a the 15-minute cycling zone. These three types of neighbourhoods and districts should be developed in conjunction, with employment accessibility also playing an important role.
In the plans for 15-minute cities in many places around the world, these types of zones intertwine, and often it is not even clear which type of zone is meant. In Paris too, I miss clear choices in this regard.
The city of Melbourne aims to give a local lifestyle a dominant place among all residents. Therefore, everyone should live within at most 10 minutes' walking distance to and from all daily amenities. For this reason, it is referred to as a 20-minute city, whereas in most examples of a 15-minute city, such as Paris, it is only about <strong>the round trip</strong>. The policy in Melbourne has received strong support from the health sector, which highlights the negative effects of traffic and air pollution.
In Vancouver, there is talk of a 5-minute city. The idea is for neighbourhoods to become more distinct parts of the city. Each neighbourhood should have several locally owned shops as well as public facilities such as parks, schools, community centres, childcare and libraries. High on the agenda is the push for greater diversity of residents and housing types. Especially in inner-city neighbourhoods, this is accompanied by high densities and high-rise buildings. Confronting this idea with reality yields a pattern of about 120 such geographical units (see map above).
Many other cities picked up the idea of the 15-minute city. Among them: Barcelona, London, Milan, Ottawa, Detroit and Portland. The organisation of world cities C40 (now consisting of 96 cities) elevated the idea to the main policy goal in the post-Covid period.
All these cities advocate a reversal of mainstream urbanisation policies. In recent decades, many billions have been invested in building roads with the aim of improving accessibility. This means increasing the distance you can travel in a given time. As a result, facilities were scaled up and concentrated in increasingly distant places. This in turn led to increased congestion that negated improvements in accessibility. The response was further expansion of the road network. This phenomenon is known as the 'mobility trap' or the Marchetti constant.
Instead of increasing accessibility, the 15-minute city aims to expand the number of urban functions you can access within a certain amount of time. This includes employment opportunities. The possibility of working from home has reduced the relevance of the distance between home and workplace. In contrast, the importance of a pleasant living environment has increased. A modified version of the 15-minute city, the 'walkable city' then throws high hopes. That, among other things, is the subject of my next post.
Herman van den Bosch,
professor in management development
,
posted
The '15-minute principle' also applies to rural areas (4/7)
Due to a long stay in the hospital, I was unable to post my columns. I also cannot guarantee their continuity in the near future, but I will do my best...
In my previous post, I emphasised that urban densification should be coordinated with other claims on space. These are: expanding blue-green infrastructure and the desire to combine living and working. I am also thinking of urban horticulture. It is therefore unlikely that all the necessary housing in the Netherlands - mentioned is a number of one million housing units - can be realised in the existing built-up area. Expansion into rural areas is then inevitable and makes it possible to improve the quality of these rural areas. Densification of the many villages and small towns in our country enable to approach them from the '15-minute principle' as well. Villages should thereby become large enough to support at least a small supermarket, primary school and health centre, but also to accommodate small businesses. A fast and frequent public transport-connection to a city, to other villages and to a railway station in the vicinity is important.
A thorny issue is the quality of nature in the rural area. Unfortunately, it is in bad shape. A considerable part of the rural area consists of grass plots with large-scale agro-industrial use and arable land on which cattle feed is grown. Half of the Netherlands is for cows, which, incidentally, are mostly in stalls. Restoring nature in the area that is predominantly characterised by large-scale livestock farming, is an essential task for the coming decades.
The development of sufficiently dense built-up areas both in cities and villages and the development of new nature around and within those cities and villages is a beckoning prospect. This can be done by applying the idea of 'scheggen' in and around medium-sized and large cities. These are green zones that penetrate deep into the urban area. New residential and work locations can then join the already built-up area, preferably along existing railway lines and (fast) bus connections. These neighbourhoods can be built in their entirety with movement on foot and by bicycle as a starting point. The centre is a small densely built-up central part, where the desired amenities can be found.
In terms of nature development, depending on the possibilities of the soil, I am thinking of the development of forest and heath areas and lush grasslands, combined with extensive livestock farming, small-scale cultivation of agricultural and horticultural products for the benefit of nearby city, water features with a sponge function with partly recreational use, and a network of footpaths and cycle paths. Picture above: nature development and stream restoration (Photo: Bob Luijks)
Below you can link to my free downloadable e-book: 25 Building blocks to create better streets, neighborhoods and cities
Rihards Dzelme,
Inclusive Cities & AI / Trained Architect and Urbanist
,
posted
Is community engagement worth it? 1 Minute Help
Hallo allemaal, Fijne woensdag, 😀 (English below)
Wij willen graag begrijpen en leren oof participatie in de gebouwde omgeving de moeite waard is en welke uitdagingen je daarbij bent tegengekomen.
Vul deze enquête van 30 seconden (max. 1 minuut) in en kijk wat andere professionals ervaren.
Cheers,
Playground Team
----------------
Hello all, Happy Wednesday, 😀
We would like to understand and learn if participation in the built environment is worth it and what challenges you have experienced with it.
Please complete this 30-second (max 1 minute) survey and see what other professionals experience.
Cheers,
Playground Team
www.plgrnd.city
Hi Gerald, I'm in a position that is comparable with yours. My gas powered heating system broke down and I made inquiries to replace it and to go for a 100% electric solution (preach what you teach;-) This appeared to be impossible, even if I spent many tens of thousands at isolation. Fortunately, the heating system could be repaired with second-hand parts. So, if I could vote personally, hydrogen would be my favourite. But from a more remote point of view I think that we need a neighbourhood-centred approach, preferably with some options for choice. And I will read the WRR report that you mentioned.
Have nice Chrismas days and a well-heated new year.
Thanks for the very interesting Link. Offcourse I have some remarks :). The beauty is indeed that there is not one single solution but an intelligent and dynamically evolving, changing, mix of solutions. An open and honest critical discussion without dogmas or powerplay is of vital importance for society to move forward smartly. And THAT is unfortunately NOT really happening.
For my own house here in Amsterdam (kashuis) I am going for 100% solar (with a thermal heat battery). Knowing what this takes I realise that this solution is relatively too expensive, labour and space consuming to be applied to millions of Dutch homes within a very short timespan. (yet is by far the best long-term solution:). I also know people are risk and thus change-averse (WRR has a great report on this https://www.wrr.nl/publicaties/publicaties/2010/02/07/hoe-mensen-keuzes-maken). Add the huge lack of skilled labour then a system of simply replacing the natural gas boiler by a home micro - wkk condensing H2gas boilers (+ a non-invasive smart grid) seems to me far more realistic.
By the way...
I looked at the HYDRO website. A litthe bit self-congratulatoy..... But I know that my former colleague Jepma is also in favor for hydrogen that is directly produced in wind mills. This article dives deeply into its costs: http://www.wattisduurzaam.nl/15443/energie-beleid/tien-peperdure-misverstanden-over-wondermiddel-waterstof/
I feel unable to comment on it, but I hope that the debate on hydrogen will not end in a one-dimensional plea for its blessings, neglecting the less favorable aspects, all departing from our still limited knowledge. Because each energy source we are thinking of, has advantages and disadvantages.
We will have to look for a balanced picture, where sun and wind energy, hydrogen and geothermal all contribute in a degree nobody can anticipate yet.
You are right that upgrading the electricity grid ought te be prevented.Hopefully smart grids, in combination with locally collected sun enengy, will be solve this proble,.
As I wrote, deployment of hydrogen defenitely is a mayor contribution to our energy need in the future.. We only will have to accept that hydrogen is imported from countries that can produce cheap electricity. In that case hydrogen will be an excellent partial alternative for natural gas, especially in unsufficiently isolated houses.
By the way, hydrogen is an excellent medium for long-term storage too.
“electricity […] can better be deployed directly’. In theory yes, a. if it could get to the homes and b. if it is needed directly.
But the moment you take the whole chain (generation, buffering, transport, end conversion) into consideration a very different picture arises.
In the Netherlands 90% of all the households are already connected to the gas-grid whereas it will cost tens of billions to heavily upgrade the electricity grid. Then there is the very problematic issue of electricity storage. Most of it is generated when we don’t need it. A lot can be said about electric batteries, even in mobility. Hydrogen is again here, by far, the more effective solution.
And as for it generation, there are many great solutions already out there, like Hygro, just waiting for the green light of our policy makers. They are the only real problem.