Post Tagged ‘innovatie’

Eerder deze week werd bekend dat Google(X) Makani Power overneemt. Makani Power wil stroom winnen met windturbines die hoog in de lucht zweven, de wind opvangen en hierdoor energie creëren. Dat deed me er aan denken dat ik eerder deze maand zelf een kleine investering heb gedaan in een concurrent van Hollandse bodem: Ampyx Powerplane, waar ik in 2011 al over schreef. Daarbij heb ik gekozen voor een converteerbare lening, dus wie weet wordt ik in de toekomst nog aandeelhouder ;-)

Werking

Een PowerPlane-systeem brengt met behulp van een aan een kabel verbonden zweefvliegtuig windkracht over naar een stroomgenerator op de grond. Het zweefvliegtuig vliegt volautomatisch, gebruikmakend van de modernste sensor- en besturingstechnologie. Resultaat: veel groene stroom opwekken met minimaal materiaalverbruik – dus dubbel duurzaam.  Vergeleken met een conventionele windmolen met hetzelfde vermogen wordt dan 120.000 kilo toren en wieken vervangen door een vliegtuig en een kabel van samen nog geen 400 kilo. Bovendien vliegt de PowerPlane veel hoger, waar de wind harder en constanter waait. Door het lage materiaalverbruik en de krachtigere wind is het 850kW PowerPlane-systeem goedkoper dan gewone windmolens.

Toekomst

Het eerste commerciële PowerPlane-systeem van 850kW komt in 2015 op de markt. Na een opschaling denkt Ampyx dat PowerPlanes rond 2018 een kostenniveau bereiken dat goed kan concurreren met kolencentrales.

Filmpje

Vorig jaar mei schreef ik voor TEDxBinnenhof over de economische kansen van Nederlandse innovaties in luchtkwaliteit. In de kerstvakantie kreeg ik een rapport in handen dat de economische potentie vanuit een andere kant onderstreepte. Het afvangen van schadelijke gassen, die de binnenvaart momenteel al varende in de lucht loost, levert de handelaren in en producenten van deze gassen volgens het rapport ruim €117 mln extra inkomsten op. Zo zie je maar: de strijd van GroenLinks voor schonere lucht in het Rijnmond gebied kan prima samengaan met winstkansen voor het Nederlandse bedrijfsleven. Reden voor de website Duurzaam Bedrijfsleven om het onderwerp samen op te pakken.

Transport vluchtige organische stoffen

Nederlandse binnenvaartschepen vervoeren jaarlijkse miljoenen liters vluchtige organische stoffen, zoals benzeen, MBTE en styreen. Het zijn industriële chemicaliën die worden gebruikt als oplosmiddel of bij de productie van plastics. Deze stoffen zijn in principe vloeibaar, maar vluchtig: ze verdampen snel. In vakjargon heten ze NMVOS.

Door die vluchtigheid blijft er na het lossen van de vloeibare lading altijd een hoeveelheid aan gassen achter in de tanks. In 60 procent van de gevallen moet dit ontgast worden. De Nederlandse wetgeving kent geen beperkingen voor binnenvaartschepen om varend te ontgassen. Het ontgassen leidt tot stankoverlast en, aangezien sommige NMVOS kankerverwekkend zijn, ook tot schade aan het milieu en de volksgezondheid.

Kans van 117 miljoen euro

Het ontgassen is ook een gemiste economische kans. Volgens een recent onderzoek van Raymond Kastermans, specialist in gevaarlijke stoffen bij het ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, blijkt dat elk jaar vier miljoen liter aan NMVOS wordt ontgast. Deze gassen kunnen ook worden opgevangen en verhandeld. Volgens het onderzoek van Kastermans vertegenwoordigen de gassen een economische waarde van ruim €117 mln.

Alleen al het afvangen van benzeen zou €42 mln op kunnen leveren. Blootstelling aan hoge doses benzeen is schadelijk voor de gezondheid. Het havengebied in Rotterdam is volgens het Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving en het RIVM een van de weinige gebieden in Nederland waar nog een probleem met het halen van de norm voor benzeenconcentratie bestaat.

VentoClean

Het Rotterdamse TEICom heeft met zijn gepatenteerde koelinstallatie VentoClean een uitvinding in handen die vluchtige gassen kan opvangen en om kan zetten naar een waardevol product. Met behulp van stikstof wordt de ladingdamp direct afgegeven aan de ontvanger, zonder dat het product qua fysische eigenschappen veranderd is.

Tegenover een markt van €117 mln staan investeringskosten van ongeveer €1 mln voor aanschaf en installatie. VentoClean verbruikt 200 kilowattuur aan elektriciteit per uur, maar zelfs tegen kleinverbruikerstarief is dat een schijntje van €46 per uur aan exploitatiekosten.

Met het systeem kan op een 110 meter binnenvaarttanker zoals de Aaltje per reis rond 1100 liter benzeen of 700 liter benzine worden teruggewonnen.

Wereldwijd patent

Vluchtige organische stoffen zijn een wereldwijd probleem. TEICom is net naar de Verenigde Staten geweest, waar het probleem zich ook voordoet. Het bedrijf uit Honselersdijk profiteert van hun wereldwijde patent.

In Nederland is strengere wetgeving in de maak over het ontgassen van NMVOS, maar deze laat op zich wachten. In de tussentijd wordt onvoldoende gebruik gemaakt van innovatieve oplossingen van Nederlandse bedrijven voor het verbeteren van luchtkwaliteit. Alleen in Amsterdam zijn twee VentoClean-installaties besteld.

Havengebied Rotterdam

Het havengebied van Rotterdam is niet zo ambitieus en vond in eerste instantie 2030 vroeg genoeg:

Vorig voorjaar heeft het gemeentebestuur van Rotterdam aangegeven te werken aan een verbod op varend afgassen vanaf 2014. Tot 2020 wordt het afgassen in de Geulhaven gedoogd, dat betekent nog 7 jaar overlast van afgassen voor Vlaardingen (en in mindere mate Schiedam, Rhoon en Hoogvliet).

Tegelijkertijd spreekt Hans Smits, de directeur van het Havenbedrijf Rotterdam, in de serie MVO Leiderschap van NuZakelijk prachtig woorden over het belang van MVO en zorg voor de omgeving voor de ‘licence to operate’ van het Rotterdams Havenbedrijf. Of bij het blijven gedogen van het lozen van schadelijke stoffen naar de lucht, terwijl alternatieven voorhanden zijn de term leiderschap hoort…

The environmental policy debate has been taken over by climate change for years. With some backlash lately because of climate denialism. Most discussion about climate change focus on reducing the emissions of carbon dioxide into the air. In this post I will argue that it is better for both public health and fighting climate change to shift focus to non-CO2 greenhouse gases and air pollution for the short term, leaving the reduction of actual CO2 emission to the future. Do I hear some climate fighters cry wolf already? :P

Let me be very clear: I trust climate scientist when they say irreversible climate change is upon us if we don’t act now. I equally understand the peak oil statements about shrinking oil and gas reserves and rising fossil energy prices. I also know a large part of The Netherlands is within European air quality standards. And still I argue the focus to combat climate change should be on air quality, especially if The Netherlands want to give their entrepreneurs a head start. As a researcher once provocatively said to me: the carbon price will be zero if Europe reaches the CAFE air quality standards timely…

The problem
A few years ago I attended a workshop about the interconnection between transboundery air pollution and climate change. The research presented showed it might be more effective to combat climate change by combatting soot and air pollution (like nitrogen oxides and methane).

Carbon black, as soot was called by the researchers, is formed mainly through incomplete combustion of both fossil and biofuels. The researchers told that part of the carbon black rains down in snowy areas, where it turns the snow darker. Thereby increasing the amount of solar radiation absorbed, thus raising the temperature of the snow which makes it melt… That’s one good reason to focus on reducing air pollution by carbon black for The Netherlands.

A second good reason to focus on carbon black has to do with human health. Carbon black is associated with a lot of human health problems ranging from asthma to heart diseases. Human health can be an important driver for environmental policy and a researcher from the Dutch Environmental Agency (PBL) recently wrote an article suggesting reducing soot can be very effective to improve impact from air pollution on human health.

I know The Netherlands manage to comply to current European air quality standards. But still our air quality is a far cry from the long term CAFE objective:

to achieve levels of air quality that do not result in unacceptable impacts on, and risks to, human health and the environment.

Especially because the scientific evidence that smaller carbon black particles have more adverse health effects. Those small particles are not yet regulated, but local politicians know that their citizens are worried and either use it in their campaign or reject to build schools and houses next to highways.

Carbon black isn´t the only air pollution problem. Ozone is another one. Although the ozone layer on high altitudes is necessary to prevent skin cancer, ground level ozone forms a threat to human health. Recent research by Plant Research International (Dutch pdf) based upon data supplied by Crops Advance shows that exposure to ozone also significantly decreases the ability of plants and trees to absorb carbon dioxide. This effect can be significantly and can reduce the Carbon Use Efficiency of commercial crops up to 46%. If plants are exposed to ozone as seedlings the effect remains even after the ozone level decreases. Perhaps it’s more logical to increase the carbon use efficiency of commercial crops by reducing air quality before spending our money on putting carbondioxide undergroud…

The carbon use efficiency can be increased by reducing ozone concentrations at ground level. Ozone is formed as a result of other air polluting emissions, mainly volatile organic compounds (VOC’s, such as methane) and nitrogen oxides. Both are emitted by burning fossil and biofuels. But VOC’s are also released during transport and storage of fossil fuels, and some of them, like methane, are very potent greenhouse gasses. So considering the fact that non-CO2 greenhouse gases (like methane) are responsible for over 50% of the greenhouse effect focussing on air quality to combat climate change is less strange then it looks on the outset.

The solution
The solution to the above problem for the long term is to decrease the amount of combustion fuel needed by increasing the production of sustainable energy that don’t need combustion and electrification, like electric cars. The short term solution is to use innovations at hand to reduce the emissions of air polluting substances like VOC’s, carbon black and nitrogen dioxide. Several Dutch companies can provide such solutions and research shows that providing them a home market is very favorable to gain traction on the world market.

So let’s show some examples of Dutch companies that can provide world class solutions to combat air pollution.

Teigro: VentClean-system
The VentoClean-System is a special explosion proof machine for the degassing and recovering of hydrocarbons out of tanks and hoses in the shipping industry and bulk storage. It has been developed to clean tanks and hoses from gases and residues quickly after the tanks have been emptied. Through a condensation process gases and residues are brought back to the original product in liquid form very quickly. The high speed together with the high ventilation capacity of the system are also caused by bringing back a higher optimum temperature in the tanks and hoses, this temperature is re-used from the condensation process.

The VentoClean-Systems had advantages for both people, planet and profit. To start with the profit part: In short the VentoClean-System saves costs and increases turnover. By using the VentoClean-System the tanks are immediately employable, washing is not necessary and there is hardly any waste or slobs.

As the system can be used independent from location and time, ships that have been equipped with the VentoClean-System become more flexible and are employable more rapidly. The extra shipping hours caused by ventilation can be brought back, port and lock costs can be reduced and a backload can be loaded more often.

The gains for the planet consist of less waste or slobs, less washing of tanks and reducing the need for ventilation in open air decreases air polluting emissions. Less air polluting emissions is also good for people, as the system can also be used to clean tanks containing carcinogenic substances like benzene.

Accede: Cairbags
Accede has developed a concept they call Cairbags for use in tanks. This short movie explains how Cairbags work.

A Cairbag is an aircushion that is installed and inflated in the container of the trailer or truck, especially if the container is only partially filled with a liquid load. The Cairbag fills at all times that space that is not filled by the liquid, preventing the presence of free air. The effect of the Cairbag is that it decreases the emission and evaporation of liquids in a partially or fully filled tank. Therefore the Cairbag contributes to better air quality along shipping routes, both coastal and inland. A Cairbag also increases the fuel efficiency for trucks that use them.

Cairbags can also be used in tank terminals to reduce emissions to air. When they are combined with a Linerbag emissions to both air and groundwater can be reduced to (almost) zero. Leaving a larger volume of products to sell and increasing air quality in the surrounding area.

Greentec Oils
Greentec Oils increases the fuel efficiency of existing engines and reduces the emission of both nitrogen oxides and soot. This is done by a combination of a special biobased oil, adjustments to the engine which make it run smoother and an addendum to improve fuel quality. Confidential data I’ve seen show generators use 10% less fuel and emission from soot and nitrogen oxides are reduced up to 80%.

HMVT: Corona
HMVT is developing the Corona Air Purification system together with Eindhoven University of Technology (TUe) and Oranjewoud. The name Corona refers to the phenomenon of air conducting electricity under the influence of a powerful electric field without making a full discharge circuit. The Corona Air Purifier cleanses vapours with the help of pulsed high-voltage electricity, also known as Pulsed Power. The Corona Air Purification system can remove substances like VOC’s, nitrogen oxides, particle matters and traffic emissions with rates ranging from 50% up to 99%.

Needed action by government
First and foremost the current separation between air quality and climate change policy should be reconsidered. People are much more likely to act on air quality, as air pollution has a direct effect on both human health and agricultural output and can have a profound and almost immediate effect.  Both local and national authorities can play their part by not settling for a C minus for air quality.

On the second place a home market for the above mentioned companies can be created. One of the main lessons from research to the critical success factors for clean tech done by both the European Union and World Wildlife Foundation is that a home market gives a large competitive advantage to clean tech companies. Nothing is more convincing and compelling for foreign customers than being able to show that your technology is being used in your own country. After all a sales pitch containing the phrase this technology is not yet used (or not even allowed) in my own country will not be very convincing, of even a sales pitch at all!

Creating a home market requires more than providing innovation subsidies or R&D funding. It requires an environment where government and entrepreneurs form partnerships to bring technology to the market. Also Dutch government should take an active role in setting at least European standards for clean tech, as we’ve recently done for electric cars.

If this is done wisely the above mentioned technologies have the potential improve air quality both in The Netherlands and worldwide. Improving air quality will decrease health care cost, save millions of people from air pollution related illness, increase agricultural production (one of our top sectors) and even stall climate change as a side effect…

So let’s hope some we’ll see some Dutch clean tech on the Catwalk for Innovation next month.

This post was originally witten for and published by TEDxBinnenhof. Thanks to my former collegues for pointing me to the companies and research mentioned in this post. And to Ivo Stroeken, Advisor Electric Transportation, and Max Herold, owner at Managementissues.com for critically reviewing draft versions.

When I was thinking about writing an article on Electric Cars in the Netherlands, my stance was that I was not willing to enter the ongoing debate on whether or not one should WANT to abandon the conventional cars or not. In fact, as I mentioned in the first part, I can fully understand the merits of a particular brand of fuel powered car on the German Autobahn, or a 4×4 in the terrain.  That’s emotion, passion, even conviction.

However, I am equally convinced that in this day and age, there is no logical reason why we should not choose an electric car over a conventional model for our daily commute and for most of business travel by car.

The most obvious factor contributing to this opinion is the fact that an electric car is much more economical to run. Contrary to common belief, this is not achieved by driving the way my grandparents do. It is mainly due to the increased efficiency of an electric engine compared to the efficiency of a conventional internal combustion engine. The running costs of an electric car are considerably less than those of a conventional car. € 50,- would buy you enough regular petrol to get you roughly 350 km. € 50,- of electricity would get you approximately 1.000 km.

However, every car, whether electric, petrol- or Flintstone-powered is less than 100% efficient, the images below, taken from the Tesla Motors Website clarifies this.

Internal combustion engines are relatively inefficient at converting on-board fuel energy to propulsion as most of the energy is wasted as heat. On the other hand, electric motors are more efficient in converting stored energy into driving a vehicle, and electric drive vehicles do not consume energy while at rest or coasting, and some of the energy lost when braking is captured and reused through regenerative braking, which captures as much as one fifth of the energy normally lost during braking. Typically, conventional gasoline engines effectively use only 15% of the fuel energy content to move the vehicle or to power accessories, and diesel engines can reach on-board efficiencies of 20%, while electric drive vehicles have on-board efficiency of around 80%.

Only when we take the entire chain of processes into account (for electric cars and conventional cars equally) we can make a fair comparison. Once again, the Tesla Motor Company has created an of excellent image to explain this.

Another significant improvement of the electric car is the Well-to-Wheel efficiency. Normally fuel consumption and CO2-emissions are measured (literally) in the car. In the case of electric cars, this is not the whole story. Obviously the CO2 and other emissions at tailpipe are zero in the case of an electric car, there are emissions during the whole process of generating, transporting electricity etc. It is understandable that, when the electricity comes from renewable sources, such as solar energy, wind, water etc the emissions are far less that when the electric cars are charged from the grid, using electricity from coal-powered power plants.

There are numerous studies being undertaken for the Dutch & European situation at this moment, but because of the increasing number of available  models, their efficiency and perhaps even more important the debate on the power sources, following the nuclear disaster in Japan, there is no real accurate study at this moment. In the US however, the Union of Concerned Scientists have released a very recent study on the electric cars in relation to the power source and grid stability in the US (This shows that even in the area’s where the grid the least stable and electricity is generated from coal, the electric car is as fuel efficient and has the same or less of an environmental impact that a relatively small car, such as a Ford Fiesta.

So, does this end the debate? No, it does not in my opinion.Yes, electric cars are more efficient, cheaper to run, have an equal or less environmental impact than conventional cars. But an electric car cannot take me to Spain, unless I have a lot of time on my hands, the number of models are limited and obviously charging times are still very long. But I feel strongly that when electric cars are combined with smart alternatives, they can and will offer a valid alternative to the ownership of a conventional car. So stay tuned for part three: “alternatives for the alternative?”

This post was originally written for and published by TEDxBinnenhof in close collaboration with Ivo Stroeken, Advisor Electric Transportation, and Max Herold, owner at Managementissues.com.

Ever since the introduction of the Th!nk City in The Netherlands in 2009, there has been an everlasting debate on the pro’s and con’s of electric cars in the Netherlands, and there are no signs that we are anywhere near reaching consensus on this subject.

The question is: do we WANT to reach consensus, or rather, why should we strive for consensus? I, for one, see no point in this.

Despite the high costs of purchase, the number of electric cars registered in the Netherlands are exploding, from somewhere to 100 in January 2009 to well over 1500 by March 2012. Of course, when compared to the total number of cars (well over 7 million) this is, well, a modest start. But didn’t Confucius say:” A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”?

One might wonder why those early adopters went ahead and purchased these vehicles in the first place? Expensive, range of 150 km maximum, no public infrastructure for charging the vehicle other than an extension cord, the battery has to remain plugged in otherwise it would bleed and it’s range would diminish to zero in roughly a week. The owners were either admired or ridiculed, depending on the perspective. But still, they went ahead and did it and discovered something amazing.

The sum of all fears for prospective owners (or rather, users) of an electric vehicle is called range anxiety. Only 150 km on a single charge. And refueling the car would take at least eight hours, even more. Not really versatile when compared to conventional cars. But what those hard-core users found out is that range anxiety is fundamentally non-existent. The only issue they had, was that they had to plan their journeys more carefully, to prevent the battery from running on empty. One added advantage of this was an increased efficiency of their daily business practice and a significant decrease of their travel distance, without, obviously, compromising their effectiveness! And of course, with the ever increasing number of fast charging stations (200 by the end of 2012, well over 300 by the end of 2013) the issue of running out of juice is merely a matter of pressing too hard or plain poor planning.

Those first vehicles would set you back roughly € 40.000 which is, frankly, staggering and there was virtually no choice in brands or models. That kind of money would buy you a decent set of wheels, even back in 2009. Lease of these vehicles was no different matter, because nobody in the car business knew what the long term development of their investment in those vehicles would yield, and so the lease-prices were even more staggering. You had to be pretty convinced or determined to even consider using an electric vehicle back then.

Today is an entirely different story altogether. Virtually all car manufacturers of conventional cars are developing new electric models from scratch, for prices which are much more interesting. Yes, those vehicles are still much more expensive than their conventional cousins. But a select number of providers, believing in the residual value of these cars, is starting to offer realistic lease prices, making the electric cars even cheaper than their conventional brethren, when comparing the annual total costs of ownership. This way, enterprises can actually start to convert part of their fleet from conventional vehicles to electric ones.

The prospective users of those cars are, of course, an entirely different matter. There are very few ‘owners’ of a company car who make this decision based on the environmental effects of the car. And those few just might be the ones who bought the first electric cars in 2009. The vast majority makes this decision based on the brand, versatility, fuel consumption and additional tax liability. This last aspect has caused a massive increase in numbers of sales of the Toyota Prius & Auris, the Honda Civic Hybrid etc.

Electric cars can benefit from an even greater advantage, the fuel consumption is dramatically less then it’s conventional counterparts and, due to the emissions on which the additional tax liability is based, there is a 0% tax bracket.

The increasing number of makes & models can provide the same (or challenge even) the level of comfort and ride of the conventional car, makes the electric car a much more valid alternative. And an added bonus is the amazing torque offered an electric car. A necessity is the availability of ‘access to mobility’ providers, for, for example a weekend trip to the Belgian Ardennes in a conventional car without having to go to the hassle of renting a car. Again, certain mobility providers are offering these services as we speak, making this a reality and thus ensuring that the driver of an electric car can access the mode of transportation they need, whenever they need it.

In this day and age, there is no logical reason why we should not choose an electric car over a conventional model for our daily commute and for most of business travel by car.

The question I’ve started off with was, however: do we WANT to reach consensus over the electric car? No we don’t.

I can very much understand and even appreciate ones point of view when someone states that they immensely enjoy the ability to reach 200 km/h and over on the German motorways, or how a particular brand of 4×4 really ‘does it for them’. At present it’s an illusion to think or, even more, to try to convince someone to substitute their beloved brand X for an electric car, and I for one, am not prepared to enter this debate.

What I am convinced of, and I will prove this in ‘electrifying the Dutch, part 2: the proof of the pudding is in the numbers’, is that electric cars offer a valid, and often economically more viable alternative to conventional cars.

This post was originally written for and published at TEDxBinnenhof in close collaboration with Ivo Stroeken, Advisor Electric Transportation, and Max Herold, owner at Managementissues.com.

Op 25 juni organiseert de rijksoverheid TEDxBinnenhof. De organisatie noemt het een Catwalk voor innovatie, waar inspirerende en grensverleggende ideeën uit Nederland voor het aanpakken van mondiale problemen worden gepresenteerd. De Catwalk for Innovation wordt gelivestreamed op verschillende locaties in Nederland en op deelnemende Nederlandse ambassades.

Ik heb geen idee welke ideeën zich mogen presenteren. De komende maanden mag ik wel bloggen over innovatie. Uiteraard ga ik daarbij ideeën behandelen die volgens mij een plekje op de catwalk verdienen. Te beginnen bij de bouwsector, waar ik in werkzaam ben. De komende weken kun je echter nog bijdragen verwachten over elektrische auto’s en duurzame innovaties.

Ideeën, opmerkingen en commentaar zijn welkom. Mijn bijdrage van deze week is tot stand gekomen met hulp van Ivo Stroeken en Max Herold. Ik plaats de bijdrages die ik schrijf voor TEDxBinnenhof met een vertraging van twee weken ook hier op mijn eigen weblog.

De eerste twee berichten staan inmiddels online en kan je hier vinden:

Waar? LEF Futurecenter van Rijkswaterstaat
Organisatie: SKAO, RWS en Prorail
Aanwezig: ruim 100 mensen
Datum: 3 februari 2012

Op 3 februari organiseerde Stichting Klimaatvriendelijk Aanbesteden & Ondernemen (SKAO) een bijeenkomst over infrastructuur en duurzame energie. Doel was om nieuwe keteninitiatieven tot stand te brengen, passend bij de ambitie van RWS & Prorail op gebied van infrastructuur & duurzame energie en passend in de CO2 Prestatieladder van SKAO.

Er waren ruim 100 mensen aanwezig werkzaam bij bouwers, ingenieursbureau’s en opdrachtgevers. Tijdens de bijeenkomst vertelde SKAO, Rijkswaterstaat, ProRail en het Havenbedrijf Rotterdam kort wat over hun ambities voor de komende jaren. Ter inspiratie vertelde Tom van den Nieuwenhuijzen van Van Nieuwpoort Groep kort wat over de Green Deal duurzaam beton van MVO Nederland, waar ook Strukton aan deelneemt.

Daarna splitste de groep op en was er in sneltreinvaart aandacht voor een aantal ingediende initiatieven en voor speeddaten met andere deelnemers. Zelf heb ik de volgende initiatieven gehoord:

  1. A15 Dubbel Groen: Stichting Natuur & Milieu wil de weg zoveel mogelijk met elektrische auto’s bevolken en zoveel mogelijk duurzame energie in de omgeving van de weg opwekken.
  2. WKO in asfalt- en betonwegen. Monique van Eijkelenburg, directeur Duurzame Energie Koepel, gaf aan hier veel kansen in te zien. Voordeel van zo’n WKO is dat het mogelijk is om huizen of kantoren te verwarmen en koelen met de warmte uit het asfalt of beton van de weg. Dat scheelt aardgas. Daarnaast is het ook mogelijk om het wegdek in de winter ijsvrij te houden zonder pekel te hoeven gebruiken. Met de overname van Ooms heeft Strukton deze kennis ook in huis. Ooms heeft deze Road Energy Systems al op diverse plaatsen toegepast, dit filmpje geeft een beeld van de werking.
  3. De Natuur & Milieufederaties presenteerde een idee voor duurzame energie coöperatie langs infrastructuur. Zodat omwonenden naast de lasten ook lusten krijgt van infrastructuur.
  4. Duurzame energie mogelijkheden van water en landinfrastructuur in Rotterdamse haven
  5. RWS staat open voor alles, zolang de hoofdfunctie van het netwerk maar niet geraakt wordt.

De andere initiatieven heb ik niet echt meegekregen, omdat de roulatietijd erg kort was. Wel heb ik nog een aantal leuke gesprekken gehad met onder andere vertegenwoordigers van gemeenten en energiebedrijven. Met de vertegenwoordigers van energiebedrijven heb ik onder meer gesproken over nieuwe vormen van samenwerking tussen bouwers en energiebedrijven. Die ideeen ga ik zeker meenemen in vervolggespreken met de energieleverancier van Strukton.