Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government The Almighty Buck

South Korea Commits $61 Billion For 'Net-Zero Society' By 2025 (interestingengineering.com) 57

Posted by BeauHD from the eco-friendly dept.
South Korea announced it's investing $61 billion by 2025 to become a "net-zero society," according to a statement from the country's Ministry of Environment, reports a local news source. Interesting Engineering reports: As part of the South Korean New Deal, this "green" policy is the Asian country's response to the rising tide of climate change, while also boosting its economy -- hit hard by the COVID-19 coronavirus -- in hopes of achieving what trade ministries have called a "net-zero society." The five-year, 61-billion-dollar (U.S.) initiative calls for the construction of zero-energy public facilities, many of which will be remodeled with eco-friendly materials. This move is expected to create 660,000 new jobs, in addition to reducing greenhouse gases by 12 million tons over the next five years.

The government will also spearhead a country-wide public education upgrade to offer eco-friendly schools. Schools will receive roughly 240,000 Tablet computers, with WiFi installed in all elementary, middle- and high schools throughout South Korea by 2022. The South Korean government also aims to adopt green technology for city infrastructure and buildings. Once completed, South Korea should have 25 "smart green cities." If and when the country reaches its goal, energy will shift from fossil fuels to renewable sources, including solar, wind, and hydrogen power. The South Korean government will also create 10 "smart green" industrial complexes, with more than 1,700 "green factories."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

South Korea Commits $61 Billion For 'Net-Zero Society' By 2025 More

South Korea Commits $61 Billion For 'Net-Zero Society' By 2025

Comments Filter:
  • What's impressive about this is how decisive and quick it is

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      This is their chance to not only recover from COVID but to get ahead of everyone else on net zero technology.

  • First get everyone in the world out of poverty, then figure out how to convert to sustainable green BS. As green is currently implemented, it doesn't create jobs .. makes products very expensive and doesn't enable job creation. Because of higher energy costs and green bureacracy, things get too expensive for the poor. Without money you can't be educated, can't buy things, or do much.

    • Re:Poverty (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Cyberax ( 705495 ) on Friday July 17, 2020 @10:46PM (#60302701)

      First get everyone in the world out of poverty, then figure out how to convert to sustainable green BS. As green is currently implemented, it doesn't create jobs

      Green tech actually creates local jobs, and is a good way to improve the economy.

      makes products very expensive

      It makes wastefulness more expensive. In resource-starved countries it reduces the poverty and allows local jobs to flourish.

      doesn't enable job creation

      What use are jobs if your children die of hunger because there's no food?

      • Green tech creates fewer jobs than none green tech. It's simple logic.

        Cheaper energy = more energy, more energy = more manufacturing and processing, more manufacturing and processing = greater production, higher production = cheaper things, cheaper things = more people have stuff.

        • Green tech creates fewer jobs than none green tech. It's simple logic.

          Cheaper energy = more energy, more energy = more manufacturing and processing, more manufacturing and processing = greater production, higher production = cheaper things, cheaper things = more people have stuff.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

          It's worth watching , doubly so if you are familiar with the movie.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Cyberax ( 705495 )

          Green tech creates fewer jobs than none green tech. It's simple logic.

          Nope.

          Cheaper energy = more energy, more energy = more manufacturing and processing, more manufacturing and processing = greater production, higher production = cheaper things, cheaper things = more people have stuff.

          Raw production output hasn't been a problem in a while. And you're also operating under a false assumption that fossil fuel is cheaper. Solar and wind have both passed coal in raw price per kWh ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ). They are far less reliable, but if you're building infrastructure from scratch, people can adapt to that.

          Moreover, for solar energy the greatest cost driver is labor, while for coal plants it's the cost of equipment. This makes solar perfect for poverty-stricken countrie

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            They are far less reliable, but if you're building infrastructure from scratch, people can adapt to that.

            They're less reliable in developed countries.

            Wind and solar can be much more reliable than something like coal, which depends on a supply chain, in many places, especially those places that are building from scratch.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              It depends how you define "reliable". For example wind farms are generally considered more reliable in terms of the amount of backup power you need on standby because failures tend to only knock a small fraction of the overall power output out. If a thermal generator goes offline for some reason you lose a gigawatt or more instantly.

              Distributed generation and storage for smoothing are overall more reliable than centalized generation.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

                Many rural areas of India technically have electricity, but it's available less than 50% of the time. Lots of places in the world are worse than that. There are all kinds of reasons for it, from long, poorly maintained power lines through corruption to being first on the list to get a blackout when there's a problem.

                Before you even get to concerns about how a grid operates, solar, wind, or small scale hydro can provide more reliable service because it can be deployed locally. Even if you've just got some so

              • Distributed generation and storage for smoothing are overall more reliable than centalized generation.

                This, a thousand times.

          • Solar is more expensive, if it were cheaper you won't need laws to force people to it. People would naturally invest in solar instead of coal. Cheaper energy means more jobs overall. When there's more energy then more things can be made or done with it.

            • Re:Poverty (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Cyberax ( 705495 ) on Saturday July 18, 2020 @02:01AM (#60303053)

              Solar is more expensive, if it were cheaper you won't need laws to force people to it.

              It's expensive for baseload, not expensive for flexible loads. You also assume that people are completely rational, which has been shown false (just see how many people vote Republican or spew nonsense about renewables).

              People would naturally invest in solar instead of coal.

              Solar and wind have passed coal only recently, thanks to all these laws that created the economy of scale. Most of large solar/wind projects now in development are completely unsubsidized.

              When there's more energy then more things can be made or done with it.

              Sure. However, if coal plants have to pay for all of their externalities, they won't be even close to competitive.

            • First and foremost, "people" don't invest in coal by choice, they use coal power because that's what their power company, which is likely a monopoly, sells. When is the last time you chose to install/build your own coal plant. People DO invest in solar.

              By US standards my spouse and I are extraordinarily handy. We built our own house(90% of labor, all trades), we built our own garage(60% of labor, better jobs, kids, less time). We know how to build/install/repair.

              With an average household income in earl

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Bengie ( 1121981 )
              It really depends on the context. Even in my state where they only go green for the purpose of saving money, it turned out that after a bunch of controlled small scale experiments, while renewable was "more expensive" nearly all of the costs went into the local economy as jobs, while standard fossil fuels are slightly cheaper but most of their costs go to importing fuels which is a economic loss. Now our republican state government is going full crazy for renewables.

              One cost is not like the other.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Clean renewable energy is now the cheapest form of generation. Wind in particular.

          Saving energy also reduces costs. For example EVs cost more up front but the savings over time on buying fossil fuels and maintaining the combustion engine add up, it's just that many people can't get one because they have nowhere to charge it.

          Anyway, we shouldn't be creating jobs at any cost, that's the broken window fallacy.

          • Seems you don't understand the broken window fallacy or economics. Broken windows aren't useful products, things manufactured and sold due to the availability of cheap energy are useful. Climate isn't going to collapse for a few more decades. That gives us time to raise the standards of living and eliminate food or shelter insecurity for the extreme poor. When (almost) every human has a reasonable standard of living and we have generated the necessary capital for investment we can fix any environmental dam

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Cyberax ( 705495 )

              Seems you don't understand the broken window fallacy or economics.

              Indeed you don't. "Broken windows" ain't a fallacy in macroeconomics.

              Broken windows aren't useful products, things manufactured and sold due to the availability of cheap energy are useful.

              Nope. Not if the profits go to a few uber-cenralized manufacturers overseas.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Bengie ( 1121981 )
              I'm not sure how you think we can prop up the poor enough to compensate for mega-droughts, rampant heatwaves, and regular thousand year floods all the while the world's more fertile land becomes barren. Short of fusion power, nano-tubes, and graphene, it's going to be an utter shit show as mass emigration as entire countries start to be come partially uninhabitable.

              Kind of funny how a place can be dealing both with flooding and droughts at the same time. Flash floods destroying all kinds of stuff and not

        • Cheaper energy = more energy, more energy = more manufacturing and processing, more manufacturing and processing = greater production, higher production = cheaper things, cheaper things = more people have stuff.

          You know, if Economics were that simple, there wouldn't be a Nobel Prize category for it.

      • What makes you think there won't be food? There will be more food, food comes from farms. Farming uses energy .. whether for planting, harvesting, or watering crops. Cheaper energy means you can farm more.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Cyberax ( 705495 )

          What makes you think there won't be food?

          There won't be, once the global warming raises the ocean levels and causes rampant desertification.

    • Fighting poverty is entirely compatible with building sustainability world wide.

      Investment in green jobs, both high tech and low tech, green power has lower cost in the long term both environmentally and economically. In the UK we've had government schemes to heavily subsidised solar panels to the disadvantaged, not perfect to beneficial.

      There are many programmes world wide that provide solar power in remote poor village, sustainable agriculture, water aid, desertification and land improvement.

  • In the age of perfect virtue, wisdom and ability were not singled out as extraordinary. The wise were seen merely as higher branches of humanity's tree, growing a little closer to the Sun. People behave correctly, without knowing what to be righteousness and propriety. They loved and respected each other, without calling that benevolence. They were faithful and honest, without considering that to be loyalty. They kept their word without thinking of good faith. And they're everyday conduct, they helped and employed at each other, without considering Duty. They did not concern themselves with Justice, as there was no Injustice. Living in harmony with themselves, each other, and the world their actions left no trace, and so we have no physical record of their existence.

    -- Brian Hoff, "The Te of Piglet"

    Net zero? Eh, could happen.

  • I for one welcome our 56k overlords.
  • Domestically, maybe, but what about all those thousands of containers that are shipped from and to S-Korea and all over the world?
    Are they going for wind-powered ships or nuclear?

  • Fatalism (Score:3)

    by Martin S. ( 98249 ) on Saturday July 18, 2020 @04:48AM (#60303265) Journal

    There is far too much fatalism around this issue, far to many people prepared to say; we can't beat this problem, so why bother trying?

    I call bullshit, we are making big improvements the world over, yep there is still a long way to go, but
    at one time, landing on the moon seemed like nonsense, curing diseases seemed like magic, we are well past the baby steps here.

    The opportunities are immensense and game changing and self empowering, literally. I know a guy running his entire house with solar panels and energy efficiency.

    Progress is being made in using renewable energy to make carbon neutral fuels from sea water and atmospheric CO2.

  • As part of the South Korean New Deal, this "green" policy is the Asian country's response to the rising tide of climate change, while also boosting its economy -- hit hard by the COVID-19 coronavirus

    WOW IT DOES EVERYTHING!!! And all it took was a few words out of the mouths of the power hungry to spend hand over fist!

    Good luck with that.

  • Only zero? (Score:3)

    by BAReFO0t ( 6240524 ) on Saturday July 18, 2020 @06:53AM (#60303429)

    Correct me if I'm wrong,
    but if I weigh 300 pounds,
    and commit to a net zero weigt gain diet,
    I will still die an early, fat death.

  • () I want to have some fun and to play dirt ()==>> kutt.it/PMaEQc
  • Are all those tablets and wifi routers 100% recyclable? Fixing one disaster by trading it for another doesn't count.

Slashdot Top Deals

To thine own self be true. (If not that, at least make some money.)

Close