I don't have an answer for you, because I haven't found it myself.
I have been struggling with burnout for a while now, but I was unable to really put my finger on what was wrong. Maybe it was the job, maybe it was the management, the colleagues, maybe it was the lack of autonomy, maybe it was /me/, etc. I changed jobs a few times, tried my hand at another function in my line of business, became an independent contractor, etc.
Not any of it did anything to relieve the nagging feeling. The mortgage, the family, my progressing age had locked my mind in thinking that the only way out was incremental change, tweaking my career here and there.
But that line of thinking was perhaps too small, and I now believe that this business is just not for me. It has been quite cathartic to at least imagine myself going into another profession entirely, even though carrying out such a transition is anything but straightforward.
I've been going through another episode of sleeplessness lately. Just like it had before, it has serious detrimental effects on my overall wellbeing. I'm less trusting of others, more inclined to shirk social situations, more sensitive to antisocial behaviors in others. I struggle with telling cause from effect, because these things literally stress me out even more, exacerbating the sleep problem. I just _feel_ the sleep deprivation eating away at my general health.
I'm getting the best possible treatment (standard of care) which is cognitive behavioral therapy, but man, is it a slow process to recovery.
I feel you. I was on escitalopram in my twenties too for a depressive episode. It wrecked my libido and 10 years down the line there is hardly any sign of improvement in sight.
I have a very understanding spouse, luckily, but I'm honestly devastated in not being able to accommodate this dimension of our relationship anymore.
Recently, my GP offered to prescribe me antidepressants again for an episode of burnout, but I'm absolutely not keen to go down that road again. I get that it's cheaper and more available than therapy, but I've been burned before.
An unholy coalition politicians, gov't administration, scientists and corporate interest tried to cover up historical PFOS pollution around the 3M production site in Zwijndrecht (BE). They were caught red handed by a vigilant citizen journal when some politicians wanted to expedite some car-centric public construction works smack in the middle of the polluted area.
The ministers for environment and public works ordered their administrations to turn a blind eye, not to sample the wider area to assess the extent of the PFOS pollution, and under no circumstance communicate to the public about the pollution.
A renowned toxicologist was commissioned write down safety norms for the public works in the context of pre-existing PFOS pollution. He took a European reference norm that was already outdated at the time given new toxicological insights, messed up the arithmetic, and, lo and behold, came up with a threshold that was _just_ right for the works to start.
A special parliamentary commission was established to investigate, and so we had 3M testify in parliament on how they believe it is a harmless chemical etc.
At some point in 2010s 3M switched the production process over to use PFAS which they are dumping in the Scheldt river in absurd amounts to this day.
We got some reassuring corporate sop that they promise to reduce PFAS levels in wastewater discharges to 54 kg/year by 2024 (5.375 kg/year in 2021). For reference, Chemours (NL) had a permit for dumping just 2 kg/year in 2020, which sounds about right given our current understanding of the human toxicological effects of PFAS.
The original "Scotchguard" was PFOS and it was reformulated in the early 2000s to PFAS which is believed to be less dangerous.
PFOS and PFAS are "fluorosurfactants" which are surfactants in the sense of "surface acting agents" but are very different from the usual soaps, detergents and disinfectants that help things mix. Applied to solid surfaces it does the opposite. It's pretty amazing that you can apply it to a rug, pour coffee on it, and it wipes right off without sticking.
This should be PFBS, according to Wikipedia. PFAS is the whole family of chemicals, PFBS is a particular member with a much shorter half-life than PFOS. “PFAS” getting a non-abbreviation moniker would sure help to disambiguate things.
Also from WP, Scotchgard now uses “a proprietary fluorinated urethane,” which means we know next to nothing about it.
Belgium chiming in. For the longest time, the electricity bill was this kind of back door for politicians to sneak in stuff they wanted to keep out of the General Budget.
It started harmless enough, but it has spiraled out of control. Of course distribution and transmission need to factor into the energy price somehow, but unfortunately for our friend, the electricity bill, stuff got out of hand.
Government after government tasked transmission and distribution network companies with ever more duties.
In addition to the core business of running their networks, their obligations include, but aren't limited to: acting as the social energy provider of last resort, running the street lights, building and maintaining EV charging infrastructure, buying green energy certificates at predetermined prices, financing offshore wind interconnection, etc.
In light of these extended duties, the DSOs and TSOs then went to the energy market regulators and asked if they could raise prices. Of course, the regulators decided in their favor, or they'd be guilty of systematically underfunding the companies they're supposed to regulate.
The situation now is that 35-44% of the electricity bill is directly earmarked for these so called Public Service Obligations. Add some excise taxes, miscellaneous fees, sum them all up, add VAT to the subtotal, and you end up with a grand total of ⅔ of your electricity bill being spent... not on electricity.
Don't get me wrong: We should be subsidizing most of these things, but in light of the energy transition, the electricity bill is just about the worst place to hide the cost.
Meanwhile, the gas bill has only a fraction of these Public Service Obligations factored into them. How on earth is that right?
No wonder people are reluctant to install heat pumps. It makes no financial sense!
Quite expensive? That's understated. My understanding now is that it comes at the cost a modest new house.
Our family bought a house in the immediate periphery of a smaller city. Since most city housing here is old, the consequence of that decision is that our modest city home has abysmal energy efficiency.
I have wanted to renovate ever since we bought it, in order to cut down on our carbon footprint before 2030, but I have given up on the idea that we'll be able to afford a heat pump before then.
After having spoken with several architects, the building cost alone will eat up €200K without any frills. This will make our house smaller, by replacing poorly built annexes with a more compact and thus thermally efficient cube shaped annex. This comes on top of the mortgage that we took out.
So ironically, in making our home more energy efficient, we would also be making it smaller and less desirable in this regard, at a great expense. Tacking on a heat pump and PV panels would inflate the cost by another 10%.
That is the very real cost of making a home suitable for low energy heating systems.
Don't get me wrong, I'm counting my lucky stars that I'm able to consider such an undertaking, but going through this exercise myself is just a reality check of how dire the situation really is.
If we want to achieve net zero in housing, can we really do so at the cost of conventional building practices?
Talking about the local situation, less than a third of homes are from after 1981 [1]. That's millions of homes slated for a similarly-priced revamp. Who is going to foot the bill? Even with government incentives, some owners don't want to spend all that money on something as intangible as low energy housing, and others simply can't afford to.
What is it that would make it so expensive? (edit: ah you meant the renovation not the heating system) A good heat pump for a large house is sub €10k. Of course you need some way of distributing the heat in the building too (water radiators or in floor heating). Is it that the houses completely lack radiators? Retrofitting a heat pump to a home that has a water radiator system and with fossil burning boiler is cheap.
I’m replacing my 20 year old heat pump now with a new one and it’s around €8k installed. At the same time I’ll tear out the floors and radiators (replacing the floor anyway) and replace with heated floors. This costs at least another €20k but isn’t really necessary - that’s just a luxury when changing the floors anyway.
Good thing around here really old houses have 200mm insulation and newer ones have 300+ required by the code. Regulation also bans fossil heating or direct electric for any new construction or major rebuild.
I know €200K sounds like a lot, but if you strip out unavoidable costs such as VAT, architect's fees, misc hidden fees, what you are left with is a whole lot less.
Let's say they account for 20% of your project cost, that leaves you with 160.000 EUR to buy materials and pay craftsmen.
> Good thing around here really old houses have 200mm insulation and newer ones have 300+ required by the code. Regulation also bans fossil heating or direct electric for any new construction or major rebuild.
Where is that?
Laissez faire was the norm until the 90s here. Urban planning, zoning, and building codes might have theoretically existed before, but enforcement was nonexistent. Energy efficiency regulations are newer still.
As a result, insulation in most homes from before 1990 is severely lacking (if not entirely absent).
> At the same time I’ll tear out the floors and radiators (replacing the floor anyway) and replace with heated floors. This costs at least another €20k but isn’t really necessary - that’s just a luxury when changing the floors anyway.
So, to give you an example: I'll also install heated floors since they are the most suitable heat delivery system for heat pumps and so the most future proof, but first I'll have to excavate 55 cm so I can fill it back up with insulation mostly so as not to lose all of the heat to the bare soil.
For old houses were retrofitting is not possible, a district heat network can help. But yes, housing is really hard to get to net-zero. What I don't understand is why it's still legal to build new houses with fossil fuel heating.
Talking about Belgium, 40.000 additional homes are being connected to the gas grid every year (2020/2021). That's astounding.
We stopped mandating new connections. Great. Insidiously, though, Big Gas successfully lobbied for a price cap of 250 EUR for new connections to the gas grid.
So not only are we still allowing new housing to be heated with gas, we're saying that that's a-ok you can do it on the cheap.
It's almost as if politicians actively want their voters to feel disenfranchised. Who's going to tell those households in a few years that, "Whoops we made a mistake--so maybe this natural gas thing for heating wasn't such a good idea after all"?
At the same time, households who are leading the charge in the energy transition with heat pumps pay full cost, get no rebates, and, cherry on top, pay through the nose for per kWh surcharges on electricity that don't exist for natural gas.
As a Belgian having worked in Denmark, my access to Danish e-government services through NemID was revoked pretty soon after I left the country.
This was quite a frustrating experience. Some time after leaving the country I got e-mails saying that SKAT, the local tax authority, had documents/messages for me to read on the secure message platform eBoks.
However, try as I might, I was unable to convince anyone to restore access since I was no longer a resident. I agonized quite a bit over this since I dreaded inadvertently being a fraud.
It would have saved me a lot of grief if the Danish e-gov services would have federated with Belgian and other EU identity services.
Edit: Forgot to say this is something The Netherlands already does pretty well. Dutch e-gov services, or at least those from Belastingdienst federate with many European idenity service providers including Belgium. Great for cross border workers.
The various authentication services are already supposed to integrate through EIDAS but I don't know how well that works yet. I'm seeing the button to use it on more and more government login pages so I think it's getting picked up more.
As far as I know, the Dutch government has been pretty slow in their EIDAS implementation, even (nearly?) missing some deadlines, maybe the Belgian government has a similar problem?
In Belgium, we have several different regions ( Flemish, Brussels and Wallonia)
For some integrations with Wallonia, we are currently forced to use the federal integration, since their implementation hasn't even started yet :(
You are correct about eidas, it seems to be handled by the federal government currently, but there's not much documentation on it ( Belgium) and i have seen some applications integrating that way. So i suppose the issue is documentation and discoverability.
Belgium with its four governments is quite a weird edge case on many aspects of international standardisation. I don't don't much about the Belgian systems other than that there are several, but theoretical Belgium could make four systems work separately to authenticate abroad with the right federal setup.
Like is the case with my own government, I don't have very great expectations of Belgium's federal government and their IT projects. I'd wish countries could just share their implementations with other governments. Hell, I believe any code developed with public money should be open source for the benefit of everyone, but governments aren't a fan of that because companies charge more for developing software in the open.
Increased nuclear safety. Proponents often tout nuclear's relative safety. Good, but that safety is hard won through regulation. Compliance is costly, and improved safety has been subject to diminishing returns.
Economies of scale. Building a nuclear power plant is a massive undertaking, so the world simply hasn't been building a lot of nuclear power plants. Supply chains (parts, know how) are getting smaller and more uncompetitive with every passing year as other forms of energy production have become more attractive.
This coal spiel is getting so old. This shift to coal in the German energy mix hasn't materialized. This is counter to what many predicted (or hoped?) would happen as the nuclear share weaned.
The facts:
In the time frame 2010 to 2020, the share of nuclear energy in the German energy mix has halved, from 22% to 11%.
At the same time, the share of lignite in the energy mix has dwindled from 23% to 16%. The share of hard coal has gone from 19% to 7%.
Germany reduced its nuclear power output while at the same time reducing its coal power output by even more than its nuclear output.
Gas is up by 2 percentage points, but renewables have more than doubled their market share in 10 years time, and now make up 45% of the power mix (was 17% in 2010).
So no, Germany simply is not switching to coal (or even gas for that matter), and renewable energy production is ramping up rapidly.
I have been struggling with burnout for a while now, but I was unable to really put my finger on what was wrong. Maybe it was the job, maybe it was the management, the colleagues, maybe it was the lack of autonomy, maybe it was /me/, etc. I changed jobs a few times, tried my hand at another function in my line of business, became an independent contractor, etc.
Not any of it did anything to relieve the nagging feeling. The mortgage, the family, my progressing age had locked my mind in thinking that the only way out was incremental change, tweaking my career here and there.
But that line of thinking was perhaps too small, and I now believe that this business is just not for me. It has been quite cathartic to at least imagine myself going into another profession entirely, even though carrying out such a transition is anything but straightforward.