Imagine an exciting illuminated inflatable igloo in an otherwise pitch-dark sports hall. Ice-cold, visitors are presented with a few spirited propositions. The igloo is divided into boxes A,B,C and D. The letters stand for: agree-don't know-don't care-don't agree. Our Cleantech team (green chemistry and renewable energy) opens the discussion with the warning:
"Normally NOM is there to connect people; this afternoon we're going to drive you guys apart!"
Always interesting - and secretly NOM is also counting on useful input for the upcoming 2025-2030 Strategic Multi-Year Plan.
First proposition: If society doesn't believe in green chemistry, then we shouldn't do it. After some wrestling with the double negative, the vast majority say: disagree. Someone suggests, "It's up to us to explain it better; we certainly shouldn't push forward!" And: "We must dare to move forward."
Thesis: Everyone in North Drenthe and Groningen City should get a home battery from the government. Opinions are now much more divided. Is that even a government task? Suppose people don't want it themselves? We note: "Definitely! We need to electrify where we can. Besides, grid congestion is a grimly urgent problem." It produces a "defection" from box B (don't know) to box A (agree): "Good story!"
Thesis: Importing hydrogen instead of making it yourself is much smarter. Section B (don't know) is quickly filling up. "If you read the opinions on LinkedIn it shoots in all directions!" Someone in box D (disagree) falls over the wording with "much smarter. "We need to do both! Cooperate with countries with lots of sun, that's sustainable." Another has chosen box A (agree) "for exactly the same reason": do both! And fast!
Thesis: Storing CO2 underground should be banned. Box D in chorus: "Banning goes a long way. It can be a very good transition method. We should explore all possibilities. In my opinion, safety is mostly between the ears!" Someone else adds: "A shame to put useful resources underground. If you couple CO2 with hydrogen, you get hydrocarbon compounds. That will be the big transition, the carbon chain above ground."
Thesis: A farmer makes food not chemistry. Some 90% of the 50 participants choose D (disagree). In box A (agree), someone objects, "By-products can be valuable, I understand, but the Netherlands is too small to grow anything purely for raw materials." Eileen Blackmore (circular product and concept designer) seizes her chance to defend the Wadden Sea, in the fight against microplastics in seawater: "With flax you can make anything. Textiles, insulation, biocomposite as a plant-based building material." She points to the residual streams from the sugar beet industry and to Wad van Waarde, among others, inventor of beautiful, sturdy cups made of fully degradable PHA, an agricultural byproduct. "Farmers want it best and are just proud to contribute in this way!"
As it turned out, the value of engaging with each other is great. Because although the boxes "agree-don't know-don't care-agree" suggest big differences it turned out that opinions were much less apart.
A meeting, to get new energy from, with lots of chemistry between participants? Definitely!