Europe’s energy crisis is about to go global as gas prices soar(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
Europe’s energy crisis is about to go global as gas prices soar
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-27/europe-s-energy-crisis-is-about-to-go-global-as-gas-prices-soar
600 comments
The problem with inelastic demand is that the severity of the problem goes from 0 to 100 very quickly as supply falls past the inelastic threshold. Lead times are years in the energy space, so if we don't react to forecasts and instead wait to feel the pain we will be signing up for years of severe pain.
This a thousand times. This is a manufactured energy crisis. We've divested from the fossil fuel space of so aggressively capital that there's no way out without a /lot/ of pain. It also doesn't help that nuclear is being phased out.
It is in part the push to reduce CO2 that has caused these prices to rise. The obvious solution is to increase CO2 production (ie burn more coal and oil) to get the price back down. That's the opposite of it making "economical sense to reduce CO2 output."
Let me guess,
You work from home and/or you make much more than an average person your age. Maybe you're a programmer.
Ok let's make energy more expensive. I think it's only fair that the pain is distributed equitably, so let's put a $0.1/Gb tax on bandwidth [1], the cloud being one of the largest growing emitters of CO2.
Frankly, I liked the 90s low bandwidth internet more than today's, everything valuable we can do today the 90s had enough bandwidth for. Everything that is unhealthy about the internet today typically takes bandwidth. So, I think $0.1/Gb is not enough.
Do you agree?
[1] $0.1/Gb for data flowing to the end user and $0.2/Gb for data crossing country borders. So the cloud folks don't syphon off all the personal data of my citizens.
[EDIT] I think only unethical_ban understood the point of this post. That's it's easy to propose a tax for the poor for their poor behavior. Tax yourself first! I disagree with unethical_ban that it's a bad example - its purposely a glib and capricious indirect carbon tax.
You work from home and/or you make much more than an average person your age. Maybe you're a programmer.
Ok let's make energy more expensive. I think it's only fair that the pain is distributed equitably, so let's put a $0.1/Gb tax on bandwidth [1], the cloud being one of the largest growing emitters of CO2.
Frankly, I liked the 90s low bandwidth internet more than today's, everything valuable we can do today the 90s had enough bandwidth for. Everything that is unhealthy about the internet today typically takes bandwidth. So, I think $0.1/Gb is not enough.
Do you agree?
[1] $0.1/Gb for data flowing to the end user and $0.2/Gb for data crossing country borders. So the cloud folks don't syphon off all the personal data of my citizens.
[EDIT] I think only unethical_ban understood the point of this post. That's it's easy to propose a tax for the poor for their poor behavior. Tax yourself first! I disagree with unethical_ban that it's a bad example - its purposely a glib and capricious indirect carbon tax.
This is the reason why people hate “green solutions”.
You blame the cloud but you want to tax bandwidth. As if I can’t upload a tiny bit of code that uses tons of compute. And again to “protect privacy” - as if exporting personal data takes a non-negligible amount of traffic compared to Netflix/BitTorrent.
The only way that taxing externalities makes sense, is taxing at the source. If cloud “takes too much energy” then tax energy! And make it revenue neutral otherwise you’re just incentivising the government to increase taxes and waste even more money/resources.
You blame the cloud but you want to tax bandwidth. As if I can’t upload a tiny bit of code that uses tons of compute. And again to “protect privacy” - as if exporting personal data takes a non-negligible amount of traffic compared to Netflix/BitTorrent.
The only way that taxing externalities makes sense, is taxing at the source. If cloud “takes too much energy” then tax energy! And make it revenue neutral otherwise you’re just incentivising the government to increase taxes and waste even more money/resources.
Yup, tax carbon use of energy on the way into the data centre, let microsoft, google, amazon etc work out how they want to charge it.
Data centers in say south island new zealand powered by hydro will have near-zero carbon cost and thus be cheaper
The biggest issue with a carbon tax and data centre usage is how to charge tax on the 'import' of services.
Data centers in say south island new zealand powered by hydro will have near-zero carbon cost and thus be cheaper
The biggest issue with a carbon tax and data centre usage is how to charge tax on the 'import' of services.
> Data centers in say south island new zealand powered by hydro will have near-zero carbon cost
This is an incorrect mental model that is unfortunately repeated by so many people.
All¹ of the NZ hydro power is currently used by consumers.
If we add some extra load, then the marginal increase in kWh is 100% generated by gas (or maybe even coal at Huntley).
The same problem occurs when you buy “green” energy: unless you are careful to ensure your purchase creates new green generation, then it is just greenwashing (fooling oneself). This is a significant problem with CO2 credits (not saying you shouldn’t try, but don’t be surprised that CO2 production remains the same even if you try to offset).
¹ There may be short periods when the lakes are full, and water is spilled instead of being used for electricity generation, but that certainly isn’t common.
This is an incorrect mental model that is unfortunately repeated by so many people.
All¹ of the NZ hydro power is currently used by consumers.
If we add some extra load, then the marginal increase in kWh is 100% generated by gas (or maybe even coal at Huntley).
The same problem occurs when you buy “green” energy: unless you are careful to ensure your purchase creates new green generation, then it is just greenwashing (fooling oneself). This is a significant problem with CO2 credits (not saying you shouldn’t try, but don’t be surprised that CO2 production remains the same even if you try to offset).
¹ There may be short periods when the lakes are full, and water is spilled instead of being used for electricity generation, but that certainly isn’t common.
You're not wrong.
Perhaps the most charitable interpretation given they specify the South Island is they're assuming that we would displace the energy use of the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter. Given that's about 13% of our total energy use, is powered by hydro dams without the grid capacity to transport to population centres, and run by Rio Tinto who keep threatening to throw their toys and go home...
(Of course, the other option would be to build the bloody grid capacity to get energy to where we need it, but that's a different story I guess.)
Perhaps the most charitable interpretation given they specify the South Island is they're assuming that we would displace the energy use of the Tiwai Point aluminium smelter. Given that's about 13% of our total energy use, is powered by hydro dams without the grid capacity to transport to population centres, and run by Rio Tinto who keep threatening to throw their toys and go home...
(Of course, the other option would be to build the bloody grid capacity to get energy to where we need it, but that's a different story I guess.)
Much more direct to put a carbon tax on the energy used to power the datacenters. Some datacenters are on hydro power, and some are on coal. Penalize the coal
Charging for bandwidth doesn't align incentives to solve the problem
Charging for bandwidth doesn't align incentives to solve the problem
I agree, it seems like an energy tax would be more directly addressing the environmental impact, and the cloud services would in turn be forced to raise their prices to a something more accurately reflecting the cost of cleanup.
That makes no sense to me. I would think you'd impose a carbon tax or something and let the consumer prices sort themselves out.
Well, energy prices rising would affect cloud providers and their costs, which would be passed on to their clients, which would be passed on to the end user eventually.
You tried to make a point, but your example failed.
I see what you're saying: The parent is being glib in your case, not realizing that a blanket increase on energy prices would hit the working class much harder than those with the privilege of staying home or making more money.
You tried to make a point, but your example failed.
I see what you're saying: The parent is being glib in your case, not realizing that a blanket increase on energy prices would hit the working class much harder than those with the privilege of staying home or making more money.
> Ok let's make energy more expensive. I think it's only fair that the pain is distributed equitably, so let's put a $0.1/Gb tax on bandwidth [1], the cloud being one of the largest growing emitters of CO2.
Even if I grant that, I suspect if you're working from home and not business traveling, it's still a net negative of CO2 being emitted. I would think that nearly everything that the "cloud" replaces cost more in CO2 than the "cloud" itself.
But I realize that your point is that it's easy to come up with arbitrary taxes that hurt the poor, and that's a reasonable criticism, but I don't think that that implies that we shouldn't do any kind of externallity tax on carbon. Instead, we could use tax incentives to give a rebate to disproportionately affected poor people for gas, or we could use the extra revenue from the taxes to give rebates for electric cars.
I'm not claiming this is a perfect system, and there will definitely be people who slip through the cracks, and that sucks, but the cost of not doing enough about climate change is substantially worse.
Even if I grant that, I suspect if you're working from home and not business traveling, it's still a net negative of CO2 being emitted. I would think that nearly everything that the "cloud" replaces cost more in CO2 than the "cloud" itself.
But I realize that your point is that it's easy to come up with arbitrary taxes that hurt the poor, and that's a reasonable criticism, but I don't think that that implies that we shouldn't do any kind of externallity tax on carbon. Instead, we could use tax incentives to give a rebate to disproportionately affected poor people for gas, or we could use the extra revenue from the taxes to give rebates for electric cars.
I'm not claiming this is a perfect system, and there will definitely be people who slip through the cracks, and that sucks, but the cost of not doing enough about climate change is substantially worse.
Thanks for making this so concise. It's always easy to look at something and say "well these people are _weak_, because I can do without it, so I'm ready to tax/punish this behavior". It's true that society right now has lots of profligate energy waste, but without a path to transition out of this wasteful energy regime, the rise in prices will affect the most vulnerable in society.
Sadly, historically, when society was undergoing large changes, such as industrialization and urbanization, marginalized peoples were never really considered. We can't have fear of change hold back our progress, but we do need to be careful to offer marginalized peoples ways to ease transition into lower-energy regimes.
Aside: I didn't even register the sarcasm in this post when I first wrote it :D
Sadly, historically, when society was undergoing large changes, such as industrialization and urbanization, marginalized peoples were never really considered. We can't have fear of change hold back our progress, but we do need to be careful to offer marginalized peoples ways to ease transition into lower-energy regimes.
Aside: I didn't even register the sarcasm in this post when I first wrote it :D
> the cloud being one of the largest growing emitters of CO2.
I’m sure it is, but this misses the point. If someone can work from home or have a conference call rather than travel for a meeting, the emissions savings are huge.
However liking a video and clicking an advert generated by a algorithm that tracked habits…
I’m sure it is, but this misses the point. If someone can work from home or have a conference call rather than travel for a meeting, the emissions savings are huge.
However liking a video and clicking an advert generated by a algorithm that tracked habits…
Why not tax Cloud providers instead? The compute part is what takes the most power. And maybe exclude those who use green energy sources.
> I'm happy it finally makes economical sense to reduce CO2 output.
I'd be happy with this too. What concerns me is that some people will look at this and say "It makes economical sense to burn more coal".
I'd be happy with this too. What concerns me is that some people will look at this and say "It makes economical sense to burn more coal".
It wouldn't make more economical sense if we taxed the externalities. Right now, the coal plants are "using" (read destroying) resources (air, water, ...) for free. A tax should price in the cost of that harm in a way that make green alternatives more competitive.
A part of why gas prices are so high right now in the EU, is because of ETS (emission trading scheme) prices. EU industry has to buy CO2 emission rights, and the prices are at an all time high right now, causing coal plants to stop production. If the high gas prices cause more production from the coal plants, this will push the prices up even more.
Oh I 100% agree with you.
But imagine you're the government of a country that is struggling to provide heating over the winter. It would be very tempting to think "Hmm, we could recommission that coal power plant..."
But imagine you're the government of a country that is struggling to provide heating over the winter. It would be very tempting to think "Hmm, we could recommission that coal power plant..."
Whereas people here are suggesting "only 1000 people will die if we don't. That'll save MORE carbon too!"
It is not reasonable to seriously cut energy usage. It will make the lives of the poor unliveable. Also any meaningful decrease will make 90% of people's lives unliveable.
No, we clearly need innovation to make this happen, not force. You cannot expect people to make these sorts of sacrifices, it's not going to happen.
It is not reasonable to seriously cut energy usage. It will make the lives of the poor unliveable. Also any meaningful decrease will make 90% of people's lives unliveable.
No, we clearly need innovation to make this happen, not force. You cannot expect people to make these sorts of sacrifices, it's not going to happen.
But nobody can quantify the cost of those externalities
It's not an easy task, but you can certainly try. For example: https://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publication/the-econ...
I disagree. You must enact a ban with a firm deadline, otherwise you end up in cryptoland where you're using country-level amounts of energy because someone, somewhere is willing to burn up fiat on it. This is of course expected in late stage capitalism where trillions of dollars are chasing returns, physical realm consequences be damned.
Countries are already enacting deadlines for banning combustion vehicle sales [1], it is straightforward to enact fossil combustion electrical generation bans in similar fashion. The communicates to the market to no longer fund or implement combustion generation facilities, and investment will flow away from existing facilities towards renewables and energy storage (whether that's batteries, green hydrogen and/or ammonia, pumped hydro storage, etc). Most new generation is already renewables (due to cost, see Lazard's LCOE [2]) [3] [4] [5], what I discuss in this comment rapidly pulls forward fossil generation retirement (from 2030-2050 to something more reasonable, such as no latter than 2030).
In short, outlaw fossil combustion, and investment will flow into clean alternatives. The planet doesn't care about your fiat and economic system.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic...
[2] https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-o...
[3] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48896
[4] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46416
[5] https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Apr/World-...
Countries are already enacting deadlines for banning combustion vehicle sales [1], it is straightforward to enact fossil combustion electrical generation bans in similar fashion. The communicates to the market to no longer fund or implement combustion generation facilities, and investment will flow away from existing facilities towards renewables and energy storage (whether that's batteries, green hydrogen and/or ammonia, pumped hydro storage, etc). Most new generation is already renewables (due to cost, see Lazard's LCOE [2]) [3] [4] [5], what I discuss in this comment rapidly pulls forward fossil generation retirement (from 2030-2050 to something more reasonable, such as no latter than 2030).
In short, outlaw fossil combustion, and investment will flow into clean alternatives. The planet doesn't care about your fiat and economic system.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic...
[2] https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-o...
[3] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48896
[4] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46416
[5] https://www.irena.org/newsroom/pressreleases/2021/Apr/World-...
You are correct, gentle supply and demand will operate too slowly to correct the market.
A huge problem with the current market is that it's not very free, entrance is too difficult for new players, and the entrenched players have excessive political power through regulatory capture. There are far too many players with massive amounts of assets that would be stranded and devalued, if they were allowed to be exposed to competition.
But even if there were a more free market, the speed of capital on these sorts of scales is very slow. So even though it may be more economically efficient to abandon a bunch of bad coal plants and do massive deployments of new technology, the amount of capital necessary makes it difficult to make the transition at the economically most cost effective pace.
Look at all the coal plants that burn coal, despite losing money at it.
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights...
A huge problem with the current market is that it's not very free, entrance is too difficult for new players, and the entrenched players have excessive political power through regulatory capture. There are far too many players with massive amounts of assets that would be stranded and devalued, if they were allowed to be exposed to competition.
But even if there were a more free market, the speed of capital on these sorts of scales is very slow. So even though it may be more economically efficient to abandon a bunch of bad coal plants and do massive deployments of new technology, the amount of capital necessary makes it difficult to make the transition at the economically most cost effective pace.
Look at all the coal plants that burn coal, despite losing money at it.
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights...
You’re unhappy people aren’t forced to live like it’s 1850? How about we have alternative energy that can satisfy CO2 concerns and provide the current standards of living we all enjoy first.
No, people are not unhappy that energy is cheap, but rather that externalities are not priced in. The result is that activities and goods that seem trivially cheap (so people consume them far in excess of their needs without worrying about the expense) turn out to have disastrous large-scale consequences.
Our economic system has no affordances for making choices based on true costs – only sticker prices. When these are systematically distorted, it causes a huge collective problem.
Our economic system has no affordances for making choices based on true costs – only sticker prices. When these are systematically distorted, it causes a huge collective problem.
Can we price in the carbon cost of raising a child to the age of 18?
If we’re going after all the fun stuff I don’t want the parents to get away scott free.
If we’re going after all the fun stuff I don’t want the parents to get away scott free.
We should price in the externality where it is caused. I don't think raising a child emits any CO2 by itself.
If we price in the emissions where they happen it will be priced in for all consumers of the products that cause them.
If we price in the emissions where they happen it will be priced in for all consumers of the products that cause them.
I want a small discount for sequestering carbon in my child's body mass for several decades!
The average adult human contains what, like 30 pounds of carbon? That's very little money according to the carbon offset prices I have seen.
You have to account for:
- all the meat and diary your child is going to consume in those 18 years
- all diapers that are going to be produced and disposed.
- all methane and CO2 you child produced on an a daily basis for those 18 years (exhaling, digesting/pooping/farting)
- concrete used for building this extra room for your child
...
just to name a few.
- all the meat and diary your child is going to consume in those 18 years
- all diapers that are going to be produced and disposed.
- all methane and CO2 you child produced on an a daily basis for those 18 years (exhaling, digesting/pooping/farting)
- concrete used for building this extra room for your child
...
just to name a few.
Not if the externality is priced in for each of those products.
If items had the externalities priced in, the cost of having a child would go up, but only in that outgoings would increase. I suppose you could bill them based on their CO2 and methane output.
[deleted]
You can do that but it's not the parents that emit the CO2.
Future people will likely be carbon negative.
Shall I give you my Venmo?
Shall I give you my Venmo?
Since you didn't go into detail, I'm going to guess that you are referring to atmospheric CCS being widely deployed in the future. Unfortunately CCS is not and will not be practical. [1] [2]
I can explain my critiques in more detail if you clarify exactly what your argument is.
[1] https://manuelgarciajr.com/2020/08/09/the-improbability-of-c... [2] Comical, but fact-based take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSZgoFyuHC8
I can explain my critiques in more detail if you clarify exactly what your argument is.
[1] https://manuelgarciajr.com/2020/08/09/the-improbability-of-c... [2] Comical, but fact-based take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSZgoFyuHC8
I don't think they're complaining that the prices are cheap exactly, I think they're complaining that the prices are, in a sense, inaccurate.
No one here is saying we should all be Amish, but if gasoline is $3 per gallon, but it costs $3 to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere (making both these numbers up, I don't own a car), then there's a good chance that the gas is effectively too cheap, and the rest of us are going to have to pay to clean it up later. If we taxed gas to be its true price (cost of extraction + refining + shipping + profit-margin + environmental cleanup), it would help incentivize cleaner fuels.
No one here is saying we should all be Amish, but if gasoline is $3 per gallon, but it costs $3 to remove the CO2 from the atmosphere (making both these numbers up, I don't own a car), then there's a good chance that the gas is effectively too cheap, and the rest of us are going to have to pay to clean it up later. If we taxed gas to be its true price (cost of extraction + refining + shipping + profit-margin + environmental cleanup), it would help incentivize cleaner fuels.
And to quantify this a bit more, current costs for direct air extraction and sequestration of CO2 are about $6/gallon of gas. Climeworks is charging early customers $600/ton of CO2 [1], and about 100 gallons of gas convert to a ton of CO2.
This sort of direct air capture will be absolutely necessary in the second half of this century for all of our current oaths to keep warming to 1.5C, according to the IPCC SR1.5 report. And though many parts of the supply chain of CO2 direct air capture might get cheaper with time, the actual sequestration part might get harder and more expensive with time.
Chevron had promised to capture only a small amount of CO2 as part of a LNG project in Australia, but is facing massive fines because they didn't understand the geology enough to actually sequester CO2.
So while I'm fairly confident that we could eventually get the tech for CO2 capture down to maybe $1/gallon of gas, the actual sequestration is only going to get more difficult with time.
Every gallon of gas burned today makes 20 pounds of CO2 that will need to be removed in the future we are burdening future generations with an incredibly difficult debt that we don't yet know how to pay down.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/9/22663597/largest-direct-ai...
This sort of direct air capture will be absolutely necessary in the second half of this century for all of our current oaths to keep warming to 1.5C, according to the IPCC SR1.5 report. And though many parts of the supply chain of CO2 direct air capture might get cheaper with time, the actual sequestration part might get harder and more expensive with time.
Chevron had promised to capture only a small amount of CO2 as part of a LNG project in Australia, but is facing massive fines because they didn't understand the geology enough to actually sequester CO2.
So while I'm fairly confident that we could eventually get the tech for CO2 capture down to maybe $1/gallon of gas, the actual sequestration is only going to get more difficult with time.
Every gallon of gas burned today makes 20 pounds of CO2 that will need to be removed in the future we are burdening future generations with an incredibly difficult debt that we don't yet know how to pay down.
[1] https://www.theverge.com/2021/9/9/22663597/largest-direct-ai...
Hey, I've always had a question which perhaps you can answer.
In essence, we're still burning lots and lots of carbon just to extract energy. Thermodynamics says to reverse the process and get carbon from CO2 we need to put all that energy back, with a hefty bonus due to inefficiencies.
So how can it be feasible to afford enough energy to "unburn" a century's worth of burnt carbon if we can't even get enough energy to avoid burning new carbon in the first place? Like, our energy generation might double in a few decades, but this "unburning" would require so much spare energy that it doesn't seem likely to achieve as soon as the second half of this century.
In essence, we're still burning lots and lots of carbon just to extract energy. Thermodynamics says to reverse the process and get carbon from CO2 we need to put all that energy back, with a hefty bonus due to inefficiencies.
So how can it be feasible to afford enough energy to "unburn" a century's worth of burnt carbon if we can't even get enough energy to avoid burning new carbon in the first place? Like, our energy generation might double in a few decades, but this "unburning" would require so much spare energy that it doesn't seem likely to achieve as soon as the second half of this century.
Thermodynamics says to reverse the process and get carbon from CO2 we need to put all that energy back, with a hefty bonus due to inefficiencies.
The key insight is that you don't need to turn carbon dioxide back into carbon. You just need to store those carbon atoms it in a stable form that keeps them out of the atmosphere. The most plausible way of doing that at large scale is to accelerate the reaction of naturally occurring silicates from rocks with atmospheric CO2.
"From a thermodynamic point of view, inorganic carbonates represent a lower energy state than CO2; hence the carbonation reaction is exothermic..."
That's from chapter 7 of the IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, which I recommend reading for more details.
The key insight is that you don't need to turn carbon dioxide back into carbon. You just need to store those carbon atoms it in a stable form that keeps them out of the atmosphere. The most plausible way of doing that at large scale is to accelerate the reaction of naturally occurring silicates from rocks with atmospheric CO2.
"From a thermodynamic point of view, inorganic carbonates represent a lower energy state than CO2; hence the carbonation reaction is exothermic..."
That's from chapter 7 of the IPCC Special Report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage, which I recommend reading for more details.
PkG: This is one of the best references I have seen in ages on HN!
Chapter 7 PDF: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_chapte...
Page 321 has the executive summary with your quote.
Parent page for full book: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/carbon-dioxide-capture-and-storag...
Chapter 7 PDF: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_chapte...
Page 321 has the executive summary with your quote.
Parent page for full book: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/carbon-dioxide-capture-and-storag...
I like the other answers you got, but will add one observation. Once we get energy fro, non-carbon emitting sources, it’s possible to put energy into capture without emitting more CO2 at the same time. So whether it takes 0.5 kWh or 10 kWh to capture the amount of CO2 that produced 1kWh for us originally, as long as it came from renewable resources, we can largely do it.
My question is more about expectations of scale. If currently renewable energy (not just electricity - heating etc matters a lot) is something like 10% or 12% of total energy; and we need to go to something of 300% or even much more (to cover energy spent not on current needs but solely to cover the "unburning" the excess of previous century, "repaying the debt" much quicker than we accumulated it), then that extreme growth of renewable energy generation doesn't seem plausible to achieve in the timeframe you suggest.
It's been a while since I ran through the napkin math, and I'm on mobile and can't pull up the backing links, unfortunately, but I believe we are just barely on track to replace all energy use with renewables in 15-20 years. After which we should have spare production capacity, assuming there is wind/solar close enough to the carbon sequestration points.
The gist is that if you look at the exponential curves of growth of both wind and solar deployments, and assume that we don't back off from those, you get X amount of TWh/year in 2040. Combine that with conversion of heating and transport to electrification, which provides huge efficiency boosts and requires only 1/3 to 1/4 the energy (most fossil fuel energy is just wasted). Then add in all the parts of the developing world which will increase their energy use to EU/China standards, and we are just barely there.
However I think we are likely to see big gains in production capacity as the developing world ups their game. They will be consuming more electricity, but also be immensely more productive.
The gist is that if you look at the exponential curves of growth of both wind and solar deployments, and assume that we don't back off from those, you get X amount of TWh/year in 2040. Combine that with conversion of heating and transport to electrification, which provides huge efficiency boosts and requires only 1/3 to 1/4 the energy (most fossil fuel energy is just wasted). Then add in all the parts of the developing world which will increase their energy use to EU/China standards, and we are just barely there.
However I think we are likely to see big gains in production capacity as the developing world ups their game. They will be consuming more electricity, but also be immensely more productive.
Consider that we didn't spend 100 years using electricity at current rates. There was was an s-curve growth that only recently flattened in developed countries.
Removing CO2 from the atmosphere doesn't mean unburning it. The CO2 either gets dissolved into the deep ocean, stored underground in deep aquifers, or reacted with silicates to make carbonates.
> So how can it be feasible to afford enough energy to "unburn" a century's worth of burnt carbon if we can't even get enough energy to avoid burning new carbon in the first place?
It isn't, and it won't be. Carbon capture is a pleasing myth we tell ourselves to avoid the massive and immediate actions that would be necessary to avert catastrophe.
We're addicted to fossil fuels, telling ourselves that when we eventually sober up we can undo the damage we've done to ourselves.
It isn't, and it won't be. Carbon capture is a pleasing myth we tell ourselves to avoid the massive and immediate actions that would be necessary to avert catastrophe.
We're addicted to fossil fuels, telling ourselves that when we eventually sober up we can undo the damage we've done to ourselves.
Carbon capture will never lead to negative emissions. What it will do is merely capture CO2 at central locations for processes that have no alternative.
I sincerely hope you are wrong, because if you are not, we will never keep to less than 1.5C of warming. Every single pathway for that requires carbon capture above and beyond what we can do with terrestrial processes.
There are several startups trying to come up with ways of sequestering atmospheric carbon in ways that will last for thousands of years. We need something like that to work, and to come up with ways to fund massive deployment in the second half of this century.
There are several startups trying to come up with ways of sequestering atmospheric carbon in ways that will last for thousands of years. We need something like that to work, and to come up with ways to fund massive deployment in the second half of this century.
Well, we probably will not keep to less than 1.5C of warming, e.g. in the IPCC report even the most optimistic (i.e. unrealistic) scenario has a most likely estimate of 1.6C of warming.
IMHO when estimating future, starting with the desired outcome (or even considering it much) is harmful, as it causes you to accept unrealistic assumptions and estimates for the key items driving your predictions, just so the predictions will come out as "acceptable" to you. You need to consider the impact factors as they are, and have realistic expectations of the effect and likelihood of interventions (especially considering the specific motivation factors of the narrow groups who can make each of those interventions, how that aligns with their interests), and see to what prognosis they lead you.
If we "need to come up with ways" then it means that it's plausible that we won't, and we (in this case, not we-as-the-world but we-as-individuals and we-as-smaller-communities) also need to plan on how to protect our interests in that (quite likely) scenario. An aching desire for something to work does not imply that it's possible in the required timeframe. Especially because there's no single "we"; those that need a solution to climate change and those that could fund it are largely separate groups; you can't look at it as a primarily technical problem when the largest impact factors are political.
IMHO when estimating future, starting with the desired outcome (or even considering it much) is harmful, as it causes you to accept unrealistic assumptions and estimates for the key items driving your predictions, just so the predictions will come out as "acceptable" to you. You need to consider the impact factors as they are, and have realistic expectations of the effect and likelihood of interventions (especially considering the specific motivation factors of the narrow groups who can make each of those interventions, how that aligns with their interests), and see to what prognosis they lead you.
If we "need to come up with ways" then it means that it's plausible that we won't, and we (in this case, not we-as-the-world but we-as-individuals and we-as-smaller-communities) also need to plan on how to protect our interests in that (quite likely) scenario. An aching desire for something to work does not imply that it's possible in the required timeframe. Especially because there's no single "we"; those that need a solution to climate change and those that could fund it are largely separate groups; you can't look at it as a primarily technical problem when the largest impact factors are political.
I could be wrong, but I think what you're referring to would be to convert it back to raw carbon. I believe that "carbon capture" would be literally taking out the raw CO2 and leaving it as-is, presumably holding it underground or something, which I don't think would take nearly that much energy.
The physics of storing equivalent weights of gas versus solids - the volume and/or pressure containment required - make it quite impractical to store meaningful amounts (on the scale of billions of tons) of it as gas; the fact that CO2 is just 28% carbon and 72% oxygen is comparably a lesser issue but doesn't help as well.
Perhaps you can avoid "unburning" it by some other chemical process (which is why I was asking this) but simply pumping the CO2 somewhere does not seem a reasonable option, the only place on Earth that can easily hold that much of CO2 gas is the general atmosphere where it already resides.
Perhaps you can avoid "unburning" it by some other chemical process (which is why I was asking this) but simply pumping the CO2 somewhere does not seem a reasonable option, the only place on Earth that can easily hold that much of CO2 gas is the general atmosphere where it already resides.
I agree that sequestering co2 gas is a losing game, and that's why I think all the fossil fuel companies' plans for CCS are pure bunk.
Climeworks' proposal to pump it into basalt caverns, where it chemically reacts and becomes solid, is one way around that.
Carbon Engineering is doing gas to liquids, and claims that they need ~2.25 kWh of electricity to convert atmospheric CO2 to 1 kWh worth of liquid hydrocarbons. We will see.
We will need gigatons/year of sequestration in 2050. It's going to require a ton of innovation to get there.
Climeworks' proposal to pump it into basalt caverns, where it chemically reacts and becomes solid, is one way around that.
Carbon Engineering is doing gas to liquids, and claims that they need ~2.25 kWh of electricity to convert atmospheric CO2 to 1 kWh worth of liquid hydrocarbons. We will see.
We will need gigatons/year of sequestration in 2050. It's going to require a ton of innovation to get there.
Gasoline is high-energy-density using a high-power-density portable quickly-starting/stopping engine. These advantages can overcome the minuses in some applications. (Fewer after the recent advances in batteries, etc.)
My question was more about the fact that we're still burning extreme amounts of carbon purely for energy, not for density of energy or density of power or portability of engines - we're burning coal for electricity, we're burning gas to heat homes.
We'd need to pay back all that energy, but in the coming decades we can't even afford the energy cost of the relatively much simpler solution of "simply" not burning bulk carbon for heat.
We'd need to pay back all that energy, but in the coming decades we can't even afford the energy cost of the relatively much simpler solution of "simply" not burning bulk carbon for heat.
I don't think new coal plants are rational at all.
Re gas heating, I sure could've used some just this past winter during the Texas snowpocalypse. My apartment uses electric power for heating/cooking, so electricity was a single point of failure. Resiliency through diversity is a point I missed above.
Re gas heating, I sure could've used some just this past winter during the Texas snowpocalypse. My apartment uses electric power for heating/cooking, so electricity was a single point of failure. Resiliency through diversity is a point I missed above.
I'm not 100% sure why you're downvoted, but I don't think we disagree with anything. As I said on my previous post, I was just making up the numbers, and so if it costs $6/gallon-o-gas for CO2 extraction, then my previous point is even more accurate (though I might not have said it very clearly).
Yes, I totally agree with you, did not mean to come across as contradictory in any way.
I do not fear being downvotes at all on this topic. If I'm not getting downvoted by the few persistent anti-climate-change voters here, then IMHO I am not pushing forward the truth enough! People, even here, have a lot more to realize about the technological, economic, and political implications of the transition that we must go through in the coming decades.
I do not fear being downvotes at all on this topic. If I'm not getting downvoted by the few persistent anti-climate-change voters here, then IMHO I am not pushing forward the truth enough! People, even here, have a lot more to realize about the technological, economic, and political implications of the transition that we must go through in the coming decades.
Have to say, I've fenced off about nuclear with you before, but thanks for always being up-front about your calculations and really pushing the conversation forward here.
Do you have any more information on the Chevron carbon capture failure? As far as I understand it, the failure had nothing to do with Geology.
> 100 gallons of gas convert to a ton of CO2
A gallon of gas converts to 20 pounds of CO2, and there are 2000 pounds in a US ton. My first web search hit, just to make sure my memory was not faulty, was this explanation:
https://climatekids.nasa.gov/review/carbon/gasoline.html
Using imperial units is always unfortunate, but when dealing with the typical unit of gasoline in the US, it's inevitable.
Not sure where you are getting your numbers, perhaps you're using a UK gallon or something?
https://climatekids.nasa.gov/review/carbon/gasoline.html
Using imperial units is always unfortunate, but when dealing with the typical unit of gasoline in the US, it's inevitable.
Not sure where you are getting your numbers, perhaps you're using a UK gallon or something?
> Using imperial units is always unfortunate, but when dealing with the typical unit of gasoline in the US, it's inevitable.
Well, no, when dealing with the typical unit of gasoline in the US, Imperial units are irrelevant, and US Customary units are inevitable.
Well, no, when dealing with the typical unit of gasoline in the US, Imperial units are irrelevant, and US Customary units are inevitable.
I gave all my numbers making it trivial to check that I am using the us gallon and. Perhaps a site for kids that you cited isn’t using more than one sig fig?
The kids site is far more correct than yours, and consistently uses two significant figures in its calculations. See, for example, the US federally accepted value of 19.59 pounds or 8.887 kg CO2/gallon burned:
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-ca...
Your error appears to be using a single significant figure for the density of gasoline, at 700. Other sources place it from 711 to 749 kg/m3.
Hopefully you will reconsider my comment being "not nice," since you started with one sig fig and ended with four, and then did not consider the two different meanings of ton. And on top of this all, this ignores all the upstream emissions to generate the gasoline, which is greater than the 15% which you said was "not nice."
https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-ca...
Your error appears to be using a single significant figure for the density of gasoline, at 700. Other sources place it from 711 to 749 kg/m3.
Hopefully you will reconsider my comment being "not nice," since you started with one sig fig and ended with four, and then did not consider the two different meanings of ton. And on top of this all, this ignores all the upstream emissions to generate the gasoline, which is greater than the 15% which you said was "not nice."
378.5 * 749/1000 * .87 * (15.999 * 2 + 12.011) / 12.011 = 903.7
still well short of a ton
still well short of a ton
You seem to be accepting that I was able to find your error on the single significant figure.
However, I already told you that I was using a US ton, 2000 pounds, 907kg:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=1+ton+in+kg
Additionally, you are not including the 3-6 pounds per gallon in upstream emissions for gasoline.
Let's recall that this all started from the phrase "about 100 gallons of gas convert to a ton of CO2" and that when you quotes, you omitted the "about" so that you could try to make your incorrect quibble relevant. So at this point I would like to call this a very "not nice scientifically" departure from anything relevant, but I'm all ears if you were going somewhere interesting with this.
However, I already told you that I was using a US ton, 2000 pounds, 907kg:
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=1+ton+in+kg
Additionally, you are not including the 3-6 pounds per gallon in upstream emissions for gasoline.
Let's recall that this all started from the phrase "about 100 gallons of gas convert to a ton of CO2" and that when you quotes, you omitted the "about" so that you could try to make your incorrect quibble relevant. So at this point I would like to call this a very "not nice scientifically" departure from anything relevant, but I'm all ears if you were going somewhere interesting with this.
> Gasoline is about 87% carbon and 13% hydrogen by weight. And its density is around 700 kg/m^3.
That density seems to be on the low end; different formulations have different densities, and the sources I’ve found give somewhat different ranges, but the ranges given typically seems to be about 750±35 kg/m³.
That density seems to be on the low end; different formulations have different densities, and the sources I’ve found give somewhat different ranges, but the ranges given typically seems to be about 750±35 kg/m³.
When I search I get a variety of answers, with the bulk being around the same or lower CO2 emissions than your calculation. Why does it the answer vary? Does it change depending on the grade of the fuel?
I have not found a single page with estimates as low as dmitrygr’s 18.6 pounds per gallon. The numbers from the top hits ina web search for me:
19.64 - http://www.patagoniaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/...
20 - https://climatekids.nasa.gov/review/carbon/gasoline.html
20 - https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/contentincludes/co2_inc.htm
19.6 (converted from grams) - https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-ca...
“Just over 19” - https://epicenergyblog.com/2013/05/24/how-many-pounds-of-car...
The next hit isn’t about CO2 from burning Gas, but about the upstream emissions that go into producing gasoline, which it pegs at 3.3 to 6.7 per gallon - https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/ask-mr-green/hey-mr-green-...
What sort of estimates are you getting?
19.64 - http://www.patagoniaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/...
20 - https://climatekids.nasa.gov/review/carbon/gasoline.html
20 - https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/contentincludes/co2_inc.htm
19.6 (converted from grams) - https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-ca...
“Just over 19” - https://epicenergyblog.com/2013/05/24/how-many-pounds-of-car...
The next hit isn’t about CO2 from burning Gas, but about the upstream emissions that go into producing gasoline, which it pegs at 3.3 to 6.7 per gallon - https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/ask-mr-green/hey-mr-green-...
What sort of estimates are you getting?
> Why does it the answer vary? Does it change depending on the grade of the fuel?
Yes, “gasoline” is a family of related fuels of different densities and compositions, and it will also vary based on assumptions about how it is burned. Incomplete combustion will result in more “dirty” pollution and less CO2.
Yes, “gasoline” is a family of related fuels of different densities and compositions, and it will also vary based on assumptions about how it is burned. Incomplete combustion will result in more “dirty” pollution and less CO2.
Yes and:
IIRC 1 ppm of CO2 is ~1 gigaton of carbon. Roughly the weight of Mt Everest. We're adding ~26 Everests annually.
IIRC 1 ppm of CO2 is ~1 gigaton of carbon. Roughly the weight of Mt Everest. We're adding ~26 Everests annually.
1 ppm of C02 ~ 2.13 gigatons of carbon, which is ~ 7.8 gigatons of CO2. (1) We add about 43 gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere per year 55% of which is absorbed by natural sinks.
We're definitely not adding 26 ppm of C02 to the atmosphere each year.
1.https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=45
1.https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=45
Mt. Everest has a mass of about 6 trillion tonnes.
Ugh. Stupid brain. Trying to get sense of the challenge, I worked some numbers to try visualizing how much carbon we're talking about. I'll refind my notes or recreate.
Thanks.
Thanks.
I realize this is a bit of a political point, but at least in the US, we should factor in the cost of military spending related to oil producing regions as well. I don’t know the truth, but it’s not uncommon for one to believe that the majority of policies since 9/11 were to protect oil interests and terrorism was a convenient scapegoat.
Historically energy usage has been used to track "human progress" (e.g. a society that is more advanced uses more energy), but I think this is a failed dichotomy as it doesn't account for technology become more efficient at using energy. If we don't price petrol/gas properly (in the face of externalities, energy security, and possibly limited supply), there's no incentive for academia and industry to think ourselves out of a gas-guzzling society.
Think again. These rails you seem to favor need energy to be built: Steel needs to be made, a track has to be cleared, machines need to operate, workers need to get to the construction site and so on and so forth.
Unless you propose to decide top-down which projects deserve cheap energy and which don't, you cannot avoid the fact that building roads and allowing car ownership is under certain circumstances more economical than building lots of railroads.
On top of that, imagine how commuting 10km by train vs. car work out: By car it's a 10min ride, assuming no congestion. Whereas the door-to-door train trip will take the better part of an hour.
There is a similar advantage for flying. Yes, kerosene is comparatively cheap. But flying has an even more important advantage over trains and that is flexibility. The network of airports multiplies the number of potential connections whereas train stations can only lead you along railroads. In a region with fixed, medium-range traveling routes, say France or Japan, the train wins, otherwise the plane is just more efficient.
Unless you propose to decide top-down which projects deserve cheap energy and which don't, you cannot avoid the fact that building roads and allowing car ownership is under certain circumstances more economical than building lots of railroads.
On top of that, imagine how commuting 10km by train vs. car work out: By car it's a 10min ride, assuming no congestion. Whereas the door-to-door train trip will take the better part of an hour.
There is a similar advantage for flying. Yes, kerosene is comparatively cheap. But flying has an even more important advantage over trains and that is flexibility. The network of airports multiplies the number of potential connections whereas train stations can only lead you along railroads. In a region with fixed, medium-range traveling routes, say France or Japan, the train wins, otherwise the plane is just more efficient.
You're not making a coherent argument here. If you want to get a holistic picture of what these systems actually cost, it comes down to up-front investment vs ongoing costs. Rail needs to pay high costs initially in purchasing cars, acquiring land, and laying down track, but from there it just becomes about maintenance costs. When it comes to roads, it's usually a smaller one-time cost to acquire land and lay down road, then ongoing maintenance on the road itself (which is worse than track wear-and-tear since there's more surface to fix, hiring crews to come into the area is more complicated, and because conditions of usage on a road aren't as tightly controlled.)
To make matters complicated in practice, gas in the US (since that's where this argument makes sense) has long been considered the holy grail of the economy, and gas taxes have not been raised to account for inflation since 1990. Since the 1980s, the US has politically favored cars and airplanes over trains and buses. Roads are never expected to make a profit, though most transit in the US is. Aviation has had things like the Essential Air Service that offer subsidies for rural air routes and carriers that serve rural airports, whereas the closest thing that transit has to this is Amtrak mandates to service cities; these are hamfisted mandates that Congressmen stuff into spending bills to make their constituents happy but don't actually create the kind of healthy market you would need to offer quality service. Moreover Amtrak track is often leased from freight carriers _because_ America apportions less money to rail than it does to roads and transit, so Amtrak trains often must yield and wait for freight trains to go first. That and the fact that externalities from emissions aren't accounted for mean any alternatives to the plane and the car in the US are at a heavy disadvantage.
To make matters complicated in practice, gas in the US (since that's where this argument makes sense) has long been considered the holy grail of the economy, and gas taxes have not been raised to account for inflation since 1990. Since the 1980s, the US has politically favored cars and airplanes over trains and buses. Roads are never expected to make a profit, though most transit in the US is. Aviation has had things like the Essential Air Service that offer subsidies for rural air routes and carriers that serve rural airports, whereas the closest thing that transit has to this is Amtrak mandates to service cities; these are hamfisted mandates that Congressmen stuff into spending bills to make their constituents happy but don't actually create the kind of healthy market you would need to offer quality service. Moreover Amtrak track is often leased from freight carriers _because_ America apportions less money to rail than it does to roads and transit, so Amtrak trains often must yield and wait for freight trains to go first. That and the fact that externalities from emissions aren't accounted for mean any alternatives to the plane and the car in the US are at a heavy disadvantage.
> If you want to get a holistic picture of what these systems actually cost, it comes down to up-front investment vs ongoing costs.
That's one angle to look at it. As I said, in a country that has more or less static travel routes, railroads will win over airports for the medium range. Because sooner or later the investment into the many tracks will pay off. But long-range and dynamic routes favors the airport.
But my point was that taxing energy usage heavily will bite back. You cannot build infrastructure if energy is too expensive. So either you have cheap renewable energy, for cars as well as trains, or any mechanized transportation (and much more) will become ridiculously expensive.
> gas taxes have not been raised to account for inflation
Are gas taxes absolute values in the US?
That's one angle to look at it. As I said, in a country that has more or less static travel routes, railroads will win over airports for the medium range. Because sooner or later the investment into the many tracks will pay off. But long-range and dynamic routes favors the airport.
But my point was that taxing energy usage heavily will bite back. You cannot build infrastructure if energy is too expensive. So either you have cheap renewable energy, for cars as well as trains, or any mechanized transportation (and much more) will become ridiculously expensive.
> gas taxes have not been raised to account for inflation
Are gas taxes absolute values in the US?
If there is no congestion, there is no railway connection, because the number of commuters is too low to support one.
A 10 km commute by train typically takes 30-40 minutes door-to-door. For driving, the normal time might be 20-30 minutes, but the variance is often much higher than by train. If driving is consistently faster or slower than that, people tend to switch between train and car or otherwise change their commuting habits until congestion is back to "normal".
A 10 km commute by train typically takes 30-40 minutes door-to-door. For driving, the normal time might be 20-30 minutes, but the variance is often much higher than by train. If driving is consistently faster or slower than that, people tend to switch between train and car or otherwise change their commuting habits until congestion is back to "normal".
Where I live a car makes an average of 60km/h, outside of a city. It's often faster, and does no in-between stops. So it's 10min. And I do commute by train. 8km. And it takes 45min door to door. These are real-world numbers. Living in the city and using the train costs me more than one hour of additional commute each day.
For comparison: It takes 25-30 min to ride by bike, depending on effort, weather, etc.
For comparison: It takes 25-30 min to ride by bike, depending on effort, weather, etc.
There exists a world beyond your experience. A world in which people on low incomes have to chose between heating and eating. Sure - there are those that fly to meetings but there is also a world less represented/vocal here on HN for whom this could be (probably will be) a crisis.
Yes, Global Warming is a problem but the people trying to keep themselves from freezing contribute a much smaller amount than Big-Tech and industry as a whole.
Trying to shift the blame from corporations on to people just trying to survive the winter is a tale of corporate white-washing/green-washing/hand-waving/lobbying.
Yes, Global Warming is a problem but the people trying to keep themselves from freezing contribute a much smaller amount than Big-Tech and industry as a whole.
Trying to shift the blame from corporations on to people just trying to survive the winter is a tale of corporate white-washing/green-washing/hand-waving/lobbying.
These are two separate concerns which can be dealt with independently and simultaneously. A society which can afford to prevent its members from suffering due to lack of food or home heat ought to do so, and can do so via means very much unrelated to the costs and negative externalities of jet fuel.
And how do you do that?
One popular approach is to add a massive tax/duty on e.g. CO2 emissions, but redistribute the revenue equally to all citizens.
If everyone were consuming the same amount/causing the same amount of emissions, this would be a no-op. However, since the rich tend to consume more, this will be a net positive for poorer people, and at the same time it will make decisions about activity that causes emissions more meaningful.
It's also much more palatable than bans or rationing, reasonably easy to implement, and avoids the trap of populist "ban highly visible thing of the day" approaches that tend to lower quality of life without addressing the real issue.
If everyone were consuming the same amount/causing the same amount of emissions, this would be a no-op. However, since the rich tend to consume more, this will be a net positive for poorer people, and at the same time it will make decisions about activity that causes emissions more meaningful.
It's also much more palatable than bans or rationing, reasonably easy to implement, and avoids the trap of populist "ban highly visible thing of the day" approaches that tend to lower quality of life without addressing the real issue.
> since the rich tend to consume more
Yes, billionaires with private jets tend to consume more but your average multimillionaire is probably working remote from a cushy white collar job while poor people need to commute to and from work (often long distances because rent is expensive). CO2 taxes are regressive however you try to sell them.
Yes, billionaires with private jets tend to consume more but your average multimillionaire is probably working remote from a cushy white collar job while poor people need to commute to and from work (often long distances because rent is expensive). CO2 taxes are regressive however you try to sell them.
First, that's not actually true. Have a look at figures 3 and 4 of this paper [1]. CO2 emissions increase with income, and that holds both globally and within particular countries they studied (US, UK, China, India).
Second, even if it were true, you'd still have control over how you redistribute the revenue, and as a result, you can make the net effect as progressive as you want.
[1] https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10...
Second, even if it were true, you'd still have control over how you redistribute the revenue, and as a result, you can make the net effect as progressive as you want.
[1] https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10...
If you were going to redistribute nonuniformly why wouldn't you just tax people and give it to the poor and skip the hide-tax-behind-a-fancy-name exercise?
In practice billionaires wouldn't care how much you tax them unless you taxed a substantial portion of income, they'd still consume what they wanted. In order to materially change even middle class peoples' behavior prices need to change by double digit percentage points, and when you factor in that people don't spend all they earn, that's a lot of tax.
In practice billionaires wouldn't care how much you tax them unless you taxed a substantial portion of income, they'd still consume what they wanted. In order to materially change even middle class peoples' behavior prices need to change by double digit percentage points, and when you factor in that people don't spend all they earn, that's a lot of tax.
One of the reasons to tax CO2 specifically instead of some other tax (e.g. income tax) is that it pushes alternatives.
If there is a CO2-heavy option that's 10% cheaper than the "green" option, introducing the tax will suddenly make the "green" option the cheaper one.
This could be using an electric truck to get food to the store, it could be using a heat pump instead of an oil furnace, it could be the locally grown potatoes instead of potatoes that were trucked over a long distance from a place with cheaper labor, etc.
Most of the savings won't happen because the millionaire flies less, they will be made because someone, somewhere along the supply chain makes a different decision because the environmentally friendlier thing is now cheaper. That's the beauty of it - it's about fixing the emissions where the best effect can be achieved with the smallest investment, not about taking away people's ability to consume and live an enjoyable life.
If there is a CO2-heavy option that's 10% cheaper than the "green" option, introducing the tax will suddenly make the "green" option the cheaper one.
This could be using an electric truck to get food to the store, it could be using a heat pump instead of an oil furnace, it could be the locally grown potatoes instead of potatoes that were trucked over a long distance from a place with cheaper labor, etc.
Most of the savings won't happen because the millionaire flies less, they will be made because someone, somewhere along the supply chain makes a different decision because the environmentally friendlier thing is now cheaper. That's the beauty of it - it's about fixing the emissions where the best effect can be achieved with the smallest investment, not about taking away people's ability to consume and live an enjoyable life.
The question is, how do you determine what the CO2 consumption of something is? Do you include only direct emissions? What about emissions incurred during manufacturing (e.g. for lithium batteries for electric trucks)? The idea seems cool but the execution seems impossible. If you tax only direct emissions you motivate companies to amortize emissions by concentrating them during manufacture. If you tax everything, how do you even begin to count everything that goes into a tomato or loaf of bread?
Tax the source. Apply the tax to every coal mine, oil well, managed forest, or any other material that has embodied carbon. These companies will do what they always do, raise prices and pass them on. This trickle down effect should ideally work their way through the economy and incentivize using fewer carbon-emitting sources.
Of course there is the question about people that simply _store_ carbon, e.g. what if there's a coal mine where the buyers of the coal don't actually use the coal for its energy purposes but instead for, say, makeup creation, or wood for building? We would probably have to work out special licensing for non-usage purposes and that's where it would probably get tricky.
Of course there is the question about people that simply _store_ carbon, e.g. what if there's a coal mine where the buyers of the coal don't actually use the coal for its energy purposes but instead for, say, makeup creation, or wood for building? We would probably have to work out special licensing for non-usage purposes and that's where it would probably get tricky.
You tax carbon when it’s added to the carbon cycle, you refund when carbon is verifiably removed from the carbon cycle. The price of all carbon-intensive domestic inputs go up as a result. If something was manufactured abroad without certified paid-for carbon with a process that matches international standards, then a punitive worst-case estimate is applied upon import as a tariff, such that it’s always cheaper to get certified.
Within a country/economic bloc, it's easy: You tax it where it is emitted, starting with the biggest emitting processes first. Anything fuel burning can be taxed via the fuel, very accurately. Stuff like concrete production is harder to tax, but still doable. Hard to measure emissions like methane leaking out from gas wells or cow burps is the hardest to tax accurately, but even if you don't get 100%, it's a good start.
Smaller processes that produce CO2 through actual emissions will probably fall through the gaps, but they're not critical in the big picture. Most will be covered through taxes on the fuel or energy. I'd expect most of the electric truck battery emissions to come from energy, either during the assembly of the cells or production of the ingredients.
> If you tax only direct emissions you motivate companies to amortize emissions by concentrating them during manufacture.
I do not understand. Indirect emissions are direct emissions at some point, and that's where they get taxed. The cost then gets passed along, creating an incentive to either buy from a supplier that can produce the same thing more cheaply by reducing emissions, or finding a substitute product that's cheaper because it's less emissions-intensive to make.
The real problem is imports from countries that do not follow an equivalent tax regime. I suppose here approximations will be necessary, and by making them overly generous, other countries have an incentive to join the scheme.
Smaller processes that produce CO2 through actual emissions will probably fall through the gaps, but they're not critical in the big picture. Most will be covered through taxes on the fuel or energy. I'd expect most of the electric truck battery emissions to come from energy, either during the assembly of the cells or production of the ingredients.
> If you tax only direct emissions you motivate companies to amortize emissions by concentrating them during manufacture.
I do not understand. Indirect emissions are direct emissions at some point, and that's where they get taxed. The cost then gets passed along, creating an incentive to either buy from a supplier that can produce the same thing more cheaply by reducing emissions, or finding a substitute product that's cheaper because it's less emissions-intensive to make.
The real problem is imports from countries that do not follow an equivalent tax regime. I suppose here approximations will be necessary, and by making them overly generous, other countries have an incentive to join the scheme.
Okay, so you have a train carrying 100 shipping containers of varying goods. These goods might have very different densities, weights, and values. Do you tax by weight? But the CO2 is proportional to distance and weight in this case. Do you tax by distance? Some combination of both? Is that combination an accurate representation of the actual CO2 emitted from the transport of each good?
What if it's a giant shipping boat with thousands of containers?
What if it's a giant shipping boat with thousands of containers?
Indirect emissions are direct emissions somewhere, but probably somewhere else under a different tax regime.
That electric car battery might be manufactured in China using coal power and shipped over the ocean in a diesel fueled ship and yet pay no tax, making an American-manufactured battery even less competitive.
That electric car battery might be manufactured in China using coal power and shipped over the ocean in a diesel fueled ship and yet pay no tax, making an American-manufactured battery even less competitive.
[deleted]
Aviation is very very much driven by the price of fuel. Pretty much the whole drive towards modernizing airliners is reducing the fuel cost.
Adding a tax on the carbon content of fuels will push that even harder.
Adding a tax on the carbon content of fuels will push that even harder.
> And how do you [reconcile extreme green policy goals with income losses for the poorest]?
There are no answers given usually, less so convincingly, mostly because the ones demanding scarcity are usually not the ones affected by it.
Just trying to find one member of the working class / blue collar amongst ExtencionRebllion and the like will be a tedious task. Not so much if you look for kids of millionaires, or of bilionaires. Or Millionaires and Billionaires themselves.
As of now I can only see two outcomes:
They either start making these scarcity demands a part of their foreign policy (meaning getting tough on the actual global polluters, not their domestic poor people who barely can afford one cheap vacation to the Balears per year).
Or we just start naming what we would have called it 150 years ago: A top-down class-war.
There are no answers given usually, less so convincingly, mostly because the ones demanding scarcity are usually not the ones affected by it.
Just trying to find one member of the working class / blue collar amongst ExtencionRebllion and the like will be a tedious task. Not so much if you look for kids of millionaires, or of bilionaires. Or Millionaires and Billionaires themselves.
As of now I can only see two outcomes:
They either start making these scarcity demands a part of their foreign policy (meaning getting tough on the actual global polluters, not their domestic poor people who barely can afford one cheap vacation to the Balears per year).
Or we just start naming what we would have called it 150 years ago: A top-down class-war.
I don't know how to parse what you're saying at all. There are tons of working class people worried about climate change and it's pretty trivial to design systems that increase the income for the poorest while being green.
Meanwhile your "ExtinctionRebellion" phrase seems like a political touchstone that you assume other people know what you're talking about, but I have no clue what it is.
Meanwhile your "ExtinctionRebellion" phrase seems like a political touchstone that you assume other people know what you're talking about, but I have no clue what it is.
The Smart People in the USA realized population growth was a Bad Thing Actually™ and got really into saving the environment in the mid-1960s after we ended racism and poverty forever and needed something even more noble to do: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=segregationist...
edit: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED050960.pdf#page=13
"We have all heard about a population problem in the developing nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America, where death rates have dropped rapidly and populations have exploded. Only recently have we recognized that the United States may have population problems of its own. There are differing views. Some say that it is a problem of crisis proportions — that the growth of population is responsible for pollution of our air and water, depletion of our natural resources, and a broad array of social ills."
SUBTLE
edit: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED050960.pdf#page=13
"We have all heard about a population problem in the developing nations of Asia, Africa and Latin America, where death rates have dropped rapidly and populations have exploded. Only recently have we recognized that the United States may have population problems of its own. There are differing views. Some say that it is a problem of crisis proportions — that the growth of population is responsible for pollution of our air and water, depletion of our natural resources, and a broad array of social ills."
SUBTLE
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_Rebellion
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_Rebellion_Youth
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_Strike_for_Climate
Her Holyness [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg
from 1968 [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome
and 1972 from that same club [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
and countless dystopian science-fiction literature and movies from that epoch.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_Rebellion_Youth
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_Strike_for_Climate
Her Holyness [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Thunberg
from 1968 [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome
and 1972 from that same club [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Limits_to_Growth
and countless dystopian science-fiction literature and movies from that epoch.
It seems like you're very upset about a very small fringe group.
Err...no? Not really. But they aren't that fringe anymore.
Heretic! May Gretas wrath come upon you! ;->
The usual approach is some form of income redistribution.
Nationalize the railroads?
General availability of food and heat and general survival are the main requirements for reproduction. Having a big family is a great thing to do, and I wish everybody the joy of having babies, but at the same time it leads to tragedy of the commons on the global scale.
20% of my income goes on fuel and I'm a low-fuel user, I live on a budget of walking and getting the bus is a treat.
For me gas prices in the UK, what really messed me up was the standing charges (daily charge for infrastructure) circa 2006 they doubled that but lowered the unit price which for the average family of 4 usage, worked out as a saving of £100 a year. Though as a single person, that change cost me near on £100 a year in extra standing charge and a saving of unit cost of £20 a year. I just find it annoying how most fuel usage pricing can and does actually penalise responsible low-usage users. Sure the more you buy the cheaper things get but when you get to climate, wear and tear upon the infrastructure - those users who don't have to worry about the money or have any care are reward by a fixed impact cost upon infrastructure - even if they use 10x more than somebody else - they both pay the same. Then the more they use - then costs become cheaper for them.
Pro-tip - slow baking a baked potatoes in the oven is a good meal that also warms the home so double usage of that fuel.
What would I change - well I'd quota people - additional quota's for medical conditions and other variable but the gist would be - fuel you use up to that quota then you pay X price per unit and the standing charge is dropped and worked into the price. Now, after you use your quota - you pay extra per unit of fuel. That way those who do the most impact are more fairly paying for it. Sadly it won't happen, but then - some serious action is needed upon climate change.
FWIW when I was more fiscally able (energy usage less than 1% of income)- my fuel usage was the same heating wise - always been a jumper if needed and going for a brisk walk does wonders for feeling warm.
For me gas prices in the UK, what really messed me up was the standing charges (daily charge for infrastructure) circa 2006 they doubled that but lowered the unit price which for the average family of 4 usage, worked out as a saving of £100 a year. Though as a single person, that change cost me near on £100 a year in extra standing charge and a saving of unit cost of £20 a year. I just find it annoying how most fuel usage pricing can and does actually penalise responsible low-usage users. Sure the more you buy the cheaper things get but when you get to climate, wear and tear upon the infrastructure - those users who don't have to worry about the money or have any care are reward by a fixed impact cost upon infrastructure - even if they use 10x more than somebody else - they both pay the same. Then the more they use - then costs become cheaper for them.
Pro-tip - slow baking a baked potatoes in the oven is a good meal that also warms the home so double usage of that fuel.
What would I change - well I'd quota people - additional quota's for medical conditions and other variable but the gist would be - fuel you use up to that quota then you pay X price per unit and the standing charge is dropped and worked into the price. Now, after you use your quota - you pay extra per unit of fuel. That way those who do the most impact are more fairly paying for it. Sadly it won't happen, but then - some serious action is needed upon climate change.
FWIW when I was more fiscally able (energy usage less than 1% of income)- my fuel usage was the same heating wise - always been a jumper if needed and going for a brisk walk does wonders for feeling warm.
There are plenty of places that charge higher rates for heavy usage tiers.
If you reduced your carbon footprint to 0 for your entire life you will have saved less then a second of industrial CO2 output.
Personal choice is meaningless wrt climate change. It's a topic that cannot be addressed without structural/societal changes, likely by legislation.
Personal choice is meaningless wrt climate change. It's a topic that cannot be addressed without structural/societal changes, likely by legislation.
> industrial CO2 output
Industrial CO2 output doesn't just happen in a vacuum. It's a by-product for manufacturing things that consumers want/need.
Industrial CO2 output doesn't just happen in a vacuum. It's a by-product for manufacturing things that consumers want/need.
Only in aggregation when everyone else changes their behaviour as well. Each individuals contribution is too tiny to have an impact, which is why we need a systematic change or legislation, so that its no longer a choice/personal responsibility to take action.
Kurzgesagt's recent video (sponsored by bill gates notes)e xpressed the issue much better then I ever could, so i'll only link to it here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6_JakZFc
Kurzgesagt's recent video (sponsored by bill gates notes)e xpressed the issue much better then I ever could, so i'll only link to it here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiw6_JakZFc
You are spot on.
It's a bit like most changes, they take time and sure my impact akin to a grain of sand in a desert, but then I feel comfortable with my choices and eventually over time, such choices will become less open as there will get a time in which government will act.
I'm mindful that many when it comes to change that is impaction can be a case of they don't so why should I and well I don't have too so I can do what I like and the pandemic as been most insightful into such mindsets. Hence we saw laws to enforces common sense in situations that had the people all been responsible, would not of been needed or come to pass. Hence I do expect the whole fossil/fuel/resource aspect of human consumption to become more and more regulated in years to come. Will it be done right is the question or will we just see those who can afford to be feckless, just as enabled as currently.
That's why I agree with you upon this and do foresee that legislation may well be the only way - alas the issue is global and that is a real cruz as when as countries tend to act as individuals and cases of - well they're not so why should we and other unfair arguments play out. So as always the politics becomes more an issue than the issue the politics is trying to solve.
It's a bit like most changes, they take time and sure my impact akin to a grain of sand in a desert, but then I feel comfortable with my choices and eventually over time, such choices will become less open as there will get a time in which government will act.
I'm mindful that many when it comes to change that is impaction can be a case of they don't so why should I and well I don't have too so I can do what I like and the pandemic as been most insightful into such mindsets. Hence we saw laws to enforces common sense in situations that had the people all been responsible, would not of been needed or come to pass. Hence I do expect the whole fossil/fuel/resource aspect of human consumption to become more and more regulated in years to come. Will it be done right is the question or will we just see those who can afford to be feckless, just as enabled as currently.
That's why I agree with you upon this and do foresee that legislation may well be the only way - alas the issue is global and that is a real cruz as when as countries tend to act as individuals and cases of - well they're not so why should we and other unfair arguments play out. So as always the politics becomes more an issue than the issue the politics is trying to solve.
You can't quota with fixed quotas, it's not practical. Winters are not equally cold. One could charge for the infrastructure as a fixed per kWh cost on usage, so low consumers would be impacted less.
I'm a little confused at how you think the previous comment somehow is shifting blames from corporations to people. While true that rising energy costs will effect consumers, it's also one of the ways we can change the incentive structure for corporations!
For example: No one should be choosing between heating and eating, from a thermodynamic perspective. It's trivial to drastically cut heating energy through very low-tech methods: increasing insulation in the walls, and add extra layers of glass to your windows. The reason it's not done is because real estate developers have no incentive to increase their construction costs by some marginal amount since they know that natural gas cost is so cheap no customer is going to care about heating energy reduction. Not only that, most customers strongly prefer the cheaper construction once they're shown how many decades it would take for the better building envelope to pay for itself via energy bill reductions. Same reason there isn't a incentive to switch from (dirty) gas to electric, install solar panels, switch to heat pumps etc etc.
Now consider how building related carbon emissions make up about 40% of the total emissions, and you'll see how much of an infuriating obstacle cheap energy is in cutting carbon emissions.
Yes, there will be low-income people for who this will be a crisis, but that can be dealt with separately: government subsidies, or government subsidies of envelope retrofits (great stimulus idea). There is no reason frame this issue in a us versus them manner.
For example: No one should be choosing between heating and eating, from a thermodynamic perspective. It's trivial to drastically cut heating energy through very low-tech methods: increasing insulation in the walls, and add extra layers of glass to your windows. The reason it's not done is because real estate developers have no incentive to increase their construction costs by some marginal amount since they know that natural gas cost is so cheap no customer is going to care about heating energy reduction. Not only that, most customers strongly prefer the cheaper construction once they're shown how many decades it would take for the better building envelope to pay for itself via energy bill reductions. Same reason there isn't a incentive to switch from (dirty) gas to electric, install solar panels, switch to heat pumps etc etc.
Now consider how building related carbon emissions make up about 40% of the total emissions, and you'll see how much of an infuriating obstacle cheap energy is in cutting carbon emissions.
Yes, there will be low-income people for who this will be a crisis, but that can be dealt with separately: government subsidies, or government subsidies of envelope retrofits (great stimulus idea). There is no reason frame this issue in a us versus them manner.
How about not letting high income people use the baseline needs of low income people to deflect responsibility for their freely made choices? Especially when they're responsible for a much larger fraction of the carbon footprint. It's not only on corporations.
It's pretty sickening when hundreds of billionaires and celebrities and rulers fly their private jets to these secretive conferences where they decide exactly how horrible and greedy Joe Coalminer is, and what penance he must pay for his sins.
I can't believe people try to shrug it off as no big deal because the absolute carbon output is small, or postulating that they must have offset it. If there are two things people react badly to, it is injustice / unfairness, and hypocrisy. The ruling class has done more to turn the average person against their climate change proposals than just about anything else, in my opinion. Quite probably by design, such is the blatant audacity of their double standards.
I can't believe people try to shrug it off as no big deal because the absolute carbon output is small, or postulating that they must have offset it. If there are two things people react badly to, it is injustice / unfairness, and hypocrisy. The ruling class has done more to turn the average person against their climate change proposals than just about anything else, in my opinion. Quite probably by design, such is the blatant audacity of their double standards.
> where they decide exactly how horrible and greedy Joe Coalminer is, and what penance he must pay for his sins
Don't worry, The Smartest Guys In The Room went from 0 to 100 on this issue in 1969 when no major societal changes were going on and for no ulterior reason at all: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED050960.pdf
"The difference [in family size] is important not simply because of the numbers but because it bears vitally upon a fundamental question about the Nation's future: Do we wish to continue to invest even more of our resources and those of much of the rest of the world in meeting demands for more services, more classrooms, more hospitals, and more housing as population continues to grow?"
Don't worry, The Smartest Guys In The Room went from 0 to 100 on this issue in 1969 when no major societal changes were going on and for no ulterior reason at all: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED050960.pdf
"The difference [in family size] is important not simply because of the numbers but because it bears vitally upon a fundamental question about the Nation's future: Do we wish to continue to invest even more of our resources and those of much of the rest of the world in meeting demands for more services, more classrooms, more hospitals, and more housing as population continues to grow?"
These high energy prices mostly hit wasteful industries like greenhouse tomato growers. That is because they gave always relied on cheap, subsidized natural gas. Consumers pay approximately 75% energy tax already so even a 100% rise before taxes results in only a 25% percent rise after.
I live in a 100 year old, poorly insulated house with my family of 4, and we manage to use half of the average for a family house here. And we are not really trying, only thing we do is limit what parts of the house we heat (not the bedrooms) and set the temperature smartly.
I cycle 30km to my work on an electric bike to exercise and limit car usage.
So yes, I really don't think the price rise will have too much impact on consumers directly. I think most people in the Netherlands can halve their energy consumption here with very limited impact on QoL just by heating less and using their car less. And if the price really gets problematic our gov could just lower the taxation
I live in a 100 year old, poorly insulated house with my family of 4, and we manage to use half of the average for a family house here. And we are not really trying, only thing we do is limit what parts of the house we heat (not the bedrooms) and set the temperature smartly.
I cycle 30km to my work on an electric bike to exercise and limit car usage.
So yes, I really don't think the price rise will have too much impact on consumers directly. I think most people in the Netherlands can halve their energy consumption here with very limited impact on QoL just by heating less and using their car less. And if the price really gets problematic our gov could just lower the taxation
Yeah why can't the "heating vs eating" people just take 2hrs to bike 30km to work every day like we do?
On the flip side I respect your dedication to bike that much thru Dutch winter!
On the flip side I respect your dedication to bike that much thru Dutch winter!
I don't think there are more than a handful of "heating vs eating" people in the Netherlands. On the contrary; poverty is positively correlated with obesity.
We do have lots of baby boomers in big houses that they heatup just for themselves. My mom has 4 times my heating bill by herself than I have with a family of four. It would solve a lot of problems if the elderly move to smaller houses and leave the bigger houses for families that need them.
We do have lots of baby boomers in big houses that they heatup just for themselves. My mom has 4 times my heating bill by herself than I have with a family of four. It would solve a lot of problems if the elderly move to smaller houses and leave the bigger houses for families that need them.
> It would solve a lot of problems if the elderly move to smaller houses and leave the bigger houses for families that need them.
A lot of places make that kind of swap uneconomical. From paying capital gains now instead of later, to loss of property tax increase exemptions to loss of property tax deferrals. Some places exempt gains on housing gains but not other gains (kinda a problem if you downsize and take a windfall)…
Many places ignore housing wealth when it comes to social assistance, but include everything else.
A lot of places make that kind of swap uneconomical. From paying capital gains now instead of later, to loss of property tax increase exemptions to loss of property tax deferrals. Some places exempt gains on housing gains but not other gains (kinda a problem if you downsize and take a windfall)…
Many places ignore housing wealth when it comes to social assistance, but include everything else.
yes, exactly. So that is why it is time to change the incentives / tax structure because there is a real housing crisis gling on for young families. Nearly everyone I know with a nice big house is over 65. And half of them are alone. On a personal level I understand amd sympathise with their choice not to downgrade to a smaller house. On a systemic level this is pretty ridiculous. Land value and property taxes should be raised significantly, whilst income taxws should be lowered. I still need to so more reading on Henry George, but I think this was a key part of Georgism
> I cycle 30km to my work on an electric bike to exercise and limit car usage.
In most of the US that's a good way to land in the ER.
source: son t-boned on his e-bike 6 months ago
In most of the US that's a good way to land in the ER.
source: son t-boned on his e-bike 6 months ago
Sounds like you guys are ok with the cold.
When I lived in cold climates I tried what you’re describing to limit spending. Living in cold indoors wrecked my mood even more than winter generally did so I gave up on it and accepted having to spend more on heat and save elsewhere.
I guess what I’m saying is that your approach probably wouldn’t work for everyone.
Fortunately I live somewhere warmer now.
You might find this interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Sources_of_hydro...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process#Sources_of_hydro...
> I live in a 100 year old, poorly insulated house
Have you investigated if it is feasible to retrofit proper isolation? It has been fairly common here in Sweden, though I'd expect that by now most of the housing stock has good isolation. Stuff like triple layers of glass in the windows also helps a lot.
Have you investigated if it is feasible to retrofit proper isolation? It has been fairly common here in Sweden, though I'd expect that by now most of the housing stock has good isolation. Stuff like triple layers of glass in the windows also helps a lot.
Technically feasible sure, but I thibk I used 1100m3 gas last year (would have to look it up teo be sure). So to invest 30000 euro to save 50% of that makes no economical sense. Only when the windows need replacement anyway I'll upgrade to the latest and greatest. But for now I'm conetemplating investing in a moderate air/air heatpump (about 5000 euro, 5kw or something). I think that will also reduce my gas consumption considerably for all but the coldest days. Because labour is so expensive and replacing all windows is so wastefull (they are all oldish double layered windows) better insulation is not so appealing.
I must say though that a properly insulated house can have a better climate in winter as you can keep the humidity much higher.
I must say though that a properly insulated house can have a better climate in winter as you can keep the humidity much higher.
How long does it take you? I do 14km in ~40 minutes on a normal bike, was thinking an ebike would be way better.
I was hoping to make my own, but maybe I'll cave in and just use a Swapfiets electric...
I was hoping to make my own, but maybe I'll cave in and just use a Swapfiets electric...
Used to take 45-55mins on a speed pedelec (45km/h) but I sold it and bought a regular ebike set at the US speed limit of 32 km/h. Depending on wind it takes me 60 to 70 minutes for 28.7 km.
I do ~15 km in ~31 minutes on an ebike. About ~1/3rd of the time is spent sitting at stoplights, as measured by Strava (18 minutes moving time, 31 minutes total time).
14 km/40 minutes is 21 km/h. Assuming you don't live in hilly terrain, if you use an e-bike with a 25 km/h limiter, you can probably go a little faster, but it won't make huge difference.
It will probably will mean that you get less tired and exercise less, which may be good or bad depending on your opinion.
It will probably will mean that you get less tired and exercise less, which may be good or bad depending on your opinion.
"wasteful industries"
ROTFL. Like fertilizer production?
ROTFL. Like fertilizer production?
That's why i like the idea of a "climate dividend". Everyone will pay a carbon tax, which then finances the climate dividend, which is evenly paid out to the population. So if you emit below average amounts of carbon, you will actually be better off financially.
This would also greatly help with social coherence. First make living costs so high, that they are unaffordable for the underclasses, leaving them no other choice than complete reliance on the state payouts. Then make subsidies conditional, tiered, assigned on sufficiently complicated rules (as a side effect this would improve employment opportunities is public sector). And finally, whenever serfs would choose to misbehave, there wouldn't even be a need to intimidate - just dangle a possibility of freezing to death in winter.
You're right that making it conditional would be bad. But we can just not do that. Why wouldn't we make it unconditional? It's not like you lose your Social Security payments for having committed criminal acts.
Hum... Have you looked on the situation of ex-criminals?
I really fail to imagine an unconditional transfer (like the one you are replying to) turning into a monster of untraceable rules.
I really fail to imagine an unconditional transfer (like the one you are replying to) turning into a monster of untraceable rules.
>And finally, whenever serfs would choose to misbehave, there wouldn't even be a need to intimidate - just dangle a possibility of freezing to death in winter.
This is reality today under capitalism. What happens to me if I don't choose to work?
This is reality today under capitalism. What happens to me if I don't choose to work?
you have so many no-work options. You can be nice to people and live off their (informal) charity. You could probably work out an arrangement where you barter services for lodging. You could go live with relatives that work.
Same argument applies to the quote I'm responding to. Jackbooted gubmint thugs cut your power in winter? Go live with relatives that have power, or get charity, or barter things for firewood.
I like the idea. However, I am afraid this would lead to people with no children being disadvantaged again.
Increased prices would clearly make it more expensive to raise children. This would lead to more social care towards people with children. How would you recommend solving that?
Increased prices would clearly make it more expensive to raise children. This would lead to more social care towards people with children. How would you recommend solving that?
Developed countries aren't having enough children. We need to provide families with children more assistance, not less. Raising children deserves to be seen as a job because it provides value to society. I say that as a person without children who hopes to never have any.
But not having children reduces fossil fuel consumption the most, and that is the goal of the tax, is it not?
Reducing capitas will cause a much quicker and effective change than reducing per capita consumption.
Reducing capitas will cause a much quicker and effective change than reducing per capita consumption.
The goal of the tax is to force people the internalize the externalities caused by their consumption.
I would think the carbon tax part would be based on carbon usage which is a factor of consumption. The entire family’s consumption. So if the rebate is $1000 per person a family if 4 gets $4000. However the net gain/loss is only calculated after knowing what your family consumes. A family of 4 bicyclists may come out ahead while a family of 4 SUV drivers may have a net loss.
> This would lead to more social care towards people with children. How would you recommend solving that?
I'm sorry, what's the issue? If we need children and need to incentivize it, it's what we'll do. And by definition, you're talking about advantages only to counterbalance new disadvantages. So we need to solve what?
I'm sorry, what's the issue? If we need children and need to incentivize it, it's what we'll do. And by definition, you're talking about advantages only to counterbalance new disadvantages. So we need to solve what?
What’s the reason to having more people and children? It’s to “grow the economy”. Is constant growth sustainable?
If we don't need them we won't subsidize them. The OP seems to think we'll need to subsidize children more for some reason.
Look at Japan and you'll see the reason. Aging population.
Which is not good for economy. I understand. So more children are needed to support the aging population in the future. My question still stands: is this sustainable indefinitely?
> My question still stands: is this sustainable indefinitely?
I mean, if on one side we have exponential growth, and on the other we have no children leading to no one to support seniors, surely there is a middle ground where the right number of children are born each year.
I mean, if on one side we have exponential growth, and on the other we have no children leading to no one to support seniors, surely there is a middle ground where the right number of children are born each year.
China tried with the one child policy and debalanced its population's structure, ending up with too many men.
On the other hand in Japan and elsewhere in developed countries women postpone having kids until in their in their 30s, because they're involved in the workforce.
So, one either ends up with exponential population growth or with the elderly working until they die and younger people postponing having chindren until mid age (with all the associated health issues, both for the mother and th child) or not having children at all.
It's rather hard if not impossible to keep a middle ground. As a woman one probably has to make a choice between bearing children after you finish college or getting a degree and joining the workforce. Guess what most women's choice is?
On the other hand in Japan and elsewhere in developed countries women postpone having kids until in their in their 30s, because they're involved in the workforce.
So, one either ends up with exponential population growth or with the elderly working until they die and younger people postponing having chindren until mid age (with all the associated health issues, both for the mother and th child) or not having children at all.
It's rather hard if not impossible to keep a middle ground. As a woman one probably has to make a choice between bearing children after you finish college or getting a degree and joining the workforce. Guess what most women's choice is?
Someone who works as a delivery guy needs to drive a car a lot, such person would have to pay big climate dividend. Is that ok? Probably not.
Taxation is a road to nowhere as rich people will always either find the way to avoid taxes or find the way to throw the costs of those taxes on the poor. This happens with every kind of tax.
The only solution to decrease CO2 emission is to behave in a rational way and use the only practical, tested and available now clean energy source - nuclear power plants. No amount of eco-talk will change reality that neither solar nor wind energy plants will be able to power modern economy. Europe is learning this the hard way right now.
Maybe Europe will do the suicidal jump with the ideas like "Fit for 55", and will kill its economy to lower global emission by 0.05% but the rest of the World, which emits much more CO2 and will emit even more when all production will be moved from Europe to Asia or USA cannot care less.
Taxation is a road to nowhere as rich people will always either find the way to avoid taxes or find the way to throw the costs of those taxes on the poor. This happens with every kind of tax.
The only solution to decrease CO2 emission is to behave in a rational way and use the only practical, tested and available now clean energy source - nuclear power plants. No amount of eco-talk will change reality that neither solar nor wind energy plants will be able to power modern economy. Europe is learning this the hard way right now.
Maybe Europe will do the suicidal jump with the ideas like "Fit for 55", and will kill its economy to lower global emission by 0.05% but the rest of the World, which emits much more CO2 and will emit even more when all production will be moved from Europe to Asia or USA cannot care less.
If delivery services emit a lot of CO2, then making delivery services (which is not about "someone who works as a delivery guy" but rather about the company selling delivery services) much more expensive is a key part of ensuring that delivery services get used less and only by those needs where those delivery services are relatively more important i.e. those who would be willing to pay the significantly increased price of deliveries.
After all, the whole point of carbon tax is to reduce usage, not to gain revenue or penalize some people; so it works if and only if it meaningfully changes behavior, i.e. if the tax significantly raises prices of some specific market goods/services and thus drives people to use less of those specific goods/services. A simple income-proportional tax or just "tax the rich" doesn't incentivize reducing emissions, so it's useless for that goal; it's perhaps useful for social equity and wealth redistribution, but that's something not directly linked to climate change goals.
It's not about money, it's about CO2; driving deliveries needs to emit less CO2 so the goal is to either get more efficient deliveries (e.g. electric vehicles) or less deliveries (putting some of those delivery drivers out of jobs), and "who's paying for that" is just choosing the most effective means to achieve these goals.
After all, the whole point of carbon tax is to reduce usage, not to gain revenue or penalize some people; so it works if and only if it meaningfully changes behavior, i.e. if the tax significantly raises prices of some specific market goods/services and thus drives people to use less of those specific goods/services. A simple income-proportional tax or just "tax the rich" doesn't incentivize reducing emissions, so it's useless for that goal; it's perhaps useful for social equity and wealth redistribution, but that's something not directly linked to climate change goals.
It's not about money, it's about CO2; driving deliveries needs to emit less CO2 so the goal is to either get more efficient deliveries (e.g. electric vehicles) or less deliveries (putting some of those delivery drivers out of jobs), and "who's paying for that" is just choosing the most effective means to achieve these goals.
> Someone who works as a delivery guy needs to drive a car a lot, such person would have to pay big climate dividend. Is that ok? Probably not.
It gives the delivery company a big incentive to switch to electric vehicles or ebikes or something more efficient. This harnesses market power to push companies to be more efficient with their resources: the ones who are more innovative at avoiding CO2 usage will see financial benefits.
It gives the delivery company a big incentive to switch to electric vehicles or ebikes or something more efficient. This harnesses market power to push companies to be more efficient with their resources: the ones who are more innovative at avoiding CO2 usage will see financial benefits.
why are you assuming an electric car will be an overall reduction in CO2?
It's not an assumption. Of course, it depends on a lot of things, but broadly speaking, they use less CO2. And the great thing about a carbon tax is that this shakes out through the system: if they're not reducing CO2, you would see it in costs and could react accordingly. This price signal is a lot more convenient than having to, as an end user, try to figure out what the best and worst things to do in terms of CO2.
Company will just hire the delivery drivers as contractors a la Uber and pass the costs onto them.
Same logic applies though. If you're a contractor and it costs too much because gas is expensive, you either don't do it or demand more money. Or maybe only people with low-emissions vehicles get into it.
>Taxation is a road to nowhere as rich people will always either find the way to avoid taxes
The entire point of CO2 taxes is that you are supposed to avoid them.
The entire point of CO2 taxes is that you are supposed to avoid them.
There is more than one way to avoid taxes. (hollywood accounting)
>Someone who works as a delivery guy needs to drive a car a lot, such person would have to pay big climate dividend.
Delivery emissions should be attached to the person getting the delivery. Otherwise you could just skip most of your emissions by having everything delivered.
Delivery emissions should be attached to the person getting the delivery. Otherwise you could just skip most of your emissions by having everything delivered.
It would be far to complicated to try and count every bit of emissions like this. Instead, the emissions are taxed at the source - when buying fuel. Therefore, the delivery company would be paying the carbon taxes, and they could choose to either pass those costs on to you, or to, for example, switch to electric vehicles to be more competitive against their rivals.
Either way, it changes your behavior, because if delivery is more expensive (to factor in the externalities it causes) you will either consume less, or pay more. This ultimately "attaches the emissions to the person getting the delivery" but in a far less complex and less game-able way.
Either way, it changes your behavior, because if delivery is more expensive (to factor in the externalities it causes) you will either consume less, or pay more. This ultimately "attaches the emissions to the person getting the delivery" but in a far less complex and less game-able way.
I go into the store and buy a pair of shoes. Am I given a bit of the emissions of the supply chain that delivered it to the store from the manufacturer?
If I order something off Amazon, do I get a say in where the package is shipped from to control "my" emissions.
If I order something off Amazon, do I get a say in where the package is shipped from to control "my" emissions.
> Am I given a bit of the emissions of the supply chain that delivered it to the store from the manufacturer?
Yes, you would have to use some of your carbon credits to pay for the delivery and manufacture of the shoe. The product would have both a monetary and a carbon price. If you don't have enough credits, then you can buy some on the spot market from someone who isn't using theirs up.
This would incentivise repair of the shoe, as it may require fewer carbon credits.
Yes, you would have to use some of your carbon credits to pay for the delivery and manufacture of the shoe. The product would have both a monetary and a carbon price. If you don't have enough credits, then you can buy some on the spot market from someone who isn't using theirs up.
This would incentivise repair of the shoe, as it may require fewer carbon credits.
Pity that you are getting down-voted for a rational position. Wind output dropping is one of the factors behind Electricity prices surging in the EU this year. But folks here are reluctant to even acknowledge this fact due to effective renewables brainwashing.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/german-renewables-us...
If there really needs to be a carbon tax for delivery, it makes the most sense to transfer it directly to the consumer who demanded order-delivery. Any other mechanism will just leave a tax loophole.
And yes, emission taxes/standards should be applied to the whole world. Right now, they are adversely affecting the poor and lower middle class of the first world - none of whom are represented on HN. Meanwhile China can keep polluting away to its heart's content producing ~30% of the world's emissions by itself.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/german-renewables-us...
If there really needs to be a carbon tax for delivery, it makes the most sense to transfer it directly to the consumer who demanded order-delivery. Any other mechanism will just leave a tax loophole.
And yes, emission taxes/standards should be applied to the whole world. Right now, they are adversely affecting the poor and lower middle class of the first world - none of whom are represented on HN. Meanwhile China can keep polluting away to its heart's content producing ~30% of the world's emissions by itself.
> Wind output dropping is one of the factors behind Electricity prices surging
Yes, true. Guess what is used to compensate for lack of renewable output? Natural gas fired plants with short ramp up time. This will only drive electricity prices up.
The article is about gas shortages and people at risk of freezing this winter, yet almost everyone here is talking about CO2 taxes and taxing natural gas?
Yes, true. Guess what is used to compensate for lack of renewable output? Natural gas fired plants with short ramp up time. This will only drive electricity prices up.
The article is about gas shortages and people at risk of freezing this winter, yet almost everyone here is talking about CO2 taxes and taxing natural gas?
> Someone who works as a delivery guy needs to drive a car a lot, such person would have to pay big climate dividend. Is that ok? Probably not.
Probably yes, because that the whole point of Pigouvian taxes.
Probably yes, because that the whole point of Pigouvian taxes.
I wonder whether this will be like income tax, theoretically proportional, but practically affecting the rich less than the poor, and companies even less?
Just to clarify this point, the income tax is progressive and affects the rich more than the poor on income. A software developer making $150k will pay 24% on additional income while someone making $30k will pay 12% on additional income.
The distinction in the US is whether you make your money through labor (max 37% tax) or capital gains (max 20% tax). There is a lower tax rate for capitalists (who make money via ownership of capital) vs laborers (who make money through labor income). Furthermore, capital gains can be delayed until you realize your gains (sell your capital). This distinction is what practically gives the rich lower taxes than the poor.
The distinction in the US is whether you make your money through labor (max 37% tax) or capital gains (max 20% tax). There is a lower tax rate for capitalists (who make money via ownership of capital) vs laborers (who make money through labor income). Furthermore, capital gains can be delayed until you realize your gains (sell your capital). This distinction is what practically gives the rich lower taxes than the poor.
All this nonsense should be rolled into a single income tax and then the overall tax rate should be lowered. Yeah sure there might be good reasons for a low capital gains tax but if that is the case then there are good reasons for a low income tax as well.
The only thing the income tax should be doing is discourage employers from piling up all the work on as few people as possible.
Employers prefer keeping people full time and full time unemployed because it is more efficient per worker and the bargaining power of the unemployed doesn't exist. If everyone were to work according to their own demand for labor then this bargaining power cliff wouldn't exist and a whole lot of welfare programs could be abolished.
Employers prefer keeping people full time and full time unemployed because it is more efficient per worker and the bargaining power of the unemployed doesn't exist. If everyone were to work according to their own demand for labor then this bargaining power cliff wouldn't exist and a whole lot of welfare programs could be abolished.
This would need a huge apparatus to measure and distribute funds that will be ineffective. There is no effect on climate.
>A world in which people on low incomes have to chose between heating and eating.
What my mother gets for old age pension is the same as the cost as a tank of heating oil for her house. Thankfully she doesn't need a full tank of oil each month and summer means less fuel burned except for hot water for the oil fired water heater. I do help my mom monetarily as much as I can but yes it is a huge burden for low income people to heat their homes.
What my mother gets for old age pension is the same as the cost as a tank of heating oil for her house. Thankfully she doesn't need a full tank of oil each month and summer means less fuel burned except for hot water for the oil fired water heater. I do help my mom monetarily as much as I can but yes it is a huge burden for low income people to heat their homes.
I can't find anything in the parent comment that suggests a lack of sympathy for working class people or an attempt to put any blame on them.
There are countless policy choices that can help the less fortunate, the great majority of which are not incompatible with gas or energy being more expensive.
For example, I'm not a huge fan of agricultural subsidies, not because I want food to be more expensive, but because of the negative environmental and health effects they've had. But the money the government pays to farmer giants could instead be redistributed to poor people and (IMHO) help them a great deal more.
Likewise, revenue from taxes on things like gasoline could mitigate the effects of higher cost for low income families, which still encourage upper classes to invest in clean energy.
There are countless policy choices that can help the less fortunate, the great majority of which are not incompatible with gas or energy being more expensive.
For example, I'm not a huge fan of agricultural subsidies, not because I want food to be more expensive, but because of the negative environmental and health effects they've had. But the money the government pays to farmer giants could instead be redistributed to poor people and (IMHO) help them a great deal more.
Likewise, revenue from taxes on things like gasoline could mitigate the effects of higher cost for low income families, which still encourage upper classes to invest in clean energy.
Wasting energy isn't going to help those people. More money is. "Poor people" is a bad argument to avoid fair energy prices. If you care about poor people, make them less poor, and switch energy use to more sustainable sources.
There's something to be said for taxing fossil fuels and paying that money back equally to everybody. People who polute will lose money, and people who don't will receive it.
There's something to be said for taxing fossil fuels and paying that money back equally to everybody. People who polute will lose money, and people who don't will receive it.
I live in Mexico and there are still millions here that need to use wood to cook or heat water.
Wood is not a fossil fuel, so as long as forests are not being destroyed overall for the fuel, the are carbon neutral.
However, people's health would probably be increased if we could provide people electric heat.
However, people's health would probably be increased if we could provide people electric heat.
The point is that energy is not cheap for everyone. Apple products are luxury items for the vast majority of humanity.
Also, like you said, cooking and heating with wood is terrible for the lungs and this has become much more very evident with COVID.
Also, like you said, cooking and heating with wood is terrible for the lungs and this has become much more very evident with COVID.
With wood things get a bit unclear for me. Using something like district heating which uses wood as a source to generate hot water/steam and pipe that to houses is a way to stay carbon neutral while keeping emissions away from people to avoid impacting their health. But this assumes that heating needs can be sustainably forested. Right now there's also all sorts of shenanigans where wood is imported from the US as biomass in Europe as a sustainable source, but the carbon costs from shipping wood across the ocean are not considered.
Yay poverty?
The problem with this idea is that it was cheap energy that gave rise to the middle class during the industrial revolution. Energy acts as a force multiplier on human labor. Without it, you need many more humans to accomplish tasks like farming and construction. And many things just become physically insurmountable. We just wouldn’t have professions like software engineering or even yoga teachers (the way they exist today) without cheap abundant energy.
Remember that it was cheap energy that allowed people to migrate and settle in the city of their choice and thus free themselves from the landowning class.
With housing costs the way they are in certain cities, this is still relevant today.
The solution isn’t to make energy more expensive, but to make things more efficient, and to change where we get our energy from.
Remember that it was cheap energy that allowed people to migrate and settle in the city of their choice and thus free themselves from the landowning class.
With housing costs the way they are in certain cities, this is still relevant today.
The solution isn’t to make energy more expensive, but to make things more efficient, and to change where we get our energy from.
On that note, these days even a few lead acid batteries and a few solar panels at home are enough for a lot of things.
LED lights, battery power tools, laptops, these are very efficient compared to just 20 years ago.
Don't really need expensive Li-Ion when you have the space for big and heavy, but cheap SLA batteries.
LED lights, battery power tools, laptops, these are very efficient compared to just 20 years ago.
Don't really need expensive Li-Ion when you have the space for big and heavy, but cheap SLA batteries.
but far from enough during the winter, when you need much more energy. for 70% of the year, yeah, a few solar panels are enough.
Energy is cheap in that most sources have low marginal cost and high CapEx. Building energy capacity is largely an exercise of capital formation and deployment. These capital expenditures have fixed capacity, and lifetimes. If the capital formation and deployment process breaks down for some reason, then there will be an energy crises as demand outstrips supply. The cost of energy in such a market is not the marginal cost of an extra kWh but instead the marginal ability for energy purchasers ability to pay which for many use cases is orders of magnitude higher than the former number.
We used to have one hour of electricity supply followed by one hour of blackout during the day in Summer. I'm talking about 10 years back in the Indian subcontinent- halfway around the world from US where I live now. Sometimes 1 hour blackout would turn into two. A large part of the time we had supply was spent pumping and storing water. Come to think of it, we made sure that every drop of that water and every minute of that electricity supply was used efficiently. I am sometimes reminded of this memory these days when I let my standard-size SUV idle with the AC running while waiting for a latte.
Or when you talk to someone in California
It wasn’t California that had its utility execs patting themselves on the back during testimony that they were so fast in getting the power back on to the 95% of customers at the 7 day mark as if a whole week without power is good and the fact that means 1 in 20 ppl took more than a week.
Oh and if you’re thinking I’m talking about Texas, I’m not.
My point is why do people think these issues are just California?
Global warming and extreme weather is causing power issues in your backyard too.
Why do people love bashing california over issues in their own back yard?
Oh and if you’re thinking I’m talking about Texas, I’m not.
My point is why do people think these issues are just California?
Global warming and extreme weather is causing power issues in your backyard too.
Why do people love bashing california over issues in their own back yard?
Is it that bad in California?
The other reply mentioned TX, I was actually in the heart of the snowstorm last winter. We were saved from days of outage only because we were in a hospital block. So I also think it is not just California.
For me the best/worst part of the winter storm happened a while later when I went to an IEEE webinar on the incident. We asked the panel whether they should concentrate more on the robustness of the grid and infrastructure given extreme weather events are going to be more common. The BiG oIl ExeC in the panel replied "ask me in 1000 years, the scientists are divided on that one." But not all of the panelists were as heartless.. towards the end one of them mentioned that when designing infrastructure we should keep in mind the weak and the vulnerable- those in the hospitals and such, not just the ones with backup generators and firewood stocks.
The other reply mentioned TX, I was actually in the heart of the snowstorm last winter. We were saved from days of outage only because we were in a hospital block. So I also think it is not just California.
For me the best/worst part of the winter storm happened a while later when I went to an IEEE webinar on the incident. We asked the panel whether they should concentrate more on the robustness of the grid and infrastructure given extreme weather events are going to be more common. The BiG oIl ExeC in the panel replied "ask me in 1000 years, the scientists are divided on that one." But not all of the panelists were as heartless.. towards the end one of them mentioned that when designing infrastructure we should keep in mind the weak and the vulnerable- those in the hospitals and such, not just the ones with backup generators and firewood stocks.
Yeah. There's so many subsidies and tax laws etc as well. It seems it's really hard to refactor so the incentives would make sense, while still keeping all groups even relatively content.
Mass air travel will resume now that the pandemic is subsiding. Saw plenty of airplanes on sunday already... That's a massive fuel sink, and as far as I understand, with very low tax rate and fuel cost.
Mass air travel will resume now that the pandemic is subsiding. Saw plenty of airplanes on sunday already... That's a massive fuel sink, and as far as I understand, with very low tax rate and fuel cost.
>> Energy is so important, yet so cheap.
If you want a good economy you have to make the inputs flow unimpeded. People need food, and everything else runs on energy. It has to be a commodity.
If you want a good economy you have to make the inputs flow unimpeded. People need food, and everything else runs on energy. It has to be a commodity.
While I fully agree on substance the market mechanisms mean that if oil and gas are pricey all prices go up. So in a country like Spain or Romania they are already seeing a risk of 'energy poverty' for winter heating. Not to mention all the far more numerous poor people who won't be able to go to work, drive the bus that earns their living, etc.
>Even with the recent rise in prices, energy prices are still way to low to actually influence choices most people make.
No revolution was ever made with silk gloves kind of mentality right here.
No revolution was ever made with silk gloves kind of mentality right here.
Yes, make things so prohibitively expensive that people can't choose what they want to do anymore, that's 100% fair, right?
When you look at the history of human technical achievement, it's a story of harnessing more and more energy. I don't think reducing energy use is any kind of solution and making energy more expressive is just going to greatly diminish the services we can provide and limit who we can provide them to. Viewed another way, solving global warming would be easy if we had a near infinite supply of extremely cheap energy. The most important thing we could do for the human race would be to invent 10x cheaper energy with 10x lower externalities.
I do not think this is a way to improve our ecological footprint. We will not ever use less energy tomorrow than we use today, that will simply not be happening.
If something is important, it is a good that it is also cheap. Every form energy production has some disadvantages, but we must improve here if we want to reduce our influence on climate.
Your proposal to increase prices will not make people drive or heat less, it will just put another burden on their shoulders. The well off would not change anything, poorer people will have trouble. This is not an idea I would support.
If something is important, it is a good that it is also cheap. Every form energy production has some disadvantages, but we must improve here if we want to reduce our influence on climate.
Your proposal to increase prices will not make people drive or heat less, it will just put another burden on their shoulders. The well off would not change anything, poorer people will have trouble. This is not an idea I would support.
I've been following this story a bit and here's what I've noticed:
1. The causes seem to vary depending on who you ask. There seems to be a combination of CO2 taxes going up, a hard winter last year that diminished the strategic reserves, incompetent (corrupt?) gov't institutions that didn't replenish them in summer this year, combined with a general trend of relying more on gas and less on coal (and nuclear to some extent).
2. The EU came down with a heavy hand on coal producing countries... which does make sense, climate change is an issue. However, this is going to disproportionately hit the poorer countries in the block, those that still relied on antiquated coal burning power plants. Germany has Nord Stream + some investment in renewables, so they don't care much, France is mostly nuclear, so again, they don't care, Italy and Spain are warmer countries that could get fine through winter. Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia etc. where coal plants were closed will be hit the worst by this.
3. The EU doesn't negotiate as a block on gas prices. Each country deals with Russia individually – e.g. Nord Stream being built between Germany and Russia. That also means that the smaller countries are at the biggest disadvantage, or are reliant on either Germany's or Russia's benevolence in dictating gas prices.
1. The causes seem to vary depending on who you ask. There seems to be a combination of CO2 taxes going up, a hard winter last year that diminished the strategic reserves, incompetent (corrupt?) gov't institutions that didn't replenish them in summer this year, combined with a general trend of relying more on gas and less on coal (and nuclear to some extent).
2. The EU came down with a heavy hand on coal producing countries... which does make sense, climate change is an issue. However, this is going to disproportionately hit the poorer countries in the block, those that still relied on antiquated coal burning power plants. Germany has Nord Stream + some investment in renewables, so they don't care much, France is mostly nuclear, so again, they don't care, Italy and Spain are warmer countries that could get fine through winter. Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia etc. where coal plants were closed will be hit the worst by this.
3. The EU doesn't negotiate as a block on gas prices. Each country deals with Russia individually – e.g. Nord Stream being built between Germany and Russia. That also means that the smaller countries are at the biggest disadvantage, or are reliant on either Germany's or Russia's benevolence in dictating gas prices.
2) Slovakia will be launching 2 new reactor blocks (Mochovce 3 and 4), one by end of year and next one within 2 years. Even the existing two blocks create 84% of our energy and with the next two we will become energy independent. Adding those two blocks equals about 2 milion personal car emission "saved" compared to having same amount produced by coal power plants.
And that's just one power plant for whole country of 5.5 million. Fortunately we didn't go the German route and we also get a lot of pressure from Austria to shut down our power plant (even though it passed all strict checks and is a very safe design).
Last coal mine will be closed in 2027, but most of them already sooner.
> Fortunately we didn't go the German route
You're missing the fact that all German nuclear power plants are already beyond their initial lifespan and that there simply has been no renewal of operation licenses.
No new reactors have been built since the mid-1980s so this isn't exactly a recent trend. The same applies to France, btw. The newest reactor in France started construction in 2007(!) and is expected to become operational in 2023(!).
The next newest French reactor started construction in 1991...
So much for the state of nuclear power in the world's posterchild of nuclear power.
You're missing the fact that all German nuclear power plants are already beyond their initial lifespan and that there simply has been no renewal of operation licenses.
No new reactors have been built since the mid-1980s so this isn't exactly a recent trend. The same applies to France, btw. The newest reactor in France started construction in 2007(!) and is expected to become operational in 2023(!).
The next newest French reactor started construction in 1991...
So much for the state of nuclear power in the world's posterchild of nuclear power.
And yet France still has half the CO2 emissions per capita of Germany and significantly cheaper energy.
The electricity costs are >90% taxes, though and Germany's industrial output is also significantly higher than France's.
Per capita calculations are therefore flawed from the very start and not a useful metric.
Looking at actual data reveals a clear trend: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/a1i2y40rtyg7s3p/AAAjxiD5DhvWmcyK2...
France's electricity production from nuclear shrinks similarly year-on-year to Germany's reduction in electricity production from coal.
Also no new reactors have been built in France in over a decade. Make of that what you will.
Per capita calculations are therefore flawed from the very start and not a useful metric.
Looking at actual data reveals a clear trend: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/a1i2y40rtyg7s3p/AAAjxiD5DhvWmcyK2...
France's electricity production from nuclear shrinks similarly year-on-year to Germany's reduction in electricity production from coal.
Also no new reactors have been built in France in over a decade. Make of that what you will.
it seems that we become too dumb to build nuclear stations. this is worrying
More like anti-nuclear groups are extremely effective at FUD, and don't fear lying to people. They have literally used every dirty trick in the book to kill commercial nuclear policies. For instance, a large majority of french people believe that nuclear contributes to global warming [1].
Of course, if you freeze an industry for 20 years, there is going to be some loss of knowledge and know-how.
[1]: https://www.bva-group.com/sondages/francais-nucleaire-sondag...
Of course, if you freeze an industry for 20 years, there is going to be some loss of knowledge and know-how.
[1]: https://www.bva-group.com/sondages/francais-nucleaire-sondag...
> They have literally used every dirty trick in the book to kill commercial nuclear policies.
https://tmi2kml.inl.gov/Documents/2a-Kemeny/Presidents%20Com...
"Deliberate valve mispositioning cannot be confirmed or completely dismissed. In regard to the last point, the Commission chairman requested that the FBI reexamine this possibility. The FBI response indicates that they have not found sufficient grounds for further investigation. SUMMARY: The findings from this analysis are as follows: There has been no positive identification of an explanation for the valves being in the closed position."
The really sad part about the TMI accident is that the entire thing could have been avoided if TMI had modified its cooling system with the lessons learned from a literally-identical series of events that happened two years earlier at an also-identical Babcock&Wilcox BWR in Ohio. Davis-Besse was luckily operating at 9% power instead of at 100% like TMI in Pennsylvania in 1979: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1920/ML19208C067.pdf#page=4
"On September 24, 1977, Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 1 experienced a depressurization when a pressurizer power relief valve failed in the open position. The Reactor Coolant System (RCS) pressure was reduced from 2255 psig to 875 psig in approximately twenty-one (21) minutes. At the beginning of this event, steam was being bypassed to the condenser and the reactor thermal power was at 263 MW, or 9.5%. Electricity was not being generated. The following systems malfunctioned during the transient:
a. Steam and Feedwater Rupture Control System (SFRCS).
b. Pressurizer Pilot Actuated Relief Valve.
c. No. 2 Steam Generator Auxiliary Feed Pump Turbine Governor"
"At approximately 21 minutes into the transient, the operators discovered that the pressurizer power relief valve was stuck open. Blowdown via this valve was stopped by closing the block valve, thus terminating the reactor vessel depressurization. The RCS pressure recovered to normal and cooldown of the system followed."
"The reason for the spurious 'half-trip' of the SFRCS has not yet been determined. An extensive investigation revealed several loose connections at terminal boards, but nothing conclusive. Investigation into the failure of the pressurizer pilot actuated relief valve revealed that a 'close' relay was missing from the control circuit. This missing relay would normally provide a 'seal-in' circuit which would hold the valve open until the pressure dropped to 2205 psig. Without the relay the power relief valve cycled open and closed each time the pressure of the RCS went above or below 2255 psig. The rapid cycling of the valve caused a failure of the pilot valve stem, and this failure caused the power relief valve to remain open."
Some engineers-turned-Hollywood-consultants even went public trying to warn us about these problems in the industry. At least we got an actually really good movie out of it which in a singularity of the universe's ultimate irony came out two weeks before the TMI accident and actually contains a line that says "an area the size of Pennsylvania" could be left radioactive and uninhabitable. I have it on LaserDisc and it's one of my favs :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Three https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nemYBeT4aQY
https://tmi2kml.inl.gov/Documents/2a-Kemeny/Presidents%20Com...
"Deliberate valve mispositioning cannot be confirmed or completely dismissed. In regard to the last point, the Commission chairman requested that the FBI reexamine this possibility. The FBI response indicates that they have not found sufficient grounds for further investigation. SUMMARY: The findings from this analysis are as follows: There has been no positive identification of an explanation for the valves being in the closed position."
The really sad part about the TMI accident is that the entire thing could have been avoided if TMI had modified its cooling system with the lessons learned from a literally-identical series of events that happened two years earlier at an also-identical Babcock&Wilcox BWR in Ohio. Davis-Besse was luckily operating at 9% power instead of at 100% like TMI in Pennsylvania in 1979: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1920/ML19208C067.pdf#page=4
"On September 24, 1977, Davis Besse Nuclear Power Station Unit No. 1 experienced a depressurization when a pressurizer power relief valve failed in the open position. The Reactor Coolant System (RCS) pressure was reduced from 2255 psig to 875 psig in approximately twenty-one (21) minutes. At the beginning of this event, steam was being bypassed to the condenser and the reactor thermal power was at 263 MW, or 9.5%. Electricity was not being generated. The following systems malfunctioned during the transient:
a. Steam and Feedwater Rupture Control System (SFRCS).
b. Pressurizer Pilot Actuated Relief Valve.
c. No. 2 Steam Generator Auxiliary Feed Pump Turbine Governor"
"At approximately 21 minutes into the transient, the operators discovered that the pressurizer power relief valve was stuck open. Blowdown via this valve was stopped by closing the block valve, thus terminating the reactor vessel depressurization. The RCS pressure recovered to normal and cooldown of the system followed."
"The reason for the spurious 'half-trip' of the SFRCS has not yet been determined. An extensive investigation revealed several loose connections at terminal boards, but nothing conclusive. Investigation into the failure of the pressurizer pilot actuated relief valve revealed that a 'close' relay was missing from the control circuit. This missing relay would normally provide a 'seal-in' circuit which would hold the valve open until the pressure dropped to 2205 psig. Without the relay the power relief valve cycled open and closed each time the pressure of the RCS went above or below 2255 psig. The rapid cycling of the valve caused a failure of the pilot valve stem, and this failure caused the power relief valve to remain open."
Some engineers-turned-Hollywood-consultants even went public trying to warn us about these problems in the industry. At least we got an actually really good movie out of it which in a singularity of the universe's ultimate irony came out two weeks before the TMI accident and actually contains a line that says "an area the size of Pennsylvania" could be left radioactive and uninhabitable. I have it on LaserDisc and it's one of my favs :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_Three https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nemYBeT4aQY
When did Slovakia begin to build those reactors ? Trying to compare with Belgium.
Who is building them and for how long are there planned to run ? How much did it cost ?
Who is building them and for how long are there planned to run ? How much did it cost ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mochovce_Nuclear_Power_Plant
> power plant consisting of four VVER 440/V-213 pressurized water reactors [Russian]
> Construction of Units 3 and 4 restarted in November 2008. They were planned initially to be completed in 2012 and 2013,[2] but the completion date was shifted to 2016 and 2017.[3] More recently the completion date has slipped to 2020 and 2022.
> [Reactor 1 & 2 have a 60 year commercial lifetime]
https://www.reuters.com/article/slovakia-nuclear/update-1-sl...
> Estimates from 2019 put the cost at nearly 5.7 billion euros ($6.89 billion).
> power plant consisting of four VVER 440/V-213 pressurized water reactors [Russian]
> Construction of Units 3 and 4 restarted in November 2008. They were planned initially to be completed in 2012 and 2013,[2] but the completion date was shifted to 2016 and 2017.[3] More recently the completion date has slipped to 2020 and 2022.
> [Reactor 1 & 2 have a 60 year commercial lifetime]
https://www.reuters.com/article/slovakia-nuclear/update-1-sl...
> Estimates from 2019 put the cost at nearly 5.7 billion euros ($6.89 billion).
Thanks for this perspective – I was not aware of this. Definitely a good idea and I'm personally happy to see a resurgence in nuclear as a green solution to the climate issue.
According to Wikipedia, the existing blocks create only 20% of the electricity needed, so this should only go to about 40%?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mochovce_Nuclear_Power_Plant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mochovce_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Coal is still the source of 20 to 30% of all energy used in Germany, I doubt they don't care.
Germany has a lot of coal, so no need to import. That's why it was German chemists who invented both the first chemical process to convert coal to usable liquid gasoline, and to convert CO gas (state of matter) to liquid gasoline:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergius_process
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_proces...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_liquefaction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_to_liquids
Also the reason why France occupied that region of Germany after World War 1, and then hilariously also again after World War 2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saarland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territory_of_the_Saar_Basin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_Saar_status_referendum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Protectorate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergius_process
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_proces...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_liquefaction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel#History
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_campaign_of_World_War_II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_to_liquids
Also the reason why France occupied that region of Germany after World War 1, and then hilariously also again after World War 2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saarland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territory_of_the_Saar_Basin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1935_Saar_status_referendum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Protectorate
Fair – I suppose my point is that they've set themselves up for an out better than others have.
Poland is in a tough spot politically. Dependence on Russia is a touchy topic, but now there's also a rising anti-EU sentiment from the populist-nationalist government. If something is seen as EU/Western middling then Poland will double-down on doing the opposite (in this case rejecting renewables in favor of coal with plans for nuclear), and still blame the EU for it.
France is mostly nuclear, but most of the heating is using natural gas (it has gone up more than 30% in price this year alone for consumers).
Do we have data on this? I am surprised that "most of the heating is using natural gas" in France.
In France, my parents last 3 houses (i.e. since 1986) have been all 100% electric. The one from 1986 had a gas stove though, but based on gas bottle. Beside that all electric including the oven and washer/dryer.
In France, my parents last 3 houses (i.e. since 1986) have been all 100% electric. The one from 1986 had a gas stove though, but based on gas bottle. Beside that all electric including the oven and washer/dryer.
It is generally not the case in modern construction or outside cities (because you need "gaz de ville" otherwise it is a real pain, and that is infrastructure). This 2015 document indicates 39% natural gas in heating, and 35% electricity https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/fichier/3280930/Enviro1.... I am currently living in an old city house with gas available for both heating and cooking.
In big cities like Paris I believe it is discouraged even when available due to the risks and housing density.
In big cities like Paris I believe it is discouraged even when available due to the risks and housing density.
Awesome! Thanks for digging that document, it is really interesting.
I guess my parents living in suburbs, residential area basically meant to use electricity over gas.
It would be interesting to see if this current shortage, is going to accelerate the transition to electricity. Although retrofitting older building might be very expansive. But if gas price continues to increase like it did in the past few months, it would change the equation for some.
I guess my parents living in suburbs, residential area basically meant to use electricity over gas.
It would be interesting to see if this current shortage, is going to accelerate the transition to electricity. Although retrofitting older building might be very expansive. But if gas price continues to increase like it did in the past few months, it would change the equation for some.
I read in the news that there is plenty of fuel available but no truck drivers to transport it. UK is offering 3000+ emergency visa for truck drivers. The labor supply for truck drivers suddenly dissapeared but we have no idea why.
> The labor supply for truck drivers suddenly dissapeared but we have no idea why.
Brexit seems like a good guess, and indeed it's what many are pointing to.
Companies also blame Brexit, pointing out that 15,000 European truck drivers left the UK in the last year. [...] Willmotts had a steady supply of drivers from eastern Europe over the last two decades. But last year, that all changed. When the pandemic struck and European trade slowed down, drivers were furloughed. Many went back to their home countries, to be with family. "Since the effects of Brexit, they haven't wanted to come back," explained Mr Gray. "They can earn just as much in Germany, France or Poland, so there's no real need to be in the UK." [1]
More concretely brexit makes the job more tedious. Truck drivers don't want to fill out endless paperwork and sit in a queue at customs, but that's exactly what brexit has generously provided.
--
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-57656327
Brexit seems like a good guess, and indeed it's what many are pointing to.
Companies also blame Brexit, pointing out that 15,000 European truck drivers left the UK in the last year. [...] Willmotts had a steady supply of drivers from eastern Europe over the last two decades. But last year, that all changed. When the pandemic struck and European trade slowed down, drivers were furloughed. Many went back to their home countries, to be with family. "Since the effects of Brexit, they haven't wanted to come back," explained Mr Gray. "They can earn just as much in Germany, France or Poland, so there's no real need to be in the UK." [1]
More concretely brexit makes the job more tedious. Truck drivers don't want to fill out endless paperwork and sit in a queue at customs, but that's exactly what brexit has generously provided.
--
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-57656327
The whole goal of Brexit was to allow British people to be able to compete as truckers, and hence truckers now need to get paid as British nationals expect to be paid.
Would we be having this crisis if it wasn't for the decisions to close nuclear reactors and the US sabotaging the Nord Stream gas pipeline? [0]
[0]: https://freewestmedia.com/2020/07/06/us-intensifies-pressure...
[0]: https://freewestmedia.com/2020/07/06/us-intensifies-pressure...
Personally I think closing the nuclear reactors is a terrible idea, considering nuclear is the only clean base load generation we have. But stopping a Russian gas pipeline seems eminently desirable considering that fossil fuels and Russian hegemony are both really bad things. Perhaps the US ought not to have interfered, but it seems like a desirable outcome nonetheless. Hopefully the energy crisis will result in the recommissioning of those nuclear reactors (if that’s even possible) or some better alternative.
The energy crisis is because of prices, not necessarily because of ressource limits. The ressources are only a tiny amount, the rest is investments.
Gas would be a huge ecological improvement to coal. Nuclear power is too expensive and much of the costs are externalized. It will only be able to compete if you weight co2 beyond any other influence.
I think this is mainly US propaganda to be honest. The pipeline isn't needed for a long time to meet demands.
Gas would be a huge ecological improvement to coal. Nuclear power is too expensive and much of the costs are externalized. It will only be able to compete if you weight co2 beyond any other influence.
I think this is mainly US propaganda to be honest. The pipeline isn't needed for a long time to meet demands.
> Gas would be a huge ecological improvement to coal.
Normally I don’t want the perfect to be the enemy of the good, but we need to ramp down emissions quickly and natural gas doesn’t get us near enough to the goal line. This seems like we need to be going for bust on clean energy, but it will be expensive.
> I think this is mainly US propaganda to be honest.
How do you figure? My post didn’t have anything positive to say about the US (because for some reason it reduces one’s credibility to acknowledge anything positive that happens in the US), but only that the result seems to be desirable.
Normally I don’t want the perfect to be the enemy of the good, but we need to ramp down emissions quickly and natural gas doesn’t get us near enough to the goal line. This seems like we need to be going for bust on clean energy, but it will be expensive.
> I think this is mainly US propaganda to be honest.
How do you figure? My post didn’t have anything positive to say about the US (because for some reason it reduces one’s credibility to acknowledge anything positive that happens in the US), but only that the result seems to be desirable.
Given the fact that the market with gas is global, that the EU has almost no local sources of gas under its control and that gas availability / price is fluctuating rather heavily, I would try avoiding reliance on gas too. As of today, it isn't any more reliable than wind.
I meant the article and its framing, not your post.
We cannot ramp down co2 emission to zero. The co2 balance of building nuclear power plants will only amortize when we already hit 1,5°C warming and it is questionable if it helps at all considering the unknowns about operating periods and other influences.
Overall if we just look at Germany it wouldn't even matter, the nation is too small, it wouldn't even make a dent. It is still necessary to reduce emissions, but if you zero them all, it would be less than 2% of overall world wide emissions, even if it is on place 6. Not for long though and it will be completely dwarfed by the US, China and India.
We cannot ramp down co2 emission to zero. The co2 balance of building nuclear power plants will only amortize when we already hit 1,5°C warming and it is questionable if it helps at all considering the unknowns about operating periods and other influences.
Overall if we just look at Germany it wouldn't even matter, the nation is too small, it wouldn't even make a dent. It is still necessary to reduce emissions, but if you zero them all, it would be less than 2% of overall world wide emissions, even if it is on place 6. Not for long though and it will be completely dwarfed by the US, China and India.
> Overall if we just look at Germany it wouldn't even matter, the nation is too small
Every nation is saying this, including US pointing to China. China is then saying they use less per capita and started producing CO2 decades after western nations.
Congratulations, we're not doing anything collectively. I'm sure that'll excuse us to the inhabitants of earth in 50-100 years.
Every nation is saying this, including US pointing to China. China is then saying they use less per capita and started producing CO2 decades after western nations.
Congratulations, we're not doing anything collectively. I'm sure that'll excuse us to the inhabitants of earth in 50-100 years.
It doesn't matter what China says, what rationalizations are used. What matters is the total emissions output and the direction.
China's emissions are skyrocketing, while already being drastically greater than the US or EU. While the US and EU emissions have been declining gradually.
If you have 1.4 billion people, you don't get to have the same (high) per capita emissions output as a nation 1/4 your population size. The world didn't force China to have 1.4b people, it's their responsibility. The fair target isn't parity per capita with the US, it's China being allowed to have no more than 1/4 the per capita emissions of the US. And that's still a terrible number, the US is the drop dead line for where we don't want other large countries going beyond. The problem is China is already double that and heading a lot higher yet.
We don't have to urgently care if Estonia were to have the highest per capita output of emissions, they can't destroy the planet with their emissions no matter what they do. China can due to their population. It would be a different context if China's emissions were declining.
With regards to China's CO2 emissions for example, how much more dire can it get?
https://i.imgur.com/B6W1S3q.jpg
China's emissions are skyrocketing, while already being drastically greater than the US or EU. While the US and EU emissions have been declining gradually.
If you have 1.4 billion people, you don't get to have the same (high) per capita emissions output as a nation 1/4 your population size. The world didn't force China to have 1.4b people, it's their responsibility. The fair target isn't parity per capita with the US, it's China being allowed to have no more than 1/4 the per capita emissions of the US. And that's still a terrible number, the US is the drop dead line for where we don't want other large countries going beyond. The problem is China is already double that and heading a lot higher yet.
We don't have to urgently care if Estonia were to have the highest per capita output of emissions, they can't destroy the planet with their emissions no matter what they do. China can due to their population. It would be a different context if China's emissions were declining.
With regards to China's CO2 emissions for example, how much more dire can it get?
https://i.imgur.com/B6W1S3q.jpg
US is the richest nation on earth and is more responsible for the current problem than any other nation on earth.
They have the means to reduce their emissions drastically but choose not to.
The US should absolutely do more to reduce its emissions, but the actions or inaction of one country doesn't impugn or absolve others. Otherwise any country can and will point to some other country and use some contrived rationale like yours to justify inaction. At the end of the day, we need all countries to meet their emissions targets, otherwise we'll just be pointing fingers at each other while society crumbles around us.
US is one of the main countries trying to justify inaction. They've still cumulatively contributed nearly double the amount of Co2 to the atmosphere as China.
This is silly. The US isn't trying to justify inaction, and cumulative contributions isn't useful for anything. Of course the United States' total emissions are higher--it industrialized nearly a century before China, long before climate science existed or before technology existed anywhere to reduce emissions.
The relevant metric is the rate of change of emission--are we putting more or less carbon into the atmosphere year over year, and by how much? China is continuing to increase its emissions year over year, while the US emissions are falling (though not quickly enough).
Another interesting metric is the consumptive emissions--how much emissions are generated from trade (e.g., when an American buys something produced in China, the carbon involved in manufacturing that item is emitted in China, but the American benefits from the pollution as well). I actually expected the US to have much higher consumptive emissions relative to China, but it looks like the consumptive emissions pretty closely track the productive emissions while being just a bit higher at 5.77 billion t/yr (falling gradually since 2005), while China's are at 9.86 billion t/yr and climbing.
On the note of consumptive emissions, the United States should not only implement its own carbon pricing scheme, but it (along with other rich countries) should also implement a border adjustment so countries like China don't enjoy unfair competitive advantages because they pollute. This would incentivize China to reduce its Co2 or suffer heavy economic losses. It would also increase manufacturing in countries that are more responsible.
That said, to your point, the Democratic Party pays lip service to environmental concerns (the current $3.5 T budget bill is making expensive token gestures to the environment which will cost polluters virtually nothing) and the Republican Party isn't even doing that. So yes, America has a lot of room for improvement (but at least America isn't arguing that we should be allowed to increase our emissions, contrary to Chinese arguments).
The relevant metric is the rate of change of emission--are we putting more or less carbon into the atmosphere year over year, and by how much? China is continuing to increase its emissions year over year, while the US emissions are falling (though not quickly enough).
Another interesting metric is the consumptive emissions--how much emissions are generated from trade (e.g., when an American buys something produced in China, the carbon involved in manufacturing that item is emitted in China, but the American benefits from the pollution as well). I actually expected the US to have much higher consumptive emissions relative to China, but it looks like the consumptive emissions pretty closely track the productive emissions while being just a bit higher at 5.77 billion t/yr (falling gradually since 2005), while China's are at 9.86 billion t/yr and climbing.
On the note of consumptive emissions, the United States should not only implement its own carbon pricing scheme, but it (along with other rich countries) should also implement a border adjustment so countries like China don't enjoy unfair competitive advantages because they pollute. This would incentivize China to reduce its Co2 or suffer heavy economic losses. It would also increase manufacturing in countries that are more responsible.
That said, to your point, the Democratic Party pays lip service to environmental concerns (the current $3.5 T budget bill is making expensive token gestures to the environment which will cost polluters virtually nothing) and the Republican Party isn't even doing that. So yes, America has a lot of room for improvement (but at least America isn't arguing that we should be allowed to increase our emissions, contrary to Chinese arguments).
>The US isn't trying to justify inaction
You guys just signed the Paris Agreement this year.
>cumulative contributions isn't useful for anything
It's the reason we're in the predicament we're in.
>long before climate science existed or before technology existed anywhere to reduce emissions.
You've known about it since the 80s. You haven't reduced emissions since then. Technology has existed for a long time to reduce emissions.
You guys just signed the Paris Agreement this year.
>cumulative contributions isn't useful for anything
It's the reason we're in the predicament we're in.
>long before climate science existed or before technology existed anywhere to reduce emissions.
You've known about it since the 80s. You haven't reduced emissions since then. Technology has existed for a long time to reduce emissions.
[deleted]
> The co2 balance of building nuclear power plants will only amortize when we already hit 1,5°C warming and it is questionable if it helps at all considering the unknowns about operating periods and other influences.
This is why it’s sad to decommission existing plants, but I don’t think there’s any legitimate question as to whether nuclear is harmful. It’s a pretty well-understood quantity, but I’m not sure which “factors” you’re describing.
> Overall if we just look at Germany it wouldn't even matter, the nation is too small, it wouldn't even make a dent. It is still necessary to reduce emissions, but if you zero them all, it would be less than 2% of overall world wide emissions, even if it is on place 6. Not for long though and it will be completely dwarfed by the US, China and India.
No Germany alone won’t make a dent directly, but it can model leadership. It’s a lot easier for other countries to get on board when someone has paved the way.
This is why it’s sad to decommission existing plants, but I don’t think there’s any legitimate question as to whether nuclear is harmful. It’s a pretty well-understood quantity, but I’m not sure which “factors” you’re describing.
> Overall if we just look at Germany it wouldn't even matter, the nation is too small, it wouldn't even make a dent. It is still necessary to reduce emissions, but if you zero them all, it would be less than 2% of overall world wide emissions, even if it is on place 6. Not for long though and it will be completely dwarfed by the US, China and India.
No Germany alone won’t make a dent directly, but it can model leadership. It’s a lot easier for other countries to get on board when someone has paved the way.
I agree, I think from a technical perspective most of these plants are fine and they could be used for an additional time. Since the last will shut down next year, I would assume the plans are locked in by now.
Nuclear has some advantages for base loads in some scenarios, but it cannot really compete with renewables down the road.
Nuclear has some advantages for base loads in some scenarios, but it cannot really compete with renewables down the road.
> Since the last will shut down next year, I would assume the plans are locked in by now.
Sadly, I assume you're correct.
> Nuclear has some advantages for base loads in some scenarios, but it cannot really compete with renewables down the road.
To be clear, I would love it if we could power everything off of solar and wind, but we still don't have any scalable technology for storing weeks worth of energy which means that solar and wind cannot be used for base load generation. Hydro simply doesn't have the capacity. Nuclear is the only clean energy option for base load for the foreseeable future. Hoping for a storage tech breakthrough in the coming decades isn't a plan; we should really be investing in nuclear and storage in case one of those two don't pan out.
Even today, there are some interesting Small Modular Reactor (SMRs) which allow nuclear plants to be built more quickly, safely, compactly, and efficiently than traditional nuclear plants. We should build some of these and iterate on them while simultaneously investing in solving the storage problem.
Sadly, I assume you're correct.
> Nuclear has some advantages for base loads in some scenarios, but it cannot really compete with renewables down the road.
To be clear, I would love it if we could power everything off of solar and wind, but we still don't have any scalable technology for storing weeks worth of energy which means that solar and wind cannot be used for base load generation. Hydro simply doesn't have the capacity. Nuclear is the only clean energy option for base load for the foreseeable future. Hoping for a storage tech breakthrough in the coming decades isn't a plan; we should really be investing in nuclear and storage in case one of those two don't pan out.
Even today, there are some interesting Small Modular Reactor (SMRs) which allow nuclear plants to be built more quickly, safely, compactly, and efficiently than traditional nuclear plants. We should build some of these and iterate on them while simultaneously investing in solving the storage problem.
> but we still don't have any scalable technology for storing weeks worth of energy
Why would we need to store weeks worth of energy? Wouldn't a more realistic amount be just a couple of days, or even less?
Why would we need to store weeks worth of energy? Wouldn't a more realistic amount be just a couple of days, or even less?
You have to account for increasingly frequent continent-scale weather patterns which can last for weeks in extreme cases. "Weeks" is a figure I heard a few times in the media, but even "days" is a herculean task considering we're presently at "minutes" or worse. Note also that part of solving for emissions means "electrifying more applications" which means it's not sufficient to store days or weeks of today's energy demands, but rather days or weeks of future energy demands which will be much higher (e.g., today our entire transport industry isn't electrified--in the future our grid will need to supply the energy to move cars and trucks and trains which means the overall demand is much larger and consequently we'll have greater storage demands).
Hydrogen can be made and stored underground using existing technology. This is not currently competitive, but it doesn't involve inventing anything new. Storing hydrogen in underground solution mind salt caverns is very cheap per unit of energy storage capacity, some two orders of magnitude cheaper than batteries.
It seems like a contradiction to say “it’s not currently competitive” (with what? batteries?) but it’s also “two orders of magnitude cheaper than batteries”. Why aren’t we doing this?
It's not currently competitive with fossil fuels unburdened by CO2 charges. There is no reason to make and store hydrogen when natural gas is much cheaper. This doesn't mean that when fossil fuels are banned, it won't be competitive with the remaining alternatives.
Nuclear, externalized? that's the exact opposite, as the waste is left in the hands of the users, as opposed to dumped in the atmosphere.
Which elements of nuclear are externalized?
The environmental and economical cost of excavation.
Also the environmental and economical cost and waste management.
Also the environmental and economical cost and waste management.
The environmental cost of excavation is externalized, but it's negligible compared to that of fossil fuels ("economical cost" is nonsense), but the environmental cost of managing waste very much isn't externalized. At least not in the West (less sure about China, but I'm guessing they do roughly what we do).
Sources needed.
Not sure what you’re looking for specifically, but by far the biggest environmental threat is posed by emissions. Nuclear has the lowest emissions per unit energy of any energy source including the emissions that factor into mining the uranium and building the nuclear facilities, managing the waste, etc.
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
>Nuclear power is too expensive
Nuclear plant construction is too expensive, sure. Running existing nuclear plants instead of shutting them down before EoL is not too expensive. What we are talking about in Germany is the latter.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-ge...
Nuclear plant construction is too expensive, sure. Running existing nuclear plants instead of shutting them down before EoL is not too expensive. What we are talking about in Germany is the latter.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-ge...
Also, from my sibling comment[0]:
> Even today, there are some interesting Small Modular Reactor (SMRs) which allow nuclear plants to be built more quickly, safely, compactly, and efficiently than traditional nuclear plants. We should build some of these and iterate on them while simultaneously investing in solving the storage problem.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28671870
> Even today, there are some interesting Small Modular Reactor (SMRs) which allow nuclear plants to be built more quickly, safely, compactly, and efficiently than traditional nuclear plants. We should build some of these and iterate on them while simultaneously investing in solving the storage problem.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28671870
> Personally I think closing the nuclear reactors is a terrible idea, considering nuclear is the only clean base load generation we have.
Yes
>Perhaps the US ought not to have interfered, but it seems like a desirable outcome nonetheless.
No, freezing in an European winter isn't an desirable outcome.
Yes, gas bad and Russia evil, but shooting of your arm because your fingers are broken isn't a smart thing to do. Gas is already expensive in Europe and there aren't any viable cheap alternatives, both green and non-green. Curently at least.
Yes
>Perhaps the US ought not to have interfered, but it seems like a desirable outcome nonetheless.
No, freezing in an European winter isn't an desirable outcome.
Yes, gas bad and Russia evil, but shooting of your arm because your fingers are broken isn't a smart thing to do. Gas is already expensive in Europe and there aren't any viable cheap alternatives, both green and non-green. Curently at least.
> No, freezing in an European winter isn't an desirable outcome.
This is surely theatrics. Europeans will pay more for heating than they usually do, and that will be the extent of it.
This is surely theatrics. Europeans will pay more for heating than they usually do, and that will be the extent of it.
> This is surely theatrics.
Yeah, drama helps makes a point which brings us to:
>Europeans will pay more for heating than they usually do,
That is the problem, many feel that heating and fuel are already expensive. Do you think this will make the poorer part of the population vote more for green and sustainable ideas? Or is it just gonna push them more towards politicians that don't support these ideeas?
Yeah, drama helps makes a point which brings us to:
>Europeans will pay more for heating than they usually do,
That is the problem, many feel that heating and fuel are already expensive. Do you think this will make the poorer part of the population vote more for green and sustainable ideas? Or is it just gonna push them more towards politicians that don't support these ideeas?
> That is the problem, many feel that heating and fuel are already expensive. Do you think this will make the poorer part of the population vote more for green and sustainable ideas? Or is it just gonna push them more towards politicians that don't support these ideeas?
Isn’t the obvious answer to redistribute wealth? Anyway, this is the whole deal with curbing climate change—it’s going to be an economic burden by definition. You’re going from externalizing a cost to internalizing it, so someone is going to have to pay a little more than normal. We need to work to make people understand that this transition won’t be easy precisely because we kicked the can so far down the road.
Isn’t the obvious answer to redistribute wealth? Anyway, this is the whole deal with curbing climate change—it’s going to be an economic burden by definition. You’re going from externalizing a cost to internalizing it, so someone is going to have to pay a little more than normal. We need to work to make people understand that this transition won’t be easy precisely because we kicked the can so far down the road.
There is plenty of pipeline capacity.
> Russian hegemony
What does this mean?
What does this mean?
“Russian influence” would probably been a clearer choice of words.
So what is exactly wrong with some Russian influence? As a Dutchie I am continously influenced by Americans, Germans, Frenchmen etc.
Russia controlling much of your energy supply that they can turn off at will gives them power over you.
Very different from choosing to watch American movies or cooking French food.
Very different from choosing to watch American movies or cooking French food.
As much as I am wary about Russian influence (we were under their yoke 1948-1989, with an outright invasion in 1968), Gazprom never fooled around with gas deliveries into Western Europe.
They know that they need to maintain spotless business reputation, precisely because Europe is already on the fence re doing any business with Russia at all and because gas exports are the most reliable source of hard currency for Russia.
Turning gas off is a nuclear option for Kremlin. Not unthinkable, but very extreme.
They know that they need to maintain spotless business reputation, precisely because Europe is already on the fence re doing any business with Russia at all and because gas exports are the most reliable source of hard currency for Russia.
Turning gas off is a nuclear option for Kremlin. Not unthinkable, but very extreme.
It's not just the risk of the strategically turning it off. It's also creating a dependence and giving Putin money. Those are bad by themselves.
I'm not in favor of giving Putin money, but I am in favor of dependencies. Dependencies are what keep people from invading each other's countries when there's trouble. People are unlikely to start bombing their customers.
The trouble with Nord Stream 2 is that it removes the dependencies which keep Russia from invading Eastern European countries like Poland by creating a route to sell gas to the richer parts of Europe that doesn't go through them, whilst also creating a dependency that would make it painful for the rest of Europe to take action if Russia did such a thing. This is probably not good for peace in Europe.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'm obviously a bit late with this, but I wanted to add that I'm not sure how much of a deterrent gas routes through other countries were for Russia to begin with, e.g., it did not seem to help Ukraine much.
I take your point and I sort of agree, but I'm really excited for how the transition to clean energy will reduce the Kremlin's influence. Even without exporting so much energy, I suspect/hope Russia's remaining economy will still be too dependent on exports to risk attacking anyone (especially considering that China et al would probably strongly oppose an attack on its most lucrative clientelle, however much it might otherwise detest them).
I suspect/hope Russia's remaining economy will still be too dependent on exports to risk attacking anyone
Why would Russia attack anyone? What would be the point of such an attack?
Why US is allowed to attack anyone, destroys whole countries and kill millions of people, including hundreds of thousands of civilians and everybody is ok with it (recent examples: Libya, Afghanistan, Syria)?
Why would Russia attack anyone? What would be the point of such an attack?
Why US is allowed to attack anyone, destroys whole countries and kill millions of people, including hundreds of thousands of civilians and everybody is ok with it (recent examples: Libya, Afghanistan, Syria)?
> Why would Russia attack anyone? What would be the point of such an attack?
I was responding to the GP's hypothetical.
> Why US is allowed to attack anyone, destroys whole countries and kill millions of people, including hundreds of thousands of civilians and everybody is ok with it (recent examples: Libya, Afghanistan, Syria)?
If you can rephrase this so it doesn't sound like overt flame bait, I might respond. Otherwise we risk a flame war and I don't have energy for that.
I was responding to the GP's hypothetical.
> Why US is allowed to attack anyone, destroys whole countries and kill millions of people, including hundreds of thousands of civilians and everybody is ok with it (recent examples: Libya, Afghanistan, Syria)?
If you can rephrase this so it doesn't sound like overt flame bait, I might respond. Otherwise we risk a flame war and I don't have energy for that.
Dependencies run in both directions. Russia is very dependent on its fossil fuel exports.
It's also pretty easy to build storage facilities so they have to turn the gas off for a long time before the effects are felt. Storage of LPG for an entire winters use by a country isn't super expensive.
As far as I can tell, Europe has storage facilities but they let Gazprom run a lot of them and for some reason Gazprom has let them run down rather than refilling them like they usually would over the summer...
A theory I heard was that all the gas was bought up by speculators (that seems true, actually) and now they're slowly delivering the gas as needed to avoid speculators eating all the cheap gas up and then blaming Gazprom once no gas is left for the winter.
Technically yes, NIMBYs might be a problem.
I agree that turning off the gas completely would be extreme, but it doesn't have to be "turning off the gas", it can just be meddling with the gas prices, specifically as a lever against potential sanctions (Europe will be less likely to sanction Russia if Russia can retaliate where Europe is weakest).
Oh yes, that is very possible. OPEC 2.0.
> Gazprom never fooled around with gas deliveries into Western Europe.
Well they're doing it right now.
Natural gas flows at the westernmost point of the Yamal pipeline — a strategically important 2,000-kilometer pipeline that runs across four countries: Russia, Belarus, Poland and Germany — dropped to 20 million cubic meters per day in mid-August, [...] a sharp fall from its typical rate of 81 mcm per day.
What’s more, European piped natural gas supply from Russia is expected to slip even further in September. [1]
--
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/24/russia-is-pumping-less-natur...
Well they're doing it right now.
Natural gas flows at the westernmost point of the Yamal pipeline — a strategically important 2,000-kilometer pipeline that runs across four countries: Russia, Belarus, Poland and Germany — dropped to 20 million cubic meters per day in mid-August, [...] a sharp fall from its typical rate of 81 mcm per day.
What’s more, European piped natural gas supply from Russia is expected to slip even further in September. [1]
--
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/24/russia-is-pumping-less-natur...
> Turning gas off is a nuclear option for Kremlin
The Kremlin is as dependent on that $$$ as Germany is on gas, perhaps even more so. They won't dream of screwing their largest client, and one of the most important trading partners. If Germany was desperate for energy it wouldn't be engaging in super expensive "green" energy boondoggles and it'd be building up baseline nuclear capacity. They _easily_ have the engineering to do it, and the operational capability to run it safely. The fact that they are not doing this is quite telling - they too do not believe the Kremlin would be prepared to blow off its feet with a Gatling gun like that. If anything a trade partnership like that only makes Europe more stable, and any political or military shenanigans would be less likely to occur. Crucially it'd also strengthen the ties between the two countries, which is something the US does not want to see, because then the US sanctions would be only good for wiping one's ass with. Can't have that.
Full disclosure: Russian-American, but not a fan of Putin.
The Kremlin is as dependent on that $$$ as Germany is on gas, perhaps even more so. They won't dream of screwing their largest client, and one of the most important trading partners. If Germany was desperate for energy it wouldn't be engaging in super expensive "green" energy boondoggles and it'd be building up baseline nuclear capacity. They _easily_ have the engineering to do it, and the operational capability to run it safely. The fact that they are not doing this is quite telling - they too do not believe the Kremlin would be prepared to blow off its feet with a Gatling gun like that. If anything a trade partnership like that only makes Europe more stable, and any political or military shenanigans would be less likely to occur. Crucially it'd also strengthen the ties between the two countries, which is something the US does not want to see, because then the US sanctions would be only good for wiping one's ass with. Can't have that.
Full disclosure: Russian-American, but not a fan of Putin.
Mostly agreed, but regarding _easily_ having the engineering to do anything nuclear I doubt it. That was in the past. Nothing much new (nuclear) got built recently. And not by Siemens anyways, they maybe do some substation and turbine stuff, but that's it. The other thing is... all the stuff getting built in Sibiria, pointing east, and south east. Into China, partially existing already. Proposals to expand that into India. And to bridge the gaps to the other already existing stuff pointing west, into Europe. Given a few years and much investment into infrastructure one could imagine them simply switching the lever to whereever it makes more sense for them.
Well, maybe "easily" was an exaggeration, but Germany is home to some of the bleeding edge particle physics installations, and some of the world's leading scientific institutions, so at least the science side should be pretty solid. For engineering I'm sure Siemens would make things happen if a large enough pallet of cash is offered to it. With some pressure, it could even produce newer designs that are cheaper if built in quantity, than the purportedly "green" alternatives that do not provide baseline load capacity. The only real issue that's getting in the way is public opinion - the soil has been salted quite thoroughly on that, as far as I understand. But that'll change once a few people freeze to death.
Having known parts of Siemens by having to deal with them in the past, I doubt it. We have a saying here: "Siemens ist 'ne Bank mit angeschlossener Elektroabateilung" which translates into something like "Siemens is a bank with electric department". That covers some of it, but they are more like an arrogant and snobbish government institution and have the same inertia.
Because of that I'd rather count on small modular reactors from whomever, or even fusion by some startup, not via ITER, or Wendelstein-X.
Because of that I'd rather count on small modular reactors from whomever, or even fusion by some startup, not via ITER, or Wendelstein-X.
The same issues apply to American control over European power supplies or Norwegian control over European power supplies.
They aren't anymore dangerous for Europe. The main difference is our existing trade deals with the US are more embedded into the European economy than any of the other countries. We like the US now, they are our friends, but because they are more connected, we are more reliant on them than others, which is dangerous in and of itself.
They aren't anymore dangerous for Europe. The main difference is our existing trade deals with the US are more embedded into the European economy than any of the other countries. We like the US now, they are our friends, but because they are more connected, we are more reliant on them than others, which is dangerous in and of itself.
We Canadians felt this deeply when US kept all their domestically-produced vaccine doses for themselves in early 2021. We had grown accustomed to the flow of goods and services between US and Canada being uninterrupted. So for many of us, it was a shock and a disappointment when the US decided to turn off the tap.
It was the Canadian government which rejected allowing Michigan to deliver vaccines to Canadians:
https://www.wjtv.com/health/coronavirus/canadian-government-...
https://www.wjtv.com/health/coronavirus/canadian-government-...
I am talking about the US allowing vaccine shots to be exported to Canada, which should have been a million doses per week. Your link is about Canadians lining up at the border to be vaccinated in the US, which at best would have been in the order of a few hundred doses per week. Even if that plan went ahead, the number of American doses getting into Canadian arms would have been, approximately, a million doses a week short of expectation. If the expectation is 1 million doses and you get a thousand doses, you would be the same amount of disappointed as getting 0 doses.
Also, the decision to bar people from getting vaccinated on the other side of the border was not solely a Canadian decision. US disallowed Canadians going there to get vaccinated too. There was a very short period of time between the time Canadians started going to the US for vaccines and the time US banned this practice.
Also, your link is from July. That was right around the time vaccines became abundant in Canada and vaccination was opened to all regardless of age and health status. The disappointment was in early 2021, when Canada was still vaccinating 80+ people and US decided to vaccinate all 16+ people before allowing vaccine exports here so we can at least vaccinate people in elderly care homes.
> Canadians hoping to cross the border for the sole purpose of getting a COVID-19 vaccine will be turned away, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/confusion-abounds-...
Also, the decision to bar people from getting vaccinated on the other side of the border was not solely a Canadian decision. US disallowed Canadians going there to get vaccinated too. There was a very short period of time between the time Canadians started going to the US for vaccines and the time US banned this practice.
Also, your link is from July. That was right around the time vaccines became abundant in Canada and vaccination was opened to all regardless of age and health status. The disappointment was in early 2021, when Canada was still vaccinating 80+ people and US decided to vaccinate all 16+ people before allowing vaccine exports here so we can at least vaccinate people in elderly care homes.
> Canadians hoping to cross the border for the sole purpose of getting a COVID-19 vaccine will be turned away, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/confusion-abounds-...
>We Canadians felt this deeply when US kept all their domestically-produced vaccine doses for themselves in early 2021.
There is and has never been a US vaccine export ban, and the US has not seized vaccines meant for other countries. If I purchase an item before others, purchase by far the most quantities of that item, pay by far the most overall, and pay a considerable amount of money toward funding its development, I should expect that item before others. Any Kickstarter backer knows this; it's what the US and UK did, and what Canada and the EU did not.
The Trump administration last year signed gigantic contracts for every planned vaccine, because no one knew which ones would work. Like, enough for every American from one manufacturer, let alone the current four major available ones. More importantly, the contracts guaranteed the US the earliest deliveries.
By early June 2020 (<https://web.archive.org/web/20200603171013/https://www.nytim...>) the Trump administration had already identified and was planning to sign the aforementioned huge contracts with Moderna, AstraZeneca, J&J, Merck, and Pfizer. (An 80% success rate is fantastic in drug discovery.) By that time the US had already paid $2.2 billion to three of the companies. (Also note the skepticism throughout the article that any vaccines could be delivered anywhere within the timeframe the administration was promising.)
The UK signed a similar contract for the AstraZeneca vaccine. The EU and Canada did not assure themselves of such quantities. Canada also bet on CanSino because it was afraid that the US would ban vaccine exports (which, again, never happened). Of course, the Chinese did not live up to the contract.
Before you say "But what about—", the Trump executive order from December 2020 merely sets up the legal framework to prohibit exports if desired. But that does not mean that the framework is invoked. Let me repeat: The US signed contracts that were a) huge in size/scope and b) from every pharmaceutical company working on a vaccine, which c) got the country the largest and among the first deliveries. The UK did the same thing with the AstraZeneca vaccine, and spent a lot of money to retool domestic plants to produce it in addition to the non-UK doses it bought.
By contrast, look at Canada as counterexample. Consider Maclean's desperate attempt to spin its procurement difficulties (<https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/where-did-canadas-vaccin...>). If you look past the predictable false eliding of the US's firstest-with-the-mostest contracts as an "export ban", the best the magazine can do is admit that
* all Canadian contracts with vaccine providers that actually delivered were signed between late July and late September
* all contracts were signed after the collapse of the CanSino deal, which Canada had loudly bragged about as proof of its savviness at obtaining vaccines ASAP and circumvent any perfidious US vaccine export ban (which, again, never happened), and which it has done its best since the collapse to pretend that said contract never existed
* the other contracts that the magazine cites as proof that CanSino wasn't the only basket Ottawa was putting all its eggs in are with VBI (Who?) and USask. They may or may not yet deliver effective vaccines, but it's all now a bit beside the point, eh?
(I don't disagree that to country B waiting on doses, the outcome is the same whether or not the cause is country A implementing an export ban or country A having bought up all the doses by having signed the contract first. But there is a difference.)
If the situation were different, might the US have implemented a ban on exporting doses already designated for another country, similar to what the EU did implement toward Australia? Perhaps. But, fortunately, the US never faced this issue, because of the huge amounts of money it invested a year ago and the contracts it signed with said money.
There is and has never been a US vaccine export ban, and the US has not seized vaccines meant for other countries. If I purchase an item before others, purchase by far the most quantities of that item, pay by far the most overall, and pay a considerable amount of money toward funding its development, I should expect that item before others. Any Kickstarter backer knows this; it's what the US and UK did, and what Canada and the EU did not.
The Trump administration last year signed gigantic contracts for every planned vaccine, because no one knew which ones would work. Like, enough for every American from one manufacturer, let alone the current four major available ones. More importantly, the contracts guaranteed the US the earliest deliveries.
By early June 2020 (<https://web.archive.org/web/20200603171013/https://www.nytim...>) the Trump administration had already identified and was planning to sign the aforementioned huge contracts with Moderna, AstraZeneca, J&J, Merck, and Pfizer. (An 80% success rate is fantastic in drug discovery.) By that time the US had already paid $2.2 billion to three of the companies. (Also note the skepticism throughout the article that any vaccines could be delivered anywhere within the timeframe the administration was promising.)
The UK signed a similar contract for the AstraZeneca vaccine. The EU and Canada did not assure themselves of such quantities. Canada also bet on CanSino because it was afraid that the US would ban vaccine exports (which, again, never happened). Of course, the Chinese did not live up to the contract.
Before you say "But what about—", the Trump executive order from December 2020 merely sets up the legal framework to prohibit exports if desired. But that does not mean that the framework is invoked. Let me repeat: The US signed contracts that were a) huge in size/scope and b) from every pharmaceutical company working on a vaccine, which c) got the country the largest and among the first deliveries. The UK did the same thing with the AstraZeneca vaccine, and spent a lot of money to retool domestic plants to produce it in addition to the non-UK doses it bought.
By contrast, look at Canada as counterexample. Consider Maclean's desperate attempt to spin its procurement difficulties (<https://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/where-did-canadas-vaccin...>). If you look past the predictable false eliding of the US's firstest-with-the-mostest contracts as an "export ban", the best the magazine can do is admit that
* all Canadian contracts with vaccine providers that actually delivered were signed between late July and late September
* all contracts were signed after the collapse of the CanSino deal, which Canada had loudly bragged about as proof of its savviness at obtaining vaccines ASAP and circumvent any perfidious US vaccine export ban (which, again, never happened), and which it has done its best since the collapse to pretend that said contract never existed
* the other contracts that the magazine cites as proof that CanSino wasn't the only basket Ottawa was putting all its eggs in are with VBI (Who?) and USask. They may or may not yet deliver effective vaccines, but it's all now a bit beside the point, eh?
(I don't disagree that to country B waiting on doses, the outcome is the same whether or not the cause is country A implementing an export ban or country A having bought up all the doses by having signed the contract first. But there is a difference.)
If the situation were different, might the US have implemented a ban on exporting doses already designated for another country, similar to what the EU did implement toward Australia? Perhaps. But, fortunately, the US never faced this issue, because of the huge amounts of money it invested a year ago and the contracts it signed with said money.
Honestly, I don't know why this would be so surprising. You're comparing the flow of goods in a stable supply chain with the unprecedented demand for a novel vaccine for which no existing supply chain existed. Of course there wouldn't be a ready flow of vaccine immediately, and of course every country prioritizes its own citizens first and foremost.
Now that demand has eased considerably, the US is now donating more doses of vaccine than all of the other countries on the planet combined.
Now that demand has eased considerably, the US is now donating more doses of vaccine than all of the other countries on the planet combined.
You're being downvoted because you're not allowed to point out on HN that the US is donating more vaccine doses than the rest of the world combined.
Just like the US donates as much food to the rest of the world as all other nations combined and has been doing it for a century now.
US bad.
Just like the US donates as much food to the rest of the world as all other nations combined and has been doing it for a century now.
US bad.
It certainly feels like there's a lot of unjustified pressure on this forum to portray the US as categorically worse than every other country. I have other controversial opinions which are at least met by understandable rebuttals, but this "America doesn't do everything horribly" seems to violate some sacred taboo (and I suspect particularly so with the European and progressive American cohorts).
In whichever case, a few Internet Points is a small price to pay. :)
In whichever case, a few Internet Points is a small price to pay. :)
The reason is that whether the vaccine is donated or not isn't relevant with regards to exports numbers.
Same trick as people proudly touting that US is the #1 philantropy country, ignoring that other countries actually run efficient mutualized welfare services.
Same trick as people proudly touting that US is the #1 philantropy country, ignoring that other countries actually run efficient mutualized welfare services.
Can you elaborate on why this isn’t relevant? What are other countries doing to offset their lack of donations? And can we put numbers around the amounts various countries are exporting and donating, respectively?
The problem was, when vaccines were in short supply, the US decided to prioritize all Americans, including healthy 16 year olds, over other countries' most vulnerable and elderly population. In early 2021, if N vaccine doses going to another country who would have saved 1000 lives because they were still vaccinating the most vulnerable, the same N doses used in the US would have saved 1, because the most vulnerable were already vaccinated and the vaccines were being used for younger not-at-risk population. Why should any country not criticize the US for prioritizing one American life over 1,000 non-American lives?
This compares to the EU which allowed vaccine exports. Thousands of Canadians are alive today that wouldn't have been if the EU acted like the US.
This compares to the EU which allowed vaccine exports. Thousands of Canadians are alive today that wouldn't have been if the EU acted like the US.
Admittedly the United States' rollout wasn't optimally efficient, and they prioritized American lives early on (before we knew exactly how mass vaccination would play out, mind you--much of your criticism benefits from hindsight). But it's unfair to criticize the US for prioritizing American lives over foreign lives when it's doing far more than all other countries combined to minimize the loss of foreign lives. I could spin that into a divisive shot at Canada or the EU as you've done with America (and I think I could make a much more compelling case), but I don't see the point in being divisive when we have nothing to gain and everything to lose from it.
Yes, the early days of COVID vaccination were predictably rocky. What's the excuse today for not working together to vaccinate the world?
Yes, the early days of COVID vaccination were predictably rocky. What's the excuse today for not working together to vaccinate the world?
The irony here is that the US is the one pressuring the EU to sanction the Nord 2 pipeline. They have little to lose from its suspension. Russia is unlikely to willingly cut off gas to Western Europe because they're hurting themselves just as much.
The US does have something to lose. The US is now a large natural gas exporter, and that demand pulls away from our domestic market, which forces our prices higher. When European natural gas prices are 4x-5x that of the US, the foreign demand for cheaper US imports can become a frenzy. While US prices may seem cheap by comparison to what Europe is seeing, when you triple those prices versus a year ago, US consumers feel that hit significantly (with many population centers in the US having quite cold Winter weather, expectations right now are for a quite expensive Winter season in the US for natural gas prices). And the US has also become a lot more dependent on natural gas as an energy source over the last 15-20 years, so it's increasingly sensitive to such large price spikes; far more so than back in the commodity bubble years of 2005-2008 which saw US natural gas prices climb to about 3x where they're at now (before the supply boom in the US crushed prices).
If natural gas prices in the US keep soaring, you can expect the Biden Administration to look into turning off exports via whatever justification they can come up with to make it happen.
If natural gas prices in the US keep soaring, you can expect the Biden Administration to look into turning off exports via whatever justification they can come up with to make it happen.
Moreover, we’re not talking about the Russian people, we’re talking about Russia, the dictatorship. The US isn’t assassinating dissidents in EU countries, after all. It’s also not installing dictators in your neighboring countries.
Hrm. Hm. Hm...
Julian Assange? Edward Snowden? If they could 'the US' would very much like to disappear them, by whatever means.
Furthermore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio seem just like the tip of an iceberg.
Julian Assange? Edward Snowden? If they could 'the US' would very much like to disappear them, by whatever means.
Furthermore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio seem just like the tip of an iceberg.
Of course those two are still alive and there's no evidence at all that the US would like to assassinate or "disappear" them. On the contrary, it's relatively easy to assassinate or even kidnap someone--Russia had agents spread nerve agent on a target's door handle and shoot another target in the street. Certainly these things are well within the US's capability.
I think you're confusing "extradition and trial by jury" with "assassination" or "disappearing".
I think you're confusing "extradition and trial by jury" with "assassination" or "disappearing".
I think you are confusing plausible deniability with the propaganda you're fed. Besides that I can't confirm nor deny having access to sources behind transtemporal channels, or having signed NDAs with blood. Yada Yada.
kthxbye
kthxbye
I do clearly remember however them allying with dictator in neighbouring country, even after massive invasions and extensions far beyond their border...
but they not have problems dropping bombs to children's in other countries.
Russia doesn't have either.
Russia doesn't have either.
Do you have proofs? Anything comparable to killing 4 millions in Vietnam, 600,000 in Iraq (probably more), etc, etc.
Do you have proofs? Anything comparable to killing 4 millions in Vietnam, 600,000 in Iraq (probably more), etc, etc.
You appear to have an agenda, because you took the Vietnam number from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties#Total_n... and
a) picked the "high estimates" - really bad choice for the sake of an Internet discussion
b) you rounded it up!
c) you presented that number as civilians killed while it is total deaths on both sides
d) you tried to present that number in the context of children killed
e) you assume these were all killed by US, which they weren't
Considering grossness of the misrepresentation in your comment, I don't think it makes sense to argue with you. However, there's plenty of proofs for Russia not minding killing children in its war efforts as recent as 2014, including MH17 which had 80 children on board.
a) picked the "high estimates" - really bad choice for the sake of an Internet discussion
b) you rounded it up!
c) you presented that number as civilians killed while it is total deaths on both sides
d) you tried to present that number in the context of children killed
e) you assume these were all killed by US, which they weren't
Considering grossness of the misrepresentation in your comment, I don't think it makes sense to argue with you. However, there's plenty of proofs for Russia not minding killing children in its war efforts as recent as 2014, including MH17 which had 80 children on board.
Can't append, reply to deadflagged comment below, so here I go:
[x] https://fair.org/extra/we-think-the-price-is-worth-it/
I'd also like to add
[1] https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/weapons-mass-migrat... &
[2] https://www.covertbookreport.com/weapons-of-mass-migration/
(Would you like to have fries with that?)
[x] https://fair.org/extra/we-think-the-price-is-worth-it/
I'd also like to add
[1] https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/weapons-mass-migrat... &
[2] https://www.covertbookreport.com/weapons-of-mass-migration/
(Would you like to have fries with that?)
Russia backs Assad in Syria, who routinely deliberately bombed his own civilians. That seems strictly worse.
I think we can all agree deliberately bombing other countries civilians is much worse than your own. And USA is clearly doing it.
I don't agree with that at all. Governments should protect their own citizens first and foremost, but deliberately killing civilians anywhere is abhorrent, and the US does not deliberately target civilians. When civilians are killed by the US, it's an accident. Assad kills civilians to send a message.
That said, the US should absolutely work to reduce its collateral damage, but let's not pretend that accidentally killing a civilian and bombing a city (because they are disproportionately critical of your dictatorship) are morally equivalent.
That said, the US should absolutely work to reduce its collateral damage, but let's not pretend that accidentally killing a civilian and bombing a city (because they are disproportionately critical of your dictatorship) are morally equivalent.
I would trust USA lot more if everyone from bottom to top involved in any "accident" was summarily executed. Or at least judged by peers of their victims. Like for latest case I say ship everyone in chain of command and involved in manufacturing to Afghanistan and have the local government there deliver the justice they deserve.
I would also expand this to known supporters and voters, but that can be next step.
I would also expand this to known supporters and voters, but that can be next step.
You must be joking. The US assassinates people almost on a daily basis, has installed dictators in numerous countries and Russia is not a dictatorship, how much you disagree with Putin.
Futhermore, the US has been involved or started numerous conflicts in the EU backyard, which we are forced to cooperate in, and have no choice to take care of the refugees.
Futhermore, the US has been involved or started numerous conflicts in the EU backyard, which we are forced to cooperate in, and have no choice to take care of the refugees.
The US assassinates terrorists (and not remotely on “a daily basis” although the US assassination attempts have too much collateral damage). Russia assassinates dissidents (critics of Putin and his regime) on EU soil.
Russia is absolutely a dictatorship. They just rigged their most recent election (jailed the leading rival politician and banned apps that informed people on how to use their vote strategically to minimize Putin’s party’s power).
Russia is absolutely a dictatorship. They just rigged their most recent election (jailed the leading rival politician and banned apps that informed people on how to use their vote strategically to minimize Putin’s party’s power).
America labels its critics as "terrorist" and critics of Russia as "dissidents". Russia of course does the exact opposite.
As for "rigged elections" all the US elections in the last 50 years were rigged as well - think about gerrymandering and deliberately blocking black and Latino minorities from voting (by making it hard for them to obtain proof of identity, or making them wait hours in line at the polling stations).
As for "rigged elections" all the US elections in the last 50 years were rigged as well - think about gerrymandering and deliberately blocking black and Latino minorities from voting (by making it hard for them to obtain proof of identity, or making them wait hours in line at the polling stations).
> America labels its critics as "terrorist" and critics of Russia as "dissidents". Russia of course does the exact opposite.
"Dissident" is just a critic of a policy or regime. It doesn't improve Russia's hand at all to say that it only assassinates critics, and it certainly isn't an exclusively US-held position that Alexander Litvinenko, Boris Nemtsov, Alexei Navalny, etc were critics (as opposed to bonafide violent terrorists).
As for "America labels its critics as 'terrorists'": can you name any critics that the US labeled "terrorists" and consequently assassinated, especially on EU soil?
"Dissident" is just a critic of a policy or regime. It doesn't improve Russia's hand at all to say that it only assassinates critics, and it certainly isn't an exclusively US-held position that Alexander Litvinenko, Boris Nemtsov, Alexei Navalny, etc were critics (as opposed to bonafide violent terrorists).
As for "America labels its critics as 'terrorists'": can you name any critics that the US labeled "terrorists" and consequently assassinated, especially on EU soil?
Alexander Litvinenko, Boris Nemtsov, Alexei Navalny
There's no evidence that Putin is related to death of these persons. BTW, Navalny is alive and well and all the evidence shows that he was probably "poisoned" by the CIA to create another "victim" of Putin's regime.
Besides, Navalny is a terrorist on CIA payroll. He's working on destroying Russia from within. He was recruited and trained abroad and most of his "donations" are coming from western governments and spy agencies. Nobody trusts him here.
There's no evidence that Putin is related to death of these persons. BTW, Navalny is alive and well and all the evidence shows that he was probably "poisoned" by the CIA to create another "victim" of Putin's regime.
Besides, Navalny is a terrorist on CIA payroll. He's working on destroying Russia from within. He was recruited and trained abroad and most of his "donations" are coming from western governments and spy agencies. Nobody trusts him here.
The US isn’t assassinating dissidents in EU countries, after all. It’s also not installing dictators in your neighboring countries.
This is absolutely not true. US is assassinating dissidents all over the world all the time.
US is installing puppet governments and staging revolutions all the time to pursue its economical interests.
BTW, none of the alleged Russian assassinations were proven. There're only "highly likely" arguments without a single piece of evidence. And when there're counter arguments, they are not printed in the western press. E.g. how Germany was preparing for investigation of "poisoning" of Navalny, before it was known that he was "poisoned".
This is absolutely not true. US is assassinating dissidents all over the world all the time.
US is installing puppet governments and staging revolutions all the time to pursue its economical interests.
BTW, none of the alleged Russian assassinations were proven. There're only "highly likely" arguments without a single piece of evidence. And when there're counter arguments, they are not printed in the western press. E.g. how Germany was preparing for investigation of "poisoning" of Navalny, before it was known that he was "poisoned".
You should’ve stopped before “BTW”.
Otherwise you’ve shown you are either consuming Russian state TV for breakfast, lunch and dinner or you’re doing this for money.
“Highly likely”, no single piece of evidence, Germany/Navalny… these are the most trashy arguments that are spread 24/7 by state paid actors.
Otherwise you’ve shown you are either consuming Russian state TV for breakfast, lunch and dinner or you’re doing this for money.
“Highly likely”, no single piece of evidence, Germany/Navalny… these are the most trashy arguments that are spread 24/7 by state paid actors.
Yes, that's typical of the West to call any contradicting information as "paid by Russian government".
It never cease to amaze me how hard US population believes that it has some kind of monopoly on truth. That no other nation or person can know the truth, but US is always right.
It never cease to amaze me how hard US population believes that it has some kind of monopoly on truth. That no other nation or person can know the truth, but US is always right.
a) I'm not "US population", I was born in the USSR and my first language is Russian
b) Using "West" gives away you're from Russia or the neighbouring countries
c) Your "truth" of “highly likely", no single piece of evidence, Germany/Navalny, etc are cheap arguments that are exaggerated and repeated non-stop by Solovyov/Simonyan and other state actors that instil fear and hatred into Russian people every day.
Each of your arguments is easily debunked within a few minutes of Googling around, including looking at investigations from within Russia (e.g. by The Insider) that used corrupt sources to buy passport copies, geolocation, flight history and phone metadata from the internal police databases. These investigations are never mentioned or even rejected by the state or the media. The reason? Because you can buy the same data and come to the same conclusions and confirm the investigation yourself.
b) Using "West" gives away you're from Russia or the neighbouring countries
c) Your "truth" of “highly likely", no single piece of evidence, Germany/Navalny, etc are cheap arguments that are exaggerated and repeated non-stop by Solovyov/Simonyan and other state actors that instil fear and hatred into Russian people every day.
Each of your arguments is easily debunked within a few minutes of Googling around, including looking at investigations from within Russia (e.g. by The Insider) that used corrupt sources to buy passport copies, geolocation, flight history and phone metadata from the internal police databases. These investigations are never mentioned or even rejected by the state or the media. The reason? Because you can buy the same data and come to the same conclusions and confirm the investigation yourself.
You know? I'm maybe visiting rt.com and sputniknews.com once a week, rather less, sometimes weeks between, and skim headlines.
That's all. But that Nawalny thing stinks.
It has the typical pattern of getting some useful idiot somewhere, build him/her up,
have some ankle-biters who don't know any better bark for him, and try to stir up dissent where it is useful for you.
If it works? Good! If not? Poor bastard.
Next!
That's all. But that Nawalny thing stinks.
It has the typical pattern of getting some useful idiot somewhere, build him/her up,
have some ankle-biters who don't know any better bark for him, and try to stir up dissent where it is useful for you.
If it works? Good! If not? Poor bastard.
Next!
To be clear, it’s not “the US”, but virtually the entire world including a great many Russians.
Russians doesn't destroy whole countries and kill millions because they think they know some higher truth about how those people should live their life.
That's the main difference between us and the "collective West".
Also, West is amazingly ignorant. E.g. when people from the West discuss history of Russia, USSR, Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine, Crimea, it is clear that you don't know a single bit about these places or history or relationships between countries and people here. You just regurgitate typical stereotypes and media lies.
The level of ignorance is so high that there're cases where it is beyond facepalm. E.g. utterances of Jane Psaki about shores of Belarus, or recent declaration in French newspaper that Ukraine invaded Crimea in 2014.
You guys know nothing, absolutely nothing. You live in a bubble created by ignorance, not knowing a single foreign language, inability to consume any information but lies fabricated by your media that belong to 5-6 rich persons that push a single agenda in unison.
Yet you're ready to kill millions based on that misinformation.
That's the main difference between us and the "collective West".
Also, West is amazingly ignorant. E.g. when people from the West discuss history of Russia, USSR, Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine, Crimea, it is clear that you don't know a single bit about these places or history or relationships between countries and people here. You just regurgitate typical stereotypes and media lies.
The level of ignorance is so high that there're cases where it is beyond facepalm. E.g. utterances of Jane Psaki about shores of Belarus, or recent declaration in French newspaper that Ukraine invaded Crimea in 2014.
You guys know nothing, absolutely nothing. You live in a bubble created by ignorance, not knowing a single foreign language, inability to consume any information but lies fabricated by your media that belong to 5-6 rich persons that push a single agenda in unison.
Yet you're ready to kill millions based on that misinformation.
They can only do this one time.
AFAIK they do not have a history of doing this, only when terms of actual gas deals are not met. Which is common business sense.
edit: you are downplaying US influence. Are you aware The Netherlands is a host for US nuclear weapons?
AFAIK they do not have a history of doing this, only when terms of actual gas deals are not met. Which is common business sense.
edit: you are downplaying US influence. Are you aware The Netherlands is a host for US nuclear weapons?
They used natural gas as a political lever with Ukraine on a constant basis. The same would be the case with Belarussia if they weren't forcefully aligned as political allies (an attempt at which is one of the main reasons of the Ukrainian invasion).
Let's not pretend there was no fuckery on the Ukrainian side.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dis...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_dis...
That’s not really the point—the point is that Russia has been observed using its natural gas as political leverage.
Do you have sources Russia used this lever even though all terms of the deal were met? ( basically, the bills were paid ).
The gas bills had a strange ability to grow of their own accord, almost seemingly to the whims of the natural gas supplier. On several occasions Russia cut off supply during winter after disputes, which affected not only Ukraine but Europe. This was a two pronged maneuver which was meant to sour Europe-Ukraine relations and keep Ukraine dependent on Russia. Ukraine's attempted aligment with Europe is perhaps the main driver of the 2014 invasion of Ukraine by Russia.
anticodon(1)
Russia is not obliged to pay Ukrainian bills. They're unreliable partners (both for EU and Russia), they have a history of blackmailing EU with threats to stop gas transit (Ukraine, not Russia threatened EU!), they're stealing transit gas all the time.
Besides, they're used as an enemy, as cannon fodder against Russia. Why would Russia feed them using our natural resources? What's our obligation? It's not their gas, it's not their pipeline (it was built by "soviet occupants").
Besides, they're used as an enemy, as cannon fodder against Russia. Why would Russia feed them using our natural resources? What's our obligation? It's not their gas, it's not their pipeline (it was built by "soviet occupants").
Not much different from other sources, Europe is not resource/energy rich like the US.
A polity which is not energy rich should have a diverse energy portfolio so one country doesn't have too much power. As it stands, 40% of European natural gas comes from Russia and virtually none from the US. Investing more in Russia gives Russia tremendous power over Europe. Diluting that investment with natural gas from the US or some other suppliers means that Europe can afford to walk away from any deal with any of them at small cost to itself. Further still, divesting itself of nuclear also worsens EU energy security, because nuclear doesn't require a pipeline from anywhere (yes, you have to import Uranium, but its very cheap to import per unit energy, even at its current elevated price point).
...this is not what happened - Russia did deliver on time and the reserves were sold off. Now those same people cry wolf and want Exporters to offer more for cheap...
Ask a Ukrainian!
Yes, and then we ask an Iranian what being influenced by the US means, and we stop all international collaboration and just focus on the EU. But then we shouldn't ask southern Europeans what northern European influencing is...
I get that horrible things have happened, and nations did horrible things to each other. But we are citizens and I wish nothing but the best for citizens of other countries. I don't want war or influencing. I would like my gas to be a bit cheaper and preferably cleaner.
Power to Iranian, Ukranian, Russian, EU and US (and all) citizens. I hope we can one day untangle our leaders from the companies in our countries and just make them do what is best for us.
I get that horrible things have happened, and nations did horrible things to each other. But we are citizens and I wish nothing but the best for citizens of other countries. I don't want war or influencing. I would like my gas to be a bit cheaper and preferably cleaner.
Power to Iranian, Ukranian, Russian, EU and US (and all) citizens. I hope we can one day untangle our leaders from the companies in our countries and just make them do what is best for us.
I can see your words are amicable but drawing an equivalence of wrongdoing to another wrongdoer does not exonerate the former (Russia).
> but drawing an equivalence of wrongdoing to another wrongdoer does not exonerate the former (Russia).
Incorrect, it completely exonerates them if you are going to merrily let the the other wrongdoer carry on with the offending behaviour.
If you disagree, ask what's the moral case for not dealing the other wrongdoer tomorrow morning?
Incorrect, it completely exonerates them if you are going to merrily let the the other wrongdoer carry on with the offending behaviour.
If you disagree, ask what's the moral case for not dealing the other wrongdoer tomorrow morning?
My deep embarassment at the peace wrecking actions of the other wrongdoer (USA) as a citizen of the country in no way diminishes my absolute condemnation of Russia's actions toward Ukraine, as someone whose ancestry is from both the perpetrator and victim nation.
My thoughts exactly. So lets deal with Russia today, and de-fang the USA tomorrow at 9am.
No? Why not?
See?
No? Why not?
See?
I'm not quite sure if you followed what I had said. Let us assume one can directly measure wrongdoing and correlate a level of condemnation. For the sake of argument let us say the USA is deserving of 100 units of condemnation, whereas Russia is only fit to receive 50. This is not an equation that becomes 50 and 0. All that Russia is responsible for is still equally hegemonic, internationally illegal, amoral, and unethical.
In so many words I am essentially saying that whataboutism does not add to the discourse and in fact derails and detracts.
In so many words I am essentially saying that whataboutism does not add to the discourse and in fact derails and detracts.
The "other wrongdoer" isn't doing harm on the order that Russia is (indeed, the "other wrongdoer" does a tremendous amount of good globally that we all collectively ignore) but more saliently the "other wrongdoer" supplies Europe with an order of magnitude less natural gas than Russia.
To your point “influence” itself isn’t bad, but who you are influenced by is significant. And if you think the US and Russia are comparable then I don’t have hope for a reasonable conversation.
Or a Georgian, or a Chechen.
Can we conclude from your example and your parents' that for Germany the term is hyperbole?
I am not quite sure what you are saying or implying.
What parent comment is pointing out is that Russia has invaded sovereign nations (cultural and economic allies) in the 21st century. In one instance of such it would go on to vehemently deny its involvement.
What parent comment is pointing out is that Russia has invaded sovereign nations (cultural and economic allies) in the 21st century. In one instance of such it would go on to vehemently deny its involvement.
That is not a hegemony right?
Looks like US and NATO doing it all the time - well, till someone like taliban kicks them out
> well, till someone like taliban kicks them out
You might want to learn your history if you think Russia has never been kicked out by "someone like the Taliban". Mind you, Afghanistan was a much more peaceful country before the USSR invaded, but I won't fault a country too harshly for the impossible-to-predict consequences of meddling; however, I will fault a country for the motives of their meddling in the first place. E.g., does a country meddle to support or overthrow a violent regime? Do they aspire to liberate or oppress?
You might want to learn your history if you think Russia has never been kicked out by "someone like the Taliban". Mind you, Afghanistan was a much more peaceful country before the USSR invaded, but I won't fault a country too harshly for the impossible-to-predict consequences of meddling; however, I will fault a country for the motives of their meddling in the first place. E.g., does a country meddle to support or overthrow a violent regime? Do they aspire to liberate or oppress?
> Mind you, Afghanistan was a much more peaceful country before the USSR invaded
Really? Where did you get that notion? As far as I know, it was under military junta rule
> E.g., does a country meddle to support or overthrow a violent regime?
And? Daud regime in Afghanistan was violent, isn't it?
Really? Where did you get that notion? As far as I know, it was under military junta rule
> E.g., does a country meddle to support or overthrow a violent regime?
And? Daud regime in Afghanistan was violent, isn't it?
There is no solution to deal with the life killing waste of nuclear power plants.
Drill a 5km deep hole, drop it in there.
You can’t predict if that hole will be there for the trillions of years it’s toxic.
> You can’t predict if that hole will be there for the trillions of years it’s toxic.
Trillions of years is the wrong timescale. The earth is only a few billion years old, and anyway the nuclear waste won't be radiotoxic in 1-10 thousand years much less 1 trillion. I'm pretty sure the Earth won't be habitable (as we understand 'habitable', anyway) in 1 trillion years. Anyway, climate change poses an existential threat in decades or centuries.
Trillions of years is the wrong timescale. The earth is only a few billion years old, and anyway the nuclear waste won't be radiotoxic in 1-10 thousand years much less 1 trillion. I'm pretty sure the Earth won't be habitable (as we understand 'habitable', anyway) in 1 trillion years. Anyway, climate change poses an existential threat in decades or centuries.
It's much less. According to
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the...
and from there on under The Sun and planetary environments we're toast in about 600 million years.
Shrug
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation_and_evolution_of_the...
and from there on under The Sun and planetary environments we're toast in about 600 million years.
Shrug
while uranium isn't that toxic compared to the other stuff it has a half-life of 4 billions years.
And while the earth has long forgotten about humans other species will still be endangered by it.
And while the earth has long forgotten about humans other species will still be endangered by it.
Still infinitely preferable (even if the number was accurate) to poisoning earth's current inhabitants by burning coal .
Half-life and danger from the emitted radiation are inversely correlated. Decay is the thing that emits radiation, so if that takes forever, it's not emitting much per second.
The half-life isn't the relevant metric--you don't need the radioactivity to decay to zero (you're exposed to non-zero levels of radiation just walking around outside). You need it decay to environmentally tolerable levels (roughly "the level of uranium ore").
Anyway, far more species are far more endangered by climate change right now than any future species will be by nuclear waste.
Anyway, far more species are far more endangered by climate change right now than any future species will be by nuclear waste.
So your worried about how uranium will effect the Morlocks and the Elois? Isn't uranium a naturally occuring element that already exists underground all over the globe and has for billions of years?
Uhh, you know there's already uranium under the ground, right?
"Kazakhstan number one exporter of Po̶t̶a̶s̶s̶i̶u̶m̶Uranium. All other countries have inferior Po̶t̶a̶s̶s̶i̶u̶m̶Uranium" https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...
[deleted]
IMHO it would be better to store nuclear waste in well guarded sheds. There isn’t that much of it (less than a million tons; a few football fields worth of sheds), and accessible above-ground storage means you can easily monitor it and maintain its container over time. Who knows what will happen 5km down, out of sight?
Relying on society is too risky. Drop them in a bore hole, fill it up again. Done.
I do worry about bad guys digging it back up again.
The search for waste storage that lasts forever feels like the search for data storage that last forever. In the latter case, no storage medium is reliable enough in the long run, and the better strategy is continuous active management, moving from one storage medium to another as technology evolves and as old media expire.
The search for waste storage that lasts forever feels like the search for data storage that last forever. In the latter case, no storage medium is reliable enough in the long run, and the better strategy is continuous active management, moving from one storage medium to another as technology evolves and as old media expire.
A bad guy that can dig a 5km hole can probably just as easily refine his own Uranium or steal someone else’s. If you really want, secure the hole like you would secure whatever above-ground facility you would otherwise store it in.
Of course there is; actually dangerous materials are produced to the rate of a few cubic meters a year: just sink them in lead and concrete and put them at the bottom of a mine shaft.
Compared to the result of having billions over billions of over wastes in the atmosphere, I can't even understand how people pretend it's not a no-brainer question.
Compared to the result of having billions over billions of over wastes in the atmosphere, I can't even understand how people pretend it's not a no-brainer question.
> just sink them in lead and concrete and put them at the bottom of a mine shaft.
That is, frankly, moronic. All you will end up with is your groundwater leeching out the waste. We have exactly this problem in Gorleben, and now have to spend a boatload of money in recovering all the waste from the former mine.
That is, frankly, moronic. All you will end up with is your groundwater leeching out the waste. We have exactly this problem in Gorleben, and now have to spend a boatload of money in recovering all the waste from the former mine.
This is an important thing, IMO - aquifers go a lot deeper into the Earth than maybe most folks realize.
Yes, the parent was being overly simplistic. You have to be choosey about where you put your waste, but experts currently recommend deep geologic repository as the safest solution. In whichever case, the salient point is that however you manage the waste it's still far less harmful than spewing co2 into the atmosphere. Radiation only seems scarier because it is much more direct.
Put it deep enough in bedrock where there is no groundwater, like the Finns
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re...
There is still the issue of how to communicate “Danger: Nuclear Waste” to the people who will encounter the waste storage facility over the next 10,000-100,000 years, but for now we can safely store waste.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re...
There is still the issue of how to communicate “Danger: Nuclear Waste” to the people who will encounter the waste storage facility over the next 10,000-100,000 years, but for now we can safely store waste.
Pretty sure in 10K years the nuclear waste will no longer be radiotoxic.
> The radioactivity of nuclear waste naturally decays, and has a finite radiotoxic lifetime. Within a period of 1,000-10,000 years, the radioactivity of HLW decays to that of the originally mined ore. Its hazard then depends on how concentrated it is. By comparison, other industrial wastes (e.g. heavy metals, such as cadmium and mercury) remain hazardous indefinitely.
- https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
The above is probably some nuclear power lobby (vested interest and all that), but I think the point is a good one.
> The radioactivity of nuclear waste naturally decays, and has a finite radiotoxic lifetime. Within a period of 1,000-10,000 years, the radioactivity of HLW decays to that of the originally mined ore. Its hazard then depends on how concentrated it is. By comparison, other industrial wastes (e.g. heavy metals, such as cadmium and mercury) remain hazardous indefinitely.
- https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
The above is probably some nuclear power lobby (vested interest and all that), but I think the point is a good one.
Put it somewhere extremely hard to get to without industrialized tools. Assuming civilization doesn't collapse, any society with the kind of resources to want to go back in and extract the radioactive was is going to know what radioactivity is. If you assume it does collapse, the protection you get from a lack of power tools and logistics makes breaking into the waste repository prohibitively expensive. I doubt an agrarian or non-industrial society would be able to bankroll an expedition to a place like, say, Antarctica or the Atacama Desert and then being digging thousands of feet down using hand tools and ropes to find magic rocks.
An example I'd like to cite is how one of the Sultan's of Egypt tried to dismantle the pyramids and failed horribly because of all the manpower involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Menkaure
An example I'd like to cite is how one of the Sultan's of Egypt tried to dismantle the pyramids and failed horribly because of all the manpower involved. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Menkaure
Yes. The better idea is to sink them in lead and leave on the surface.
This way if something happens to external core, you can cheaply fix it, instead of recover them from deep mines.
This way if something happens to external core, you can cheaply fix it, instead of recover them from deep mines.
> All you will end up with is your groundwater leeching out the waste
No yo won't, because you will think just a bit before drilling the mine shaft over an aquifer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository)
> We have exactly this problem in Gorleben
Looks like the only problems you have in Gorleben are a handful of medical-grade wastes badly conditioned and a very vocal populace.
No yo won't, because you will think just a bit before drilling the mine shaft over an aquifer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository)
> We have exactly this problem in Gorleben
Looks like the only problems you have in Gorleben are a handful of medical-grade wastes badly conditioned and a very vocal populace.
[deleted]
The radiation in Gorleben is already destroying the salt dome.
The radiation is destroying nothing. The salt dome itself wasn't as stable as thought before, but that has nothing to do
with any radiation. Which btw. isn't much at all, even though the waste has been thrown into caverns recklessly. The really bad stuff sits still above ground in CASTOR cases, sometimes in storage sheds, sometimes under open skies, some in so called temporary storage at the power plants, sometimes in another country, until it's reprocessed. Don't spread lies.
Would you mind sourcing that? The documents I can find (https://www.bgr.bund.de/EN/Themen/Endlagerung/Downloads/Desc...) seem pretty happy with the current situation.
Depends on where you are. How deep a shaft can you reliably bore into the Canadian Shield or the Scandes?
I'm very pro-renewables, but nuclear power's problems are organizational rather than waste-related, at least in much of the developed world.
I'm very pro-renewables, but nuclear power's problems are organizational rather than waste-related, at least in much of the developed world.
Put it in a place where there's no life, seismic stability and no ground water. Which is what we're doing. Nuclear waste is remarkably dense and containable, far more than any other kind of power-generation byproduct.
You don't know if that place on earth will still be there or in the middle of an ocean in the time the waste is till toxic.
We have solutions right now to get rid of coal, atom etc completely in a couple of years, new inventions take too much time to be ready for the market when we need them by 2030.
We have solutions right now to get rid of coal, atom etc completely in a couple of years, new inventions take too much time to be ready for the market when we need them by 2030.
> We have solutions right now to get rid of coal, atom etc completely in a couple of years,
No we do not. Renewable energy is unreliable and unsuitable for base load generation. Until we can figure out how to store weeks worth of energy, nuclear is the only clean option for base load.
> You don't know if that place on earth will still be there or in the middle of an ocean in the time the waste is till toxic.
We do have a pretty good idea, and to the extent that we don't, it's climate change. Pretty ironic to use climate change as a reason to forestall nuclear considering it's our best shot at mitigating climate change pending a renewable energy storage miracle.
No we do not. Renewable energy is unreliable and unsuitable for base load generation. Until we can figure out how to store weeks worth of energy, nuclear is the only clean option for base load.
> You don't know if that place on earth will still be there or in the middle of an ocean in the time the waste is till toxic.
We do have a pretty good idea, and to the extent that we don't, it's climate change. Pretty ironic to use climate change as a reason to forestall nuclear considering it's our best shot at mitigating climate change pending a renewable energy storage miracle.
> Pretty ironic to use climate change as a reason to forestall nuclear considering it's our best shot at mitigating climate change pending a renewable energy storage miracle.
I think you're looking at this the right way. We aren't "on the verge" of climate catastrophe, or "at the edge": we are already over the cliff, and the rocks are getting closer by the second.
Our only chance is to de-carbonize energy now, and the only technology that gets us there is nuclear.
I think you're looking at this the right way. We aren't "on the verge" of climate catastrophe, or "at the edge": we are already over the cliff, and the rocks are getting closer by the second.
Our only chance is to de-carbonize energy now, and the only technology that gets us there is nuclear.
> I think you're looking at this the right way. We aren't "on the verge" of climate catastrophe, or "at the edge": we are already over the cliff, and the rocks are getting closer by the second.
To be fair, this is a possibility, but not established fact. Assuming “the cliff” in question is runaway global warming.
To be fair, this is a possibility, but not established fact. Assuming “the cliff” in question is runaway global warming.
Renewables are the only energy source we can afford to use in the next few years, there is no alternative to that.
We tried to make nuclear energy a thing for over 50 years, it only shows we aren't able to a) make safe use of it and b) get a solution for the waste.
We tried to make nuclear energy a thing for over 50 years, it only shows we aren't able to a) make safe use of it and b) get a solution for the waste.
> We tried to make nuclear energy a thing for over 50 years,
No, we didn't. Nuclear was and is unpopular for reasons that aren't justified by the evidence.
> we aren't able to make safe use of it
This is entirely untrue. Nuclear is the safest energy source by far, even more so than wind or solar:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
> we couldn't get a solution for the waste.
We know the solution for the waste, we just have to act on it. And anyway, we have to solve for the existing waste and once you have to dig a big hole for a little bit of waste you can use that existing hole for a whole lot of waste with virtually no economic impact.
No, we didn't. Nuclear was and is unpopular for reasons that aren't justified by the evidence.
> we aren't able to make safe use of it
This is entirely untrue. Nuclear is the safest energy source by far, even more so than wind or solar:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldw...
> we couldn't get a solution for the waste.
We know the solution for the waste, we just have to act on it. And anyway, we have to solve for the existing waste and once you have to dig a big hole for a little bit of waste you can use that existing hole for a whole lot of waste with virtually no economic impact.
> we aren't able to a) make safe use of it
Nuclear power was one of the safest energy source in the last century. Even hydroelectrical power, which is quite safe, has been much deadlier than nuclear accidents, and don't get me started on the consequences of carbon-heavy production methods.
> b) get a solution for the waste.
There is a solution for the waste: deep burial in stable geological conditions. The only people saying there are no solution do not have any other argument better “dangerous green-glowing slime makes me afraid, Greenpeace plz help”.
Nuclear power was one of the safest energy source in the last century. Even hydroelectrical power, which is quite safe, has been much deadlier than nuclear accidents, and don't get me started on the consequences of carbon-heavy production methods.
> b) get a solution for the waste.
There is a solution for the waste: deep burial in stable geological conditions. The only people saying there are no solution do not have any other argument better “dangerous green-glowing slime makes me afraid, Greenpeace plz help”.
Maybe you don't, but I would expect the people designing the sites know the half life of the materials they are storing. Plutonium-239 for example has a halflife of 24,000 years which is not that much in geological terms..
Do you honestly belive we can build something to keep radioactive and toxic stuff sealed for tenthousand years?
By the time it's still bad for carbon based lifeforms it's as old as todays archaeology!
By the time it's still bad for carbon based lifeforms it's as old as todays archaeology!
Sure why not, the great pyramid is close to 5000 years old, I'm sure with modern knowledge humans can build something that will last much longer. In any case the damage it can do is fairly limited compared to burning coal.
It doesn’t need to be perfectly safe to be the correct choice, it only needs to be safer than fossil fuels, which is really, really easy to achieve. We’re fussing over the absolute safest way to store it, but even managing it as we have been has proven to be far, far, far safer than fossil fuel.
> nuclear is the only clean base load generation we have.
I'm assuming from your phrasing that you're using nuclear to refer exclusively to nuclear fission.
Are you really suggesting that it's 'clean' in the sense of no greenhouse gas emissions, or radioactive (negative health impacts) from the acquisition of the necessary fuel, the building of fission power stations, or the operations of same?
I'm assuming from your phrasing that you're using nuclear to refer exclusively to nuclear fission.
Are you really suggesting that it's 'clean' in the sense of no greenhouse gas emissions, or radioactive (negative health impacts) from the acquisition of the necessary fuel, the building of fission power stations, or the operations of same?
It is on par with solar with respect to the emissions per kW. Nuclear power plants emit virtually no radiation when properly operated and maintained (indeed, coal power plants emit more radiation into the environment). In rare cases, accidents happen, but the risk adjusted cost of those accidents is negligible compared to fossil fuel power. I’m not sure what “radioactive impacts” derive from mining Uranium, but I doubt it’s non-negligible compared to the harm imposed my fossil fuels.
Nuclear (fission) beats out solar for the most part in terms of CO2 equivalent per kW/h of energy generation. The 6-grams CO2 equivalent per kW/h figure assumes the panel is in ideal conditions (receiving sun for all sun-up hours during the year at equatorial to middle latitudes and operating at a fixed temperature). For a place like Finland, Norway, or Sweden, this goes up 50-grams CO2 equivalent per kW/h (less power produced over lifespan given a fixed manufacturing footprint). Nuclear is at 4-grams per kW/h. Wind is also about 4-grams per kW/h (again, assuming ideal conditions).
Meanwhile, the most efficient coal fired plants are like 700 grams of CO2 per kW/h and most are at 1000-1200 grams per kW/h...
Meanwhile, the most efficient coal fired plants are like 700 grams of CO2 per kW/h and most are at 1000-1200 grams per kW/h...
I realize you didn't invent these terms, but is kW/h the right metric? A plain reading of the units provided suggests 700 grams of CO2 is released every hour for every kW generated, but that seems unlikely. Where does the per hour figure in?
I meant kWh. The units derivation is as follows if I remember correctly:
The SI unit for some absolute quantity of energy is the "Joule".
1 watt = 1 joule per second (1 J/s)
Watts can sort of be thought of as the rate at which some absolute quantity of energy is available or able to be consumed.
Since energy sources are usually rated in terms of their ability to supply an instantaneous amount of power, in order to get back to the absolute amount of energy, you need to multiply by the time in order to get back to just some multiple of joules.
1 watt-second = 1 J/s * s = 1 J.
So the concept holds that if we are going to measure some amount of something (other than power) produced by a power plant, it should be measured against the absolute amount of power produced. Obviously this doesn't take into account the fact that pollution generated by some forms of power aren't linearly correlated with the power produced - e.g. fossil fuel plants produce less particulate pollution the hotter the fire burns, meaning they get dirtier vs the power output the lower the output power is set. Hence why gas turbines burn cleaner that gas-fired steam generators (hand waving over the efficiency differences of direct fired turbines versus steam generation).
Another data point is that natural gas turbines (again, averages from the US) produce 550 grams per kWh, and combined cycle (adding a second turbine that runs off the exhaust heat of the first) are 435 grams CO2 per kWh.
But the numbers I posted are what I meant. In the US, an average of one kilogram of CO2 is emitted per kilowatt-hour of energy (3.6 * 10^6 Joules) generated. Nuclear is two orders of magnitude less carbon emission (versus coal), wind and solar are comparable if deployed under ideal conditions. Even under non-ideal conditions, they still offer an order of magnitude improvement.
The SI unit for some absolute quantity of energy is the "Joule".
1 watt = 1 joule per second (1 J/s)
Watts can sort of be thought of as the rate at which some absolute quantity of energy is available or able to be consumed.
Since energy sources are usually rated in terms of their ability to supply an instantaneous amount of power, in order to get back to the absolute amount of energy, you need to multiply by the time in order to get back to just some multiple of joules.
1 watt-second = 1 J/s * s = 1 J.
So the concept holds that if we are going to measure some amount of something (other than power) produced by a power plant, it should be measured against the absolute amount of power produced. Obviously this doesn't take into account the fact that pollution generated by some forms of power aren't linearly correlated with the power produced - e.g. fossil fuel plants produce less particulate pollution the hotter the fire burns, meaning they get dirtier vs the power output the lower the output power is set. Hence why gas turbines burn cleaner that gas-fired steam generators (hand waving over the efficiency differences of direct fired turbines versus steam generation).
Another data point is that natural gas turbines (again, averages from the US) produce 550 grams per kWh, and combined cycle (adding a second turbine that runs off the exhaust heat of the first) are 435 grams CO2 per kWh.
But the numbers I posted are what I meant. In the US, an average of one kilogram of CO2 is emitted per kilowatt-hour of energy (3.6 * 10^6 Joules) generated. Nuclear is two orders of magnitude less carbon emission (versus coal), wind and solar are comparable if deployed under ideal conditions. Even under non-ideal conditions, they still offer an order of magnitude improvement.
It's almost exactly 1kg per kw/h, at least in the US: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=74&t=11
But yes, "per hour" is necessary because you can't instantaneously emit a certain mass of co2. You emit over time, just like you generate power over time.
But yes, "per hour" is necessary because you can't instantaneously emit a certain mass of co2. You emit over time, just like you generate power over time.
I suspect it is a typo and that it should be grams per kWh.
Nit: it's kWh (kilowatts × hours), a unit of energy (like joules or calories), not kW/h, which doesn't map to a physical concept
Ah! Sorry, it's a nasty habit I picked up from my previous power company's billing statements.
yes, I meant kWh. I picked up kW/h as a nasty habit from my previous power company's billing statements.
And compared to solar, they produce power even during cold, winter nights, when you need heat the most.
It's not the most efficiant way to heat your homes (fission -> heat -> water -> steam engine -> electricity -> heater), but it brings autonomy to each country (so global issues don't affect your country), and with heat pumps, it's not even that bad at heating.
It's not the most efficiant way to heat your homes (fission -> heat -> water -> steam engine -> electricity -> heater), but it brings autonomy to each country (so global issues don't affect your country), and with heat pumps, it's not even that bad at heating.
Add in district heating and you get cheap heat too. Europe is often dense enough for this to work...
I was under the impression that the last step can potentially be made pretty efficient if it's "electricity -> heat pump" (but that depends on the conditions). Also - can nuclear power plants operate in combined heat and power mode to provide district heating? That'd probably require them to be close to highly populated areas though.
In comparison to burning fossil fuels which is the basis of the energy crisis, the emissions, radiation, acquisition of fuel, and operate seems all cleaner for a nuclear reactor than the fossil fuel which it replace.
Per GW/h, a fossil fueled power plant is producing a lot of pollution that goes into the air and poison the people and land around it. The outcome from this can be plainly seen in the death per GW/h produced.
The only "100%" clean base load generation we have is actually hydro, but there are a few problems with it. We have already maxed out, and even if we tried to build more it would cause significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions from topsoil decomposition. It also happens to have one of the highest deaths per GW/h, although thankfully we tend to attribute that to the weather rather than the technology itself.
Per GW/h, a fossil fueled power plant is producing a lot of pollution that goes into the air and poison the people and land around it. The outcome from this can be plainly seen in the death per GW/h produced.
The only "100%" clean base load generation we have is actually hydro, but there are a few problems with it. We have already maxed out, and even if we tried to build more it would cause significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions from topsoil decomposition. It also happens to have one of the highest deaths per GW/h, although thankfully we tend to attribute that to the weather rather than the technology itself.
This.
Nuclear fission isn't "perfect" due to the potential risks involved, but it's one of the best things we have going for us right now. The climate crisis is here, and we have to do something pretty much immediately. We don't have time to argue over what's best anymore. Build things we know work and replace those with something else when something better comes along.
Nuclear fission isn't "perfect" due to the potential risks involved, but it's one of the best things we have going for us right now. The climate crisis is here, and we have to do something pretty much immediately. We don't have time to argue over what's best anymore. Build things we know work and replace those with something else when something better comes along.
Clean enough compared to the alternatives.
> Personally I think closing the nuclear reactors is a terrible idea, considering nuclear is the only clean base load generation we have
I am very against nuclear power, on both the economic aspect, and the health and hazards side of things, specially nuclear waste for which there are no cold long term repositories which inspire much trust in me
This said, I am fully on board on keeping existing nuclear reactors working, BUT I learned recently that radiation itself damages/corrodes/degrades the containment vessels of nuclear reactors over time, to the point where what was once strong steel or titanium becomes as fragile as glass or sugar glass (!!!)... Which is just not something that you can repair as the damage happens at the molecular level so then the entire reactor building needs to be basically scrapped for the most part and the vessel rebuilt
So, when nuclear scientists and engineers say that x reactor has a y lifespan, they are being very serious about it
I am despite all of that fully on board with extending the lifespan of nuclear reactors as long as possible
I am very against nuclear power, on both the economic aspect, and the health and hazards side of things, specially nuclear waste for which there are no cold long term repositories which inspire much trust in me
This said, I am fully on board on keeping existing nuclear reactors working, BUT I learned recently that radiation itself damages/corrodes/degrades the containment vessels of nuclear reactors over time, to the point where what was once strong steel or titanium becomes as fragile as glass or sugar glass (!!!)... Which is just not something that you can repair as the damage happens at the molecular level so then the entire reactor building needs to be basically scrapped for the most part and the vessel rebuilt
So, when nuclear scientists and engineers say that x reactor has a y lifespan, they are being very serious about it
I am despite all of that fully on board with extending the lifespan of nuclear reactors as long as possible
Putting diplomatic pressure to stop relying on Russian gas, after Russia invaded a neighbor, is not sabotage.
I think it's more complicated than that, and if we're going to call nations on "invading other countries", or meddling in countries internal affairs, we would not be going for US LNG either.
Edit: And I think the EU is capable of putting pressure on Russia by itself, as they/we did. The US pressure is purely self serving and for their own economic wins. Which is fine I guess, I just would like it if we were not so sensitive to it here in the EU. It would save us citizens a lot of money right now.
Edit 2: the Russians would like it too: https://www.rt.com/business/476844-eu-russia-us-sanctions/
Edit: And I think the EU is capable of putting pressure on Russia by itself, as they/we did. The US pressure is purely self serving and for their own economic wins. Which is fine I guess, I just would like it if we were not so sensitive to it here in the EU. It would save us citizens a lot of money right now.
Edit 2: the Russians would like it too: https://www.rt.com/business/476844-eu-russia-us-sanctions/
Why are you leaving out the context that the principal defense alliance is with America specifically in defense against Russia? Furthermore, it's not just US pressure, much of Eastern Europe has been pushing against the NS2. Claiming that the US is acting purely in self serving motives is wildly disingenuous.
>Why are you leaving out the context that the principal defense alliance is with America specifically in defense against Russia?
Specifically against the Soviet Union, a communistic totalitarian regime that does not exist anymore.
Specifically it never included Ukraine as member, and specifically the US promised that NATO will never expand to more than the original members.
The only countries in Europe that are against the NS2 are those that have already pipelines or interests and are economically harmed by more competence.
>Claiming that the US is acting purely in self serving motives is wildly disingenuous.
Claiming that the US is acting purely in self serving motives is telling the truth. The US can mind its own business.
Specifically against the Soviet Union, a communistic totalitarian regime that does not exist anymore.
Specifically it never included Ukraine as member, and specifically the US promised that NATO will never expand to more than the original members.
The only countries in Europe that are against the NS2 are those that have already pipelines or interests and are economically harmed by more competence.
>Claiming that the US is acting purely in self serving motives is wildly disingenuous.
Claiming that the US is acting purely in self serving motives is telling the truth. The US can mind its own business.
Specifically Russian Federation has invaded Ukraine.
Specifically after signing Budapest Memorandum (Ukraine's nuclear disarming).
Specifically after signing Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty.
Specifically without even admitting invasion!
This totally invalidates all the claims regarding NATO. That's defense alliance, everyone who has missed opportunity to join is a total fool.
Russian Federation is autocratic regime, just look at the last "elections".
East Europe countries were under USSR occupation for 40 years. Poland is going to switch to LNG to break dependency on RF gas.
Specifically after signing Budapest Memorandum (Ukraine's nuclear disarming).
Specifically after signing Russian–Ukrainian Friendship Treaty.
Specifically without even admitting invasion!
This totally invalidates all the claims regarding NATO. That's defense alliance, everyone who has missed opportunity to join is a total fool.
Russian Federation is autocratic regime, just look at the last "elections".
East Europe countries were under USSR occupation for 40 years. Poland is going to switch to LNG to break dependency on RF gas.
Specifically after Ukraine attempted to join NATO since 1991.
Specifically after Ukraine made speaking Russian illegal and started treating Russian speaking population as second class citizens.
Specifically after Ukraine made plans to give Crimea to US to build a US military base.
Specifically after Ukraine made speaking Russian illegal and started treating Russian speaking population as second class citizens.
Specifically after Ukraine made plans to give Crimea to US to build a US military base.
I am Russian speaking Ukrainian, from Russian speaking city, born in Russian speaking family, mother from Russia, spent quite a lot of time in RF. And you are telling me these lies?
I've recently switched to Ukrainian because of your kind. Fascists.
I've recently switched to Ukrainian because of your kind. Fascists.
What exactly is a lie?
Half of my family lives in Ukraine. I speak with them several times a year. Before 2014 I visited them at least once a year.
They all want to move to Russia because of the rise of nazism. Some of them already moved and they're very happy that they did it.
Fascists.
Actually, fascists and Hitler are honored in Ukraine on the government level. There's no way to deny it.
Half of my family lives in Ukraine. I speak with them several times a year. Before 2014 I visited them at least once a year.
They all want to move to Russia because of the rise of nazism. Some of them already moved and they're very happy that they did it.
Fascists.
Actually, fascists and Hitler are honored in Ukraine on the government level. There's no way to deny it.
There is nowhere to start. Are you employed by RF propaganda?
People freely speak Russian language, though Russian language popularity greatly tanked because people like you. It is eights year of war, so many facts that confirm RF has occupied Ukraine, destroyed cities, killed thousands.
People freely speak Russian language, though Russian language popularity greatly tanked because people like you. It is eights year of war, so many facts that confirm RF has occupied Ukraine, destroyed cities, killed thousands.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/01/25/basic-notes-on-victo...
ctrl-f color revolutions
ctrl-f color revolutions
You know? It's not like the already existing pipelines into those countries are made obsolete by NS2. It just robs them of some...let's say 'leverage' or even extortion. If they don't like the pipelines they can buy LNG on the world market from whomever?
Where is the problem with that? Cry me a river!
Where is the problem with that? Cry me a river!
Yes. That's the point. I don't even think it's a hidden thing, or something to be "diplomatic" about. The issue with NS2 that I have heard, explicitly states that it reduces the amount of geopolitical strength Poland and Ukraine have against Russia, while increasing the leverage Russia has against them and the rest of Europe.
Russia is openly an economic adversary of Europe and the United States, and is openly hostile to several countries in the east. Germany "went it alone", as far as I know, in order to get better prices.
My understanding of this topic is limited, so I admit my ignorance here. It simply doesn't make sense to give geopolitical strength to a rival by handicapping your nearer neighbors.
Russia is openly an economic adversary of Europe and the United States, and is openly hostile to several countries in the east. Germany "went it alone", as far as I know, in order to get better prices.
My understanding of this topic is limited, so I admit my ignorance here. It simply doesn't make sense to give geopolitical strength to a rival by handicapping your nearer neighbors.
Having the transit pipelines going through Eastern Europe meant that Russia cannot sell to their most lucrative customer, Germany, while not selling to Eastern Europe. Isn't it a peculiar coincidence that the moment the US withdrew their opposition to NS2, Russia has supply issues? With NS2 up and running they'll sell just enough to Germany to put pressure on the Baltic states, Ukraine, and Poland.
Russia has no supply issues. Gazprom is providing infrastructure, and other suppliers pump it empty like mad. Another one called Uniper, the largest AFAIK was at 77% full about 2 weeks ago. Hoarded. If you were Gazprom, and so far delivered according to contract, and even more, would you still deliver more to the conditions of those contracts, just so that other leeches can suck it out, and get rich quick on a crazy market? Why?
Leeches, hoarding, quick enrichment ... you make it sound like Gazprom is the good guy doing community service for a penny :D
Wasn't my intent. The fact is they are not only operating the pipelines, but also large own parts of the storage.
Germany sold these to them. Goes against my guts, but that's how it is. But theirs is not the only, and not even the largest storage.
So in principle them not owning that storage wouldn't change a thing.
So there are contracts. Which go by volume, and not continous uninterrupted flow. They delivered the volume and some more.
And now it isn't gone, burnt, and 'gone with the wind', but bought by others in anticipation of rising prices,
either still residing in that storage, just owned by someone else, or pumped to other storage, anticipating good sales opportunity.
How would you call that? Clever business? While lobotomizing Gazprom, Russia, whomever?
What's so hard to get about this? They are not the bad actors here.
Germany sold these to them. Goes against my guts, but that's how it is. But theirs is not the only, and not even the largest storage.
So in principle them not owning that storage wouldn't change a thing.
So there are contracts. Which go by volume, and not continous uninterrupted flow. They delivered the volume and some more.
And now it isn't gone, burnt, and 'gone with the wind', but bought by others in anticipation of rising prices,
either still residing in that storage, just owned by someone else, or pumped to other storage, anticipating good sales opportunity.
How would you call that? Clever business? While lobotomizing Gazprom, Russia, whomever?
What's so hard to get about this? They are not the bad actors here.
Because no one could be bothered closing NATO after 1993 when the USSR stopped existing?
The US is the ally of most of Western Europe (this is important because when the US invades a country, it does so with the help or at least foreknowledge of its allies)... Russia is a neighbor at best.
However, if the US invaded Italy with little warning and took over Florence because it felt it needed warm water port in Europe, or access to a better wine supply then Western Europe would rightly panic and wonder how they can disentangle themselves from US influence.
The reason the US is allowed so much influence in the first place is because its stays out of territorial disputes in Europe---heck even if one occurs, it historically drags its feet for years.
However, if the US invaded Italy with little warning and took over Florence because it felt it needed warm water port in Europe, or access to a better wine supply then Western Europe would rightly panic and wonder how they can disentangle themselves from US influence.
The reason the US is allowed so much influence in the first place is because its stays out of territorial disputes in Europe---heck even if one occurs, it historically drags its feet for years.
If the US invaded Panama to secure it's warm water ...
Oh wait.
Oh wait.
.... That's the whole point the USA doesn't invade it's European allies.
Ukraine is not an ally of Russia.
But it has allied itself with those who did. And then did not fight to liberate them...
USA invaded Europe during WWII and never left. I still consider Italy and Germany occupied countries. They are not independent, they're occupied for 76 years.
Why and how US will invade its colonies? Italy and Germany cannot resist any decision made by US. They have US military bases on their soil and their own army is deliberately made smaller and weaker than personnel of US military bases.
Why and how US will invade its colonies? Italy and Germany cannot resist any decision made by US. They have US military bases on their soil and their own army is deliberately made smaller and weaker than personnel of US military bases.
Germany has the 2nd largest military in Europe, just slight smaller than France.[1]
However comparing it to a superpower is nonsensical. The US has the 3rd largest military in the world, beaten only by India and China who have populations in the billions.
But just below the US is Russia with the 4h largest military in the world, and the largest (by a huge margin) on the European continent.
Now the era of colonialism was only possible due to vast technological differences between the two parties, and the good luck of the Europeans finding empires in turmoil (Songhai, Benin, Aztecs, China, etc.). It’s extremely difficult to subjugate much less rule a far off colony. The US couldn’t even manage it with Afghanistan so I doubt they’d have much luck with Germany.
On the other hand, it’s much easier to conquer your neighbor, push them back and simply put your own people in place. Russia did that for about 50 years and ruled half of Europe. I would wager Germans have more to fear from a revived Russia run by an KGB agent who grew up during the time of Empire, than a US who was most recently run by a television reality show host.
1. https://rlist.io/l/largest-militaries-in-europe
However comparing it to a superpower is nonsensical. The US has the 3rd largest military in the world, beaten only by India and China who have populations in the billions.
But just below the US is Russia with the 4h largest military in the world, and the largest (by a huge margin) on the European continent.
Now the era of colonialism was only possible due to vast technological differences between the two parties, and the good luck of the Europeans finding empires in turmoil (Songhai, Benin, Aztecs, China, etc.). It’s extremely difficult to subjugate much less rule a far off colony. The US couldn’t even manage it with Afghanistan so I doubt they’d have much luck with Germany.
On the other hand, it’s much easier to conquer your neighbor, push them back and simply put your own people in place. Russia did that for about 50 years and ruled half of Europe. I would wager Germans have more to fear from a revived Russia run by an KGB agent who grew up during the time of Empire, than a US who was most recently run by a television reality show host.
1. https://rlist.io/l/largest-militaries-in-europe
I don't know by which metrics this list measures 'large', but it seems to be wrong.
Apart from that which parts of it have more power is more interesting, but also debatable.
Anyways, apart from some exceptions (for show) the german military is mostly a very expensive army of clowns,
which can't even manage to transport its own troops reliably, or politicians for that matter.
Been there, done that in the 90ies. Meanwhile I haven't heard or read anything which would change my mind about that.
Rather the opposite.
Apart from that which parts of it have more power is more interesting, but also debatable.
Anyways, apart from some exceptions (for show) the german military is mostly a very expensive army of clowns,
which can't even manage to transport its own troops reliably, or politicians for that matter.
Been there, done that in the 90ies. Meanwhile I haven't heard or read anything which would change my mind about that.
Rather the opposite.
Who are the countries which haven’t invaded other countries? As sordid as the Iraq war was, it seems strictly better to to topple an oppressive dictator than to go around annexing territories (or assassinating dissidents in EU countries, or installing dictators in foreign countries, or meddling in foreign elections, or jailing rival politicians in your own country, or so on). I think comparing countries’ sins is pretty fruitless in general, but I hope we can agree that whatever criticism you may have for the US, Putin’s Russia is on another level.
Just read this book [0], sure the Chinese are doing it too now, they read the book, the EU as well probably.
I think it would be good to have good relations with Russia, "where goods cross borders, armies do not."
There are probably a lot of nice people living in Russia, and I bet they love their children too.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit...
I think it would be good to have good relations with Russia, "where goods cross borders, armies do not."
There are probably a lot of nice people living in Russia, and I bet they love their children too.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit...
We had a far better relation to Russia in the early 21st century and a lot of stability with that. Somehow that got blown up without any discernible reason from my perspective.
The reasons are quite obvious I think. Expansion of NATO to the east and western supported color revolutions/arabian springs after which those who rule Russia started to understand that it is not enough to possess nukes and be safe because you can be overthrown from inside.
As sordid as the Iraq war was, it seems strictly better to to topple an oppressive dictator
I think that 600,000 Iraqis killed in that war (lower bound) would have different opinion.
Besides, does population of Iraq live better now? I seriously doubt that.
I think that 600,000 Iraqis killed in that war (lower bound) would have different opinion.
Besides, does population of Iraq live better now? I seriously doubt that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait
Can't have that, bringing some Sheiks with a very special relationship to the U.S.A. back into to empire, tsk, tsk!
Building case for chase supported by fake
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
Slapping of hands follows:
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
Dust settles(mostly) until:
[4] http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,9985...
Uh Oh! Grave error! Threatening the
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar
That means terror! Have to be clever here, let's see and play some curve ball out of nowhere:
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
The rest is history, as they say.
And they have the gall to call Russia a gas station with nukes run by mafia.
Yah, sure, whatever...
YOU ASS AYE! YOU ASS AYE! YOU ASS AYE!
Can't have that, bringing some Sheiks with a very special relationship to the U.S.A. back into to empire, tsk, tsk!
Building case for chase supported by fake
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
Slapping of hands follows:
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
Dust settles(mostly) until:
[4] http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,9985...
Uh Oh! Grave error! Threatening the
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrodollar
That means terror! Have to be clever here, let's see and play some curve ball out of nowhere:
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_(informant)
The rest is history, as they say.
And they have the gall to call Russia a gas station with nukes run by mafia.
Yah, sure, whatever...
YOU ASS AYE! YOU ASS AYE! YOU ASS AYE!
The Russians could make the same argument of the US meddling in Ukraine, before Crimea happened. Nato denies it, but from their perspective it can make sense. Perhaps they only perceived it that way when the US got involved in the Maidan protests. That said, wrong perception is sometimes an excuse.
What kind of meddling did the US do that is on the same level as a full-scale invasion? Moreover, while it’s flat-out ridiculous to argue that the US and Russia are in the same ballpark in terms of harm to Europe (or anyone else), we don’t need to fixate on this comparison as though there is a dichotomy.
You don't have to compare the steps they took, you have to think about what the US would do if Russia gets involved in elections in Mexico or Canada.
Why? The US doesn't get involved in European elections (so your hypothetical doesn't even make sense), but that's besides the point. What does the US have to do with whether or not Europe gets its energy from Russia? Europe doesn't have to choose to put its energy supply in the hands of Russia or US, there are other suppliers and diversification is a really good alternative.
They don't need to, because they have the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantik-Br%C3%BCcke and other similary undemocratic institutions influencing the shit out of anything via side-channel attacks.
At least they didn't call it Atlantikjugend
'They' got that covered via proxy of the World Economic Forum via proxy of Swiss trust as Young Global Leaders, former The Global Leaders of Tomorrow Community (GLT) ;->
(Anything else? Would you like to have fries with that?)
(Anything else? Would you like to have fries with that?)
I skimmed your link, but I didn't see anything damning or undemocratic. Where are the Lukashenko-esque dictators that the US installed in Europe? Which dissidents have the US assassinated on EU soil?
Are you dumb, or what? I've written they don't need to because they have other means, which at the end of the day amounts to 'the same shit, but different' for the influenced vasall states.
You wrote:
> They don't need to, because they have the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantik-Br%C3%BCcke and other similary undemocratic institutions influencing the shit out of anything via side-channel attacks.
Which clearly says that the US has "undemocratic institutions" influencing Europe, but the link doesn't support the idea that the A-B is antidemocratic (there's nothing inherently "antidemocratic" about fostering international partnership and cooperation).
> They don't need to, because they have the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantik-Br%C3%BCcke and other similary undemocratic institutions influencing the shit out of anything via side-channel attacks.
Which clearly says that the US has "undemocratic institutions" influencing Europe, but the link doesn't support the idea that the A-B is antidemocratic (there's nothing inherently "antidemocratic" about fostering international partnership and cooperation).
Why go as far as Mexico? Russia has influenced, and continues to influence, elections in the United States.
Show me US invasion forces in Ukraine.
Democracy support is not meddling. RF has done a lot of harm to Ukraine even before 2014. Euromaidan was a response against RF puppet Yanukovych. RF has used gas prices to influence election results. Leonid Kuchma who has built oligarchy regime elected with the help of Kremlin. His opponent, Viacheslav Chornovil, was killed.
It is mafia. And in RF mafia has got its own state.
Democracy support is not meddling. RF has done a lot of harm to Ukraine even before 2014. Euromaidan was a response against RF puppet Yanukovych. RF has used gas prices to influence election results. Leonid Kuchma who has built oligarchy regime elected with the help of Kremlin. His opponent, Viacheslav Chornovil, was killed.
It is mafia. And in RF mafia has got its own state.
Exporting natural gas is extremely difficult so the US isn’t profiting from it economically. That’s why natural gas is distributed via pipelines. Sending canisters of natural gas back and forth isn’t efficient.
It depends on your goals, maybe the goals are political (and very long term economical), not economic (in the short term).
Many wars turned out to not be economic in the short term, but one can argue that the US has benefited from the rubblization of the middle east (like the shenanigans pulled in Iran among others, as described in "confessions of an Economic Hitman.")
Many wars turned out to not be economic in the short term, but one can argue that the US has benefited from the rubblization of the middle east (like the shenanigans pulled in Iran among others, as described in "confessions of an Economic Hitman.")
Hrm. Hr. Hm. Why do they say so differently then?
https://www.lngfacts.org/
https://www.lngfacts.org/
Germany does not rely on Russian gas. It's even building expensive infrastructure for American liquified gas.
Germany simply wants to have both options. America doesn't want that, because in "good times" Russian gas is much cheaper.
Germany simply wants to have both options. America doesn't want that, because in "good times" Russian gas is much cheaper.
Yeah, it "only" imports 40% of its gas from Russia.
29% from the Netherlands, 21% from Norway.
The US doesn't even register, so it's lumped in with "others".
The US doesn't even register, so it's lumped in with "others".
29% gas from netherlands is Liquified Gas, which might as well be from the US or Qatar.
So what? It can start buying American gas within what? Weeks?
All the infrastructure for the ships and further distribution is being built right now.
Anerica is under "others", because it's too expensive.
All the infrastructure for the ships and further distribution is being built right now.
Anerica is under "others", because it's too expensive.
There isn't enough LNG import capacity at present to replace Russian pipeline exports. There are quite a few slated to be built but these projects take a long time to get built.
Also, even if there was sufficient capacity to import an equal volume of LNG there's still the problem of distributing it. Pipelines and other infrastructure have to be built to take care of new chokepoints.
Also, even if there was sufficient capacity to import an equal volume of LNG there's still the problem of distributing it. Pipelines and other infrastructure have to be built to take care of new chokepoints.
Isn't there? If I look at the not up to date maps from https://www.gie.eu/publications/maps/ there is since years.
We can import gas which is delivered as CLNG via Rotterdam, Zeebrugge, maybe even Dunkerque. The infrastructure is there since years, and has enough capacity. What is happening at the moment is just caused by speculation, hoarders, and politics.
All this crying is from the uninformed, multiplied by the presstitutes.
We can import gas which is delivered as CLNG via Rotterdam, Zeebrugge, maybe even Dunkerque. The infrastructure is there since years, and has enough capacity. What is happening at the moment is just caused by speculation, hoarders, and politics.
All this crying is from the uninformed, multiplied by the presstitutes.
> Putting diplomatic pressure to stop relying on Russian gas
Economic sanctions and legal threats towards executives of any companies working on the project go a bit further than diplomatic pressure. It's probably the closest things to an act of war you can do without doing one.
Interfering in the international dealing of a foreign country can definitely be seen as sabotage. I personally stoped viewing the USA as an ally of the EU after this intervention. But to be fair I already had serious doubt after they crippled our diplomatic efforts in Iran.
Economic sanctions and legal threats towards executives of any companies working on the project go a bit further than diplomatic pressure. It's probably the closest things to an act of war you can do without doing one.
Interfering in the international dealing of a foreign country can definitely be seen as sabotage. I personally stoped viewing the USA as an ally of the EU after this intervention. But to be fair I already had serious doubt after they crippled our diplomatic efforts in Iran.
reminds one of Napolean
Probably, but maybe not now. Russia has plenty of pipeline capacity to export gas that they could be using but have decided not to, and the general consensus seems to be that they're likely doing this to put pressure on Europe to approve Nord Stream 2. The thing is, they have a history of using their gas supplies as a political weapon, so if it wasn't this...
Nord Stream 2 and the cementing of European dependence on Russian gas it represents seems like a terrible idea geopolitically. The thing is, the more powerful European countries like Germany which pushed for it didn't think they'd be the ones it'd hurt.
Nord Stream 2 and the cementing of European dependence on Russian gas it represents seems like a terrible idea geopolitically. The thing is, the more powerful European countries like Germany which pushed for it didn't think they'd be the ones it'd hurt.
> Nord Stream 2 and the cementing of European dependence on Russian gas it represents seems like a terrible idea geopolitically.
Why? Central Europe isn't that dependent on that gas, because Russia isn't the only source. OTOH Russia now has an incentive to keep the gas and thus the Euros flowing.
Why? Central Europe isn't that dependent on that gas, because Russia isn't the only source. OTOH Russia now has an incentive to keep the gas and thus the Euros flowing.
But Russia actually increased its natural gas exports in 2021 by quite a lot [1]
[1] http://www.gazpromexport.ru/en/presscenter/news/2543/
[1] http://www.gazpromexport.ru/en/presscenter/news/2543/
> they could be using but have decided not to
This magical euro-thinking just boggles my mind. Do you really think if some euro-fokks somewhere in Straussburg make a wish for cheap NG, billions of cubic meter, then gas should immediately appears and be available for a penny per cm? Really?
This magical euro-thinking just boggles my mind. Do you really think if some euro-fokks somewhere in Straussburg make a wish for cheap NG, billions of cubic meter, then gas should immediately appears and be available for a penny per cm? Really?
It's not magical thinking if you see hidden agendas and corruption as the root-cause of the mis-planning.
Gray's law applies to political corruption: http://wikidumper.blogspot.com/2007/07/greys-law.html
Gray's law applies to political corruption: http://wikidumper.blogspot.com/2007/07/greys-law.html
Well, if the gas doesn't exist and can't be produced in the first place then it hardly matters whether Nord Stream 2 is up and running does it? The only reason the non-operation of Nord Stream 2 would matter is if Russia had gas available but was constrained in getting it to Europe by pipeline capacity, which they're not - there's an unusual amount of capacity just going unused. Yet they've been dropping not-so-subtle hints that the problem would just go away if Europe approved Nord Stream 2. The only way for that to work is if Russia could sell Europe gas but intentionally chose not to for geopolitical leverage reasons.
> Well, if the gas doesn't exist and can't be produced in the first place
It does exist and could be produced. But it requires discussions, contract(s), signatures, obligations, CAPEX (and quite a lot of it), bank loans, development in the field etc.
Not a magic wish by someone.
Right now Gazprom is quite busy filling up storage in the Russia in preparation for the winter.
> "the problem would just go away if Europe approved Nord Stream 2"
Really? Care to provide Putin/Miller statements?
Export plan is already known and published. And problem won't go away, they are much more serious that this bs about gazprom and Russia
It does exist and could be produced. But it requires discussions, contract(s), signatures, obligations, CAPEX (and quite a lot of it), bank loans, development in the field etc.
Not a magic wish by someone.
Right now Gazprom is quite busy filling up storage in the Russia in preparation for the winter.
> "the problem would just go away if Europe approved Nord Stream 2"
Really? Care to provide Putin/Miller statements?
Export plan is already known and published. And problem won't go away, they are much more serious that this bs about gazprom and Russia
No, but German could just have not shut down their nuclear power plants.
I'm happy about this. The EU wants to have its cake and eat it too by making trade deals both with the US and some really terrible regimes. One of Merkel's final desperate acts on her way out was to try and push through a mega trade deal with China which was thankfully shot down by other EU members over Xinjiang. My own country, Denmark, gleefully agreed to push Nord Stream 2 pipe through its waters.
The EU may commit the fewest atrocities but they sure do love putting money in the coffers of those who commit them.
Here's what we can try doing instead: build more nuclear reactors, stop funding our democratic oases by throwing money at autocratic regimes, and stop pissing in each other's milk so we can become a real global power that doesn't have to kowtow to the awful to make ends meet.
The EU may commit the fewest atrocities but they sure do love putting money in the coffers of those who commit them.
Here's what we can try doing instead: build more nuclear reactors, stop funding our democratic oases by throwing money at autocratic regimes, and stop pissing in each other's milk so we can become a real global power that doesn't have to kowtow to the awful to make ends meet.
So you don’t own any electronics with Chinese components then? Nothing is as black and white as this..
Of course I do. But making deals with autocratic regimes is not the way forward for the EU, at least not if we hope to practice the democracy we preach.
Being dependent on something isn't a good reason to become dependent on even more things.
The EU needs to build both independent energy infrastructure and independent electronics infrastructure. When dependence makes economic sense, it should at least be done with allies or compatible world view regimes.
The EU needs to build both independent energy infrastructure and independent electronics infrastructure. When dependence makes economic sense, it should at least be done with allies or compatible world view regimes.
Part of the problem in the UK is limited gas storage capacity. Another problem is the slow adoption of wind and solar generally. A third is the slow pace of construction of interconnects between the various national grids. The arguments about solar not being available at night and the wind not always blowing would be mitigated if we could more easily transport energy to where it is needed.
The crisis, if it really is one, is mostly caused by blinkered politicians and short term business thinking.
But you are right in a sense; Russia is just making it clear that they can turn off, or change the price of, the gas supply whenever they feel like it which makes the idea of being even more reliant on it rather scary to me.
The crisis, if it really is one, is mostly caused by blinkered politicians and short term business thinking.
But you are right in a sense; Russia is just making it clear that they can turn off, or change the price of, the gas supply whenever they feel like it which makes the idea of being even more reliant on it rather scary to me.
How would solar ever be a good option in the UK?
Plants use solar, and it's pretty green here ;)
Annual average kWh/m^2 in the UK ranges from 50%-75% of what you'd get in Spain or Italy. That's enough even for domestic solar panels to pay for themselves.
Annual average kWh/m^2 in the UK ranges from 50%-75% of what you'd get in Spain or Italy. That's enough even for domestic solar panels to pay for themselves.
Even wind. I had not realised how volatile it was (I expected some sort of diversification at the scale of a country) [1]. It basically requires to duplicate your entire power production capacity with a more dependable technology to make up for the low days.
And I don't understand how more wind will improve things. More unpredictable capacity means these episodes where the country finds itself short will be more frequent.
[1] https://gridwatch.co.uk/
And I don't understand how more wind will improve things. More unpredictable capacity means these episodes where the country finds itself short will be more frequent.
[1] https://gridwatch.co.uk/
Yes, probably. Closing many reactors has been decided and close dates have been set, but so far few have been closed. And there's enough other pipeline capacity, technically speaking, except that the British probably disagree. But limited capacity into Britain does not cause a global problem.
> [0]: https://freewestmedia.com/2020/07/06/us-intensifies-pressure...
Might want to be careful with that source. It looks like it's run by a "Swedish nationalist politician" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A1vra_Suk) and appears to be running stories based on the Russian government-owned TASS newswire (e.g. https://freewestmedia.com/2021/09/24/unionists-rise-up-again...).
Also this article shows a pretty bizarre misunderstanding to push an Ivermectin angle:
https://freewestmedia.com/2021/09/26/french-doctor-violently...
> The Associated Press has meanwhile tried to claim that the doctor was not arrested for prescribing Ivermectin and that this was “fake news” but patients treated by the physician confirmed that Théron had been prescribing the alternative life-saving treatment.
The AP article says he was arrested for assault, after throwing things at someone who was delivering documents to him about an investigation into problems with his medical practice. "Free West Media" seems to be trying to imply his Ivermectin prescriptions are proof he was arrested for doing that, but that doesn't follow at all. The Ivermectin prescriptions and assault seem like they'd be legally independent events, and it's quite plausible he'd never have been arrested if he hadn't been so unreasonable as to throw things at people.
Also, here are some of their most recent editorials:
The Covid Lie grows like Pinocchio’s nose (https://freewestmedia.com/2021/09/27/the-covid-lie-grows-lik...)
Vetting Afghan immigrants for a religious comorbidity (Islam) (https://freewestmedia.com/2021/09/23/vetting-afghan-immigran...)
Terrorists in Daraa, Syria hoarding large amounts of cash (https://freewestmedia.com/2021/09/16/terrorists-in-daraa-syr...)
Daraa appears to be city that was recently captured by the Syrian government from the rebels. Calling the rebels "terrorists" seems to indicate a strong pro-Assad orientation.
Might want to be careful with that source. It looks like it's run by a "Swedish nationalist politician" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A1vra_Suk) and appears to be running stories based on the Russian government-owned TASS newswire (e.g. https://freewestmedia.com/2021/09/24/unionists-rise-up-again...).
Also this article shows a pretty bizarre misunderstanding to push an Ivermectin angle:
https://freewestmedia.com/2021/09/26/french-doctor-violently...
> The Associated Press has meanwhile tried to claim that the doctor was not arrested for prescribing Ivermectin and that this was “fake news” but patients treated by the physician confirmed that Théron had been prescribing the alternative life-saving treatment.
The AP article says he was arrested for assault, after throwing things at someone who was delivering documents to him about an investigation into problems with his medical practice. "Free West Media" seems to be trying to imply his Ivermectin prescriptions are proof he was arrested for doing that, but that doesn't follow at all. The Ivermectin prescriptions and assault seem like they'd be legally independent events, and it's quite plausible he'd never have been arrested if he hadn't been so unreasonable as to throw things at people.
Also, here are some of their most recent editorials:
The Covid Lie grows like Pinocchio’s nose (https://freewestmedia.com/2021/09/27/the-covid-lie-grows-lik...)
Vetting Afghan immigrants for a religious comorbidity (Islam) (https://freewestmedia.com/2021/09/23/vetting-afghan-immigran...)
Terrorists in Daraa, Syria hoarding large amounts of cash (https://freewestmedia.com/2021/09/16/terrorists-in-daraa-syr...)
Daraa appears to be city that was recently captured by the Syrian government from the rebels. Calling the rebels "terrorists" seems to indicate a strong pro-Assad orientation.
This link indeed seems to not be a reputable source of information - e.g. one that has been around for a long time or where people ine trusts, like well known scientists, publish once in a while; that's how one can spot a fake news outlet.
Europe can probably get dirt cheap gas from the Russians, the question is – at what cost?
Belarus gets gas quite cheap. The cost is independence, that brings RF standards of living under autocratic regime which "fights" against entire world (while its leaders gets enormous wealth).
Nuclear provided c. $50-60 /MWh in the past and even the worse recent versions are ~$100. They're mostly that high because investors don't trust the respective governments to not find some arbitrary roadblock 5 years down the line.
This on a continent with a proven track record of managing construction projects taking over a century for solely religious purposes.
At some point going cold whilst simultaneously cooking the planet is a choice. Fine, make it, but it was a choice. We're not a victim of circumstance.
This on a continent with a proven track record of managing construction projects taking over a century for solely religious purposes.
At some point going cold whilst simultaneously cooking the planet is a choice. Fine, make it, but it was a choice. We're not a victim of circumstance.
It will never cease to amaze me how these kinds of things don't make people consider fossil fuels to be an inherently unreliable tech. Only renewables get that rap(*), despite articles like this.
Just a week ago there was some article arguing that renewables unreliability was causing an energy crisis in the UK, and that the mature, reliable option was fossil fuels. And yet here we are.
* Whoops. Thanks for the correction.
Just a week ago there was some article arguing that renewables unreliability was causing an energy crisis in the UK, and that the mature, reliable option was fossil fuels. And yet here we are.
* Whoops. Thanks for the correction.
FYI - it’s a “rap,” as in “rap sheet.”
For the last several decades it have been pretty much established that the cheapest way to operate a energy grid is to use renewables as a way to produce absolute cheapest energy when weather conditions is around optimal, and then to use cheap fossil fuels when the weather turns non-optimal and output goes below demand. A grid that only operated on fossil fuels would just be more expensive.
People arguing against this setup usually lift nuclear as the contender, as it is not effected by changing weather nor release poisonous emissions into the air. In EU there is also the usual argument of being less dependent on Russia and the middle east for energy. It thus sounds odd that someone would argue in favor of a grid with only fossil fuels, as that would just be more expensive compared to one that combines fossil fuel with renewable with no gained benefits.
People arguing against this setup usually lift nuclear as the contender, as it is not effected by changing weather nor release poisonous emissions into the air. In EU there is also the usual argument of being less dependent on Russia and the middle east for energy. It thus sounds odd that someone would argue in favor of a grid with only fossil fuels, as that would just be more expensive compared to one that combines fossil fuel with renewable with no gained benefits.
I think it will make sense to way over produce on renewables such that non-optimal times still produce enough electricity. And then use the excess of the spikes for either storage or energy intensive operations like aluminum smelting or large scale water desalination.
Or producing storable fuels, such as hydrogen or converting atmospheric CO2 into kerosene.
I'd count that as storage. As for storage, I see pumped hydro or lithium ion (or maybe liquid metal) batteries as the best bets.
We will have to remove CO2 too so maybe the kerosene is another viable pathway.
We will have to remove CO2 too so maybe the kerosene is another viable pathway.
In order to make storage economical viable in regions that depend on wind power it need to have its costs significant reduced, especially compared to nuclear which is already deemed too expensive. Producing storable hydrogen from ocean wind farm was when I last checked 20-30 times more expensive than natural gas, and a few times more expensive than nuclear. Other storage techniques for wind do not fare much better and has other additional drawbacks, with lithium batteries being prohibitively costly in terms of long term capacity.
High energy intensive operations are already somewhat dynamic to changes in the energy grid, but there is a cross point where the cost of shutting down operation in order to wait for better weather is not viable. Large scale water desalination is not that big to my knowledge in EU/UK.
At the same time, over production is a hard sell for wind farms operators. It reduces profitability since you then have periods where competition makes the prices goes close or even beyond zero. When Denmark hit 100% capacity we saw a very distinct change in the market where the interest to invest into more wind went drastically down. Wind is still the cheapest way to produce energy but overproduction cuts into that cost advantage, making alternative energy production better investment in comparison.
High energy intensive operations are already somewhat dynamic to changes in the energy grid, but there is a cross point where the cost of shutting down operation in order to wait for better weather is not viable. Large scale water desalination is not that big to my knowledge in EU/UK.
At the same time, over production is a hard sell for wind farms operators. It reduces profitability since you then have periods where competition makes the prices goes close or even beyond zero. When Denmark hit 100% capacity we saw a very distinct change in the market where the interest to invest into more wind went drastically down. Wind is still the cheapest way to produce energy but overproduction cuts into that cost advantage, making alternative energy production better investment in comparison.
It's self created...
Nuclear is a great option; unfortunately renewables need a high amount of storage capacity AND expensive other minerals AND space AND particular environments.
That being said, renewables are great if you can set them up. For instance, I'm building a hydroelectric & solar system on my farm. That does not mean I think it's for everywhere.
Nuclear, Coal and Natural Gas are going to be necessary for northern climates and many regions due to environmental factors.
Nuclear is a great option; unfortunately renewables need a high amount of storage capacity AND expensive other minerals AND space AND particular environments.
That being said, renewables are great if you can set them up. For instance, I'm building a hydroelectric & solar system on my farm. That does not mean I think it's for everywhere.
Nuclear, Coal and Natural Gas are going to be necessary for northern climates and many regions due to environmental factors.
> Nuclear is a great option
It's not, for a multitude of reasons:
- New ordinary reactor projects (EPR) are ridiculously overrunning timelines and budgets, they are putting Berlin's infamous BER airport to shame
- New revolutionary concepts (MSR) are at the moment vaporware, not to mention the unsolved proliferation issues
- Europe (unlike the US, Australia and Russia) doesn't have remote places to safely dump all the nuclear garbage
- Most of Africa and South America are politically too unstable to do anything involving nuclear. Last thing unstable narco countries or war zones need is to worry about terrorists snatching up nuclear material and building dirty bombs
- Most of the world's uranium production comes from dictatorships and has intense environmental concerns surrounding it, making it an ethically questionable fuel source
- Even our existing nuclear plants are plagued with mismanagement, cost-cutting and accidents (see e.g. the infamous Sellafield plant in UK), not to mention they are extremely old. Many have been placed in geologically questionable areas, further increasing the risk of a repeat of a Fukushima-style incident.
It's not, for a multitude of reasons:
- New ordinary reactor projects (EPR) are ridiculously overrunning timelines and budgets, they are putting Berlin's infamous BER airport to shame
- New revolutionary concepts (MSR) are at the moment vaporware, not to mention the unsolved proliferation issues
- Europe (unlike the US, Australia and Russia) doesn't have remote places to safely dump all the nuclear garbage
- Most of Africa and South America are politically too unstable to do anything involving nuclear. Last thing unstable narco countries or war zones need is to worry about terrorists snatching up nuclear material and building dirty bombs
- Most of the world's uranium production comes from dictatorships and has intense environmental concerns surrounding it, making it an ethically questionable fuel source
- Even our existing nuclear plants are plagued with mismanagement, cost-cutting and accidents (see e.g. the infamous Sellafield plant in UK), not to mention they are extremely old. Many have been placed in geologically questionable areas, further increasing the risk of a repeat of a Fukushima-style incident.
> - Europe (unlike the US, Australia and Russia) doesn't have remote places to safely dump all the nuclear garbage
You mean if you exclude places like northern Scandinavia, Greenland and Svalbard?
You mean if you exclude places like northern Scandinavia, Greenland and Svalbard?
Greenland hardly counts as "Europe" - that's mostly an historical curiosity.
And Svalbard - sure! - let's dump our garbage in one of the few remaining somewhat pristine Arctic islands. Brilliant!
As for other places in northern Scandinavia, ask the natives whether they're cool (pun not intended) with becoming the dumping ground for the rest of the continent.
And Svalbard - sure! - let's dump our garbage in one of the few remaining somewhat pristine Arctic islands. Brilliant!
As for other places in northern Scandinavia, ask the natives whether they're cool (pun not intended) with becoming the dumping ground for the rest of the continent.
And you don't need a remote place to store nuclear material. You need a stable geological stratum.
It takes at least a decade to build a modern nuclear power plant from planning to regular operation.
A modern reactor block has a net capacity of about 1.3 GW. Last year, 1.4 GW net have been installed in just wind power in Germany. Sure that's not a good comparison, since both over-provisioning and storage have to be accounted for, but it just goes to show how quickly alternatives can be scaled up (side note, the newly installed capacity in 2017 was 5.3 GW).
The problem with nuclear power is logistics and time. There's only so many specialists for planning and building nuclear facilities plus most countries simply cannot afford to have more than dozen or so under construction at any given time.
The countries that'd benefit the most from cheap and reliable electricity ae incidentally countries that can neither afford nor operate nuclear power for various reasons. That's not just political instability and lack of expertise, but also geography. You need stable ground and cooling, so dry regions with seasonal flooding are off the table.
Not to mention the enormous amount of additional infrastructure, from substations to stable grids. Oh, and nuclear reactors are crap at load following so unless you have substantial baseload (e.g. heavy industry), you'd need somewhere to dump excess electricity.
A modern reactor block has a net capacity of about 1.3 GW. Last year, 1.4 GW net have been installed in just wind power in Germany. Sure that's not a good comparison, since both over-provisioning and storage have to be accounted for, but it just goes to show how quickly alternatives can be scaled up (side note, the newly installed capacity in 2017 was 5.3 GW).
The problem with nuclear power is logistics and time. There's only so many specialists for planning and building nuclear facilities plus most countries simply cannot afford to have more than dozen or so under construction at any given time.
The countries that'd benefit the most from cheap and reliable electricity ae incidentally countries that can neither afford nor operate nuclear power for various reasons. That's not just political instability and lack of expertise, but also geography. You need stable ground and cooling, so dry regions with seasonal flooding are off the table.
Not to mention the enormous amount of additional infrastructure, from substations to stable grids. Oh, and nuclear reactors are crap at load following so unless you have substantial baseload (e.g. heavy industry), you'd need somewhere to dump excess electricity.
> Not to mention the enormous amount of additional infrastructure, from substations to stable grids. Oh, and nuclear reactors are crap at load following so unless you have substantial baseload (e.g. heavy industry), you'd need somewhere to dump excess electricity.
That's not true. Modern nuclear power plants can move at 5% of full load per minute up and down. France is doing load following country wide with its nuclear reactors.
In fact the French must be laughing at this energy debacle with their 75% share of nuclear energy.
That's not true. Modern nuclear power plants can move at 5% of full load per minute up and down. France is doing load following country wide with its nuclear reactors.
In fact the French must be laughing at this energy debacle with their 75% share of nuclear energy.
> That's not true. Modern nuclear power plants can move at 5% of full load per minute up and down.
Capable of doesn't equal safe and economical, though, which is why France's reactors are capped at 2.3%. This still doesn't affect the minimum load of about 45% either (the safe range is ~37% to 83%).
> France is doing load following country wide with its nuclear reactors.
No it isn't. Some reactors are being operated in load following mode. Not all and not most.
> In fact the French must be laughing at this energy debacle with their 75% share of nuclear energy.
This "energy debacle" affects France just as well because it's not about electricity (except for very few countries like Romania) and primarily about heating and industry.
The amount of natural gas consumed by France amounted to about 1743512 TJ compared to 1436443 TJ in gross electricity production using nuclear power in 2019 [1].
So France is using more natural gas (in terms of energy) than electricity generated from nuclear power, so much for that misinformed bit.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/11099022/KS-... pg.96ff
Capable of doesn't equal safe and economical, though, which is why France's reactors are capped at 2.3%. This still doesn't affect the minimum load of about 45% either (the safe range is ~37% to 83%).
> France is doing load following country wide with its nuclear reactors.
No it isn't. Some reactors are being operated in load following mode. Not all and not most.
> In fact the French must be laughing at this energy debacle with their 75% share of nuclear energy.
This "energy debacle" affects France just as well because it's not about electricity (except for very few countries like Romania) and primarily about heating and industry.
The amount of natural gas consumed by France amounted to about 1743512 TJ compared to 1436443 TJ in gross electricity production using nuclear power in 2019 [1].
So France is using more natural gas (in terms of energy) than electricity generated from nuclear power, so much for that misinformed bit.
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/11099022/KS-... pg.96ff
After reading this article, I am now informed that there has been a price rise in natural gas. My next question is why? Demand must be up, or supply must be down, or both. What's driving the changes in supply and demand? For example, this article says China has imported 2x as much LNG as last year, but still doesn't have enough. How is that even possible?
Nothing conclusive, but some believe it is Russia squeezing the prices [1][2]. In order to get Nord Stream 2 started.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/5ec6b18d-c855-408d-acad-cb5779d10...
[2] https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/us-blame-russia...
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/5ec6b18d-c855-408d-acad-cb5779d10...
[2] https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/us-blame-russia...
Russia fulfilled each and every contract, as said in above mentioned articles
That does not contradict that theory. If they fulfilled their end the more reason to put pressure on Germany.
Russia delivered what was ordered and the price is way lower than the current one.
"Gazprom Germania is keeping a low profile when asked about the reasons for the largely empty Rehden storage facility. Injection and withdrawal volumes were carried out by customers, a spokesman said in response to a query. "Therefore, we also cannot forecast how the development will look in the future."
"Gazprom Germania is keeping a low profile when asked about the reasons for the largely empty Rehden storage facility. Injection and withdrawal volumes were carried out by customers, a spokesman said in response to a query. "Therefore, we also cannot forecast how the development will look in the future."
Pressure Germany WITH WHAT exactly? I failed to see how one could pressure Germany, and WHY Germans won't report that "pressure"
Just passing on what I've read...
They want Germany to fire up Nord Stream 2, from which point onwards they can say "as seen in 2021, we can't meet your needs without it" and it never turns off again
https://archive.is/Dt0FH
They want Germany to fire up Nord Stream 2, from which point onwards they can say "as seen in 2021, we can't meet your needs without it" and it never turns off again
https://archive.is/Dt0FH
Problem with this theory is that Germany is getting gas in full compliance with contracts and actually at lower long-term prices than spot ones.
How Germany could be pressured (with NS-2 or without it)? With what?
How Germany could be pressured (with NS-2 or without it)? With what?
However, another super power promised that it would satisfy any demands. So that can't be it… ;-)
Several reasons are given in the article. Hydro and wind are down, nuclear is being phased out, coal plants are converted to gas, among others.
Sure, but I would expect those to be part of forecasted long term trends, and thus to be priced in gradually. I wouldn't expect an acute shortage to result from these reasons. (I mean clearly my expectations are wrong given what is happening but this doesn't match my prior understanding of how things are supposed to work.)
I wonder if this type of event will presage a shift back to nuclear for Europe. Nuclear and renewable are basically Europe's only options for energy independence. A price rise like this might make them rethink their current fuel mix.
I wonder if this type of event will presage a shift back to nuclear for Europe. Nuclear and renewable are basically Europe's only options for energy independence. A price rise like this might make them rethink their current fuel mix.
About coal: 2030 seems to be the deadline to close all coal burning power plants in Europe. Every year more coal power plants will be shut down. This year was a deadline year for some countries in the EU.
It was all a long term plan, but poorly executed.
Nuclear would be great. I’m not sure how many reactors are gen 2 or gen 3. Gen 2 reactors are still risky.
It was all a long term plan, but poorly executed.
Nuclear would be great. I’m not sure how many reactors are gen 2 or gen 3. Gen 2 reactors are still risky.
Unless all the heat in Europe switches over to electric powered, you're still going to have natgas crunches from time to time during the winter.
The French government is massively subsidizing conversions from oil or gas furnaces to heat pumps, and their electricity is majority nuclear.
Supply of gas isn't endangered currently, on the contrary. There are parties competing to sell ressources.
What drives energy prices in central Europe are investments in changing the infrastructure to renewable. Yes, that isn't cheap. But not really a crisis in the common sense. Some people would like to see the gas prices inflated perhaps.
What drives energy prices in central Europe are investments in changing the infrastructure to renewable. Yes, that isn't cheap. But not really a crisis in the common sense. Some people would like to see the gas prices inflated perhaps.
This will happen eventually for climate change reasons, but I think it's going to take a while.
> thus to be priced in gradually
well, then, it is priced in, maybe just not that gradually
well, then, it is priced in, maybe just not that gradually
" I wouldn't expect an acute shortage to result from these reasons. (I mean clearly my expectations are wrong given what is happening but this doesn't match my prior understanding of how things are supposed to work.)"
Coal is actually pretty important to smooth out energy. There was something fascinating I learned during the Texas outage last year. At the time I was privy to private exchange emails among power engineers.
One engineer explained that one of the problems they were having is that, with the closing of coal plants, the reliability of the grid goes down. And with a very good reason: You can store a massive pile of coal next to the plant for (basically) free [1].
oil, by comparison, is expensive to store, natgas more expensive still. What happens is, in the winter, the pressure of the natgas lines goes down as consumers drive up their thermostats. Therefore, natgas plants can't deliver the power required beacuse the gas isn't there. So, in the N. East of the USA where there are nasty cold snaps, power operators have piles of coal ready to be burned in coal plants.
Most of the power is still from natgas throughout the year, but coal bails you out when it gets super cold (note, the midwest doesn't need this because it's always nastily cold there -> the natgas lines are built accordingly).
[1] Some, having read the popular press explanations of the outage, will complain that renewables delivered 90% of what was requested. That's true, but only half of the story. The 90% figure was a de-rated amount of energy [2]. Basically dispatchers knew that renewables weren't going to deliver and adjusted their predictions accordingly. The blackout happened, therefore, because the power source that was expected to show up and deliver in this situation tripped over itself. There's no doubt natgas can deliver - it does every winter in the North - but it can't if it's not implemented properly, or if there's not enough gas pressure in the lines to deal with a massive sure.
[2] None of this is meant to be a dismissal of renewable energy. Texas leads in renewables, and why shouldn't they? It's a resource that (can) cleans up our environment. But i power we can't treat things like panaceas and have to be realistic about where we stand.
Coal is actually pretty important to smooth out energy. There was something fascinating I learned during the Texas outage last year. At the time I was privy to private exchange emails among power engineers.
One engineer explained that one of the problems they were having is that, with the closing of coal plants, the reliability of the grid goes down. And with a very good reason: You can store a massive pile of coal next to the plant for (basically) free [1].
oil, by comparison, is expensive to store, natgas more expensive still. What happens is, in the winter, the pressure of the natgas lines goes down as consumers drive up their thermostats. Therefore, natgas plants can't deliver the power required beacuse the gas isn't there. So, in the N. East of the USA where there are nasty cold snaps, power operators have piles of coal ready to be burned in coal plants.
Most of the power is still from natgas throughout the year, but coal bails you out when it gets super cold (note, the midwest doesn't need this because it's always nastily cold there -> the natgas lines are built accordingly).
[1] Some, having read the popular press explanations of the outage, will complain that renewables delivered 90% of what was requested. That's true, but only half of the story. The 90% figure was a de-rated amount of energy [2]. Basically dispatchers knew that renewables weren't going to deliver and adjusted their predictions accordingly. The blackout happened, therefore, because the power source that was expected to show up and deliver in this situation tripped over itself. There's no doubt natgas can deliver - it does every winter in the North - but it can't if it's not implemented properly, or if there's not enough gas pressure in the lines to deal with a massive sure.
[2] None of this is meant to be a dismissal of renewable energy. Texas leads in renewables, and why shouldn't they? It's a resource that (can) cleans up our environment. But i power we can't treat things like panaceas and have to be realistic about where we stand.
Raw renewable share:
Month August,September
2021: 52%,40%
2020: 48%,44%
2019: 46%,48%
2018: 38%,41%
The thing about gas is that you can store it. If August produces too much you can use less gas in August and use it in September. If you take both months they average to 46% which is the same as 2020. 10% less renewables in this specific month isn't enough to cause price explosions especially when the previous month had been at an all time high.
Data: https://energy-charts.info/charts/renewable_share/chart.htm?...
Month August,September
2021: 52%,40%
2020: 48%,44%
2019: 46%,48%
2018: 38%,41%
The thing about gas is that you can store it. If August produces too much you can use less gas in August and use it in September. If you take both months they average to 46% which is the same as 2020. 10% less renewables in this specific month isn't enough to cause price explosions especially when the previous month had been at an all time high.
Data: https://energy-charts.info/charts/renewable_share/chart.htm?...
I have understood that storing gas and even reducing production by a lot is not exactly simple process at scales we use it. Same goes for oil.
It is important to note that construction of wind farms is not down. 2020 had an increase in capacity of 20 GW with $31 billion of investment in offshore wind alone.
It's less about quantity of wind plants being built, but a unusually long period of quiet weather has led to output being down significantly from those already in place at time where gas was the only option to pick up the slack.
I doubt the amount of megawatts add up to this simplistic conclusion of this being because of renewables failing us or Europe abandoning nuclear. Plenty of wind here in Germany in the last few weeks. Hydro in Norway is a thing but it's actually not that big of a portion of the grid across Europe and the output is fairly stable. Nuclear has been on the decline for many years but not that many plants actually shut down recently. It certainly pales in comparison to the amount of wind/solar coming online every year. Coal decline is much more significant since the amount of that disappearing from grids is a lot higher in recent years.
The amount of gas usage for electricity production isn't actually increasing that much either because coal capacity is actually mostly being replaced with renewable energy instead. There are maybe a few new gas plants coming online recently but overall the proportion of gas is barely growing in the European electricity market (unlike renewables). E.g. Germany has actually seen a slight decrease in the overall amount of gas consumed over the last 20 years or so: https://www.statista.com/statistics/703657/natural-gas-consu...
However, the problem is not shortages or blackouts but high prices of gas specifically. There are no blackouts in Europe right now. Just people getting frustrated with having to pay more for their energy.
Partially the high prices are because of a global shift in demand and partially this is because of e.g. CO2 emission pricing, which is a thing in Europe. But a big part is also that Covid lockdown restrictions have been lifted in the last few months and economic activity and associated energy consumption is a lot higher all over the world. Large parts of Europe use gas for heating much more than for electricity. Gas shortages would be a problem for that reason specifically. So, I expect Russia will have a great year for gas exports as they will be able to charge a premium.
This report has a nice summary of the energy market in Europe last month: https://aleasoft.com/beyond-price-records-august-good-month-...
Wind in Germany was actually improving during August. Solar was pretty decent too though July was a bit off compared to previous years. It's autumn now so that usually means more wind and less solar. Lots of rain too. Good news for wind and hydro in other words. I'm not aware of any seasonally unusual drought or low wind predictions for the next few months.
The amount of gas usage for electricity production isn't actually increasing that much either because coal capacity is actually mostly being replaced with renewable energy instead. There are maybe a few new gas plants coming online recently but overall the proportion of gas is barely growing in the European electricity market (unlike renewables). E.g. Germany has actually seen a slight decrease in the overall amount of gas consumed over the last 20 years or so: https://www.statista.com/statistics/703657/natural-gas-consu...
However, the problem is not shortages or blackouts but high prices of gas specifically. There are no blackouts in Europe right now. Just people getting frustrated with having to pay more for their energy.
Partially the high prices are because of a global shift in demand and partially this is because of e.g. CO2 emission pricing, which is a thing in Europe. But a big part is also that Covid lockdown restrictions have been lifted in the last few months and economic activity and associated energy consumption is a lot higher all over the world. Large parts of Europe use gas for heating much more than for electricity. Gas shortages would be a problem for that reason specifically. So, I expect Russia will have a great year for gas exports as they will be able to charge a premium.
This report has a nice summary of the energy market in Europe last month: https://aleasoft.com/beyond-price-records-august-good-month-...
Wind in Germany was actually improving during August. Solar was pretty decent too though July was a bit off compared to previous years. It's autumn now so that usually means more wind and less solar. Lots of rain too. Good news for wind and hydro in other words. I'm not aware of any seasonally unusual drought or low wind predictions for the next few months.
Because China isn't importing coal from Australia
Why? Colder-than-average winter last year, warmer-than-average summer this year. Demand is holding steady, or even increasing, and Texas shut down supply during their freeze. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/why-the-natural-gas-...
Regarding Europe - Russian Federation wants additional leverage against Ukraine, to crush its economy. Recently Putin has claimed Ukraine transit would remain if it would disarm itself. That's words of occupant country to occupied country (15 thousands died, 1.5 millions have lost home).
RF has built NS2, purely political project, and now wants to certify it.
RF has built NS2, purely political project, and now wants to certify it.
Coal plants are being shut down and there is a drive to resume economic activity (or even push harder to catch up) since covid is being managed better and there's plenty of pent-up demand to meet. That's how I see it, at least.
Also oil price is normalizing after period of low demand which drove it down. This might not be big impact directly, but it also affects in general.
And winter is coming, which means more demand for energy in general and less supply from solar specially.
And winter is coming, which means more demand for energy in general and less supply from solar specially.
Germany has a mechanism to couple gas prices to oil prices, a contractual requirement to appease corporations building pipe lines.
It is a complex issue. Usually gas is extracted as a byproduct of coal or even oil. No coal being extracted, no gas. No supply, big demand. Prices go up.
Also gas tankers have waited for years on the sea without entering port because of COVID. Lots of companies have gone under and the supply has been disrupted.
It takes months for a gas tanker to move and global transport right now is chaos.
Also gas tankers have waited for years on the sea without entering port because of COVID. Lots of companies have gone under and the supply has been disrupted.
It takes months for a gas tanker to move and global transport right now is chaos.
[citation needed]
Entrepreneurs sold off supplies and want importers to offer more for cheap...
...actually there should be no shortage... It's the invisible hand of the market... it was just that those who should have stored gas for winter use sold it of because of demand and prices- and are now trying to pressure Exporters to offer additional gas for cheap to fill up their tanks again... and yes, with North Stream 2 completed, Russia could benefit from this, too...
So through gas market liberalisation it got very difficult to keep reserves against the will of entrepreneurs, who decided that their profit is more important than freezing EU citizens. Now they want to distract from that by blaming Exporters and mainly Russia, who delivered on time and the agreed upon amount, for not offering more cheap gas under market value... Peak Capitalism ftw
So through gas market liberalisation it got very difficult to keep reserves against the will of entrepreneurs, who decided that their profit is more important than freezing EU citizens. Now they want to distract from that by blaming Exporters and mainly Russia, who delivered on time and the agreed upon amount, for not offering more cheap gas under market value... Peak Capitalism ftw
The difference is that under capitalism, these types of resource shortages are so rare that we all freak when they occur. The rest of the 99.99% of the time, commodities have never been as cheap or as plentiful.
Under every other system, people just came to expect shortages of basic essentials like food and fuel.
It may not be perfect, but it’s the least worst system we have.
Under every other system, people just came to expect shortages of basic essentials like food and fuel.
It may not be perfect, but it’s the least worst system we have.
France pushed for nuclear energy for decades, only to get pushed down by "allies", now they will all get their juicy contracts with American's companies.. what a sad story
[deleted]
Natural gas from trash is undergoing a rapid growth period:
https://www.archaeaenergy.com
Details:
https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_628372108fa37c6495a97d...
As ever, the cornucopians will win and the Malthusians will lose !
https://www.archaeaenergy.com
Details:
https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_628372108fa37c6495a97d...
As ever, the cornucopians will win and the Malthusians will lose !
The US has long been in the dark ages for this. Northern Europe uses a lot of "district heating" [1], which often is trash burning (or other renewable source) plants used to heat water and distribute heated water to residences for area heating and hot water purposes. It's a classic example of having subsidies for traditional/polluting energy and having very few subsidies for newer forms of cleaner energy.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating
Bet more than a few in Germany are going to regret shutting down nuclear....
[deleted]
The rest of the world minus North America*, whose main problem seems to be selling too much of it!
The USA imports about 3.7 million b/d in 2021.
Russia is now the second largest supplier at 844,000 (May 2021).
Russia is now the second largest supplier at 844,000 (May 2021).
This crisis is about natural gas, not oil, as described in the article.
The USA imports ~0% of its natural gas from Russia, >98% from Canada, all dwarfed by its exports though making it one of the LNG sellers Asia and Europe are turning to, as described in the article.
That’s assuming the DoE doesn’t at some point need to prioritize domestic needs over exports like Russia did however, as described in the article.
My comment was also about North America, which includes Mexico and critically Canada. But if you’d like more about the US, here’s a nice recent overview of its natural gas trade: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49156
The USA imports ~0% of its natural gas from Russia, >98% from Canada, all dwarfed by its exports though making it one of the LNG sellers Asia and Europe are turning to, as described in the article.
That’s assuming the DoE doesn’t at some point need to prioritize domestic needs over exports like Russia did however, as described in the article.
My comment was also about North America, which includes Mexico and critically Canada. But if you’d like more about the US, here’s a nice recent overview of its natural gas trade: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=49156
> The USA imports ~0% of its natural gas from Russia, >98% from Canada, all dwarfed by its exports
Be that as it may, natural gas is a globally priced commodity [1], so US consumers won't be shielded from prices increases, unless the government decides to subsidize it.
1. https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/natural-gas
Be that as it may, natural gas is a globally priced commodity [1], so US consumers won't be shielded from prices increases, unless the government decides to subsidize it.
1. https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/natural-gas
Maybe already mentioned. The economy usually crashes when gas prices go up.
Gas has almost hit that pinnacle $5 a gallon in some parts of California.
Gas has almost hit that pinnacle $5 a gallon in some parts of California.
Lets just blame it all on brexit, it’s much easier!
Will EU ever allow fracking? I guess its still easier to import fracked gas from other countries. Blessed to have $$$ and keep the EU environment clean.
That’s what divesting from coal gets you, more expensive energy. Of course this hits the poor classes a lot harder compared to the middle-classes who pride themselves in recycling and driving an EV that costs several tens of thousands of euros but that’s unfortunately the way the world runs, the poor get almost all of the hardships while the better-off get to dictate the discourse. Still sucks, though.
Most of the people in the world aka energy consumers are not wealthy, if the price doesn't impact the "poor" you can't make people consume less really.
The worlds poorest use far less energy than the worlds wealthiest. If we want a world where the worlds poorest can rise, energy policy needs to be softer on the poor, and the richest will have to pay more of the cost. The rich countries rose to the top on the back of historically cheap energy, to some extent.
"The average US citizen still consumes more than ten times the energy of the average Indian, 4-5 times that of a Brazilian, and three times more than China"
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-access#per-capita-energy-c...
"The average US citizen still consumes more than ten times the energy of the average Indian, 4-5 times that of a Brazilian, and three times more than China"
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-access#per-capita-energy-c...
You know what will impact the poor a lot more than it will impact rich people? In the form of crop failures, desertification, water scarcity, land degradation etc…?
Climate change.
Climate change.
Of course individually they consume less, when talking about the mass and big numbers, ultra wealthy are a statistical anomaly.
Most of the poor energy footprint is not optional: commuting (most can't live in expensive districts), heating a single small apartment, basic food, buy a few leisure things.
Almost all the wealthy footprint is discretionary: air travel, luxury purchase, package holidays... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-0579-8
Your "statistical anomaly" is not anecdotal, it's the very symbol of a broken system that was designed not to care.
In this situation, I cannot expect the non-wealthy to make big efforts to reduce their consumption while the ultra rich continues to casually destroy the environment. We're letting the rich take almost all the profit but we ask the poor to work harder only because they're more numerous. This can only end with violence or a catastrophe, IMHO.
Almost all the wealthy footprint is discretionary: air travel, luxury purchase, package holidays... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-0579-8
Your "statistical anomaly" is not anecdotal, it's the very symbol of a broken system that was designed not to care.
In this situation, I cannot expect the non-wealthy to make big efforts to reduce their consumption while the ultra rich continues to casually destroy the environment. We're letting the rich take almost all the profit but we ask the poor to work harder only because they're more numerous. This can only end with violence or a catastrophe, IMHO.
Right, but then what are options? Everything hits the poor I agree but if you don't want to then we will just let the global warming to run rampant and watch?
Ultra wealthy aside, this is about comparing the world's wealthiest economies to the world's poorest. There's a 10:1 ratio of energy usage in USA vs India for example (per capita).
So they should market those measures for what they really are, i.e. regressive taxes/measures that, by definition, have a bigger impact on the poor than on the wealthy. The “let’s save the planet!” discourse controlled by the wealthy fails to mention that (with few exceptions, lately).
The poor, in democracy, will vote for their interests. So, unless you abandon democracy, you won't get the poor to vote carbon taxes.
How about we start by putting a $1000/flight tax? Seems only fair that the rich, mobile class start reducing their emissions. After all, it's actually the upper classes that consume (by far) energy in gross terms.
How about we start by putting a $1000/flight tax? Seems only fair that the rich, mobile class start reducing their emissions. After all, it's actually the upper classes that consume (by far) energy in gross terms.
This just punishes those with family abroad and reduces economic mobility.
It'd be hard to tax private jets, so much like the EU has just done with fuel duty, they end up exempting the super-rich and hammering the working class with more taxes.
It'd be hard to tax private jets, so much like the EU has just done with fuel duty, they end up exempting the super-rich and hammering the working class with more taxes.
It’s actually more efficient for a person to fly 400mi in a reasonably full plain than it is to drive solo in an average American car
> That’s what divesting from coal gets you, more expensive energy.
Only if you ignore its externalities and let someone else pay for them. Coal is wickedly expensive if you consider its costs beyond mining/transportation/storage/combustion.
Only if you ignore its externalities and let someone else pay for them. Coal is wickedly expensive if you consider its costs beyond mining/transportation/storage/combustion.
I agree, but right now the externalities are also supported by the better-off, as they can also get cancer and what have you from dirtier air, that’s one of the prime reasons for this push. In the new regime almost all the weight falls on the less-off.
Almost all the cancer falls on the poor, not just because they tend to live closer to power plants (unlike carbon dioxide, CFCs, and even sulfur dioxide, the pollution that causes cancer is fairly localized) and work in coal mines, but because there are more of them.
In most of the world fossil-fuel energy are more expensive than renewable energy, which is why more coal power plants are being shut down than built (in 02020, outside PRC; in 02021, in the world). The advantage of fossil fuels is mostly that they're more predictable. Britain (and the Netherlands, Germany, and a few other places) have a particularly bad version of the problem because they have so little sunlight.
But the problem Europe is hitting right now is not unexpectedly high prices, but actually running out. Blackouts, fuel pumps running dry, empty inventories, maybe a lack of natural gas. Such shortages can happen in one or another place because someone gambled and lost, but when they happen systemically, it's because of price controls; I wonder why those aren't mentioned in the article? The international LNG market isn't subject to price controls, but retail utility markets are typically heavily regulated, to the point of routinely forcing electricity distributors into unprofitability from time to time, usually temporarily.
Climate change is likely to cause a lot of hydroelectric disruption over the next century as rainfall patterns move the rainfall from where hydroelectric dams have been built to where they haven't.
But the problem Europe is hitting right now is not unexpectedly high prices, but actually running out. Blackouts, fuel pumps running dry, empty inventories, maybe a lack of natural gas. Such shortages can happen in one or another place because someone gambled and lost, but when they happen systemically, it's because of price controls; I wonder why those aren't mentioned in the article? The international LNG market isn't subject to price controls, but retail utility markets are typically heavily regulated, to the point of routinely forcing electricity distributors into unprofitability from time to time, usually temporarily.
Climate change is likely to cause a lot of hydroelectric disruption over the next century as rainfall patterns move the rainfall from where hydroelectric dams have been built to where they haven't.
Poor people also were against EVs before they went mainstream, so does that count for anything? I would evangelize Tesla and EVs in general in 2010 and the overwhelming majority of people who thought that EVs were “dumb” were poor and lower class. A poor person has the exact same opportunity as a rich person to say the words “that makes sense, let’s try it.”
A poor person has the exact same opportunity to by a $100k plus Tesla in 2010? Surely you can’t be serious with this argument.
> to say the words “that makes sense, let’s try it.”
Cheap gas over the past 10-15 years has driven divestment from coal as much as a push for renewables.
As for EVs: they require a tiny fraction of the maintenance of ICE cars and so they will eventually be far cheaper. Used EVs are already an incredible deal in many areas. Where I live you can get a used Leaf with 60-80 miles range (enough for daily commute) that requires basically zero maintenance for <$8000. Charge it at home or at work and the fuel cost is tiny too.
As for EVs: they require a tiny fraction of the maintenance of ICE cars and so they will eventually be far cheaper. Used EVs are already an incredible deal in many areas. Where I live you can get a used Leaf with 60-80 miles range (enough for daily commute) that requires basically zero maintenance for <$8000. Charge it at home or at work and the fuel cost is tiny too.
Why am I constantly berated with articles about how renewable energy accounts for a large part of European energy? Are all of these just sensationalist? I'm asking a serious question because it seems that their renewables just aren't cutting it.
There seems to be a large push to force America on to the same "green" plan. If the choice is between not having enough energy and being able to get fossil fuels from your own nation's land, being mostly self-sustaining. I know what I'm choosing.
Putting all your eggs in one basket just seems like a bad idea. Yes invest in green/renewable energy but this idea that we can just cut out fossil fuels doesn't seem to hold up.
There seems to be a large push to force America on to the same "green" plan. If the choice is between not having enough energy and being able to get fossil fuels from your own nation's land, being mostly self-sustaining. I know what I'm choosing.
Putting all your eggs in one basket just seems like a bad idea. Yes invest in green/renewable energy but this idea that we can just cut out fossil fuels doesn't seem to hold up.
> I'm asking a serious question because it seems that their renewables just aren't cutting it.
Right, renewables don't cut it, and they won't without magnitudes more investment. However, notice that France doesn't have these problems.
We cannot keep planning to use weather-dependent energy sources when our climate is rapidly changing in unpredictable ways.
Right, renewables don't cut it, and they won't without magnitudes more investment. However, notice that France doesn't have these problems.
We cannot keep planning to use weather-dependent energy sources when our climate is rapidly changing in unpredictable ways.
> Are all of these just sensationalist?
Yes
Yes
Texas 6 months ago had a worse energy crisis than western Europe have had in a very long time. Seems like America is way ahead of Europe in terms of unreliable power generation.
That's because they got hit by an extremely rare ice storm they weren't adequately prepared for. It really had nothing to do with having more/less renewable energy.
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2021/02/16/tex...
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/nation/2021/02/16/tex...
I didn't say it had anything to do with renewable energy, just that they had less reliable power production. And no, it had little to do with that storm, Texas face power problems almost every year. It is systemic, and largely due to politics of them cutting themselves off from other grids and how their energy sector works.
Europe is way more robust since the net is extremely well connected between countries, and I don't think that factories can buy up all available electricity like they did in Texas causing power outages for homes. Rather Europe would shut down the factories and let people have electricity in their homes. Homes losing power for a few days is a huge problem, factories shutting down for a few days isn't a big deal.
Europe is way more robust since the net is extremely well connected between countries, and I don't think that factories can buy up all available electricity like they did in Texas causing power outages for homes. Rather Europe would shut down the factories and let people have electricity in their homes. Homes losing power for a few days is a huge problem, factories shutting down for a few days isn't a big deal.
Ok sorry I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were blaming it completely on not having enough renewables.
Imagine if Europe got hit with a ice storm
I hope you realize that Europe got hit by that same ice storm as Texas did, it wasn't a crisis. Europe just has better power infrastructure in general, being dense and well connected helps a lot.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/02/08/snowstorm-...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2021/02/08/snowstorm-...
Energy is so important, yet so cheap. I still hear people flying in for a two hour business meeting, or commuting by car tens of kilometers. Only when that ceases to be economically viable we should call the price high. Until then, I'm happy it finally makes economical sense to reduce CO2 output.