|
EU energy crisis is not a transient blip: https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/1574518054905470976 Backs up what this guy is saying: https://twitter.com/BurggrabenH/status/1567929340737863680
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 10:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
Shellenberger is an oil & gas stooge iirc and he straight up links to an article of his 'the end of renewables mania' He most likely is correct on the energy crisis lasting through the winter but the guy wants us to burn more dinosaur juice because thats how he gets paid. Beware of his catastrophizing bullshit. Esp. On renewables
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 11:14
|
|
|
mortons stork posted:Shellenberger is an oil & gas stooge iirc and he straight up links to an article of his 'the end of renewables mania' More like Shillenberger.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 11:15
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BurggrabenH/status/1574683968498065408?cxt=HHwWgICj_b2us9orAAAA Vote. Sorry, im being glib I cant read his thread right now, will do so later today when i get home. mortons stork fucked around with this message at 11:24 on Sep 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 11:22
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:EU energy crisis is not a transient blip: "governments are taking over energy markets" Yes because Britain's privatised energy market is going swimmingly whereas France bringing theirs into national ownership was a tragedy for the average French person.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 11:32
|
|
|
Energy is going to be a challenge for a while but "deindustrialization"? lmao.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 11:47
|
|
|
I guess we're going to get more and more of this narrative as we get closer to winter.An insane mind posted:More like Shillenberger. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 11:48
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Energy is going to be a challenge for a while but "deindustrialization"? lmao. Whos gonna build all the equipment needed for renewables? It is no idle amount of hardware. Transporting it from overseas is almost as bad as just burning oil.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 11:50
|
|
|
mortons stork posted:Shellenberger is an oil & gas stooge iirc and he straight up links to an article of his 'the end of renewables mania' I did get wary of his preaching that the solution is to burn natural gas since that's not really a solution.... But his point on renewables failing lines up with what others are saying so on that point I am not at all convinced that all europe has got to worry about is this winter. The other twitter link is far more detailed on that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 11:57
|
|
|
The European energy crisis, like every other fossil fuel energy crisis, is because governments worldwide sat counting the profits that fossil fuels reaped instead of investing in futureproof energy supplies, and now the eggs are hatching only for the birds to die of cold.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 11:59
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:I did get wary of his preaching that the solution is to burn natural gas since that's not really a solution.... Oh definitely not, I'm sorry for sounding excessively dismissive. Europe has to catch up on decades of just uhhhh not focusing on renewables all that much due to cheap gas being available from Russia and renewables are right now not in any way sufficient to pick up the slack. A lot will depend on us starting to invest right loving now. Or get walloped by LNG prices for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:02
|
|
|
Nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:05
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:I did get wary of his preaching that the solution is to burn natural gas since that's not really a solution.... There's likely enough LNG to fill the hole that the absence of Russian gas and oil left, it's just a matter of building the terminals and paying the premium above the cheap stuff from Russia. It will be the poorer parts of the world that previously relied on LNG that will suffer 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:07
|
|
|
Shellenberger seems to believe and amplify every right-wing narrative, what a great source.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:08
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:Nuclear. We had to start 30 years ago to have nuclear capacity ready right now. If we have to decarbonize by a 2050 deadline then going for the kind of power plants that take 30 years each to build right now is most likely a no-go, or a side-project.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:09
|
|
|
It's the only thing that's gonna work.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:10
|
|
|
it's what all the centrist liberals in my country are currently pivoting to as the next killer app for climate change, and given their track record I'm fairly confident it's not gonna be Most likely it will turn out to be grist for the capitalist graft machine and an excuse to divert exhorbitant amounts of money away from where it's most needed as a delaying action.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:11
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:There's likely enough LNG to fill the hole that the absence of Russian gas and oil left, it's just a matter of building the terminals and paying the premium above the cheap stuff from Russia. A lot of this would be alleviated from America pulling their petulant sanctions on Iran, although it's too late to help this year. Iran seem to be moving ahead with the infrastructure anyway, taking a gamble on how things move forward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:13
|
|
|
Yeah, things are going great in Iran, nothing to worry about.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:14
|
|
|
I mean, things aren't going great in Russia at the moment and the only thing stopping LNG flow to Europe is their petulance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:15
|
|
|
  how could Nuclear be a solution for decarbonizationTesseraction posted:A lot of this would be alleviated from America pulling their petulant sanctions on Iran, although it's too late to help this year. Iran seem to be moving ahead with the infrastructure anyway, taking a gamble on how things move forward. Iran's kind of being a dick murdering protesters right now so that might not be a great signal to send
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:16
|
|
|
There is also the unavoidable question of having to rationalize our economies, plan more and consume less, which the nuclear discourse also conveniently sidesteps, which I think is another reason why every status quo stooge here is pivoting to it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:16
|
|
|
mortons stork posted:it's what all the centrist liberals in my country are currently pivoting to as the next killer app for climate change, and given their track record I'm fairly confident it's not gonna be This is exactly how I would describe the role of renewables the last few decades, and in my observation it's precisely the centrist liberals who love renewables now have been dismissing nuclear because it cannot compete on the market.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:16
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Iran's kind of being a dick murdering protesters right now so that might not be a great signal to send I mean this is why we shouldn't be relying on fossil fuels from extremist dictatorships but here is Europe on the teat of Russia and the world on the teat of OPEC, king poo poo being Saudi-occupied Arabia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:17
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:This is exactly how I would describe the role of renewables the last few decades, and in my observation it's precisely the centrist liberals who love renewables now have been dismissing nuclear because it cannot compete on the market. I don't think renewables have been anything more than an exciting novelty, and definitely not a central focus of investment. All the 'smart', 'pragmatic' types were, still mostly are in fact, going for gas. And now at least in Italy they're skipping straight to nuclear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:22
|
|
|
mortons stork posted:I don't think renewables have been anything more than an exciting novelty, and definitely not a central focus of investment. All the 'smart', 'pragmatic' types were, still mostly are in fact, going for gas. And now at least in Italy they're skipping straight to nuclear. The way I see it is that the green movement have been working against nuclear since the 1980s. The goal of the green movement was always to replace both fossil fuels and nuclear with renewables. That it ended up favoring and extending the life of fossil fuel usage is thus a bit ironic. Around 2011-13 the liberals jumped on board with the renewable train which is when it started gaining steam for real and most self-professed liberals I've talked to are all anti nuclear for "market reasons", it's definitely a thing I've noticed develop in the 2010s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:29
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:This is exactly how I would describe the role of renewables the last few decades, and in my observation it's precisely the centrist liberals who love renewables now have been dismissing nuclear because it cannot compete on the market. Nuclear energy is literally the cleanest/most energy efficient way forward, solar and wind can't really compete with it. Ideally we would have started building powerplants a decade, maybe two? ago but since that didn't happen that means the best time to start is now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:36
|
|
|
mortons stork posted:We had to start 30 years ago to have nuclear capacity ready right now. If we have to decarbonize by a 2050 deadline then going for the kind of power plants that take 30 years each to build right now is most likely a no-go, or a side-project. Maybe they can spend the time doing that educating the engineers that are gonna run the plants.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:37
|
|
|
An insane mind posted:Nuclear energy is literally the cleanest/most energy efficient way forward, solar and wind can't really compete with it. Ideally we would have started building powerplants a decade, maybe two? ago but since that didn't happen that means the best time to start is now. The literal argument I had to that, from self professed swedish liberals was no, it's too late now, it takes too long. The answer is energy / battery storage. When I furnished links that show how unrealistic that is and how far off battery tech is, the argument changed that technology is always moving forward and we can't know what will come soon, there are so many technologies currently deing developed. Nuclear is old, expensive and obsolete compared to these technologies that don't yet exist. "I believe in a few years a breakthrough will come" is almost a quote from one of these people I talked to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:48
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:"I believe in a few years a breakthrough will come" is almost a quote from one of these people I talked to. Someone will save us, so stop trying to save us.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:49
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:The literal argument I had to that, from self professed swedish liberals was no, it's too late now, it takes too long. The answer is energy / battery storage. When I furnished links that show how unrealistic that is and how far off battery tech is, the argument changed that technology is always moving forward and we can't know what will come soon, there are so many technologies currently deing developed. Nuclear is old, expensive and obsolete compared to these technologies that don't yet exist. This is usually followed by just look at Elon Musk! Look at what he's doing with the resources he has. Innovation! And people around the room vigorously agree. And then I bow out of the conversation with a brittle smile and just spend the next 40 minutes crying my eyes out in the bathroom.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:51
|
|
|
An insane mind posted:This is usually followed by just look at Elon Musk! Look at him indeed. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:54
|
|
|
Perhaps just as well we didn't get the factory then...
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 12:56
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:The literal argument I had to that, from self professed swedish liberals was no, it's too late now, it takes too long. The answer is energy / battery storage. When I furnished links that show how unrealistic that is and how far off battery tech is, the argument changed that technology is always moving forward and we can't know what will come soon, there are so many technologies currently deing developed. Nuclear is old, expensive and obsolete compared to these technologies that don't yet exist. I ran some numbers for France in the energy thread and this tweet form the thread before also estimates the required storage at 15TWh. For each of the large EU countries. It's a ridiculous amount and we'd need to be doubling the actual installed capacity for like 15 years to get there. https://twitter.com/BurggrabenH/status/1568013710291091456 E: lol that pumped storage in Switzerland cost 2B and 14 years to build: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nant_de_Drance_Hydropower_Plant mobby_6kl fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Sep 27, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 14:41
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I mean this is why we shouldn't be relying on fossil fuels from extremist dictatorships but here is Europe on the teat of Russia and the world on the teat of OPEC, king poo poo being Saudi-occupied Arabia. EU officials are busy to not criticize Azerbaijan's "border incursions" into Armenia, because the Azeris have a ton of natural gas to sell. So I can see this is still going really well. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 15:07
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:EU officials are busy to not criticize Azerbaijan's "border incursions" into Armenia, because the Azeris have a ton of natural gas to sell. So I can see this is still going really well. Turning from the foul dictatorship of Russia to the healthy flourishing democr-- *checks notes* ah, well. Hmm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 15:12
|
|
|
mortons stork posted:There is also the unavoidable question of having to rationalize our economies, plan more and consume less Rationalizing/planning the economy more is inconceivable for liberals in power and the idea of consuming less is preposterous for vast masses of Europeans. So we are in a gridlock where the rational choice of more hands on energy policy isn't going to happen from our current political class and the electorate will become more reactionary if their living standards are threatened. I fear that this gives a window of opportunity for far right to gain support all over Europe. All they have to do is not stand in the way of Russian imperialism and push for return of European energy dependence on Russia. We'll see how the coming winter goes.... Nuclear plants would have been great, but they needed building decades ago. It wont solve the current crisis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 15:40
|
|
|
The current crisis will keep getting worse over several decades. Nuclear plants will definitely solve that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
Lol this 'we should have been building them ages ago, no use trying now' is the weirdest take about nuclear plants to me. You didn't do it ages ago, when it was the best time, that never happened so what is now the best time? Now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
An insane mind posted:Lol this 'we should have been building them ages ago, no use trying now' is the weirdest take about nuclear plants to me. Whose saying that? Yes we should have built them years ago, yes we should begin building them now. But it wont help with the current crisis.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2022 15:59
|
|