EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1371
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
plasmidghost
Belgium16168 Posts
| ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
unfortunately we haven't killed it yet so it's a bit premature to already put nails in its coffin but one has to start with the bottom anyways, so, yay, I guess. on a more serious note, it's about fucking time. and too late too. we have delayed and delayed so atrociously because Germany didn't want to touch the fossil giants and France is afraid about their nuclear power position and "cheap" electricity. As a byproduct we haven't even remotely made sufficient progress on either interconnecting the grid here in Germany and even less so on a EU level that we're basically 10+ years behind facilitating the mass deployment of renewable power to keep prices cheap on the long run. Don't get me started on the lack of proper regulation of consumer and grid load. Current incentives are shit for the weather dependency of renewable energies. disruption to gas supply can be a hefty blow to specific sectors that rely on continuous production. it's less the loss of revenue - heck, covid cost us so much, what are a couple of billions if we can save lifes in Ukraine and put a quicker end to the suffering? - more like the entire infrastructure being scrap afterwards and building that up again is a challenge but in these times even more so. So it would be a big blow. Hence our government trying their hardest to prevent it. The complains about gas prices are understandable, but those who actually suffer have like zero agency and better things to do than protest, i.e. try get food on the table - so I don't really see this gaining any traction. I hate the populist reduction of taxes at the pump if I'm honest. fuck cars as a main mode of transport outside of citites, it's anachronistic and unneccessary for most people. But as we are a car nation, public transport, while relatively good, is shit because people are shit and can't treat other commuters with proper respect. Though the degree of assholery differs from city to city and district to district. In sum, i don't see energy shortage as a point of contention here. Poor people get fuck further, a couple more are gonna be poor, but apart from that life goes on. We have 3 state (thx sim :-))elections this year, two will be over in 2 weeks. While the invasion will have a HUGE impact in nothern Germany (where NS2 would have ended), I don't think there will be palpable repercussions for the federal goverment. Most of the country doesn't live paycheck to paycheck, I don't think, hence a price hike isn't as serious in the short term. But yeah, poor people are fucked by the general cost of living increase. And I hate it. To add a little doomsdaying, if push comes to shove and the shit hits the fan, I don't think we're set up in any way, shape or form to grab the bull by the horns and deal with serious disruption. We can't handle the train being late or something not going according to schedule (apart maybe when building airports or procuring military equipment) | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11641 Posts
I generally agree with you. I mostly hope that instead of finding more new sources for fossile fuels, we instead invest more money into getting independent of fossile fuels. A core problem with public transit in my experience are not the other commuters, but the public transit itself. Here in Munich it is notoriously unreliable. If you have a set time where you need to be somewhere, public transit sucks. A lot of the time, some random shit happens and it doesn't work. For public transit to actually become the main mode of transportation, it needs to be highly reliable, convenient, and not too expensive. Currently, it is none of those. Maybe cheaper than having a car, i guess. I am pretty sure it could reach that state if done competently and with enough money. But money usually goes towards road construction instead. I also hope that he poor people don't get left alone with the costs. | ||
zatic
Zurich15355 Posts
On May 02 2022 04:46 plasmidghost wrote: Not sure if this question should go here or the Russian invasion thread, but I am curious: For European residents, what are the attitudes of the people in your country towards complete independence from Russian gas and oil? I was wondering how it would be if energy supplies were temporarily disrupted during the transition away from Russian energy. My thoughts as an American are, if we faced an oil and gas shortage, we'd get furious, but I am well aware that's far different from European attitudes I mean, no one wants to be dependent on Russian gas. The "temporary disruption" of a complete stop from Russian gas would last for years. So I don't think a hard cut-off is realistic. But a gradual divestment is, and it is happening, honestly faster than I thought possible. Here are the figures for Germany (Source, German: https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/energiekrise-deutschland-wird-unabhaengiger-von-kohle-oel-und-gas-aus-russland-a-086d3b7f-d911-4e69-ab92-0f264f6ce1e8) Coal Pre-war: 50% Now: 8% Oil Pre-war: 35% Now: 12% Gas Pre-war: 55% Now: 35% There is no shortage yet, but the effect can of course be felt in significant price hikes for energy. Of course no one is happy about that, but from what I can tell the majority still supports cutting imports from Russia, or going even further. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
While it’s easy enough to highlight carefully curated examples of this or that sector or this or that country cutting its supplies, the reality is that the entire economy depends on affordable energy and a large-scale disruption can’t really be sustained for long before the effects become too blatant to ignore. Supply chains stopping, houses freezing (not just “wear a coat inside” but also infrastructure freezing over), entire industries grinding to a halt, and so on. In fact, if you’re willing to accept this significant downturn in quality of life by just reducing energy usage, that’s probably the best way to reduce fossil fuel consumption in the long term. Everyone wants to get rid of fossil fuels until they get punched in the face. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On May 02 2022 17:53 LegalLord wrote: [..] Everyone wants to get rid of fossil fuels until they get punched in the face. Exactly the other way around. By the way, the cheapest and most quickly deployed energy source is renewables. We have designed our energy supply in a certain way that favours the continuous consumption of energy. This is not the way forward. Hence we re-think grid design and have to implement regulatory incentives to make grid-favourable consumption worth the while. We are in a pickle because of short sighted green energy policies, this much we agree on. though I suppose the arguments leading to that conclusion are of a different kind. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
You might just be underestimating the infrastructural challenges associated with an actually environmentally friendly economy. To be fair you’d no more short-sighted as the talking heads spouting terrible energy policy across the EU, but that’s no real standard. Sure, under some narrow conditions you can get cheap green energy - a good bit of fraudulent reporting later and you’ll have “cheapest energy is renewables” being sold to a public that may very well not know any better. But the reality is that fossil fuels provide energy in a far more versatile and reliable form than renewables, and to match the practical use cases you’ll have to sacrifice quite a lot of the apparent cost efficiency of using renewables. Hard to say exactly how much that is without doing detailed studies but safe to say that for something like the previous jet fuel example you’ll be paying significant multiples to make that out of wind energy than oil (or even coal or gas). Making reliable green energy will cost you a lot more than just using fossil fuels; failing to acknowledge that will just lead you into the situation we see today: fossil fuel production is stifled because all the producers are being told “we need you today, but when the Green Future comes along we’ll want you to go out of business” and they plan accordingly. Meanwhile the Green Future is less appealing than marketed and much of the so-called transition is badly managed, with a lot of the money going into silly little subsidy-sucking frauds rather than meaningful progress. There’s only one place that leads - choosing between a sudden sharp decline in living standards, and begging coal plants to keep running so you can keep the lights on for a little longer. The past year has seen many make the obvious choice between the two. Being upset about the foreign policy of a country that produces key resources is a tale as old as time. The visceral reaction may be to cut off your nose to spite your face, but it’s not particularly smart to do that. But I guess that doesn’t mean the EU in particular won’t do so. That’d be fun to watch. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
And as you've clearly established over the last years that you don't give a shit about that it's absolutely pointless engaging with your talking points. Even the IEA has a net zero paper published and you're wailing on about costs. It's kinda pathetic | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On May 02 2022 04:46 plasmidghost wrote: UK imports very little Russian gas and oil (about 5% if I recall correctly), which is why UK is pushing so hard for Russian oil and gas embargo. Other European countries will very much pay a steep price for oil and gas embargo. However gas prices has gone up 50% in the last year alone and my price for petrol has gone up from £5.50 to £7.30 per gallon (maybe convert that to USD in your own time) in the last year alone. Don't know how much Americans pay for their petrol but from what I gather, it is far cheaper. Not sure if this question should go here or the Russian invasion thread, but I am curious: For European residents, what are the attitudes of the people in your country towards complete independence from Russian gas and oil? I was wondering how it would be if energy supplies were temporarily disrupted during the transition away from Russian energy. My thoughts as an American are, if we faced an oil and gas shortage, we'd get furious, but I am well aware that's far different from European attitudes It's just a shrug and carry on. What can we do, it's not like we can protest and suddenly market prices can go down. No-one wants to pay for subsidies for petrol specifically either as the losers will be those who don't use cars and the winners will be those who can afford a car in the first place. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10811 Posts
On May 02 2022 19:26 LegalLord wrote: I’m sure wind electricity is cheapest on a windy day within reasonable range of a giant windmill farm, but I’m not sure it’s much good for flying a commercial jet on a windless winter day. Maybe regulatory incentives and grid design will change that. The f are you talking about flying a commercial jet with wind energy on a day whiteout wind? From how you worded this, i assume the jet would have to power itself by having onboard wind turbines instead of a standard engine? Else: Electricity in Batteries doesn't care if it's windy or not. Seriously, please explain your exact tought process, if possible whiteout sounding silly by sentence 2. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On May 02 2022 19:54 Artisreal wrote: Unless you accept the proposition that climate change is an economic shithole we cannot talk eye to eye. And as you've clearly established over the last years that you don't give a shit about that it's absolutely pointless engaging with your talking points. Just because we have to address climate change (which, to be clear, we do, and I’ve never said otherwise) doesn’t mean every poorly conceived plan to do so makes sense. Although I wonder if folks are more interested in greenwashing than actual reduction in climate impact. Because the former involves lots of grandstanding and making big promises, and the latter tough choices and economic consequences. But hey, I suppose it’s no skin off my nose if the policy of choice is to drive straight off the economic cliff. On May 02 2022 20:12 Velr wrote: The f are you talking about flying a commercial jet with wind energy on a day whiteout wind? From how you worded this, i assume the jet would have to power itself by having onboard wind turbines instead of a standard engine? Else: Electricity in Batteries doesn't care if it's windy or not. Seriously, please explain your exact tought process, if possible whiteout sounding silly by sentence 2. The fundamental question here is about energy in the form that it’s actually useful. You can move some infrastructure around and move the form of your energy resources around, but that’s what you have to work with. Jet fuel, or a viable substitute (say, hydrogen) is something you could make out of wind energy, but not anywhere near a reasonable cost. Obviously much easier with oil, and doable with coal or gas. Certainly a lot easier to burn oil for electricity than to use wind for fuel, for the converse example. Hell, you could get gas electricity for way cheaper than windmill-generated electricity if you burn the gas at the source it’s extracted (otherwise gas flaring wouldn’t exist), but no one gives that as a serious comparison because serious energy resources like gas are considered under realistic rather than idealistic conditions. Batteries at the scale of major infrastructure aren’t anywhere near viable. Hydrogen would be a better bet, but at that point you’re no longer in a fantasy world of comparing apples to oranges. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10811 Posts
Our whole infrastructure is built for the technologies we used the last ~50 years. Changing to renewables will cost some in the short term, exactly because the whole grid/infrastructure has to be overhauled... What a shocker. By your logic everything would still run on steam engines and other local power generators. | ||
|
Artisreal
Germany9235 Posts
On May 02 2022 20:42 LegalLord wrote: Just because we have to address climate change (which, to be clear, we do, and I’ve never said otherwise) doesn’t mean every poorly conceived plan to do so makes sense. Although I wonder if folks are more interested in greenwashing than actual reduction in climate impact. Because the former involves lots of grandstanding and making big promises, and the latter tough choices and economic consequences. But hey, I suppose it’s no skin off my nose if the policy of choice is to drive straight off the economic cliff. The fundamental question here is about energy in the form that it’s actually useful. You can move some infrastructure around and move the form of your energy resources around, but that’s what you have to work with. Jet fuel, or a viable substitute (say, hydrogen) is something you could make out of wind energy, but not anywhere near a reasonable cost. Obviously much easier with oil, and doable with coal or gas. Certainly a lot easier to burn oil for electricity than to use wind for fuel, for the converse example. Hell, you could get gas electricity for way cheaper than windmill-generated electricity if you burn the gas at the source it’s extracted (otherwise gas flaring wouldn’t exist), but no one gives that as a serious comparison because serious energy resources like gas are considered under realistic rather than idealistic conditions. Batteries at the scale of major infrastructure aren’t anywhere near viable. Hydrogen would be a better bet, but at that point you’re no longer in a fantasy world of comparing apples to oranges. The gist of your posting amounts to: it`s easier to keep using fossil fuels and too expensive to switch. And you seem purporsely vague. Who are these people interested in greenwashing? Why don't they want us to build systems that integrate or even base on the fluctuating generation of wind and solar? I also fail to see any substantial argument against renewables but your supposed economic cliff. I say (not just me, mind you), we have the technology for everything, we just decide to not switch because it supposedly is too expensive, which it isnt, on the long run. Renewables are so damn cheap, they dont need subsidising even here. The highest hurdle is organisational and that can only be adressed by comprehensive action on a European level. Implementing the neccessary incentives and grid strengthening is a political decision. The technology is there. The will is not. If you want to discuss specific scenarios like how a system can cope with a terrible winter night without wind, it's a bit easier to than have your general dismissal of a possible transition to 100% renewables. | ||
|
gobbledydook
Australia2605 Posts
- Solar - Hydro Green energy options that sort of work - Wind - "Green Hydrogen" Green energy options that definitely don't work: - Carbon capture and storage | ||
KwarK
United States43274 Posts
However right now it’s far too inefficient and it’s nonsensical while coal is still being burned. The dream for carbon capture is to use energy turn atmospheric carbon into some kind of stable carbon based mineral and then remove it from the carbon cycle by burying it. This is just a coal power plant running in reverse. By far the most efficient way to engage in carbon capture is to set up a renewable energy plant next to an existing coal plant and give away the power until it goes out of business. The energy needed to pull carbon out of the air and store it is so much higher than the energy we’re currently accepting as an incentive to pull carbon out of storage and pollute. The only reason ever to engage in carbon storage is due to geographically limited free power such as Iceland’s geothermal but even then it’s probably better used for exporting hydrogen fuel cells. Grid battery storage is getting better each year. The capability of batteries in terms of total capacity, lifespan, bandwidth, and cost is advancing in leaps and bounds as every major car and phone company treats it as the most pressing current issue. Used Lion batteries will soon be very available for battery projects. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6216 Posts
In the past, economically, it did not make sense to divest carbon emitting power sources, but there are alternatives now, and the alternatives in some ways outcompete historical methods. Even though direct carbon capture doesn't make sense currently, we can still make some use of carbon capture at power plant emissions sources where carbon levels are far higher until it becomes feasible. It's slow progress, but we might just kill some of the planet instead of devastating the entire thing. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18132 Posts
On May 03 2022 02:08 Lmui wrote: I rather like Kurzgesagt's take on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxgMdjyw8uw In the past, economically, it did not make sense to divest carbon emitting power sources, but there are alternatives now, and the alternatives in some ways outcompete historical methods. Even though direct carbon capture doesn't make sense currently, we can still make some use of carbon capture at power plant emissions sources where carbon levels are far higher until it becomes feasible. It's slow progress, but we might just kill some of the planet instead of devastating the entire thing. Excellent video! Thanks! | ||
|
Dav1oN
Ukraine3164 Posts
On May 03 2022 00:05 gobbledydook wrote: Green energy options that work already - Solar - Hydro Green energy options that sort of work - Wind - "Green Hydrogen" Green energy options that definitely don't work: - Carbon capture and storage I'd like to add Geothermal to the list of working options | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On May 02 2022 21:52 Artisreal wrote: The gist of your posting amounts to: it`s easier to keep using fossil fuels and too expensive to switch. That’s not what I’m saying at all. What I’m saying is that, while we need to make a transition to a more sustainable source of energy for our economy: 1. Fossil fuels are damn good at what they do, and it’s important to understand how and why. 2. Renewables aren’t an upgrade, functionally speaking, because they have some key weaknesses that make them not cheaper in the cases they’re actually used. Issues like “wind for jet fuel” may sound silly at first glance, but these are actual problems you have to address if you want to stop using fossil fuels entirely. 3. Just because we “have to make renewables work” doesn’t mean we should jump off the economic cliff for lack of an actual viable plan. And in light of all that, it’s best to drop some of these feel-good stories about how “renewables are cheaper” or “we can get energy independence by just going renewable” when the reality is a much messier story. See it for what it actually is: a major economic headwind that’s necessary because of the colossal long-term adverse impact of climate change. As for “this or that organization published a paper that solves all these problems” - no they don’t. Sure, a lot of these studies make a couple good points and highlight approaches that might be viable (i.e. the science works but the engineering might not), but they simplify and tend heavily towards either being unrealistically optimistic or suggesting to subsidize the sponsors of the study. Yes, we have to move forward, but don’t burn the fossil fuel bridge behind you if you want to have an economy before you can make a viable transition work out. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
