|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On October 07 2024 08:56 KwarK wrote:
Why would you assume no diminishing returns, this is exactly the kind of situation where diminishing returns applies. If I ask you to reduce your miles driven by 10% you might be able to stop driving to the gym or whatever relatively easily. You might be able to skip some social events. Maybe you go to the store once every 2 weeks for bulk purchases rather than every few days. 10% is likely doable but you’re going for the low hanging fruit. Another 10% on top of that is going to be harder and eventually you’re going to run into major lifestyle changes like quitting your job for one on a bus route or whatever.
Diminishing returns may be a factor, but they kick in after a certain point. I have no idea where that point is and whether European industry has reached it yet when it comes to changing energy sources. Do you have some actual source for diminishing returns kicking in already? Anyway, the point is moot as long as there's no political will to keep pushing. Obviously without trying we definitely won't manage to wean ourselves off the Russian gas teet!
E: and to complicate matters a bit, I just read this article that says we'd actually be better off burning coal than importing LNG from the US: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/exported-liquefied-natural-gas-coal-study
Obviously Russian gas is both cleaner to extract (it's far easier to access rather than needing fracking, and comes to Europe by pipeline rather than by crude guzzling tankers).
|
The major argument is Germany economy stalling at current level. I have heard that attributed to increased gas prices closing out entire industries that became uneconomical. Don't have time to go digging for sources.
|
Zurich15324 Posts
Energy prices are a factor in Germany's ongoing economic problems, but not the major factor. After a spike last year prices are down to pre-invasion levels. Which were already high though.
The main problem of Germany is incredibly high dependency on exports primarily to China, which have dramatically declined over the past couple of years, especially on cars. Depending on how you estimate, automotive accounts for 10-15% of German economy, so this has effects throughout the system.
Secondary problems are overregulation and burocracy. Third is reluctance to increase public spending, either on investment or demand generation.
While Germany could still export to China it could easily deal with high energy prices, burocracy, and didn't need any public spending. Now that the export model looks to be exhausted all these factors start to hurt, bad.
|
On October 07 2024 14:42 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2024 08:56 KwarK wrote:
Why would you assume no diminishing returns, this is exactly the kind of situation where diminishing returns applies. If I ask you to reduce your miles driven by 10% you might be able to stop driving to the gym or whatever relatively easily. You might be able to skip some social events. Maybe you go to the store once every 2 weeks for bulk purchases rather than every few days. 10% is likely doable but you’re going for the low hanging fruit. Another 10% on top of that is going to be harder and eventually you’re going to run into major lifestyle changes like quitting your job for one on a bus route or whatever. Diminishing returns may be a factor, but they kick in after a certain point. I have no idea where that point is and whether European industry has reached it yet when it comes to changing energy sources. Do you have some actual source for diminishing returns kicking in already? Anyway, the point is moot as long as there's no political will to keep pushing. Obviously without trying we definitely won't manage to wean ourselves off the Russian gas teet! E: and to complicate matters a bit, I just read this article that says we'd actually be better off burning coal than importing LNG from the US: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/exported-liquefied-natural-gas-coal-study Obviously Russian gas is both cleaner to extract (it's far easier to access rather than needing fracking, and comes to Europe by pipeline rather than by crude guzzling tankers). but are there enough coal plants to compensate? is there enough coal available and how much extra would that cost compared to LNG? To a complete noob LNG seems a LOT more efficient in both space and weight to transport half way across the world compared to coal.
There are so many factors involved beyond just total emissions from harvest to consumption.
|
On October 07 2024 17:51 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2024 14:42 Acrofales wrote:On October 07 2024 08:56 KwarK wrote:
Why would you assume no diminishing returns, this is exactly the kind of situation where diminishing returns applies. If I ask you to reduce your miles driven by 10% you might be able to stop driving to the gym or whatever relatively easily. You might be able to skip some social events. Maybe you go to the store once every 2 weeks for bulk purchases rather than every few days. 10% is likely doable but you’re going for the low hanging fruit. Another 10% on top of that is going to be harder and eventually you’re going to run into major lifestyle changes like quitting your job for one on a bus route or whatever. Diminishing returns may be a factor, but they kick in after a certain point. I have no idea where that point is and whether European industry has reached it yet when it comes to changing energy sources. Do you have some actual source for diminishing returns kicking in already? Anyway, the point is moot as long as there's no political will to keep pushing. Obviously without trying we definitely won't manage to wean ourselves off the Russian gas teet! E: and to complicate matters a bit, I just read this article that says we'd actually be better off burning coal than importing LNG from the US: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/exported-liquefied-natural-gas-coal-study Obviously Russian gas is both cleaner to extract (it's far easier to access rather than needing fracking, and comes to Europe by pipeline rather than by crude guzzling tankers). but are there enough coal plants to compensate? is there enough coal available and how much extra would that cost compared to LNG? To a complete noob LNG seems a LOT more efficient in both space and weight to transport half way across the world compared to coal. There are so many factors involved beyond just total emissions from harvest to consumption.
Well, if you were to use coal, you obviously wouldn't ship it from the US. Europe has plenty of coal. But that's missing the main point of the article, which is that building infrastructure to be able to ship in LNG is just as bad for the environment as burning coal, and we should do neither, and instead continue transitioning to sustainable sources of energy. Of course, that is probably not as fast for Europe as transitioning from Russian gas to American/Qatari gas, so there's two stated goals that oppose each other (and Europe is dragging its feet at both of them)...
|
|
|
It has already been established they're committing war crimes. One of the reasons why there's an outstanding arrest warrant for Putin issued.
|
On October 08 2024 05:56 Manit0u wrote:It has already been established they're committing war crimes. One of the reasons why there's an outstanding arrest warrant for Putin issued.
I don't really see why they are signatories of the Geneva convention if they have no plans to follow it. They have removed themselves from parts of it before, pulling out fully would be logical. Though the only one they did leave was the one stating the international court has any power.
|
On October 08 2024 01:22 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2024 17:51 Gorsameth wrote:On October 07 2024 14:42 Acrofales wrote:On October 07 2024 08:56 KwarK wrote:
Why would you assume no diminishing returns, this is exactly the kind of situation where diminishing returns applies. If I ask you to reduce your miles driven by 10% you might be able to stop driving to the gym or whatever relatively easily. You might be able to skip some social events. Maybe you go to the store once every 2 weeks for bulk purchases rather than every few days. 10% is likely doable but you’re going for the low hanging fruit. Another 10% on top of that is going to be harder and eventually you’re going to run into major lifestyle changes like quitting your job for one on a bus route or whatever. Diminishing returns may be a factor, but they kick in after a certain point. I have no idea where that point is and whether European industry has reached it yet when it comes to changing energy sources. Do you have some actual source for diminishing returns kicking in already? Anyway, the point is moot as long as there's no political will to keep pushing. Obviously without trying we definitely won't manage to wean ourselves off the Russian gas teet! E: and to complicate matters a bit, I just read this article that says we'd actually be better off burning coal than importing LNG from the US: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/04/exported-liquefied-natural-gas-coal-study Obviously Russian gas is both cleaner to extract (it's far easier to access rather than needing fracking, and comes to Europe by pipeline rather than by crude guzzling tankers). but are there enough coal plants to compensate? is there enough coal available and how much extra would that cost compared to LNG? To a complete noob LNG seems a LOT more efficient in both space and weight to transport half way across the world compared to coal. There are so many factors involved beyond just total emissions from harvest to consumption. Well, if you were to use coal, you obviously wouldn't ship it from the US. Europe has plenty of coal. But that's missing the main point of the article, which is that building infrastructure to be able to ship in LNG is just as bad for the environment as burning coal, and we should do neither, and instead continue transitioning to sustainable sources of energy. Of course, that is probably not as fast for Europe as transitioning from Russian gas to American/Qatari gas, so there's two stated goals that oppose each other (and Europe is dragging its feet at both of them)... My main issue with the article is the lack of what is being compared. It says LNG is 33% worse but in what way? per kw produced? per distance traveled? I assume the research goes deeper into it but frankly I cba to read through that right now. The article itself doesn't say anything.
But lets be clear I agree with your position, we should do more to move away from fossil fuels in general and reliance on Russia in particular. But stopping their use is not that simple. Just talking about LNG for example some quickly google tells me that actually only ~1/4th is used for power production, 1/4th for industry and the rest is residential/service, mostly heating. So replacing LNG with coal is only viable for a limited %. And does Europe mine enough coal to offset that? or would it have to be important? and are there enough coal plants? I wouldn't want to start building new coal power plants.
Renewable are not in a position to take over the full energy needs, even if the government would fully set their sights on it. Solar/Wind is bad at covering drops in productivity (from lack of wind/sun) and in covering peaks in consumption. While coal/gas/nuclear is much more scalable as energy demand fluctuates during a normal day. And battery tech is no where near being ready to cover the shortfall.
Even with the best of intentions we aren't moving away from fossil fuels. But yes we could, and should, be doing more.
|
Currently the cleanest energy we have is atom. Unfortunately for Germany they moved away from it with no small incentive from Russia to go towards renewables which left them in a transition period where they're not self-reliant energy-wise so here we are.
|
Germany is not relying on Gas for electricity, not in the capacity for it to be the issue, stop with this stupid take.
It's the industry that needs tons of gas and it isn't easy to just use something else for it due to Gas being awesome.
|
On October 08 2024 15:16 Velr wrote:
Germany is not relying on Gas for electricity, not in the capacity for it to be the issue, stop with this stupid take.
It's the industry that needs tons of gas and it isn't easy to just use something else for it due to Gas being awesome.
It's not but it doesn't change the fact that going out of atom was a bad idea. If electricity were cheaper people might've made higher use of electric stoves instead of gas ones etc.
|
On October 08 2024 17:30 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 15:16 Velr wrote:
Germany is not relying on Gas for electricity, not in the capacity for it to be the issue, stop with this stupid take.
It's the industry that needs tons of gas and it isn't easy to just use something else for it due to Gas being awesome. It's not but it doesn't change the fact that going out of atom was a bad idea. If electricity were cheaper people might've made higher use of electric stoves instead of gas ones etc.
He was talking about industry...
But sure, the 6% market share of gas stoves in Germany is the issue...
|
Zurich15324 Posts
On October 08 2024 15:16 Velr wrote:
Germany is not relying on Gas for electricity, not in the capacity for it to be the issue, stop with this stupid take.
It's the industry that needs tons of gas and it isn't easy to just use something else for it due to Gas being awesome.
Yes and no. The plan was to transition to mostly renewables for electricity, with natural gas as a backup for slow days. Which would be great in terms of low emissions but of course came with the calamity of being dependent on (Russian, now LNG) imports.
|
On October 08 2024 06:31 Gorsameth wrote:
...
Renewable are not in a position to take over the full energy needs, even if the government would fully set their sights on it. Solar/Wind is bad at covering drops in productivity (from lack of wind/sun) and in covering peaks in consumption. While coal/gas/nuclear is much more scalable as energy demand fluctuates during a normal day. And battery tech is no where near being ready to cover the shortfall.
Even with the best of intentions we aren't moving away from fossil fuels. But yes we could, and should, be doing more.
A few suggestions I have seen for fixing the intermittent solution without batteries include:
Tidal wave / normal wave power generation.
Water pumps (pump to high spot during peak power generation, run a water plant during low periods).
Sun mirror instead of solar cell plants. Basically melt salt or a similar mineral so it can keep running during night.
All three are being pursued by different countries.
|
On October 08 2024 19:56 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 17:30 Manit0u wrote:On October 08 2024 15:16 Velr wrote:
Germany is not relying on Gas for electricity, not in the capacity for it to be the issue, stop with this stupid take.
It's the industry that needs tons of gas and it isn't easy to just use something else for it due to Gas being awesome. It's not but it doesn't change the fact that going out of atom was a bad idea. If electricity were cheaper people might've made higher use of electric stoves instead of gas ones etc. He was talking about industry... But sure, the 6% market share of gas stoves in Germany is the issue...
That's still 2.5 million households that are reliant on having access to gas.
On October 09 2024 00:35 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 06:31 Gorsameth wrote:
...
Renewable are not in a position to take over the full energy needs, even if the government would fully set their sights on it. Solar/Wind is bad at covering drops in productivity (from lack of wind/sun) and in covering peaks in consumption. While coal/gas/nuclear is much more scalable as energy demand fluctuates during a normal day. And battery tech is no where near being ready to cover the shortfall.
Even with the best of intentions we aren't moving away from fossil fuels. But yes we could, and should, be doing more.
A few suggestions I have seen for fixing the intermittent solution without batteries include: Tidal wave / normal wave power generation. Water pumps (pump to high spot during peak power generation, run a water plant during low periods). Sun mirror instead of solar cell plants. Basically melt salt or a similar mineral so it can keep running during night. All three are being pursued by different countries.
The biggest problems with renewables now aren't even the efficiency (to a degree). Solar and wind require A LOT of real estate. Solar, wind and water also have pretty adverse effects on local ecology. While they might be good for the planet they're definitely not good for the local biosphere.
|
|
|
As if anyone in the goverment cares about gamers in the slightes, or as if gamers could do anything about it...
|
On October 09 2024 02:32 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 19:56 mahrgell wrote:On October 08 2024 17:30 Manit0u wrote:On October 08 2024 15:16 Velr wrote:
Germany is not relying on Gas for electricity, not in the capacity for it to be the issue, stop with this stupid take.
It's the industry that needs tons of gas and it isn't easy to just use something else for it due to Gas being awesome. It's not but it doesn't change the fact that going out of atom was a bad idea. If electricity were cheaper people might've made higher use of electric stoves instead of gas ones etc. He was talking about industry... But sure, the 6% market share of gas stoves in Germany is the issue... That's still 2.5 million households that are reliant on having access to gas. Show nested quote +On October 09 2024 00:35 Yurie wrote:On October 08 2024 06:31 Gorsameth wrote:
...
Renewable are not in a position to take over the full energy needs, even if the government would fully set their sights on it. Solar/Wind is bad at covering drops in productivity (from lack of wind/sun) and in covering peaks in consumption. While coal/gas/nuclear is much more scalable as energy demand fluctuates during a normal day. And battery tech is no where near being ready to cover the shortfall.
Even with the best of intentions we aren't moving away from fossil fuels. But yes we could, and should, be doing more.
A few suggestions I have seen for fixing the intermittent solution without batteries include: Tidal wave / normal wave power generation. Water pumps (pump to high spot during peak power generation, run a water plant during low periods). Sun mirror instead of solar cell plants. Basically melt salt or a similar mineral so it can keep running during night. All three are being pursued by different countries. The biggest problems with renewables now aren't even the efficiency (to a degree). Solar and wind require A LOT of real estate. Solar, wind and water also have pretty adverse effects on local ecology. While they might be good for the planet they're definitely not good for the local biosphere.
And if 2,5 million additional households suddenly plug in electric heaters in winter, the power grid will implode. Yeah no.... not gonna happen
|
On October 08 2024 20:21 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2024 15:16 Velr wrote:
Germany is not relying on Gas for electricity, not in the capacity for it to be the issue, stop with this stupid take.
It's the industry that needs tons of gas and it isn't easy to just use something else for it due to Gas being awesome. Yes and no. The plan was to transition to mostly renewables for electricity, with natural gas as a backup for slow days. Which would be great in terms of low emissions but of course came with the calamity of being dependent on (Russian, now LNG) imports.
I am very close to blaming German environmentalists for this war. If Germany had not phased out nuclear, Russia would have a much harder time still selling gas to pay off their troops.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
