6 ms·

Yes, because there is absolutely nothing wrong to have your infrastructure and economy exclusively depend on a politically unstable region. The lengths of biza

Yes, because there is absolutely nothing wrong to have your infrastructure and economy exclusively depend on a politically unstable region. The lengths of bizarre ideas people are coming up with just so they can avoid nuclear power seriously have no end.

gehsty 6y ago
The politics around nuclear is a real hurdle (rightly or wrongly) so it makes sense to look at other solutions. Lots of energy in Europe is supplied from countries you may not want to be reliant on (Russian gas for example).
- ThomPete 6y ago
  if politics is the problem, it would indicate that not even the politicians mean there is a problem. If they were truly concerned with CO2 emissions they would find ways to solve for the criminalization of nuclear we are seeing.
  - gehsty 6y ago
    UK is currently building new nuclear. Can’t think of anywhere else. For me people seem to have an either or opinion - we should build renewables or nuclear or whatever (I don’t think this is your stance though). Reality is that we should be deploying none CO2 producing energy as quickly as possible, and if that means building solar / wind farms then build them, if we can build nuclear then build it. Hopefully politics will enable future low risk low waste etc nuclear to thrive.
- fuoqi 6y ago
  It's for European countries to decide from whom they want to import energy and not, isn't it? But for some reason the biggest opponent of this "reliance" is the US, not the affected European countries.
  - gehsty 6y ago
    I think the annexation of Crimea certainly increased tension between Europe and Russia. I’m not sure how it effected energy policy however.
    - fuoqi 6y ago
      And? How is it relevant to my point about letting European countries to decide their policy for themselves? Some countries like Poland have announced a complete discontinuation of gas import from Russia in the near future (though I suspect they still will buy it indirectly like Ukraine), others like Germany would like to continue import the same amount (which for the whole EU has already decreased compared to the previous decade from ~630 billion m3 per year to ~550). Note that it's much easier for Poland to do, since it still uses coal for 70% of its electricity generation, compared to Germany with its 30-40% renewables and powerful industry.
      - gehsty 6y ago
        I was meaning that annexation of Crimea might have made countries want to be less reliant on Russia as a partner, outside of US-Russia relations. I agree it is up to European countries to do what they want.
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
That notion isn’t entirely wrong, but Sahara here means Morocco which happens to be among the most stable countries on that continent, and would compare favorably even to some South American countries or, say, Belgium.
j-pb 6y ago
Energy directly translates to wealth, wealth translates to stability. The lengths of bizzare ideas people go through to not help their close neighbours, so that they can avoid facing the injustices of the past have no end.
- LunaSea 6y ago
  Close neighbours that are dictatorships and openly resent and propagate hate against their neighbours. Maybe not a great idea to setup infrastructure that is core to your country. Just look at Russia and German gas imports to see how this plays out.
  - j-pb 6y ago
    By making the russian economy heavily dependent on europe, europe gets geopolitical influence on russia. The US is the worlds Hard SuperPower, europe is the worlds Soft SuperPower. You'd pre pretty resentfull too btw, if your continent had been carved up by a foreign power with complete disregard for your cultural borders, extracted your resources and the discarded you in a state of chaos. The african people can't be that hatefull if they try to escape their impoverished conditions by seeking an education and better life in europe. The european people have a historical responsibility to right the wrongs their ancestors did to the ancestors of the people of africa. A inter-continental power grid and energy collaboration is a win win for everybody.
    - LunaSea 6y ago
      > By making the russian economy heavily dependent on europe, europe gets geopolitical influence on russia. That's not how this worked out in the last 20 years of negotiations; > You'd pre pretty resentfull too btw, if your continent had been carved up by a foreign power with complete disregard for your cultural borders, extracted your resources and the discarded you in a state of chaos. Agreed, but that just validates the fact that it wouldn't be a good idea to put critical infrastructure in a country that resents you. > The african people can't be that hatefull if they try to escape their impoverished conditions by seeking an education and better life in europe. Right, because they individually gain something out of it. > The european people have a historical responsibility to right the wrongs their ancestors did to the ancestors of the people of africa. Do African people have a historical responsibility for the wrongs done by Algerian piracy or for destroying each other's empires? > A inter-continental power grid and energy collaboration is a win win for everybody. It's really not when the most basic things already don't work in said countries. You can see the European CoVid-19 help to Tanzania for a little sneak preview.
bildung 6y ago
Nuclear is a) way too expensive, b) takes decades to build in the current climate (see France and UK for current timelines) c) the Swiss population voted against new nuclear plants in 2017, so this topic is moot anyway. That fact alone that nuclear power is so much more expensive compared especially to renewables is it's last nail in the coffin. Edit: fixed idiom, thanks raverbashing
- throwaway210222 6y ago
  This misses the point. Europe and the N.America are 34% of the entire electricity consumption. Even If they miraculously reduced their carbon pollution to zero not only would 2/3 of the problem remain, but - and here is the kicker - the growth in consumption is coming from the poor and poorest countries with enormous populations. They are going to use the cheapest energy available: brown coal. Its not a simple simple cost argument: we have to find a scalable, safe, clean, base-load source of energy that is cheaper than coal. And then give it away. The only possibility is nuclear fission - preferably not one that boils water in a pressure cooker.
  - bildung 6y ago
    Keep in mind my hint at costs was purely descriptive, not normative: As we talk about market economies, neither of which currently is interested in nuclear proliferation, the LCOE of each energy source is probably the most important decision factor. The same is true for your scenario, though: Why should the rich countries export one of the most expensive energy sources to the poor countries, when e.g. onshore wind is right now already on par with brown coal?[0] [0] https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/EN2018_Fraunhofer-ISE_LCOE_Renewable_Energy_Technologies.pdf https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/p... page 2
    - ThomPete 6y ago
      LCOE is useless when comparing nuclear and ex wind and solar.

gehsty 6y ago

The politics around nuclear is a real hurdle (rightly or wrongly) so it makes sense to look at other solutions. Lots of energy in Europe is supplied from countries you may not want to be reliant on (Russian gas for example).

ThomPete 6y ago
if politics is the problem, it would indicate that not even the politicians mean there is a problem. If they were truly concerned with CO2 emissions they would find ways to solve for the criminalization of nuclear we are seeing.
- gehsty 6y ago
  UK is currently building new nuclear. Can’t think of anywhere else. For me people seem to have an either or opinion - we should build renewables or nuclear or whatever (I don’t think this is your stance though). Reality is that we should be deploying none CO2 producing energy as quickly as possible, and if that means building solar / wind farms then build them, if we can build nuclear then build it. Hopefully politics will enable future low risk low waste etc nuclear to thrive.
fuoqi 6y ago
It's for European countries to decide from whom they want to import energy and not, isn't it? But for some reason the biggest opponent of this "reliance" is the US, not the affected European countries.
- gehsty 6y ago
  I think the annexation of Crimea certainly increased tension between Europe and Russia. I’m not sure how it effected energy policy however.
  - fuoqi 6y ago
    And? How is it relevant to my point about letting European countries to decide their policy for themselves? Some countries like Poland have announced a complete discontinuation of gas import from Russia in the near future (though I suspect they still will buy it indirectly like Ukraine), others like Germany would like to continue import the same amount (which for the whole EU has already decreased compared to the previous decade from ~630 billion m3 per year to ~550). Note that it's much easier for Poland to do, since it still uses coal for 70% of its electricity generation, compared to Germany with its 30-40% renewables and powerful industry.
    - gehsty 6y ago
      I was meaning that annexation of Crimea might have made countries want to be less reliant on Russia as a partner, outside of US-Russia relations. I agree it is up to European countries to do what they want.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

That notion isn’t entirely wrong, but Sahara here means Morocco which happens to be among the most stable countries on that continent, and would compare favorably even to some South American countries or, say, Belgium.

j-pb 6y ago

Energy directly translates to wealth, wealth translates to stability. The lengths of bizzare ideas people go through to not help their close neighbours, so that they can avoid facing the injustices of the past have no end.

LunaSea 6y ago
Close neighbours that are dictatorships and openly resent and propagate hate against their neighbours. Maybe not a great idea to setup infrastructure that is core to your country. Just look at Russia and German gas imports to see how this plays out.
- j-pb 6y ago
  By making the russian economy heavily dependent on europe, europe gets geopolitical influence on russia. The US is the worlds Hard SuperPower, europe is the worlds Soft SuperPower. You'd pre pretty resentfull too btw, if your continent had been carved up by a foreign power with complete disregard for your cultural borders, extracted your resources and the discarded you in a state of chaos. The african people can't be that hatefull if they try to escape their impoverished conditions by seeking an education and better life in europe. The european people have a historical responsibility to right the wrongs their ancestors did to the ancestors of the people of africa. A inter-continental power grid and energy collaboration is a win win for everybody.
  - LunaSea 6y ago
    > By making the russian economy heavily dependent on europe, europe gets geopolitical influence on russia. That's not how this worked out in the last 20 years of negotiations; > You'd pre pretty resentfull too btw, if your continent had been carved up by a foreign power with complete disregard for your cultural borders, extracted your resources and the discarded you in a state of chaos. Agreed, but that just validates the fact that it wouldn't be a good idea to put critical infrastructure in a country that resents you. > The african people can't be that hatefull if they try to escape their impoverished conditions by seeking an education and better life in europe. Right, because they individually gain something out of it. > The european people have a historical responsibility to right the wrongs their ancestors did to the ancestors of the people of africa. Do African people have a historical responsibility for the wrongs done by Algerian piracy or for destroying each other's empires? > A inter-continental power grid and energy collaboration is a win win for everybody. It's really not when the most basic things already don't work in said countries. You can see the European CoVid-19 help to Tanzania for a little sneak preview.

bildung 6y ago

Nuclear is a) way too expensive, b) takes decades to build in the current climate (see France and UK for current timelines) c) the Swiss population voted against new nuclear plants in 2017, so this topic is moot anyway. That fact alone that nuclear power is so much more expensive compared especially to renewables is it's last nail in the coffin. Edit: fixed idiom, thanks raverbashing

throwaway210222 6y ago
This misses the point. Europe and the N.America are 34% of the entire electricity consumption. Even If they miraculously reduced their carbon pollution to zero not only would 2/3 of the problem remain, but - and here is the kicker - the growth in consumption is coming from the poor and poorest countries with enormous populations. They are going to use the cheapest energy available: brown coal. Its not a simple simple cost argument: we have to find a scalable, safe, clean, base-load source of energy that is cheaper than coal. And then give it away. The only possibility is nuclear fission - preferably not one that boils water in a pressure cooker.
- bildung 6y ago
  Keep in mind my hint at costs was purely descriptive, not normative: As we talk about market economies, neither of which currently is interested in nuclear proliferation, the LCOE of each energy source is probably the most important decision factor. The same is true for your scenario, though: Why should the rich countries export one of the most expensive energy sources to the poor countries, when e.g. onshore wind is right now already on par with brown coal?[0] [0] https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/EN2018_Fraunhofer-ISE_LCOE_Renewable_Energy_Technologies.pdf https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/p... page 2
  - ThomPete 6y ago
    LCOE is useless when comparing nuclear and ex wind and solar.