3 ms·
[doom and gloom energy noises] Meh. We're not staring down the abyss of the "net energy cliff" where near-100% of energy goes to procuring more energy. The rea
by fennecfoxen 5y ago
[doom and gloom energy noises]
Meh. We're not staring down the abyss of the "net energy cliff" where near-100% of energy goes to procuring more energy. The reason for our shortages is because of things like (for instance) various politicians deciding to not-build Keystone XL (US) or to delay Nord Stream 2 (Europe). Because of these decisions — surprise surprise — we aren't being delivered the products they'd carry.
Some of those noises are even legitimate. But the Net Energy Cliff™ is a long long long way off. In hard-hit Europe, for instance, Germany is sitting on fantastical reserves of shale gas and oil which they could access by fracking, but won't. Good decision? Some say so. Energy-cliff apocalypse? Hahahaha no.
Heck, if it really came to that, we'd bring back nuclear.
- evgen 5y agoSorry, but Keystone XL has absolutely nothing to do with this and the fuel that it was going to transport is the dirtiest, heaviest crude around and not gas. After a year or more of lockdown and diminished demand we are now ramping back up and supply will take a while to catch up. Nothing magic about this and anyone who claims this is an indicator for some sort of long-term consequence (like the author of the original article) is clearly reading way too much into the tea leaves they are staring at.
- fennecfoxen 5y ago> Sorry, but Keystone XL has absolutely nothing to do with this You say this as if energy consumption isn't fungible in the slightest, and that we'd gladly fall off the net energy cliff™ before trying to make any substitutions.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- flavius29663 5y agoNot building NS2 has nothing to do with this crisis in any way. The gas can be readily transported through existing pipelines just as it has been for decades. If you're saying that Putin wants to strong-arm the west by not providing enough gas at normal prices until NS2 is approved, then yeah that makes sense. But this wouldn't be because of NS2, it's because of Putin.
- fennecfoxen 5y agoGazprom's unwillingness to send gas in transit through eastern Europe where it could theoretically run is indeed a real thing, and you're right that Nord Stream 2 would alleviate only political capacity limitations. (And FWIW, I'm against it, because I'm against Vladimir Putin, but I don't get to make these decisions.) It's still limiting capacity. There's still lots of gas in Russia. Heck, there's still lots of gas in Groningen, they've just stopped pumping it. In neither case are we staring down a net energy cliff™.
- flavius29663 5y agoyeah, there is no energy cliff, only bad political decisions. Supporting NS, NS2, Banning fracking, and I would also add a "wishful thinking" reduction of fossil fuels, before the grid was ready for that. Germany alone invested 100 billions in green energy subsidies. Those money could have kept a lot of gas or coal burning. I hope we will get out of crisis stronger than before, not weaker, and don't default back to burning coal for the long term.