16 ms·

It's this 75%. Europe needs gas because it's still winter and therefore needs the ability to pay Russia for it. The next biggest reason is probably just keepin

It's this 75%. Europe needs gas because it's still winter and therefore needs the ability to pay Russia for it. The next biggest reason is probably just keeping arrows in the quiver. Why exhaust all sanction options up front and then be unable to influence in the future? Keeping the SWIFT sanction option keeps the ability to influence Russia in the future. Lastly, a minor component is all of the CIPS and other reasons people bring up.

lazide 5y ago
Also, politically most of Europe seems to have worked itself into a corner where the only politically tenable power source that works well regardless of the weather (which is also when most of Europe has peak power demands) is unbuildable and very expensive (nuclear) or puts them at the mercy of Russia and very expensive (nat gas/fossil fuels)
- colechristensen 5y ago
  Instead of sanctions, Germany could break ground on fifty nuclear power plants tomorrow. That seems like it might actually give Russia pause.
  - elzbardico 5y ago
    50 nuclear plants are neither cheap or fast to be built. I don't even know if we have the supply chain in the whole world and the technical man power to build 50 nuclear plants at the same time.
    - native_samples 5y ago
      Definitely do not. There are only two companies in the world with the ability to forge the steel needed for reactor hulls, iirc. One is in Japan and has a massive backlog of orders. The other? It's Russian.
    - thrashh 5y ago
      Not to mention Germany had just decided to shut down all of their reactors, following Fukushima.
      - colechristensen 5y ago
        Yeah well, doesnt seem to be working too well for them with record high energy prices and a geopolitical situation where their hands are tied because they need to keep importing gas.
      - bitcharmer 5y ago
        To people who understand the political and environmental implications of this it is clear that this was the most anti European move this country executed since 1939. Germany cannot be trusted
    - arrosenberg 5y ago
      We didn't have the capacity to produce 300K warplanes in 1939 either, but we did it by 1945. It's just excuses for those with power to as little as possible.
    - colechristensen 5y ago
      So? The easy fast solution is what got Europe in the position of not being able to meaningfully sanction Russia. Yes, doing something big would require many things. Building a bunch of them at the same time would allow you to save many of the pitfalls of nuclear construction: having to redesign each one from scratch. You’d build power plant factories, fifty of the same plant around the country/continent.
  - croes 5y ago
    And then built them the next 200 years? Stuttgart 21 is still in construction and the Berlin airport took way longer than expected. And these projects don't have the same severe consequences if the construction is botched. Not to mention attacks.
  - 2ion 5y ago
    Europe has lost the hands and the knowledge to do that due to neglect over 30+ years. In order to be able to do such a thing, you need to educate a steady pipeline of people to become professionals that can handle the job. As for contractors who could actually be available for hire to handle this, Korea and Japan come to mind, but both are probably booked out well into the foreseeable future. When you build a reactor, you probably don't want "first-timers" working on the project for you.
  - tempnow987 5y ago
    Germany is closing their nuclear power plants and increasing dependence on gas for "environmental" reasons - so this isn't happening.
    - bitcharmer 5y ago
      This the most nonsensical argumentation they could ever use. Given Germany's track record in screwing Europe (on top of shutting down nuclear power plants, have a look at the damage Gerhard Schroeder did) this country is dangerous to other EU members.
  - mr_toad 5y ago
    France recently announced they’re building 14 new reactors. By 2050. It’s not a short term solution. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/10/france-to-build-up-to-14-new-nuclear-reactors-by-2050-says-macron https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/10/france-to-buil...
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  This is a popular view on HN. I have never understood why. Wind and solar are the cheapest sources of power. A decades long propaganda campaign has tried, but failed, to cover that up. Yet this zombie opinion persists in certain political bubbles that get their information from fossil fuel interests. And now, when one of those fossil fuel interests invades another nation, the prime culprit is... renewable energy? And it's used as an excuse to talk about how utterly indespendible natural gas is, even though experts want us to dump it as fast as possible? Isn't that oddly convenient for Putin, who seems really well liked by all the same people who tell obvious lies about climate change.
  - lazide 5y ago
    Wow, that’s impressively disconnected from reality. The reason why Germany and indirectly most of Europe hasn’t stopped buying gas from Russia is because, despite being a massive (the most massive?) solar and renewable economy, those don’t work very well during the winter. I’m literally pointing out the emperor has no clothes which is why they’re freezing? If they were in a climate with better insolation and more predictable renewable sources, then they’d probably be fine. But they aren’t. If they had adequate storage to deal with peak energy demand during minimum insolation, or had another adequate source, then they would have cut Russia off years ago. But they don’t. They used to, but they have been shutting them down and not building replacement capacity. Instead they’re paying out the nose and scrambling because they don’t have viable options, and resisting the political motions they would otherwise do because Russia has them over a barrel.
    - pgeorgi 5y ago
      > The reason why Germany hasn’t stopped buying gas from Russia is The reason why Germany hasn't stopped buying gas is because there are 12 million gas heaters spread across the country, heating 20 million homes (nearly 50% of housing). We currently bring up 150k heat pumps a year (mostly in new developments). At that rate it takes some 60-80 years to convert all existing gas guzzling real estate over to electric heating. > because, despite being a massive (the most massive?) solar and renewable economy, those don’t work very well during the winter. Last I checked it's winter and we just broke wind power records, multiple times in a row. Wind power has approximately the same installed capacity as solar (60GW each). But it still doesn't help those gas heaters keep people warm.
jdrc 5y ago
What future? after russia invades hungary or poland or ... ?
- yurishimo 5y ago
  Russia won't invade a NATO country. It's not going to happen. Speculating about it does nothing because if that actually happened, we would be entering WWIII.
  - jdrc 5y ago
    I think the fact that SWIFT can't be used now, shows that it can never be used, it is not a weapon at all as it is thought to be. Even minor cases like the temporary blockade of iran had small impact.
  - axg11 5y ago
    I'm worried this is optimistic but ultimately misguided thinking. Russia is invading Ukraine because Putin knows that the consequences of invasion will be small relative to his perceived benefits. NATO/"The West" will not risk a larger confrontation over Ukraine. Unfortunately, I think that same conclusion extends to the smaller NATO countries. Will the rest of NATO really risk a nuclear war if Russia decides to invade one of Latvia/Lithuania/Montenegro/Estonia? As recently as last year, the US had an anti-NATO President. This could happen again in the near future. If it does, Putin will be emboldened to continue expanding Russia's sphere of influence.
    - mardifoufs 5y ago
      No, NATO is absolutely the redline and even the smallest nato baltic countries usually have allied troops stationed there. To think NATO wouldn't defend a member state is completely unrealistic and that's one of the reasons this entire conflict started. If ukraine joins NATO it becomes untouchable, even for putin, hence why they were willing to support the donbass rebels and escalate to a war now. If putin was just going for the easiest target and didn't mind NATO, ukraine is hardly the weakest target in the area. Once you attack a NATO member you are almost automatically at war with all the members of the alliance and you'll probably have to face already present nato troops as soon as the war starts.

lazide 5y ago

Also, politically most of Europe seems to have worked itself into a corner where the only politically tenable power source that works well regardless of the weather (which is also when most of Europe has peak power demands) is unbuildable and very expensive (nuclear) or puts them at the mercy of Russia and very expensive (nat gas/fossil fuels)

colechristensen 5y ago
Instead of sanctions, Germany could break ground on fifty nuclear power plants tomorrow. That seems like it might actually give Russia pause.
- elzbardico 5y ago
  50 nuclear plants are neither cheap or fast to be built. I don't even know if we have the supply chain in the whole world and the technical man power to build 50 nuclear plants at the same time.
  - native_samples 5y ago
    Definitely do not. There are only two companies in the world with the ability to forge the steel needed for reactor hulls, iirc. One is in Japan and has a massive backlog of orders. The other? It's Russian.
  - thrashh 5y ago
    Not to mention Germany had just decided to shut down all of their reactors, following Fukushima.
    - colechristensen 5y ago
      Yeah well, doesnt seem to be working too well for them with record high energy prices and a geopolitical situation where their hands are tied because they need to keep importing gas.
    - bitcharmer 5y ago
      To people who understand the political and environmental implications of this it is clear that this was the most anti European move this country executed since 1939. Germany cannot be trusted
  - arrosenberg 5y ago
    We didn't have the capacity to produce 300K warplanes in 1939 either, but we did it by 1945. It's just excuses for those with power to as little as possible.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    So? The easy fast solution is what got Europe in the position of not being able to meaningfully sanction Russia. Yes, doing something big would require many things. Building a bunch of them at the same time would allow you to save many of the pitfalls of nuclear construction: having to redesign each one from scratch. You’d build power plant factories, fifty of the same plant around the country/continent.
- croes 5y ago
  And then built them the next 200 years? Stuttgart 21 is still in construction and the Berlin airport took way longer than expected. And these projects don't have the same severe consequences if the construction is botched. Not to mention attacks.
- 2ion 5y ago
  Europe has lost the hands and the knowledge to do that due to neglect over 30+ years. In order to be able to do such a thing, you need to educate a steady pipeline of people to become professionals that can handle the job. As for contractors who could actually be available for hire to handle this, Korea and Japan come to mind, but both are probably booked out well into the foreseeable future. When you build a reactor, you probably don't want "first-timers" working on the project for you.
- tempnow987 5y ago
  Germany is closing their nuclear power plants and increasing dependence on gas for "environmental" reasons - so this isn't happening.
  - bitcharmer 5y ago
    This the most nonsensical argumentation they could ever use. Given Germany's track record in screwing Europe (on top of shutting down nuclear power plants, have a look at the damage Gerhard Schroeder did) this country is dangerous to other EU members.
- mr_toad 5y ago
  France recently announced they’re building 14 new reactors. By 2050. It’s not a short term solution. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/10/france-to-build-up-to-14-new-nuclear-reactors-by-2050-says-macron https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/10/france-to-buil...
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
This is a popular view on HN. I have never understood why. Wind and solar are the cheapest sources of power. A decades long propaganda campaign has tried, but failed, to cover that up. Yet this zombie opinion persists in certain political bubbles that get their information from fossil fuel interests. And now, when one of those fossil fuel interests invades another nation, the prime culprit is... renewable energy? And it's used as an excuse to talk about how utterly indespendible natural gas is, even though experts want us to dump it as fast as possible? Isn't that oddly convenient for Putin, who seems really well liked by all the same people who tell obvious lies about climate change.
- lazide 5y ago
  Wow, that’s impressively disconnected from reality. The reason why Germany and indirectly most of Europe hasn’t stopped buying gas from Russia is because, despite being a massive (the most massive?) solar and renewable economy, those don’t work very well during the winter. I’m literally pointing out the emperor has no clothes which is why they’re freezing? If they were in a climate with better insolation and more predictable renewable sources, then they’d probably be fine. But they aren’t. If they had adequate storage to deal with peak energy demand during minimum insolation, or had another adequate source, then they would have cut Russia off years ago. But they don’t. They used to, but they have been shutting them down and not building replacement capacity. Instead they’re paying out the nose and scrambling because they don’t have viable options, and resisting the political motions they would otherwise do because Russia has them over a barrel.
  - pgeorgi 5y ago
    > The reason why Germany hasn’t stopped buying gas from Russia is The reason why Germany hasn't stopped buying gas is because there are 12 million gas heaters spread across the country, heating 20 million homes (nearly 50% of housing). We currently bring up 150k heat pumps a year (mostly in new developments). At that rate it takes some 60-80 years to convert all existing gas guzzling real estate over to electric heating. > because, despite being a massive (the most massive?) solar and renewable economy, those don’t work very well during the winter. Last I checked it's winter and we just broke wind power records, multiple times in a row. Wind power has approximately the same installed capacity as solar (60GW each). But it still doesn't help those gas heaters keep people warm.

jdrc 5y ago

What future? after russia invades hungary or poland or ... ?

yurishimo 5y ago
Russia won't invade a NATO country. It's not going to happen. Speculating about it does nothing because if that actually happened, we would be entering WWIII.
- jdrc 5y ago
  I think the fact that SWIFT can't be used now, shows that it can never be used, it is not a weapon at all as it is thought to be. Even minor cases like the temporary blockade of iran had small impact.
- axg11 5y ago
  I'm worried this is optimistic but ultimately misguided thinking. Russia is invading Ukraine because Putin knows that the consequences of invasion will be small relative to his perceived benefits. NATO/"The West" will not risk a larger confrontation over Ukraine. Unfortunately, I think that same conclusion extends to the smaller NATO countries. Will the rest of NATO really risk a nuclear war if Russia decides to invade one of Latvia/Lithuania/Montenegro/Estonia? As recently as last year, the US had an anti-NATO President. This could happen again in the near future. If it does, Putin will be emboldened to continue expanding Russia's sphere of influence.
  - mardifoufs 5y ago
    No, NATO is absolutely the redline and even the smallest nato baltic countries usually have allied troops stationed there. To think NATO wouldn't defend a member state is completely unrealistic and that's one of the reasons this entire conflict started. If ukraine joins NATO it becomes untouchable, even for putin, hence why they were willing to support the donbass rebels and escalate to a war now. If putin was just going for the easiest target and didn't mind NATO, ukraine is hardly the weakest target in the area. Once you attack a NATO member you are almost automatically at war with all the members of the alliance and you'll probably have to face already present nato troops as soon as the war starts.