7 ms·

I am in awe that so far eu politicians are still reluctant to move back to whatever fossil fuels exist in the continent, and instead still push hard for the una

by mateo1 4y ago

I am in awe that so far eu politicians are still reluctant to move back to whatever fossil fuels exist in the continent, and instead still push hard for the unachievable fantasy of an emissions-free europe. When is the renewables revolution coming? Well the energy transition better be over by October or we're in for an unfathomable crisis here in the old world.

bushbaba 4y ago
To be fair, if we leaned in on nuclear we'd be oil free. I'd much rather deal with highly concentrated nuclear waste than CO2 & Methane emissions
- mistrial9 4y ago
  > To be fair, if we leaned in on nuclear we'd be oil free no one knows that -- you think that Exxon and crew are ready to sit down ? They fired their Dutch CEO for trying to make the transition almost twenty years ago IIR As others in this thread say -- this change reveals the struggles between giants, not the quarrels of simple people in media that happens daily
- chki 4y ago
  Maybe if we had leaned in on nuclear 40-50 years ago. (Even then, Uranium does not grow on trees). But right now, that's not a viable option for the next thirty years. Industrial and Regulatory challenges are impossible to overcome in the timeframe that's needed.
  - bushbaba 4y ago
    The USGS has identified US thorium reserves that could meet the WORLD's energy for the next 138 years. I hope in 200 years when or if we run out of nuclear energy that we've managed to find alternative energy sources or leverage space mining. https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1336/pdf/C1336.pdf https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1336/pdf/C1336.pdf
    - nathanaldensr 4y ago
      Another reference for thorium salt reactors: https://www.thmsr.com/en/the-thorium-molten-salt-reactor/ https://www.thmsr.com/en/the-thorium-molten-salt-reactor/
bluescrn 4y ago
It feels like the plan has always been to price the working class off the roads, with no alternative beyond walking or cycling. But if so, they underestimated how much this could cripple economies. When you've got the elite/ruling-class flying in to climate conferences on dozens of private jets, it's clear who isn't going to modify their lifestyle for the sake of the environment. EVs will remain luxuries for the relatively wealthy. You need a spacious home with a garage or at least a driveway if you want to charge at home. No luck if you're in an apartment. And there's still no sign of serious efforts to build charging infrastructure on a 'for the masses' scale, despite bans on new ICE cars planned for less than a decade from now. (If we get to the point of fully-autonomous self-driving taxis being a thing - they'll be owned in bulk by the super-rich and their corporations, not by regular individuals. It'll probably be illegal for a regular citizen to operate such a service, even when the tech is ubiquitous)
- chki 4y ago
  >And there's still no sign of serious efforts to build charging infrastructure on a 'for the masses' scale It's not enough but there are 2,000 EV charging stations installed in the EU every week. 10,000 would be better but we're not even one order of magnitude off the target.
  - bluescrn 4y ago
    I'm also skeptical of the business model for public EV charging. I forsee a huge bait+switch, with sky-high prices once enough people have invested in an EV and are dependent on the service, and once the charging service providers have built up local monopolies on public charging.
    - Adraghast 4y ago
      Would you be in favor of charging infrastructure being run as a public utility?
      - bluescrn 4y ago
rsynnott 4y ago
“Whatever fossil fuels exist in the continent” That’d be coal. Which Europe produces some of, but was importing from Russia until a few months ago. In general, it is not like Europe has a big pile of practically exploitable-in-reasonable-time fossil fuels that it isn’t using.
- jbay808 4y ago
  There's also Dutch natural gas, but they've been limiting production due to seismic stability concerns.
- schroeding 4y ago
  Yeah, even if we had enough coal, we would need something like coal liquefaction in massive scale to at least somewhat replace russian gas and oil - can't use a (ICE) car or a gas burner with coal briquettes or coal powered electricity.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
morsch 4y ago
Renewables are the only way that Europe will be somewhat independent in terms of energy in the forseeable future (though hardly emissions free). The technology is already there, we've just been sitting on our asses for two decades instead of pursuing it aggressively. The number of installed wind turbines in Germany has stagnated, for example. Output has increased, but that's because of repowering old installations. NIMBY rules and incredibly complex approval procedures prevent growth. You'd think this would be all the motivation required to rapidly expand renewables. Evidently not, we'll just keep having the same conversation. Whatever.
- FooBarWidget 4y ago
  Yes this is ridiculous. The Netherlands has been pretty good at expanding residential solar, but apparently the electric grid operators have been sitting on their asses for years, and so now we have too much solar because the grid can't handle the solar power during peak sunny days in summer. It's like they plan nothing and just let things grow organically, which causes lots of issues and is inefficient.
  - makomk 4y ago
    The technology is not there for the grid to handle a whole bunch of excess solar energy during peak sunny days. We just don't have options for energy storage on the scale required. The usual approach of groups pushing for this is to handwave the problem away and call for more subsidies on domestic solar, which is of course popular with the public because it means money for them and punts the incredibly expensive and difficult part until later for someone else to deal with.
    - FooBarWidget 4y ago
      This isn't even about storage. This is just about having thick enough electric cables so that the grid doesn't overload. Right now the grid fails even if there are consumers for all that power. We're failing to transport the power.
      - 4y ago

by mateo1 4y ago

bushbaba 4y ago

To be fair, if we leaned in on nuclear we'd be oil free. I'd much rather deal with highly concentrated nuclear waste than CO2 & Methane emissions

mistrial9 4y ago
> To be fair, if we leaned in on nuclear we'd be oil free no one knows that -- you think that Exxon and crew are ready to sit down ? They fired their Dutch CEO for trying to make the transition almost twenty years ago IIR As others in this thread say -- this change reveals the struggles between giants, not the quarrels of simple people in media that happens daily
chki 4y ago
Maybe if we had leaned in on nuclear 40-50 years ago. (Even then, Uranium does not grow on trees). But right now, that's not a viable option for the next thirty years. Industrial and Regulatory challenges are impossible to overcome in the timeframe that's needed.
- bushbaba 4y ago
  The USGS has identified US thorium reserves that could meet the WORLD's energy for the next 138 years. I hope in 200 years when or if we run out of nuclear energy that we've managed to find alternative energy sources or leverage space mining. https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1336/pdf/C1336.pdf https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1336/pdf/C1336.pdf
  - nathanaldensr 4y ago
    Another reference for thorium salt reactors: https://www.thmsr.com/en/the-thorium-molten-salt-reactor/ https://www.thmsr.com/en/the-thorium-molten-salt-reactor/

bluescrn 4y ago

It feels like the plan has always been to price the working class off the roads, with no alternative beyond walking or cycling. But if so, they underestimated how much this could cripple economies. When you've got the elite/ruling-class flying in to climate conferences on dozens of private jets, it's clear who isn't going to modify their lifestyle for the sake of the environment. EVs will remain luxuries for the relatively wealthy. You need a spacious home with a garage or at least a driveway if you want to charge at home. No luck if you're in an apartment. And there's still no sign of serious efforts to build charging infrastructure on a 'for the masses' scale, despite bans on new ICE cars planned for less than a decade from now. (If we get to the point of fully-autonomous self-driving taxis being a thing - they'll be owned in bulk by the super-rich and their corporations, not by regular individuals. It'll probably be illegal for a regular citizen to operate such a service, even when the tech is ubiquitous)

chki 4y ago
>And there's still no sign of serious efforts to build charging infrastructure on a 'for the masses' scale It's not enough but there are 2,000 EV charging stations installed in the EU every week. 10,000 would be better but we're not even one order of magnitude off the target.
- bluescrn 4y ago
  I'm also skeptical of the business model for public EV charging. I forsee a huge bait+switch, with sky-high prices once enough people have invested in an EV and are dependent on the service, and once the charging service providers have built up local monopolies on public charging.
  - Adraghast 4y ago
    Would you be in favor of charging infrastructure being run as a public utility?
    - bluescrn 4y ago

rsynnott 4y ago

“Whatever fossil fuels exist in the continent” That’d be coal. Which Europe produces some of, but was importing from Russia until a few months ago. In general, it is not like Europe has a big pile of practically exploitable-in-reasonable-time fossil fuels that it isn’t using.

jbay808 4y ago
There's also Dutch natural gas, but they've been limiting production due to seismic stability concerns.
schroeding 4y ago
Yeah, even if we had enough coal, we would need something like coal liquefaction in massive scale to at least somewhat replace russian gas and oil - can't use a (ICE) car or a gas burner with coal briquettes or coal powered electricity.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

morsch 4y ago

Renewables are the only way that Europe will be somewhat independent in terms of energy in the forseeable future (though hardly emissions free). The technology is already there, we've just been sitting on our asses for two decades instead of pursuing it aggressively. The number of installed wind turbines in Germany has stagnated, for example. Output has increased, but that's because of repowering old installations. NIMBY rules and incredibly complex approval procedures prevent growth. You'd think this would be all the motivation required to rapidly expand renewables. Evidently not, we'll just keep having the same conversation. Whatever.

FooBarWidget 4y ago
Yes this is ridiculous. The Netherlands has been pretty good at expanding residential solar, but apparently the electric grid operators have been sitting on their asses for years, and so now we have too much solar because the grid can't handle the solar power during peak sunny days in summer. It's like they plan nothing and just let things grow organically, which causes lots of issues and is inefficient.
- makomk 4y ago
  The technology is not there for the grid to handle a whole bunch of excess solar energy during peak sunny days. We just don't have options for energy storage on the scale required. The usual approach of groups pushing for this is to handwave the problem away and call for more subsidies on domestic solar, which is of course popular with the public because it means money for them and punts the incredibly expensive and difficult part until later for someone else to deal with.
  - FooBarWidget 4y ago
    This isn't even about storage. This is just about having thick enough electric cables so that the grid doesn't overload. Right now the grid fails even if there are consumers for all that power. We're failing to transport the power.
    - 4y ago