4 ms·

will this have political blowback for the 'Green' parties?

by mjfl 4y ago

DSingularity 4y ago
How can it not? Unless things can reverse fast (ie imported energy capacity that has left returns overnight) European home heating costs will skyrocket this winter. The average household will look for someone to blame.
- arrrg 4y ago
  They weren’t in charge of energy policy. In Germany for the last 16 years. They had completely different policy ideas to what was actually implemented. Blaming the greens is internationally some kind of dumb idea that likes to reduce politics to stereotypes. The real effects will be much more subtle and indirect. Could still end up with the greens losing votes. Currently it doesn’t look that way at all. (German perspective here.)
  - Delk 4y ago
    In Finland, the Greens actively and vocally opposed nuclear power at least up until recent years. They abdicated themselves from a coalition government in the early 2000's over that government's decision to grant a license for constructing an additional reactor at an existing plant. Rejecting nuclear power was definitely a visible part of their ideology. That part of the stereotype was actually true for a long time. I don't know about Germany, but it is my impression that opposition to nuclear power was a common theme among the green movement in general for decades. Obviously their agenda also included investing in renewables, as well as reducing consumption, but that wasn't going to happen fast enough, either for political or technological reasons. I have voted for the local Greens several times over the last couple of decades even though I disagreed with and was frustrated with the views they held on nuclear power until recently. I'm also unfortunately familiar with many of the common and overblown negative stereotypes towards the greens in general. Insofar as nuclear power could have played a part in reducing our dependency on fossil fuels over the lasts couple of decades, though, I don't think it's unfair to say the greens in many countries did a lot to hinder that.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Electric energy =|= thermal energy. Nuclear energy solves the electricity part (which doesn't pose any issue at all), while doing nothing to aolve the thermal energy question. No idea why people, on HN of all places on the internet, fail to realize that simple fact...
  - mr_toad 4y ago
    Your making the argument that nuclear is not a heating option because gas is cheaper. If we’re going for the cheapest option, then why not fuck the planet completely and all burn coal?
    - hef19898 4y ago
      My argument is that nuclear is a different of energy compared to gas when used for heating. Sonce gas for heating is the tipic at hand, this distinction is quite important. And nowhere did I mention price. I talked about how converting electricity to heat is highly inefficient and will cost nore to heat the same building than gas. Nuclear only factors into that as much as it factors into a given electrical energy generatuon mix.
      - kalleboo 4y ago
        Converting gas to heat is just as inefficient as converting electricity to heat
  - adrian_b 4y ago
    Nuclear energy does not solve the heating part only because most of the existing nuclear plants have not been designed to provide heating, where gas heating was already in use. There are many parts in Europe where the homes are not heated by gas, but by the waste heat from the local power plants, regardless whether they are gas-based, coal-based or nuclear. Any existing nuclear plant could be converted to also provide heating for the nearby houses, if the infrastructure of plumbing for the transport of hot water would be built. However, the last part of the heating infrastructure, where the hot water pipes would have to be passed through the house walls and through the walls of all rooms, would be extremely costly in comparison with an electric heater, even if the operating cost would be lower. So it is very unlikely that such a conversion would ever be done to already existing houses, even if it is possible. Heat pumps would have much lower installation costs, while still being more efficient than resistive heaters.
turbinerneiter 4y ago
Why would it? They weren't in charge for any of it. If we had built the renewables they wanted, we would have less of a problem now.
- felipeerias 4y ago
  Increasing renewable energy sources and moving away from locally sourced fossil fuels and nuclear power have always been among the main policy proposals of Green parties. Green parties did not win that much direct power, but they totally won the energy debate and their policies have become the mainstream consensus among European elites. Over the past years, European governments (not just the German one) have been busy closing down any energy source that was not renewable or relied on imports from other countries. Now it turns out that renewable energy sources are still not able to cover the basic needs of the population and the economy, and the dependence on imported fossil fuels has allowed an authoritarian government to launch the largest war on European soil since the World Wars. I don't know if Green parties will actually face a backslash, but it seems clear that the energy transition in Europe will end up making the continent poorer and far less secure in exchange for little, if any, actual benefit for the environment.
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    > Over the past years, European governments (not just the German one) have been busy closing down any energy source that was not renewable or relied on imports from other countries. In Germany, coal was pushed by the conservatives.
  - turbinerneiter 4y ago
    So because Europe tried to close down energy sources that relied on imports from mother countries, they are now dependent on imported fossil fuels. Makes sense.
    - felipeerias 4y ago
      That's just a typo. They tried to stop local non-renewable resources, only to end up having to import them from other countries at a higher price and with a larger environmental impact.
adammarples 4y ago
There's a lot of anti green rhetoric around on news boards
- throwaway5959 4y ago
  As green as astroturf.
rndgermandude 4y ago
The German Green (Grüne) party is up in recent polls[0]. They are not just part of the German government coalition, with the posts of Secretary of Economy and Energy (Habeck) and Foreign Secretary (aka Secretary of State, Baerbock) (and some other posts), they are very powerful within the government coalition. Both Habeck and Baerbock are leading Chancellor Scholz of the SPD in polls since months. It has to be said tho that the Green party is doing "realpolitik" now. While they aim at one hand to drastically accelerate renewables, right now they also invest heavily in getting a more secure energy situation in the near future still using a lot of fossil fuels, including rapidly building up LNG terminals and securing deals with parties they previously frowned upon, e.g. a gas deal with Qatar, the government of which the Green party previously heavily criticized for the human rights situation in the country. And e.g. they accepted - with some bickering - the temporary gas (as in petrol) price subventions the other coalition parties wanted, in exchange for temporary public transport price subventions (a 9-Euro regional ticket, that is valid for a month at a time, 21M sold by July 1, population 83M). They are still rejecting nuclear power generation, neither wanting to build new plants, nor keeping old plants running (the operators of said old plants already called the idea of keeping those plants running "infeasible" to outright "stupid"). It remains to be seen what the blowback will be if inflation doesn't at least slow down, or if autumn and winter come and people start getting cold. Tho right now, the politicians and leading experts and "experts" say, it doesn't look like there there will be a shortage on a scale that gets life-threatening to some people. [0] 20-24% share in recent polls, vs the 14.8% they actually got in the last election in Sep 2021. They are actually slightly ahead of the SPD (social democrats) in the polls now. The SPD is the majority partner in the coalition. https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/ https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/
- mr_toad 4y ago
  > They are still rejecting nuclear power generation It boggles the mind that a so called Green Party is investing in fossil fuels.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Not really. Short term the German nuclear plants cannot be kept operational any longer. While fossils are bad, they are less bad than having none and getting old buclear planta ready when they are not needed anymore. Also, the fossil plants are there, and this cheaper to ramp up. Mid term, the goal seems to be renewables. All in all, quite reasonable and well thought through under the current circumstances.
dchnshA 4y ago
No, they have warned about a situation like we have it now for decades and were ignored by the conservatives and social democrats for the last 16 years. They were right all along and are now the ones fixing the situation, after only recently being voted into government. The polls show: The two most popular politicians in germany are both greens. They are the second biggest party in current polls with 22%, 6% behind the biggest party. In the polls they are the biggest party in the current government (when the current term started a few months ago they were the second biggest party in the current government) Things are going great for them and there are no signs of that changing.

will this have political blowback for the 'Green' parties?

by mjfl 4y ago

will this have political blowback for the 'Green' parties?

How can it not? Unless things can reverse fast (ie imported energy capacity that has left returns overnight) European home heating costs will skyrocket this winter. The average household will look for someone to blame.

arrrg 4y ago
They weren’t in charge of energy policy. In Germany for the last 16 years. They had completely different policy ideas to what was actually implemented. Blaming the greens is internationally some kind of dumb idea that likes to reduce politics to stereotypes. The real effects will be much more subtle and indirect. Could still end up with the greens losing votes. Currently it doesn’t look that way at all. (German perspective here.)
- Delk 4y ago
  In Finland, the Greens actively and vocally opposed nuclear power at least up until recent years. They abdicated themselves from a coalition government in the early 2000's over that government's decision to grant a license for constructing an additional reactor at an existing plant. Rejecting nuclear power was definitely a visible part of their ideology. That part of the stereotype was actually true for a long time. I don't know about Germany, but it is my impression that opposition to nuclear power was a common theme among the green movement in general for decades. Obviously their agenda also included investing in renewables, as well as reducing consumption, but that wasn't going to happen fast enough, either for political or technological reasons. I have voted for the local Greens several times over the last couple of decades even though I disagreed with and was frustrated with the views they held on nuclear power until recently. I'm also unfortunately familiar with many of the common and overblown negative stereotypes towards the greens in general. Insofar as nuclear power could have played a part in reducing our dependency on fossil fuels over the lasts couple of decades, though, I don't think it's unfair to say the greens in many countries did a lot to hinder that.
hef19898 4y ago
Electric energy =|= thermal energy. Nuclear energy solves the electricity part (which doesn't pose any issue at all), while doing nothing to aolve the thermal energy question. No idea why people, on HN of all places on the internet, fail to realize that simple fact...
- mr_toad 4y ago
  Your making the argument that nuclear is not a heating option because gas is cheaper. If we’re going for the cheapest option, then why not fuck the planet completely and all burn coal?
  - hef19898 4y ago
    My argument is that nuclear is a different of energy compared to gas when used for heating. Sonce gas for heating is the tipic at hand, this distinction is quite important. And nowhere did I mention price. I talked about how converting electricity to heat is highly inefficient and will cost nore to heat the same building than gas. Nuclear only factors into that as much as it factors into a given electrical energy generatuon mix.
    - kalleboo 4y ago
      Converting gas to heat is just as inefficient as converting electricity to heat
- adrian_b 4y ago
  Nuclear energy does not solve the heating part only because most of the existing nuclear plants have not been designed to provide heating, where gas heating was already in use. There are many parts in Europe where the homes are not heated by gas, but by the waste heat from the local power plants, regardless whether they are gas-based, coal-based or nuclear. Any existing nuclear plant could be converted to also provide heating for the nearby houses, if the infrastructure of plumbing for the transport of hot water would be built. However, the last part of the heating infrastructure, where the hot water pipes would have to be passed through the house walls and through the walls of all rooms, would be extremely costly in comparison with an electric heater, even if the operating cost would be lower. So it is very unlikely that such a conversion would ever be done to already existing houses, even if it is possible. Heat pumps would have much lower installation costs, while still being more efficient than resistive heaters.

turbinerneiter 4y ago

Why would it? They weren't in charge for any of it. If we had built the renewables they wanted, we would have less of a problem now.

felipeerias 4y ago
Increasing renewable energy sources and moving away from locally sourced fossil fuels and nuclear power have always been among the main policy proposals of Green parties. Green parties did not win that much direct power, but they totally won the energy debate and their policies have become the mainstream consensus among European elites. Over the past years, European governments (not just the German one) have been busy closing down any energy source that was not renewable or relied on imports from other countries. Now it turns out that renewable energy sources are still not able to cover the basic needs of the population and the economy, and the dependence on imported fossil fuels has allowed an authoritarian government to launch the largest war on European soil since the World Wars. I don't know if Green parties will actually face a backslash, but it seems clear that the energy transition in Europe will end up making the continent poorer and far less secure in exchange for little, if any, actual benefit for the environment.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  > Over the past years, European governments (not just the German one) have been busy closing down any energy source that was not renewable or relied on imports from other countries. In Germany, coal was pushed by the conservatives.
- turbinerneiter 4y ago
  So because Europe tried to close down energy sources that relied on imports from mother countries, they are now dependent on imported fossil fuels. Makes sense.
  - felipeerias 4y ago
    That's just a typo. They tried to stop local non-renewable resources, only to end up having to import them from other countries at a higher price and with a larger environmental impact.

adammarples 4y ago

There's a lot of anti green rhetoric around on news boards

throwaway5959 4y ago
As green as astroturf.

rndgermandude 4y ago

The German Green (Grüne) party is up in recent polls[0]. They are not just part of the German government coalition, with the posts of Secretary of Economy and Energy (Habeck) and Foreign Secretary (aka Secretary of State, Baerbock) (and some other posts), they are very powerful within the government coalition. Both Habeck and Baerbock are leading Chancellor Scholz of the SPD in polls since months. It has to be said tho that the Green party is doing "realpolitik" now. While they aim at one hand to drastically accelerate renewables, right now they also invest heavily in getting a more secure energy situation in the near future still using a lot of fossil fuels, including rapidly building up LNG terminals and securing deals with parties they previously frowned upon, e.g. a gas deal with Qatar, the government of which the Green party previously heavily criticized for the human rights situation in the country. And e.g. they accepted - with some bickering - the temporary gas (as in petrol) price subventions the other coalition parties wanted, in exchange for temporary public transport price subventions (a 9-Euro regional ticket, that is valid for a month at a time, 21M sold by July 1, population 83M). They are still rejecting nuclear power generation, neither wanting to build new plants, nor keeping old plants running (the operators of said old plants already called the idea of keeping those plants running "infeasible" to outright "stupid"). It remains to be seen what the blowback will be if inflation doesn't at least slow down, or if autumn and winter come and people start getting cold. Tho right now, the politicians and leading experts and "experts" say, it doesn't look like there there will be a shortage on a scale that gets life-threatening to some people. [0] 20-24% share in recent polls, vs the 14.8% they actually got in the last election in Sep 2021. They are actually slightly ahead of the SPD (social democrats) in the polls now. The SPD is the majority partner in the coalition. https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/ https://www.wahlrecht.de/umfragen/

mr_toad 4y ago
> They are still rejecting nuclear power generation It boggles the mind that a so called Green Party is investing in fossil fuels.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Not really. Short term the German nuclear plants cannot be kept operational any longer. While fossils are bad, they are less bad than having none and getting old buclear planta ready when they are not needed anymore. Also, the fossil plants are there, and this cheaper to ramp up. Mid term, the goal seems to be renewables. All in all, quite reasonable and well thought through under the current circumstances.

dchnshA 4y ago

No, they have warned about a situation like we have it now for decades and were ignored by the conservatives and social democrats for the last 16 years. They were right all along and are now the ones fixing the situation, after only recently being voted into government. The polls show: The two most popular politicians in germany are both greens. They are the second biggest party in current polls with 22%, 6% behind the biggest party. In the polls they are the biggest party in the current government (when the current term started a few months ago they were the second biggest party in the current government) Things are going great for them and there are no signs of that changing.