37 ms·

There are solutions, just unpopular and require a political class that is not fickle and weak. Solution #1. Capitulate to Putin and treat Russia as a regional

There are solutions, just unpopular and require a political class that is not fickle and weak. Solution #1. Capitulate to Putin and treat Russia as a regional power that can gobble and punish its neighbors when they stray too far. Solution #2. Forget about the climate for the next 5 years, turn on all coal, nuclear powerplants. Solution #3. Put the Euro printer in overdrive and pay whatever price needed for the little natural gas that's out there and the expense of transportation. #3 is probably the worst, but also - the easiest for a fickle and weak political class to do. So, that's what's happening. Won't be surprised if we get hyperinflation in the EU in the winter. The ECB barely functions in good times with its one monetary policy, but different budgets nonsense.

throwawaysleep 4y ago
> Solution #2. Forget about the climate for the next 5 years, turn on all coal, nuclear powerplants. Nuclear power is perfectly compatible with climate goals.
- jonathan-adly 4y ago
  I am with ya there. But the Germans populace have been thoroughly brain-washed that nuclear is bad. So, better just to tell them : "its bad, but needed because we are in a war."
  - oxff 4y ago
    It is absurd that we're having "energy crisis" when we have the technological know-how to build nuclear energy, literally a solved problem.
    - XorNot 4y ago
      Also before anyone talks about fuel: Australia is right here. We have a bonkers amount of Uranium in the ground, to the point that our coal is actually pretty dang radioactive.
- tedivm 4y ago
  Yeah if anything this should be a lesson to build more clean energy, including nuclear.
inglor_cz 4y ago
I am a fan of nuclear energy, but German nuclear powerplants have been underinvested for years because of the pending Atomausstieg (nuclear exit). It didn't make economic sense to maintain facilities that were on their way out anyway. So they are likely not in shape to be turned on again.
- laverya 4y ago
  Worst case if you short out all the safeties and just run it anyways is a meltdown, but Germany's reactors have containment structures. So a meltdown just means that the decommissioning process for your reactor has become a LOT more expensive, but it's not going to cause another Chernobyl. Similarly, if they were willing to say "fuckit, this may end up being extremely expensive in 10 years but we need it now or we freeze to death", they could start building (potentially) unsafe reactors in unapproved locations with inadequate documentation of their material supply chains and have that ready by February. Yes, there are long lead times for things like approved reactor pressure vessels. But if you're willing to go back to Hanford, Washington [0] safety standards that all goes out the window, and the math on deaths almost certainly still works out. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
MichaelRazum 4y ago
According to the EU nuclear power is green. So solution #2 would save the climate, based on that logic. Actually inflation was already there before the war, so it is mostly because of #3.
- dfsegoat 4y ago
  Also according to the EU: Natural gas is now green in some circumstances. I'm not sure what to make of this. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/06/europe-natural-gas-nuclear-are-green-energy-in-some-circumstances-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/06/europe-natural-gas-nuclear-a...
- secondcoming 4y ago
  The EU classifying nuclear power as being Green is a recent development.
- dathinab 4y ago
  Nuclear is climate friendly!! Just not environment friendly. Especially for "longer living" species like humans. I don't understand why its supper common for people not understand that climate and environmental friendly often overlap but are not always the same and sometimes in direct conflict. For climate protection nuclear power is currently probably the best choice we have (globally). But for environmental protection and protection of human health it isn't. Anyway coal is worse for both and tbh. the German green party should have focused on getting out of coal not nuclear power.
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    Even incuding Chernobyl, Fukushima, and other nuclear disasters, pollution from coal has taken far more life-years from humans than nuclear energy. Our record with nuclear is not perfect. The technology is not forgiving of mistakes. But we learn from every failure and adapt. It's like passenger air transport in that way.
akmarinov 4y ago
Solution #1 - we already tried that, we gave Putin Crimea in 2014, everything was chill for 7-8 years and now we have this mess. If we give him Donetsk and Luhansk, he'll just be back for more + Moldova in 5-6 years.
- leereeves 4y ago
  In 5-6 years, Europe should be able to free themselves of Russian energy and build a military capable of standing up to Russia. (Ukraine is almost managing the latter on their own.)
  - rebuilder 4y ago
    This assumes that, if allowed to win in Ukraine, Russia would return to normal gas and oil deliveries. I’m not sure there is a way back to regular trade now, Russia has essentially, if not literally, declared war on much more than just Ukraine.
  - nawitus 4y ago
    Europe already has such a military.
- jonathan-adly 4y ago
  Yea, Crimea would have been the perfect time to realize that depending on a rational, happy Russia for gas is a bad idea. Don't worry though, America is repeating the same mistakes with China. So, its not just Europe.
  - bilbo0s 4y ago
    We don't depend on China for energy.
    - jonathan-adly 4y ago
      But we depend on them for everything else. I am deeply embedded in the drug supply chain - we would run out of live-savings drugs in 3-6 months of China closed shop. (and drugs are not fundamentally different from any low-margin manufacturing critical item)
whiteboardr 4y ago
#2 This won’t help the millions of people who depend on their places being heated by gas - it’s going to be an existential threat for many. First financially, then physically once the pipes run dry. You can’t fix the infrastructure at that scale this quickly and winter isn’t far away.
rwmj 4y ago
#3 can't create power infrastructure out of nothing in 6 months. Option #4 is ration gas. It won't be pleasant but it's possible.
dehrmann 4y ago
3 doesn't work because no amount of money solves the supply shortage in the near term.

throwawaysleep 4y ago

> Solution #2. Forget about the climate for the next 5 years, turn on all coal, nuclear powerplants. Nuclear power is perfectly compatible with climate goals.

jonathan-adly 4y ago
I am with ya there. But the Germans populace have been thoroughly brain-washed that nuclear is bad. So, better just to tell them : "its bad, but needed because we are in a war."
- oxff 4y ago
  It is absurd that we're having "energy crisis" when we have the technological know-how to build nuclear energy, literally a solved problem.
  - XorNot 4y ago
    Also before anyone talks about fuel: Australia is right here. We have a bonkers amount of Uranium in the ground, to the point that our coal is actually pretty dang radioactive.
tedivm 4y ago
Yeah if anything this should be a lesson to build more clean energy, including nuclear.

inglor_cz 4y ago

I am a fan of nuclear energy, but German nuclear powerplants have been underinvested for years because of the pending Atomausstieg (nuclear exit). It didn't make economic sense to maintain facilities that were on their way out anyway. So they are likely not in shape to be turned on again.

laverya 4y ago
Worst case if you short out all the safeties and just run it anyways is a meltdown, but Germany's reactors have containment structures. So a meltdown just means that the decommissioning process for your reactor has become a LOT more expensive, but it's not going to cause another Chernobyl. Similarly, if they were willing to say "fuckit, this may end up being extremely expensive in 10 years but we need it now or we freeze to death", they could start building (potentially) unsafe reactors in unapproved locations with inadequate documentation of their material supply chains and have that ready by February. Yes, there are long lead times for things like approved reactor pressure vessels. But if you're willing to go back to Hanford, Washington [0] safety standards that all goes out the window, and the math on deaths almost certainly still works out. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site

MichaelRazum 4y ago

According to the EU nuclear power is green. So solution #2 would save the climate, based on that logic. Actually inflation was already there before the war, so it is mostly because of #3.

dfsegoat 4y ago
Also according to the EU: Natural gas is now green in some circumstances. I'm not sure what to make of this. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/06/europe-natural-gas-nuclear-are-green-energy-in-some-circumstances-.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/07/06/europe-natural-gas-nuclear-a...
secondcoming 4y ago
The EU classifying nuclear power as being Green is a recent development.
dathinab 4y ago
Nuclear is climate friendly!! Just not environment friendly. Especially for "longer living" species like humans. I don't understand why its supper common for people not understand that climate and environmental friendly often overlap but are not always the same and sometimes in direct conflict. For climate protection nuclear power is currently probably the best choice we have (globally). But for environmental protection and protection of human health it isn't. Anyway coal is worse for both and tbh. the German green party should have focused on getting out of coal not nuclear power.
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  Even incuding Chernobyl, Fukushima, and other nuclear disasters, pollution from coal has taken far more life-years from humans than nuclear energy. Our record with nuclear is not perfect. The technology is not forgiving of mistakes. But we learn from every failure and adapt. It's like passenger air transport in that way.

akmarinov 4y ago

Solution #1 - we already tried that, we gave Putin Crimea in 2014, everything was chill for 7-8 years and now we have this mess. If we give him Donetsk and Luhansk, he'll just be back for more + Moldova in 5-6 years.

leereeves 4y ago
In 5-6 years, Europe should be able to free themselves of Russian energy and build a military capable of standing up to Russia. (Ukraine is almost managing the latter on their own.)
- rebuilder 4y ago
  This assumes that, if allowed to win in Ukraine, Russia would return to normal gas and oil deliveries. I’m not sure there is a way back to regular trade now, Russia has essentially, if not literally, declared war on much more than just Ukraine.
- nawitus 4y ago
  Europe already has such a military.
jonathan-adly 4y ago
Yea, Crimea would have been the perfect time to realize that depending on a rational, happy Russia for gas is a bad idea. Don't worry though, America is repeating the same mistakes with China. So, its not just Europe.
- bilbo0s 4y ago
  We don't depend on China for energy.
  - jonathan-adly 4y ago
    But we depend on them for everything else. I am deeply embedded in the drug supply chain - we would run out of live-savings drugs in 3-6 months of China closed shop. (and drugs are not fundamentally different from any low-margin manufacturing critical item)

whiteboardr 4y ago

#2 This won’t help the millions of people who depend on their places being heated by gas - it’s going to be an existential threat for many. First financially, then physically once the pipes run dry. You can’t fix the infrastructure at that scale this quickly and winter isn’t far away.

rwmj 4y ago

#3 can't create power infrastructure out of nothing in 6 months. Option #4 is ration gas. It won't be pleasant but it's possible.

dehrmann 4y ago

3 doesn't work because no amount of money solves the supply shortage in the near term.