3 ms·

I partially disagree. It is true that [Europe] does need to ramp up/diversify fossil fuel right now to prevent disaster as Russia closes the tap. But I think th

I partially disagree. It is true that [Europe] does need to ramp up/diversify fossil fuel right now to prevent disaster as Russia closes the tap. But I think there's a feeling at the moment that this fossil fuels thing is not something that is going to last; and that Europe has a strategic need to divest itself of fossil fuels as quickly as possible.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
That feeling seems to have been wrong, though. There isn't enough wind, solar, and nuclear to actually replace fossil fuels yet, and there isn't nearly enough energy storage to cover the gaps in the renewables. I believe there is a need to drop fossil fuels, but it seems to have happened too fast.
- bluGill 4y ago
  Then build more. Where I live we have been building wind turbines like crazy for the last 10+ years, and as a result wind is most of our energy mix. Only Texas has more wind generation, and that is a much larger state. (Kansas is right behind us)
- Kim_Bruning 4y ago
  The feeling is not past tense. I don't think many people disagree with you: the current precipitous drop in fossil fuel supply in Europe happened too fast. It wasn't exactly voluntary. All the more reason for haste in replacing&phasing out of fossil fuels. It's better to do it on one's own terms.
- SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
  > That feeling seems to have been wrong, though I'm failing to derive meaning from that sentence? The feeling is wrong - they're not actually feeling it? Europe is very clearly ramping up energy alternatives to fossil fuels, for very sound reasons. They not wrong about that. No, there isn't enough to replace fossil fuels yet; yes, it's an abrupt transition due to external events. changing that is the plan. The plan's not wrong. But the idea that "this fossil fuels thing is not something that is going to last" and that depending on importing it in years to come, has been demonstrated to be bad idea, is IMHO not wrong in the slightest. It's a matter of security not profits.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    No, it means that the thing that Europeans have been feeling - that they need to get off fossil fuels before there is enough technology to enable an all-renewable grid - appears to be wrong. There is no doubt that European governments jumped the gun here, and they are now relying on dictators to cover their energy shortfall. I'm sure that many of them relied on the US as a supplier of LNG in wartime, but they didn't count on the fact that our government would cut production too.
    - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
      I'm not sure how you have constructed your argument here. My understanding is that the European Union has had 2 options: a) pay dictators for non-renewables, or b) switch to renewables and not pay dictators. It is a fact that European countries have been slow to adopt renewables, and have continued to pay dictators for access to fossil fuels. Due to the situation with Ukraine, this has now been shown to be an untenable position. The remaining option is for West European countries to adopt renewables as rapidly as possible. This is now not (just) for moral reasons, but rather it has now become a national security imperative.
      - pclmulqdq 4y ago
        The EU had a third option: hold off decomissioning the "dirty" plants (nuclear and coal) until the renewables could actually handle the load. There are literally not enough lithium ion batteries in the world to solve renewable energy storage for the EU. The EU does not have very much domestic oil, but it does have coal, and there is enough fissile material in the EU to fuel nuclear reactors for long enough. For most politicians, recommissioning those plants seems to be off the table. But why? Yes, it is expensive and not "green," but it will save the EU a lot of potential human suffering (and death) over the next year if they can do it. It only seems to be off the table because the politicians are unwilling to admit that they were wrong. The option you are not considering is to eat crow, turn the coal plants back on, and save lives. Switching to renewables as fast as possible is literally not an option without the batteries, and there are not enough batteries to solve the problem. Switching to renewables too quickly is what causes the dependence on dictators, since the remaining plants are natural gas fired, which needs oil. Going "all in" on renewables in a more serious way will not improve the dependence on dictators for natural gas. There is plenty of coal in the EU and plenty of fissile material. Turn the reliable energy sources back on.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

That feeling seems to have been wrong, though. There isn't enough wind, solar, and nuclear to actually replace fossil fuels yet, and there isn't nearly enough energy storage to cover the gaps in the renewables. I believe there is a need to drop fossil fuels, but it seems to have happened too fast.

bluGill 4y ago
Then build more. Where I live we have been building wind turbines like crazy for the last 10+ years, and as a result wind is most of our energy mix. Only Texas has more wind generation, and that is a much larger state. (Kansas is right behind us)
Kim_Bruning 4y ago
The feeling is not past tense. I don't think many people disagree with you: the current precipitous drop in fossil fuel supply in Europe happened too fast. It wasn't exactly voluntary. All the more reason for haste in replacing&phasing out of fossil fuels. It's better to do it on one's own terms.
SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
> That feeling seems to have been wrong, though I'm failing to derive meaning from that sentence? The feeling is wrong - they're not actually feeling it? Europe is very clearly ramping up energy alternatives to fossil fuels, for very sound reasons. They not wrong about that. No, there isn't enough to replace fossil fuels yet; yes, it's an abrupt transition due to external events. changing that is the plan. The plan's not wrong. But the idea that "this fossil fuels thing is not something that is going to last" and that depending on importing it in years to come, has been demonstrated to be bad idea, is IMHO not wrong in the slightest. It's a matter of security not profits.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  No, it means that the thing that Europeans have been feeling - that they need to get off fossil fuels before there is enough technology to enable an all-renewable grid - appears to be wrong. There is no doubt that European governments jumped the gun here, and they are now relying on dictators to cover their energy shortfall. I'm sure that many of them relied on the US as a supplier of LNG in wartime, but they didn't count on the fact that our government would cut production too.
  - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
    I'm not sure how you have constructed your argument here. My understanding is that the European Union has had 2 options: a) pay dictators for non-renewables, or b) switch to renewables and not pay dictators. It is a fact that European countries have been slow to adopt renewables, and have continued to pay dictators for access to fossil fuels. Due to the situation with Ukraine, this has now been shown to be an untenable position. The remaining option is for West European countries to adopt renewables as rapidly as possible. This is now not (just) for moral reasons, but rather it has now become a national security imperative.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      The EU had a third option: hold off decomissioning the "dirty" plants (nuclear and coal) until the renewables could actually handle the load. There are literally not enough lithium ion batteries in the world to solve renewable energy storage for the EU. The EU does not have very much domestic oil, but it does have coal, and there is enough fissile material in the EU to fuel nuclear reactors for long enough. For most politicians, recommissioning those plants seems to be off the table. But why? Yes, it is expensive and not "green," but it will save the EU a lot of potential human suffering (and death) over the next year if they can do it. It only seems to be off the table because the politicians are unwilling to admit that they were wrong. The option you are not considering is to eat crow, turn the coal plants back on, and save lives. Switching to renewables as fast as possible is literally not an option without the batteries, and there are not enough batteries to solve the problem. Switching to renewables too quickly is what causes the dependence on dictators, since the remaining plants are natural gas fired, which needs oil. Going "all in" on renewables in a more serious way will not improve the dependence on dictators for natural gas. There is plenty of coal in the EU and plenty of fissile material. Turn the reliable energy sources back on.