6 ms·

True. But 5-years ago this national security reliance on foreign gas prices was well known, and little was done in the intervening time. The worry is that when

True. But 5-years ago this national security reliance on foreign gas prices was well known, and little was done in the intervening time. The worry is that when the current crisis subsides that inaction will yet again fall back into favor. The solutions are, in part: - National gas storage reserve (to buffet price/supply spikes somewhat). - Expansion of green energy. - Programs to reduce usage (e.g. home and business improvements). Luckily for the UK extremely efficient heat pump based heating/cooling solutions that offer greater than 100% efficiency exist[0]. It is just a matter of the political will to covert away from gas to electricity and then retrofitting homes. [0] https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/heat-pump-systems https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/heat-pump-systems

pydry 4y ago
It's not like this was an earthquake that we idly knew would come one day that just suddenly hit us out of the blue. NATO made a deliberate decision to bring Ukraine into the fold in 2019 and Russia reacted predictably, but not before giving us an opportunity to back down first: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/02/world/europe/us-nato-response-russia-demands.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/02/world/europe/us-nato-resp... We dove into this knowing full well the dire energy risks that escalation posed to Europe and are now acting shocked that we didnt prepare. Even now Stoltenburg's official line is basically "suck it up, Europe" which I assume means that NATO leadership is perfectly comfortable with the idea of a European economic disaster this winter. The solutions you mentioned are all great in theory but the workable ones mostly all have a 5-10 year horizon and we have a problem now.
- sofixa 4y ago
  Russian war crimes apologists are the worst. Nobody forced Russia to invade a sovereign country (or to consider itself the rightful owner of those lands for that matter), that's entirely their fault. And it was mind bogglingly stupid, as we can see a few months in, with the massive losses to their army and economy. It wasn't something to prepare for because it was unthinkable. It was still a huge risk to prepare for though.
  - pydry 4y ago
    Nobody forced NATO to expand to Ukraine either. Or to invade Libya. Or to invade Iraq/Afghanistan. Whataboutism as a rationale for war escalation with a nuclear power is insane. To consider reining in NATO expansion war to be equivalent to war crime apologetics is beyond absurd. If we get to winter and the Russian economy fares better than ours (and at first glance it looks like it will) then a lot of people should be eating a lot of humble pie. Alas I suspect theyll just call for escalation.
    - sofixa 4y ago
      > Nobody forced NATO to expand to Ukraine either Cut the Russian propaganda, NATO didn't expand to Ukraine. Ukraine, a sovereign country, wanted to join NATO, as is their every right. Denying Ukraine that right and excusing Russia's war crimes is pretty bad.
      - pydry 4y ago
        I'm not excusing Russian anything and Im not repeating any propaganda. I'm explaining that war, gas crisis and 18% inflation was a predictable and deliberately chosen path that wasnt hard to avoid if we'd wanted to - simply by withdrawing an invitation. You didnt want to avoid this scenario and consider withdrawing this invitation and "denying ukraine that right". I get that.
        CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
        > deliberately chosen path that wasnt hard to avoid if we'd wanted to - simply by withdrawing an invitation. Yes, imagine what would have happened to Chechnya or Georgia if we had let them into NATO. No, that would have been an invitation to attack Ukraine, we should have let them in.
        pydry 4y ago
        Well, we put Georgia on a NATO membership action plan after years of meddling in their politics and that triggered the invasion in 2008. Ukraine isnt the first time this happened. It's just this time stirring up ethnic conflict along Russia's border is causing us to really suffer.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
COP is not efficiency. Efficiency is what you did / what you had the resources to do in an ideal world. That makes thermal chemical heating 20-50% efficient, thermal electric heating 10-30% and heat pumps 50-70% efficient (depending on where you draw the boundaries). You could also draw the limit at reduced carnot efficiency rather than reversibility, in which case heat pumps can be close to 100%
- Someone1234 4y ago
  This is such pointless pedantry. Heat pumps having an efficiency greater than 1/100% is well known, well publicized, and you're trying to make some artificial distinction here that added nothing to this thread/context/discussion. See: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/489467/can-a-heat-pump-have-efficiency-greater-than-100 https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/489467/can-a-hea... https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/06/heat-pumps-work-miracles/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/06/heat-pumps-work-miracles/ I won't be further responding to this sub-topic, since it has nothing at all to do with the UK's inflation/energy prices. Plus frankly I feel like you're trying to confuse people rather than inform, I'd point people to the Department of Energy link above if they want to understand the benefit that modern heat pumps could offer to energy usage.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Characterizing them as >100% efficient is poor communication. It doesn't map to any intuitive understanding, it does not communicate anything about how much heating could be done with that energy (thus leading to people believing absurd claims), and it does not map to either the colloquial or technical meaning of efficiency in any other context. Efficiency as a concept doesn't go over 100% and just because confusing and misleading explanations are the norm doesn't mean they should continue.
    - danhor 4y ago
      > It doesn't map to any intuitive understanding, it does not communicate anything about how much heating could be done with that energy But that's exactly what it does. It's technically wrong, but communicates the understanding that you put 100% of electrical energy into it and get 250-450% of heating energy for your home out of it, as opposed to 100% with resistive heating. That some of the electrical energy comes out of the air outside or from the ground is irrelevant for most people. What are absurd claims you reference?

pydry 4y ago

It's not like this was an earthquake that we idly knew would come one day that just suddenly hit us out of the blue. NATO made a deliberate decision to bring Ukraine into the fold in 2019 and Russia reacted predictably, but not before giving us an opportunity to back down first: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/02/world/europe/us-nato-response-russia-demands.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/02/world/europe/us-nato-resp... We dove into this knowing full well the dire energy risks that escalation posed to Europe and are now acting shocked that we didnt prepare. Even now Stoltenburg's official line is basically "suck it up, Europe" which I assume means that NATO leadership is perfectly comfortable with the idea of a European economic disaster this winter. The solutions you mentioned are all great in theory but the workable ones mostly all have a 5-10 year horizon and we have a problem now.

sofixa 4y ago
Russian war crimes apologists are the worst. Nobody forced Russia to invade a sovereign country (or to consider itself the rightful owner of those lands for that matter), that's entirely their fault. And it was mind bogglingly stupid, as we can see a few months in, with the massive losses to their army and economy. It wasn't something to prepare for because it was unthinkable. It was still a huge risk to prepare for though.
- pydry 4y ago
  Nobody forced NATO to expand to Ukraine either. Or to invade Libya. Or to invade Iraq/Afghanistan. Whataboutism as a rationale for war escalation with a nuclear power is insane. To consider reining in NATO expansion war to be equivalent to war crime apologetics is beyond absurd. If we get to winter and the Russian economy fares better than ours (and at first glance it looks like it will) then a lot of people should be eating a lot of humble pie. Alas I suspect theyll just call for escalation.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    > Nobody forced NATO to expand to Ukraine either Cut the Russian propaganda, NATO didn't expand to Ukraine. Ukraine, a sovereign country, wanted to join NATO, as is their every right. Denying Ukraine that right and excusing Russia's war crimes is pretty bad.
    - pydry 4y ago
      I'm not excusing Russian anything and Im not repeating any propaganda. I'm explaining that war, gas crisis and 18% inflation was a predictable and deliberately chosen path that wasnt hard to avoid if we'd wanted to - simply by withdrawing an invitation. You didnt want to avoid this scenario and consider withdrawing this invitation and "denying ukraine that right". I get that.
      - CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
        > deliberately chosen path that wasnt hard to avoid if we'd wanted to - simply by withdrawing an invitation. Yes, imagine what would have happened to Chechnya or Georgia if we had let them into NATO. No, that would have been an invitation to attack Ukraine, we should have let them in.
        pydry 4y ago
        Well, we put Georgia on a NATO membership action plan after years of meddling in their politics and that triggered the invasion in 2008. Ukraine isnt the first time this happened. It's just this time stirring up ethnic conflict along Russia's border is causing us to really suffer.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

COP is not efficiency. Efficiency is what you did / what you had the resources to do in an ideal world. That makes thermal chemical heating 20-50% efficient, thermal electric heating 10-30% and heat pumps 50-70% efficient (depending on where you draw the boundaries). You could also draw the limit at reduced carnot efficiency rather than reversibility, in which case heat pumps can be close to 100%

Someone1234 4y ago
This is such pointless pedantry. Heat pumps having an efficiency greater than 1/100% is well known, well publicized, and you're trying to make some artificial distinction here that added nothing to this thread/context/discussion. See: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/489467/can-a-heat-pump-have-efficiency-greater-than-100 https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/489467/can-a-hea... https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/06/heat-pumps-work-miracles/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/06/heat-pumps-work-miracles/ I won't be further responding to this sub-topic, since it has nothing at all to do with the UK's inflation/energy prices. Plus frankly I feel like you're trying to confuse people rather than inform, I'd point people to the Department of Energy link above if they want to understand the benefit that modern heat pumps could offer to energy usage.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Characterizing them as >100% efficient is poor communication. It doesn't map to any intuitive understanding, it does not communicate anything about how much heating could be done with that energy (thus leading to people believing absurd claims), and it does not map to either the colloquial or technical meaning of efficiency in any other context. Efficiency as a concept doesn't go over 100% and just because confusing and misleading explanations are the norm doesn't mean they should continue.
  - danhor 4y ago
    > It doesn't map to any intuitive understanding, it does not communicate anything about how much heating could be done with that energy But that's exactly what it does. It's technically wrong, but communicates the understanding that you put 100% of electrical energy into it and get 250-450% of heating energy for your home out of it, as opposed to 100% with resistive heating. That some of the electrical energy comes out of the air outside or from the ground is irrelevant for most people. What are absurd claims you reference?