4 ms·

I agree with all that, but in the short term things are going to be very expensive. As I already wrote, I see it as an opportunity to do what you said - ditch f

I agree with all that, but in the short term things are going to be very expensive. As I already wrote, I see it as an opportunity to do what you said - ditch fossil fuels for good. There's no point in doing anything else, like whining. But if you think the landing will be anything other than rough, then we'll have to disagree.

pydry 4y ago
Currently the only feasible thing that is going to make enough difference is to buy gas from Russia again. Everything else is something we should have done 5 or even 15 years ago so as to not end up in this position.
- adventured 4y ago
  Announce a $1 trillion nuclear build-out plan for the EU, to build at least 50-60 new nuclear power plants. Go big, really big, and get started on it soon. Why can't Europe go Manhattan Project / Apollo big for such a critical matter? It's cowardice, a lack of daring, if they choose not to. They have the expertise, they have the financial capability, they are lacking the will (so far). To an extent you can scare markets into providing cheaper prices in a variety of ways. That goes for scaring Russia, which is still living in a fantasy bubble about the context. They do not believe the rest of Europe can or will become independent of their supply.
  - pydry 4y ago
    >Announce a $1 trillion nuclear build-out plan Ready in 10-20 years.
    - jillesvangurp 4y ago
      Yep, too little too late. Nuclear is going to miss this party. By the time any of this would feasibly be ready this crisis will be ancient history. The smart move is to completely ignore nuclear and go straight to renewables. Proven technology that is being deployed orders of magnitude faster and at an orders of magnitude larger scale already.
      - pydry 4y ago
        Even pulling out all the stops that'll still take about 5-7 years. The crisis would still be history.
  - mk89 4y ago
    > Announce a $1 trillion nuclear ... Do you know who is in charge in Germany? The greens, which don't even want to extend the usage of 3 of the 6 available nuclear plants (supposed to "slowly" shut down at the end of this year). And now you come and say "hey sorry but we need more nuclear reactors"? Sure. Much better to go to countries which are barely respecting human rights, bow and buy their fuel and gas, because finally who cares, we don't see what they do in their countries.
    - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
      > Do you know who is in charge in Germany? The greens ... No ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag
      - mk89 4y ago
        The greens are part of the current government, I wonder what's not clear about the previous message?
        AshamedCaptain 4y ago
        The greens have approximately 14% of the vote and 16% of the seats of the legislative, and are a minority partner in the executive. It does seem quite a stretch to say "they are in charge of Germany".
        mk89 4y ago
        They have 118/416 seats of the current government, which is more than 16%, and that's what actually matters. If SPD and FDP tomorrow want to bring nuclear energy back, good luck doing that on such a controversial topic (if nobody else in the parliament backs you up). One way or another, they are in charge and they can make things happen or not. Clearly, my "in charge" is absolutely not the same as in dictatorships or similar, but always in a democratic context.
        4y ago
jillesvangurp 4y ago
It's going to be a rough ride; at least the coming winter for sure. But I'm very optimistic about the long term effects. In fact, I see this as setting Europe up for a period of economic growth. Getting rid of fossil fuels decades ahead of schedule is going to involve a lot of public spending and there is going to be a massive return on investment. Big public spending is generally great for economies. Once that starts working, there are going to be a lot of other countries that will want in on the action. Countries investing massively in serving that need are going to do well in the next decades. Germany, which hasn't done much public spending in decades has just unlocked hundreds of billions for investment in military and energy. Other countries are doing similar things. That started happening within weeks of the invasion and it's just the beginning. This will soon add up to trillions in spending. And of course there is the notion that Russia might eventually decide that they want to sell some gas again after all. Gas prices are high currently and that compensates for the loss in export volume for them. But those prices are inevitably going to come down eventually as other energy sources become more available and the world adjusts. Russia seems to have no good plan economically other than selling gas to Europe. This winter is going to suck a lot harder for them than for anyone else (well except for Ukraine) and it's debatable if their exports will ever recover to the pre-war level.

pydry 4y ago

Currently the only feasible thing that is going to make enough difference is to buy gas from Russia again. Everything else is something we should have done 5 or even 15 years ago so as to not end up in this position.

adventured 4y ago
Announce a $1 trillion nuclear build-out plan for the EU, to build at least 50-60 new nuclear power plants. Go big, really big, and get started on it soon. Why can't Europe go Manhattan Project / Apollo big for such a critical matter? It's cowardice, a lack of daring, if they choose not to. They have the expertise, they have the financial capability, they are lacking the will (so far). To an extent you can scare markets into providing cheaper prices in a variety of ways. That goes for scaring Russia, which is still living in a fantasy bubble about the context. They do not believe the rest of Europe can or will become independent of their supply.
- pydry 4y ago
  >Announce a $1 trillion nuclear build-out plan Ready in 10-20 years.
  - jillesvangurp 4y ago
    Yep, too little too late. Nuclear is going to miss this party. By the time any of this would feasibly be ready this crisis will be ancient history. The smart move is to completely ignore nuclear and go straight to renewables. Proven technology that is being deployed orders of magnitude faster and at an orders of magnitude larger scale already.
    - pydry 4y ago
      Even pulling out all the stops that'll still take about 5-7 years. The crisis would still be history.
- mk89 4y ago
  > Announce a $1 trillion nuclear ... Do you know who is in charge in Germany? The greens, which don't even want to extend the usage of 3 of the 6 available nuclear plants (supposed to "slowly" shut down at the end of this year). And now you come and say "hey sorry but we need more nuclear reactors"? Sure. Much better to go to countries which are barely respecting human rights, bow and buy their fuel and gas, because finally who cares, we don't see what they do in their countries.
  - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
    > Do you know who is in charge in Germany? The greens ... No ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundestag
    - mk89 4y ago
      The greens are part of the current government, I wonder what's not clear about the previous message?
      - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
        The greens have approximately 14% of the vote and 16% of the seats of the legislative, and are a minority partner in the executive. It does seem quite a stretch to say "they are in charge of Germany".
        mk89 4y ago
        They have 118/416 seats of the current government, which is more than 16%, and that's what actually matters. If SPD and FDP tomorrow want to bring nuclear energy back, good luck doing that on such a controversial topic (if nobody else in the parliament backs you up). One way or another, they are in charge and they can make things happen or not. Clearly, my "in charge" is absolutely not the same as in dictatorships or similar, but always in a democratic context.
        4y ago

jillesvangurp 4y ago

It's going to be a rough ride; at least the coming winter for sure. But I'm very optimistic about the long term effects. In fact, I see this as setting Europe up for a period of economic growth. Getting rid of fossil fuels decades ahead of schedule is going to involve a lot of public spending and there is going to be a massive return on investment. Big public spending is generally great for economies. Once that starts working, there are going to be a lot of other countries that will want in on the action. Countries investing massively in serving that need are going to do well in the next decades. Germany, which hasn't done much public spending in decades has just unlocked hundreds of billions for investment in military and energy. Other countries are doing similar things. That started happening within weeks of the invasion and it's just the beginning. This will soon add up to trillions in spending. And of course there is the notion that Russia might eventually decide that they want to sell some gas again after all. Gas prices are high currently and that compensates for the loss in export volume for them. But those prices are inevitably going to come down eventually as other energy sources become more available and the world adjusts. Russia seems to have no good plan economically other than selling gas to Europe. This winter is going to suck a lot harder for them than for anyone else (well except for Ukraine) and it's debatable if their exports will ever recover to the pre-war level.