10 ms·

It's easy to pivot to "the aftermath of war", but plenty, PLENTY of people and organizations pointed out that reliance on imported energy, especially from Russi

It's easy to pivot to "the aftermath of war", but plenty, PLENTY of people and organizations pointed out that reliance on imported energy, especially from Russia, was not a great idea.

dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago
It would be a good idea if it was treated as an additional channel, not the main source of energy you build your economy on. It was cheap for a reason.
archi42 4y ago
I was in no position to make any decisions related to energy politics (except voting), and energy politics isn't my strong suit either, but I always thought that the "mutual dependency" sounded like a good argument against a war; much better than MAD or other militaristic options. But, unlike policy makers, I didn't grasp the extend of the dependency on gas in our country. Though not preparing a backup plan after the first invasion in 2014 was a bad decision. Little hindsight needed here.
- Teever 4y ago
  People have been making these kinds of excuses about trading autonomy for short-term profits for at least a century.[0] At the end of the day all that matters is that a nation is self-sufficient in the essentials and participates in the global economy that augment that self-sufficiency without damaging it. Anything else is hubris because you're just doomed to repeat history, and it's outright greed because the people making the decisions aren't the ones going to bear the brunt when they inevitably fail. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS74746206720140627 https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS74746206720140627
  - izacus 4y ago
    Except that for most European countries, full self-sufficiency is simply not possible, especially without sacrificing many other aspects of prosperity (not to mention climate issues). So talking about this is interesting "huehuehuhue" farting, but not a very realistic political strategy.
- christophilus 4y ago
  I think mutual dependency is a good argument, except when one side has a much more valuable asset than the other side. In this case, Russia clearly had the most leverage in the situation. Energy independence may not be realistic for much of Europe, but avoiding a single point of failure / a dominant single supplier seems like it probably would have been wise.
musha68k 4y ago
It’s also that these interdependencies guarantee peace to some extent. The current dynamic is the most dangerous since WWII, much more complex than the Cold War actually.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  The cold war was horrifyingly dangerous, with flights of nuclear-armed bombers routinely scrambling. Dr. Strangelove wasn't fiction: even a single rogue or confused crew could easily have started a world war. The current dynamic is also terrible, but both sides seem pretty determined to avoid a nuclear conflict (which is the main existential risk here, since Russia no longer seems likely to invade other European countries.)
- bombcar 4y ago
  The interdependencies don't guarantee peace; though they may increase the cost of war. Time and time again we've seen it, and we continue to surprised pikachu each time it happens. You perhaps could generate some hypothetical interdependencies that would preclude war, but it may also argue for all-out "seize the other country" war, too.
MerelyMortal 4y ago
We've learned that war can disrupt the flow of energy. For renewable energies in the U.S., would the U.S. be considered reliant on places like China for the batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, etc?
- Kon-Peki 4y ago
  I don't know how reliant the US is, but consider that if you buy a solar panel or a wind turbine from China, it produces energy for 10-25 years before needing replacement. Gas, coal, wood pellets, etc. You buy them, you burn them, they're gone. You need new supplies tomorrow.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  Not much renewable energy gets stored in batteries. We'd only be dependent on expanding energy if the manufacturing of key components was happening outside the US. Expanding your energy supply is nowhere near as important as maintaining 50% of your total energy supply (EU fossil fuels). US energy consumption has been close to flat for 20 years.
- ocschwar 4y ago
  Turbine manufacturers are predominantly Danish (Vestas), German, (Siemens), USA (GE) and Spain (Iberdrola.) I don't have much of a problem with being dependent on energy cooperation from countries that happen to be my military allies. Moreover, turbine part transportation is such a logistical challenge that manufacturers are always trying to set up assembly facilities near their customers. All four of those companies are shopping for factory space in the American Midwest for that reason. Batteries and solar panels are impossible to really monopolize. Yes, Lithium comes from a constrained list of places, but for grid-linked power storage you don't need lithium. Space and weight are not as big a concern for stationary installed facilities, so you have lots of other options.
  - jhoechtl 4y ago
    Renewable energy requires IC controllers and electronics all coming from China. Parts are assembled where you mentioned which crucial parts sourced.
tenpies 4y ago
I actually went back and looked at US Presidents warning Europe about this. Trump famously did and the Germans laughed at him for it. Obama and Biden (both as VP and now as President) did. Even as far back as George Bush: he warned them, although it was presented more as a trade matter since it would have been beneficial for the energy industry and this was pre-fracking revolution. It has been a choir of warnings for decades, but the hubris of European technocrats wouldn't let them see reality.
- jhoechtl 4y ago
  So it was actually a shot in the dark? When was the Bush administration in place?
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  Well, we can wag our fingers at Europe for engaging with Russia, but North America did the same with China. And for Europe, it's not simply hubris though. There's multiple things at work. When the United States or Canada says to Europe: Don't buy energy from Russia, what Europeans legitimately heard was: Buy energy (at more cost and logistical challenge) from us instead. Meanwhile Canada especially -- but likely the US as well -- was very much focused on building infrastructure for trade with the Pacific Rim, not Europe. So what other choice did Europe realistically have anyways? I'm mad at hell at successive Canadian governments (what I'm most familiar with) who prioritized trade with China (or bulk exports to the US without value add). At the expense of the domestic market/infrastructure, at the expense of developing renewables, and at the expense of our European allies. Insanely short term thinking. An LNG facility on the St Lawrence would be real nice right now. Instead a massive LNG facility is being built for coastal British Columbia, and pipeline infrastructure being set up for that. Wrong coast it turns out because China will be perfectly happy to import from Russia instead. But again, all eyes on China, despite the risks that entailed, which are similar to the risks that western Europe had with Russia.
- blub 4y ago
  I have to admit that the ending took me by surprise. I was expecting “…but the Europeans got tired of them calling wolf”. Those pipelines were shipping gas to Europe literally for decades. Countries like Ukraine, Belarus or Poland were making handsome money from the transit fees too.

It's easy to pivot to "the aftermath of war", but plenty, PLENTY of people and organizations pointed out that reliance on imported energy, especially from Russia, was not a great idea.

dvfjsdhgfv 4y ago

It would be a good idea if it was treated as an additional channel, not the main source of energy you build your economy on. It was cheap for a reason.

archi42 4y ago

I was in no position to make any decisions related to energy politics (except voting), and energy politics isn't my strong suit either, but I always thought that the "mutual dependency" sounded like a good argument against a war; much better than MAD or other militaristic options. But, unlike policy makers, I didn't grasp the extend of the dependency on gas in our country. Though not preparing a backup plan after the first invasion in 2014 was a bad decision. Little hindsight needed here.

Teever 4y ago
People have been making these kinds of excuses about trading autonomy for short-term profits for at least a century.[0] At the end of the day all that matters is that a nation is self-sufficient in the essentials and participates in the global economy that augment that self-sufficiency without damaging it. Anything else is hubris because you're just doomed to repeat history, and it's outright greed because the people making the decisions aren't the ones going to bear the brunt when they inevitably fail. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS74746206720140627 https://www.reuters.com/article/idUS74746206720140627
- izacus 4y ago
  Except that for most European countries, full self-sufficiency is simply not possible, especially without sacrificing many other aspects of prosperity (not to mention climate issues). So talking about this is interesting "huehuehuhue" farting, but not a very realistic political strategy.
christophilus 4y ago
I think mutual dependency is a good argument, except when one side has a much more valuable asset than the other side. In this case, Russia clearly had the most leverage in the situation. Energy independence may not be realistic for much of Europe, but avoiding a single point of failure / a dominant single supplier seems like it probably would have been wise.

musha68k 4y ago

It’s also that these interdependencies guarantee peace to some extent. The current dynamic is the most dangerous since WWII, much more complex than the Cold War actually.

matthewdgreen 4y ago
The cold war was horrifyingly dangerous, with flights of nuclear-armed bombers routinely scrambling. Dr. Strangelove wasn't fiction: even a single rogue or confused crew could easily have started a world war. The current dynamic is also terrible, but both sides seem pretty determined to avoid a nuclear conflict (which is the main existential risk here, since Russia no longer seems likely to invade other European countries.)
bombcar 4y ago
The interdependencies don't guarantee peace; though they may increase the cost of war. Time and time again we've seen it, and we continue to surprised pikachu each time it happens. You perhaps could generate some hypothetical interdependencies that would preclude war, but it may also argue for all-out "seize the other country" war, too.

MerelyMortal 4y ago

We've learned that war can disrupt the flow of energy. For renewable energies in the U.S., would the U.S. be considered reliant on places like China for the batteries, wind turbines, solar panels, etc?

Kon-Peki 4y ago
I don't know how reliant the US is, but consider that if you buy a solar panel or a wind turbine from China, it produces energy for 10-25 years before needing replacement. Gas, coal, wood pellets, etc. You buy them, you burn them, they're gone. You need new supplies tomorrow.
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
Not much renewable energy gets stored in batteries. We'd only be dependent on expanding energy if the manufacturing of key components was happening outside the US. Expanding your energy supply is nowhere near as important as maintaining 50% of your total energy supply (EU fossil fuels). US energy consumption has been close to flat for 20 years.
ocschwar 4y ago
Turbine manufacturers are predominantly Danish (Vestas), German, (Siemens), USA (GE) and Spain (Iberdrola.) I don't have much of a problem with being dependent on energy cooperation from countries that happen to be my military allies. Moreover, turbine part transportation is such a logistical challenge that manufacturers are always trying to set up assembly facilities near their customers. All four of those companies are shopping for factory space in the American Midwest for that reason. Batteries and solar panels are impossible to really monopolize. Yes, Lithium comes from a constrained list of places, but for grid-linked power storage you don't need lithium. Space and weight are not as big a concern for stationary installed facilities, so you have lots of other options.
- jhoechtl 4y ago
  Renewable energy requires IC controllers and electronics all coming from China. Parts are assembled where you mentioned which crucial parts sourced.

tenpies 4y ago

I actually went back and looked at US Presidents warning Europe about this. Trump famously did and the Germans laughed at him for it. Obama and Biden (both as VP and now as President) did. Even as far back as George Bush: he warned them, although it was presented more as a trade matter since it would have been beneficial for the energy industry and this was pre-fracking revolution. It has been a choir of warnings for decades, but the hubris of European technocrats wouldn't let them see reality.

jhoechtl 4y ago
So it was actually a shot in the dark? When was the Bush administration in place?
cmrdporcupine 4y ago
Well, we can wag our fingers at Europe for engaging with Russia, but North America did the same with China. And for Europe, it's not simply hubris though. There's multiple things at work. When the United States or Canada says to Europe: Don't buy energy from Russia, what Europeans legitimately heard was: Buy energy (at more cost and logistical challenge) from us instead. Meanwhile Canada especially -- but likely the US as well -- was very much focused on building infrastructure for trade with the Pacific Rim, not Europe. So what other choice did Europe realistically have anyways? I'm mad at hell at successive Canadian governments (what I'm most familiar with) who prioritized trade with China (or bulk exports to the US without value add). At the expense of the domestic market/infrastructure, at the expense of developing renewables, and at the expense of our European allies. Insanely short term thinking. An LNG facility on the St Lawrence would be real nice right now. Instead a massive LNG facility is being built for coastal British Columbia, and pipeline infrastructure being set up for that. Wrong coast it turns out because China will be perfectly happy to import from Russia instead. But again, all eyes on China, despite the risks that entailed, which are similar to the risks that western Europe had with Russia.
blub 4y ago
I have to admit that the ending took me by surprise. I was expecting “…but the Europeans got tired of them calling wolf”. Those pipelines were shipping gas to Europe literally for decades. Countries like Ukraine, Belarus or Poland were making handsome money from the transit fees too.