3 ms·
The article says: "But the breakneck speed at which they’re trying to transition to renewable energy led directly to this year’s natural gas fiasco." I'm prett
by badcppdev 4y ago
The article says: "But the breakneck speed at which they’re trying to transition to renewable energy led directly to this year’s natural gas fiasco."
I'm pretty sure that Russian invading Ukraine made a big difference to the natural gas situation this year. Am I missing something or is the article talking about something I don't understand?
- isthispermanent 4y agoEurope chose to deprioritize building natural gas capacity in the form of LNG ships and ports in favor of wind and solar. This order of priorities made them increasingly dependent on Russia's natural gas coming from two pipelines, Nord Stream 1 and 2. So as many across the western world predicted, Russia used (and continues to use) that dependency as leverage to get leniency on their actions in Ukraine. Natural gas will continue to be a critical bridge fuel to get to a world that is majority powered by renewables. Impossible to do without it. Europe gambled Russia wouldn't do something like this and they lost. That loss caused the price of European nat gas to spike 2000% at one point and it's still up 800% today.
- badcppdev 4y agoThank you. You've expressed that really clearly. I feel your explanation is definitely missing from the article. I wish I could say that Russia made a decision that contributed as well but that's like the frog blaming the scorpion.
- isthispermanent 4y agoThanks and you're quite welcome. I mean, Russia exploited the situation and new it was doing so so you're not wrong.
- svorakang 4y agoYou are right, the article mostly wrong in my eyes. The article might be referring to Germany's closure of several nuclear plants, which to some extent have been replaced by coal and gas (but perhaps more correctly: extended the life of coal and gas plants, awaiting an ever accelerating renewable rollout).