5 ms·

Drill baby drill --- this is the plan with the new US administration. The problem with this --- it's not only bad for the environment, it's also bad for the ec

Drill baby drill --- this is the plan with the new US administration. The problem with this --- it's not only bad for the environment, it's also bad for the economy. Reliance on more expensive carbon based energy makes US industry less competitive.

yostrovs 2y ago
Germany is deindustrializing in many ways thanks to a lack of reasonably priced fossil fuels, with many facilities moving to the US. This is the current reality that you might want to check in on.
- jqpabc123 2y ago
  Texas is overflowing with "reasonably priced fossil fuels". Yet even in oil soaked Texas, renewables account for most new capacity being added to their electrical grid. Why? It's cheaper. Simple economics. This is the current reality that you might want to check in on. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424
  - marcusverus 2y ago
    Investment in fossil fuels is unlikely when one of the two parties vows to destroy the industry. Preytending that renewables are winning based purely on economics is disingenuous. If it were true, things like this would be unnecessary: https://apnews.com/united-states-presidential-election-9dfb1e4c381043bab6fd0fa6dece3974 https://apnews.com/united-states-presidential-election-9dfb1...
    - jqpabc123 2y ago
      Investment in fossil fuels is unlikely when one of the two parties vows to destroy the industry. So even when the right has control of a large oil soaked state like Texas for decades, it's still all the left's fault? Distort reality much? The end of fossil fuels is inevitable. The supply is limited. "Drill baby drill" will only reach the end faster and cause more environmental damage for your kids to deal with.
      - marcusverus 2y ago
        If you feel the need to be a cunt, please go back to reddit.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > even when the right has control of a large oil soaked state like Texas for decades, it's still all the left's fault? This is the line Texan anti-renewable lobbyists are coming out with [1]. [1] https://www.theenergyalliance.com/research/the-end-of-texas-energy-only-electricity-market-emwzw-whh6g-t6dhn https://www.theenergyalliance.com/research/the-end-of-texas-...
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Yet even in oil soaked Texas, renewables account for most new capacity being added to their electrical grid. Why? It's cheaper. Simple economics Texas is still building gas generators [1][2]. Renewables are cheaper, but on the margin. Their production remains low, and despite massive growth, won't going to rival whole-grid growth for at least a decade. (Growth + replacement takes us into the 2040s.) That means we need other power sources for decades to come. America went with gas, which makes sense–we have lots of it. China with coal for the same reason. (Europe, also gas, which doesn’t make sense, but they don’t want to do coal or nuclear and don't seem to be deeply thinking about this.) In the long run we’ll probably be all solar with marginal wind, hydro and experimental sources. That will not happen in our lifetimes. Texas and Germany are prime examples of why simplifying our grid’s future to a single source is not only economically infeasible but also politically self defeating. [1] https://www.power-eng.com/gas/calpine-affirms-plan-to-build-more-natural-gas-plants-in-texas/ https://www.power-eng.com/gas/calpine-affirms-plan-to-build-... [2] https://www.powermag.com/new-gas-fired-power-plants-proposed-in-southeast-texas/ https://www.powermag.com/new-gas-fired-power-plants-proposed...
  - mk89 2y ago
    Yeah but to modernize a company to switch from oil to electricity, if possible at all, requires significant investments. In Germany this has been a major problem for many companies that invested to be greener and the costs were huge. It doesn't matter that 1kwh costs 10 cents less when you need to invest 100 millions to change your infrastructure.
- Arnt 2y ago
  Do you have done examples of that? I ask because I live in a German city where several large multinationals have their headquarters, and I haven't heard about this happening to any of those companies.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - mk89 2y ago
    I think by now there plenty of such examples: - https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/konjunktur/insolvenzen-baugewerbe-handel-101.html https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/konjunktur/insolvenzen-... - https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/hohe-zinsen-und-energiekosten-zahl-der-firmenpleiten-in-deutschland-steigt-deutlich-10913419.html https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/hohe-zinsen-und-energ... - https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/hohe-energiekosten-lieferketten-probleme-drohende-handelskonflikte-zahl-der-firmenpleiten-in-deutschland-steigt-weiter-zweistellig-12900745.html https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/hohe-energiekosten-li... Not sure if VW, Bosch, Thyssenkrupp count, but they have been in the news for a year now...
    - Arnt 2y ago
      GP mentioned "many facilities moving to the US", none of those three even mention the US.
      - mk89 2y ago
        Indeed, but it covers the "deindustrialising" issue. Many facilities moving to US.... - https://www.dw.com/en/is-german-industry-migrating-to-the-us/a-65031130 https://www.dw.com/en/is-german-industry-migrating-to-the-us... - https://www.ft.com/content/bca7837a-6ac4-4ed1-ab73-18fbdfa5f1da https://www.ft.com/content/bca7837a-6ac4-4ed1-ab73-18fbdfa5f... - https://fortune.com/europe/2024/02/19/german-companies-pouring-record-investments-us-germany-tight-economic-relationship-china-wobbles/ https://fortune.com/europe/2024/02/19/german-companies-pouri... That's true, they didn't shut down the factories yet, they are just firing thousands of people and opening up / investing in the US :)
- V__ 2y ago
  Germany is in crisis because for the last two decades, it hasn't been investing in infrastructure, digitalization, education, or anything for that matter. Cheap Russian gas just delayed the chickens coming home to roost.
  - mk89 2y ago
    And I guess bringing renewables to 62% solves that problem? Honestly I find the goal of 100% renewables awesome. But take it easy, with Merkel we reached a very high percentage in a steady way - why not to proceed like that instead of getting crazy.... https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/klima-energie/erneuerbare-energien/erneuerbare-energien-in-zahlen https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/klima-energie/erneuerb...
    - Blemoloko 2y ago
      [dead]
    - panick21_ 2y ago
      There is nothing 'awesome' about 100% renewables. Renewables by itself has no value. What has value is no emissions that kill people, and no CO2. That's awesome. Renewables are at best an implementation detail.
      - mk89 2y ago
        > What has value is no emissions that kill people, and no CO2 Neither of them can be reached with coal/gas/other fossil fuels. In addition, having 100% renewables means that you have an entire society ready for it - from infra to consumers. So, no, that's for me in no way an implementation detail like "I am just swapping A with B" otherwise I am pretty damn sure we could stop everything we're doing and mount solar panels everywhere to reach 100% renewables. In principle I understand what you were trying to say, but I don't agree on the premise that they are just an implementation detail.
        panick21_ 2y ago
- Blemoloko 2y ago
  [dead]
Dig1t 2y ago
If we had not regulated nuclear out of our system we would be almost completely carbon-free at this point. https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2016/10/26948/ https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2016/10/26948/ >Unfortunately, due to a failure to marshal significant public support for the nuclear side of the energy plan and the untimely occurrence of Watergate, the nuclear plans went largely unfulfilled after 1974. What's not said in this article is that the NRC was created soon after this and it basically squashed all future developments. The same thing is happening in Germany, they shut down their nuclear reactors and now they have the highest energy prices in Europe and are reliant on Russia. France is leading the way with nuclear, everyone should copy them.
- ZeroGravitas 2y ago
  France is leading the way. Their repeated failures to complete nuclear plants on time or budget is probably a big factor in people not considering it a valid alternative. Them phasing out more nuclear than Germany over the last few years is quite a message.
  - panick21_ 2y ago
    The problem as always is that if you are only building very few with mostly new people, and if its also a reasonable new reactor, you are gone have cost overruns. Even if you just build a couple of them, as UAE did, you can see how it improves and the unit cost go down. But adopting one reactor as a standard design across all of Europe and building 100s would have lead an incredibly cheap decarbonisation for Europe. Instead you literally had French and German energy minister conspiring to kill nuclear project and French political class fully willing to hand over all the 'we are so green and awesome' marketing to German. Despite France ACTUALLY being green. Germany literally for 20 years market itself as being 'incredibly green' while burning coal at crazy rates, and they will continue for another decade. And the CO2 isn't even the worst part, the coal dust being blown constantly blown all across central Europe is the worst part.
  - Dig1t 2y ago
    70% of France’s energy comes from nuclear and it’s all 0 carbon. Maybe “leading the way” was not the right phrase WRT building, but they are an example of how nuclear energy can provide for an entire country with a relatively low number of plants. If we were actually allowed to build things like this in America we could do the same thing for very cheap and new reactor designs could be basically foolproof WRT safety.
mk89 2y ago
Drill baby drill is not for Americans. It's to make countries in EU buy the American gas/oil so that we (europeans) get it from US rather than other countries. Trump already mentioned something like that a few days ago. The guy is about making money. That's it.
exabrial 2y ago
> Drill baby drill --- this is the plan with the new US administration. Not that I'm defending the administration, but it'd be worth quoting that directly here, if such quote exists.
- jqpabc123 2y ago
  Do you see any quotes around it? This is a quick summation of the new administration's polices as stated repeatedly.
  - exabrial 2y ago
    So the answer is "No, this is not accurate?"
    - solumunus 2y ago
      Of course you never completely know with Trump, but ostensibly it’s a large part of his agenda. A Google search will bring up no end of articles about this.
    - g8oz 2y ago
      Only if you are deliberately being obtuse.
      - exabrial 2y ago
        So, again, no then?
- snapcaster 2y ago
  Maybe you're not too familiar with US politics but the exact quote is ages old (i want to say Palin/McCain campaign was origin). It's more now used as a representation of GOP energy policies. Why did you ask for a quote though? what difference would having that have made to your decisions or views?
  - 2y ago

yostrovs 2y ago

Germany is deindustrializing in many ways thanks to a lack of reasonably priced fossil fuels, with many facilities moving to the US. This is the current reality that you might want to check in on.

jqpabc123 2y ago
Texas is overflowing with "reasonably priced fossil fuels". Yet even in oil soaked Texas, renewables account for most new capacity being added to their electrical grid. Why? It's cheaper. Simple economics. This is the current reality that you might want to check in on. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61424
- marcusverus 2y ago
  Investment in fossil fuels is unlikely when one of the two parties vows to destroy the industry. Preytending that renewables are winning based purely on economics is disingenuous. If it were true, things like this would be unnecessary: https://apnews.com/united-states-presidential-election-9dfb1e4c381043bab6fd0fa6dece3974 https://apnews.com/united-states-presidential-election-9dfb1...
  - jqpabc123 2y ago
    Investment in fossil fuels is unlikely when one of the two parties vows to destroy the industry. So even when the right has control of a large oil soaked state like Texas for decades, it's still all the left's fault? Distort reality much? The end of fossil fuels is inevitable. The supply is limited. "Drill baby drill" will only reach the end faster and cause more environmental damage for your kids to deal with.
    - marcusverus 2y ago
      If you feel the need to be a cunt, please go back to reddit.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > even when the right has control of a large oil soaked state like Texas for decades, it's still all the left's fault? This is the line Texan anti-renewable lobbyists are coming out with [1]. [1] https://www.theenergyalliance.com/research/the-end-of-texas-energy-only-electricity-market-emwzw-whh6g-t6dhn https://www.theenergyalliance.com/research/the-end-of-texas-...
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Yet even in oil soaked Texas, renewables account for most new capacity being added to their electrical grid. Why? It's cheaper. Simple economics Texas is still building gas generators [1][2]. Renewables are cheaper, but on the margin. Their production remains low, and despite massive growth, won't going to rival whole-grid growth for at least a decade. (Growth + replacement takes us into the 2040s.) That means we need other power sources for decades to come. America went with gas, which makes sense–we have lots of it. China with coal for the same reason. (Europe, also gas, which doesn’t make sense, but they don’t want to do coal or nuclear and don't seem to be deeply thinking about this.) In the long run we’ll probably be all solar with marginal wind, hydro and experimental sources. That will not happen in our lifetimes. Texas and Germany are prime examples of why simplifying our grid’s future to a single source is not only economically infeasible but also politically self defeating. [1] https://www.power-eng.com/gas/calpine-affirms-plan-to-build-more-natural-gas-plants-in-texas/ https://www.power-eng.com/gas/calpine-affirms-plan-to-build-... [2] https://www.powermag.com/new-gas-fired-power-plants-proposed-in-southeast-texas/ https://www.powermag.com/new-gas-fired-power-plants-proposed...
- mk89 2y ago
  Yeah but to modernize a company to switch from oil to electricity, if possible at all, requires significant investments. In Germany this has been a major problem for many companies that invested to be greener and the costs were huge. It doesn't matter that 1kwh costs 10 cents less when you need to invest 100 millions to change your infrastructure.
Arnt 2y ago
Do you have done examples of that? I ask because I live in a German city where several large multinationals have their headquarters, and I haven't heard about this happening to any of those companies.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mk89 2y ago
  I think by now there plenty of such examples: - https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/konjunktur/insolvenzen-baugewerbe-handel-101.html https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/konjunktur/insolvenzen-... - https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/hohe-zinsen-und-energiekosten-zahl-der-firmenpleiten-in-deutschland-steigt-deutlich-10913419.html https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/hohe-zinsen-und-energ... - https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/hohe-energiekosten-lieferketten-probleme-drohende-handelskonflikte-zahl-der-firmenpleiten-in-deutschland-steigt-weiter-zweistellig-12900745.html https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/hohe-energiekosten-li... Not sure if VW, Bosch, Thyssenkrupp count, but they have been in the news for a year now...
  - Arnt 2y ago
    GP mentioned "many facilities moving to the US", none of those three even mention the US.
    - mk89 2y ago
      Indeed, but it covers the "deindustrialising" issue. Many facilities moving to US.... - https://www.dw.com/en/is-german-industry-migrating-to-the-us/a-65031130 https://www.dw.com/en/is-german-industry-migrating-to-the-us... - https://www.ft.com/content/bca7837a-6ac4-4ed1-ab73-18fbdfa5f1da https://www.ft.com/content/bca7837a-6ac4-4ed1-ab73-18fbdfa5f... - https://fortune.com/europe/2024/02/19/german-companies-pouring-record-investments-us-germany-tight-economic-relationship-china-wobbles/ https://fortune.com/europe/2024/02/19/german-companies-pouri... That's true, they didn't shut down the factories yet, they are just firing thousands of people and opening up / investing in the US :)
V__ 2y ago
Germany is in crisis because for the last two decades, it hasn't been investing in infrastructure, digitalization, education, or anything for that matter. Cheap Russian gas just delayed the chickens coming home to roost.
- mk89 2y ago
  And I guess bringing renewables to 62% solves that problem? Honestly I find the goal of 100% renewables awesome. But take it easy, with Merkel we reached a very high percentage in a steady way - why not to proceed like that instead of getting crazy.... https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/klima-energie/erneuerbare-energien/erneuerbare-energien-in-zahlen https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/themen/klima-energie/erneuerb...
  - Blemoloko 2y ago
    [dead]
  - panick21_ 2y ago
    There is nothing 'awesome' about 100% renewables. Renewables by itself has no value. What has value is no emissions that kill people, and no CO2. That's awesome. Renewables are at best an implementation detail.
    - mk89 2y ago
      > What has value is no emissions that kill people, and no CO2 Neither of them can be reached with coal/gas/other fossil fuels. In addition, having 100% renewables means that you have an entire society ready for it - from infra to consumers. So, no, that's for me in no way an implementation detail like "I am just swapping A with B" otherwise I am pretty damn sure we could stop everything we're doing and mount solar panels everywhere to reach 100% renewables. In principle I understand what you were trying to say, but I don't agree on the premise that they are just an implementation detail.
      - panick21_ 2y ago
Blemoloko 2y ago
[dead]

Dig1t 2y ago

If we had not regulated nuclear out of our system we would be almost completely carbon-free at this point. https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2016/10/26948/ https://www.nixonfoundation.org/2016/10/26948/ >Unfortunately, due to a failure to marshal significant public support for the nuclear side of the energy plan and the untimely occurrence of Watergate, the nuclear plans went largely unfulfilled after 1974. What's not said in this article is that the NRC was created soon after this and it basically squashed all future developments. The same thing is happening in Germany, they shut down their nuclear reactors and now they have the highest energy prices in Europe and are reliant on Russia. France is leading the way with nuclear, everyone should copy them.

ZeroGravitas 2y ago
France is leading the way. Their repeated failures to complete nuclear plants on time or budget is probably a big factor in people not considering it a valid alternative. Them phasing out more nuclear than Germany over the last few years is quite a message.
- panick21_ 2y ago
  The problem as always is that if you are only building very few with mostly new people, and if its also a reasonable new reactor, you are gone have cost overruns. Even if you just build a couple of them, as UAE did, you can see how it improves and the unit cost go down. But adopting one reactor as a standard design across all of Europe and building 100s would have lead an incredibly cheap decarbonisation for Europe. Instead you literally had French and German energy minister conspiring to kill nuclear project and French political class fully willing to hand over all the 'we are so green and awesome' marketing to German. Despite France ACTUALLY being green. Germany literally for 20 years market itself as being 'incredibly green' while burning coal at crazy rates, and they will continue for another decade. And the CO2 isn't even the worst part, the coal dust being blown constantly blown all across central Europe is the worst part.
- Dig1t 2y ago
  70% of France’s energy comes from nuclear and it’s all 0 carbon. Maybe “leading the way” was not the right phrase WRT building, but they are an example of how nuclear energy can provide for an entire country with a relatively low number of plants. If we were actually allowed to build things like this in America we could do the same thing for very cheap and new reactor designs could be basically foolproof WRT safety.

mk89 2y ago

Drill baby drill is not for Americans. It's to make countries in EU buy the American gas/oil so that we (europeans) get it from US rather than other countries. Trump already mentioned something like that a few days ago. The guy is about making money. That's it.

exabrial 2y ago

> Drill baby drill --- this is the plan with the new US administration. Not that I'm defending the administration, but it'd be worth quoting that directly here, if such quote exists.

jqpabc123 2y ago
Do you see any quotes around it? This is a quick summation of the new administration's polices as stated repeatedly.
- exabrial 2y ago
  So the answer is "No, this is not accurate?"
  - solumunus 2y ago
    Of course you never completely know with Trump, but ostensibly it’s a large part of his agenda. A Google search will bring up no end of articles about this.
  - g8oz 2y ago
    Only if you are deliberately being obtuse.
    - exabrial 2y ago
      So, again, no then?
snapcaster 2y ago
Maybe you're not too familiar with US politics but the exact quote is ages old (i want to say Palin/McCain campaign was origin). It's more now used as a representation of GOP energy policies. Why did you ask for a quote though? what difference would having that have made to your decisions or views?
- 2y ago