5 ms·

The same narrative is being pushed on Germany for instance. I think it’s quite simple. Renewable energy is a route to energy independence for various nations t

by junto 2y ago

The same narrative is being pushed on Germany for instance. I think it’s quite simple. Renewable energy is a route to energy independence for various nations that were previously highly dependent on foreign nations and corporations and there are very powerful fossil fuel interconnected groups / nations that are terrified of that. Russia wants Germany to buy Russian gas. The U.S. wants Europe to buy their gas’s too. The Saudis want Europe to buy their oil. Wind turbines, solar power and electric vehicles are a direct threat to that hegemony. The other aligned narrative is nuclear and I consider it to be Trojan horse to continued reliance on fossil fuels at least for the next 25-30 years whilst countries like Germany would argue with NIMBY’s and politics to try and even build just one new power station. I believe that to be the primary root cause of the geopolitical instability we see today globally.

fpoling 2y ago
It is not any fossil fuel, it is specifically oil and gas. Coal is not a problem for energy independence as it is much more evenly distributed on Earth. What Germany has done with its reliance on Russian gas is truly insane. Not only they closed nuclear stations, but they also have been closing coal power stations. They should be pushing electrical vehicles and modernization of coal plants instead as China is doing. Even from green perspective an electrical car that uses electricity from a modern coal plant generates less CO2 than a car running on oil products.
- pjc50 2y ago
  > Coal is not a problem for energy independence as it is much more evenly distributed on Earth. Not true - it's just more prevalent in Europe than oil, especially in Germany. And the CO2 emissions are much worse, which is where all this starts from.
- intended 2y ago
  It’s insane today. Trade was specifically a way to ensure people learn to work together. I guess, this is the era for consequences
onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
Voting behaviors will seem strange if you look at things exclusively through the lens of a young-ish worker when you live in a society that is 35% retirees, 5% wealthy, and 5% living off the state.
DrScientist 2y ago
Note in terms of nuclear - using current technology you still need to dig your fuel out of the ground from very specific places in the world - though a different set of countries ( apart from Russia ).
- kragen 2y ago
  I don't think that's correct. All you need is to enrich uranium, which is found everywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Occurrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Occurrence says: > Uranium is a naturally occurring element found in low levels in all rock, soil, and water. It is the highest-numbered element found naturally in significant quantities on Earth and is almost always found combined with other elements.[12] Uranium is the 48th most abundant element in the Earth’s crust.[60] The decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium-40 in Earth's mantle is thought to be the main source of heat[61][62] that keeps the Earth's outer core in the liquid state and drives mantle convection, which in turn drives plate tectonics. > Uranium's concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million,[11][22] or about 40 times as abundant as silver.[17] The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 10¹⁷ kg (2×10¹⁷ lb) of uranium while the oceans may contain 10¹³ kg (2×10¹³ lb).[11] The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of phosphate fertilizers),[63] and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion.[22] > Uranium is more plentiful than antimony, tin, cadmium, mercury, or silver, and it is about as abundant as arsenic or molybdenum.[12][22] Uranium is found in hundreds of minerals, including uraninite (the most common uranium ore), carnotite, autunite, uranophane, torbernite, and coffinite.[12] Significant concentrations of uranium occur in some substances such as phosphate rock deposits, and minerals such as lignite, and monazite sands in uranium-rich ores[12] (it is recovered commercially from sources with as little as 0.1% uranium[17]). Now, 0.1% uranium is 1000 parts per million, which is a lot more than 0.7 to 11. But that doesn't mean current technology is incapable of recovering uranium from these 300× lower concentrations. It's just that it requires processing 300× as much rock, which is expensive, so it can't compete in the market with more concentrated sources.
  - DrScientist 2y ago
throwawayffffas 2y ago
It's not Russia, the US and the Saudis, it's Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, etc. honestly Aramco and Gazprom probably have very little influence on decision making in Europe and the US compared to the local interests. > The other aligned narrative is nuclear and I consider it to be Trojan horse to continued reliance on fossil fuels at least for the next 25-30 years whilst countries like Germany would argue with NIMBY’s and politics to try and even build just one new power station. Nuclear is not a Trojan horse, nuclear proliferation and meltdown fears condemned Europe to energy dependence. It's too late now, the capacity should have been built 30 years ago, but the successful fearmongering meant there was virtually no construction for the last 30 years[1]. The real Trojan horse is natural gas, they greenwashed it, invested and continue to invest in natural gas projects[2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_reactors_in_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_reactors_in_Euro... 2. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/06/world/eu-votes-natural-gas-nuclear-green-sustainable-climate/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/06/world/eu-votes-natural-ga...
- junto 2y ago
  Fraunhofer Institute did an in depth study into the costs of nuclear. That it is cheaper is a myth. Nuclear is a distraction to defocus from renewables and battery tech. There’s a reason this kind of nuclear propaganda is all over TikTok amongst right wing social media. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/veroeffentlichungen/studien/studie-stromgestehungskosten-erneuerbare-energien.html https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/veroeffentlichungen/studien... https://www.unendlich-viel-energie.de/projekte/erneuerbar-statt-atomar/mythos-5-liefert-uns-atomkraft-billigen-strom#:~:text=Das%2520Fraunhofer%2520Institut%2520f%C3%BCr%2520Solare,9%252C2%2520Ct%252FkWh. https://www.unendlich-viel-energie.de/projekte/erneuerbar-st...
  - throwawayffffas 2y ago
    Never said it's cheaper. What I implied was that if the construction of nuclear reactors had continued in the 90s, today we would be in a position where fossil fuels would be a much smaller part of the energy mix. In France for example the domestic energy production is virtually free from fossil fuels. [1] In other parts of Europe, all the capacity that renewables provide has been offset by the shutting down of nuclear reactors. Instead of replacing fossil fuels they replaced nuclear. See Germany's energy mix for example [2]. [1]. https://www.iea.org/countries/france/energy-mix https://www.iea.org/countries/france/energy-mix (See the second graph) [2]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:Energy_mix_in_Germany.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:...

by junto 2y ago

fpoling 2y ago

It is not any fossil fuel, it is specifically oil and gas. Coal is not a problem for energy independence as it is much more evenly distributed on Earth. What Germany has done with its reliance on Russian gas is truly insane. Not only they closed nuclear stations, but they also have been closing coal power stations. They should be pushing electrical vehicles and modernization of coal plants instead as China is doing. Even from green perspective an electrical car that uses electricity from a modern coal plant generates less CO2 than a car running on oil products.

pjc50 2y ago
> Coal is not a problem for energy independence as it is much more evenly distributed on Earth. Not true - it's just more prevalent in Europe than oil, especially in Germany. And the CO2 emissions are much worse, which is where all this starts from.
intended 2y ago
It’s insane today. Trade was specifically a way to ensure people learn to work together. I guess, this is the era for consequences

onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago

Voting behaviors will seem strange if you look at things exclusively through the lens of a young-ish worker when you live in a society that is 35% retirees, 5% wealthy, and 5% living off the state.

DrScientist 2y ago

Note in terms of nuclear - using current technology you still need to dig your fuel out of the ground from very specific places in the world - though a different set of countries ( apart from Russia ).

kragen 2y ago
I don't think that's correct. All you need is to enrich uranium, which is found everywhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Occurrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Occurrence says: > Uranium is a naturally occurring element found in low levels in all rock, soil, and water. It is the highest-numbered element found naturally in significant quantities on Earth and is almost always found combined with other elements.[12] Uranium is the 48th most abundant element in the Earth’s crust.[60] The decay of uranium, thorium, and potassium-40 in Earth's mantle is thought to be the main source of heat[61][62] that keeps the Earth's outer core in the liquid state and drives mantle convection, which in turn drives plate tectonics. > Uranium's concentration in the Earth's crust is (depending on the reference) 2 to 4 parts per million,[11][22] or about 40 times as abundant as silver.[17] The Earth's crust from the surface to 25 km (15 mi) down is calculated to contain 10¹⁷ kg (2×10¹⁷ lb) of uranium while the oceans may contain 10¹³ kg (2×10¹³ lb).[11] The concentration of uranium in soil ranges from 0.7 to 11 parts per million (up to 15 parts per million in farmland soil due to use of phosphate fertilizers),[63] and its concentration in sea water is 3 parts per billion.[22] > Uranium is more plentiful than antimony, tin, cadmium, mercury, or silver, and it is about as abundant as arsenic or molybdenum.[12][22] Uranium is found in hundreds of minerals, including uraninite (the most common uranium ore), carnotite, autunite, uranophane, torbernite, and coffinite.[12] Significant concentrations of uranium occur in some substances such as phosphate rock deposits, and minerals such as lignite, and monazite sands in uranium-rich ores[12] (it is recovered commercially from sources with as little as 0.1% uranium[17]). Now, 0.1% uranium is 1000 parts per million, which is a lot more than 0.7 to 11. But that doesn't mean current technology is incapable of recovering uranium from these 300× lower concentrations. It's just that it requires processing 300× as much rock, which is expensive, so it can't compete in the market with more concentrated sources.
- DrScientist 2y ago

throwawayffffas 2y ago

It's not Russia, the US and the Saudis, it's Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, etc. honestly Aramco and Gazprom probably have very little influence on decision making in Europe and the US compared to the local interests. > The other aligned narrative is nuclear and I consider it to be Trojan horse to continued reliance on fossil fuels at least for the next 25-30 years whilst countries like Germany would argue with NIMBY’s and politics to try and even build just one new power station. Nuclear is not a Trojan horse, nuclear proliferation and meltdown fears condemned Europe to energy dependence. It's too late now, the capacity should have been built 30 years ago, but the successful fearmongering meant there was virtually no construction for the last 30 years[1]. The real Trojan horse is natural gas, they greenwashed it, invested and continue to invest in natural gas projects[2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_reactors_in_Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_reactors_in_Euro... 2. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/06/world/eu-votes-natural-gas-nuclear-green-sustainable-climate/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/07/06/world/eu-votes-natural-ga...

junto 2y ago
Fraunhofer Institute did an in depth study into the costs of nuclear. That it is cheaper is a myth. Nuclear is a distraction to defocus from renewables and battery tech. There’s a reason this kind of nuclear propaganda is all over TikTok amongst right wing social media. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/veroeffentlichungen/studien/studie-stromgestehungskosten-erneuerbare-energien.html https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/veroeffentlichungen/studien... https://www.unendlich-viel-energie.de/projekte/erneuerbar-statt-atomar/mythos-5-liefert-uns-atomkraft-billigen-strom#:~:text=Das%2520Fraunhofer%2520Institut%2520f%C3%BCr%2520Solare,9%252C2%2520Ct%252FkWh. https://www.unendlich-viel-energie.de/projekte/erneuerbar-st...
- throwawayffffas 2y ago
  Never said it's cheaper. What I implied was that if the construction of nuclear reactors had continued in the 90s, today we would be in a position where fossil fuels would be a much smaller part of the energy mix. In France for example the domestic energy production is virtually free from fossil fuels. [1] In other parts of Europe, all the capacity that renewables provide has been offset by the shutting down of nuclear reactors. Instead of replacing fossil fuels they replaced nuclear. See Germany's energy mix for example [2]. [1]. https://www.iea.org/countries/france/energy-mix https://www.iea.org/countries/france/energy-mix (See the second graph) [2]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:Energy_mix_in_Germany.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany#/media/File:...