We do have the energy right now, though.
And we'd have more, cheaper energy if we deployed new renewables.
But the author seems to lose his interest in helping the poor if it didn't involve fossil fuels being used inefficiently.
And we'd have more, cheaper energy if we deployed new renewables.
But the author seems to lose his interest in helping the poor if it didn't involve fossil fuels being used inefficiently.
In the long term many things are possible, but right now we don't have enough energy, and "if we deployed new renewables" is not an argument - we already are deploying new renewables pretty much as fast as we can, and even if we would deploy them twice as fast, it will still take quite some time to get to where renewables can create all the energy we need - especially if look at the market share of renewables in total energy which includes not only electricity but also heating and transportation.
Well, we'd get there faster, of course. But that's still not right now, that would be still many years, especially for the third world which can't afford the investment.
If every home was insulated and had a heat pump, we'd all be richer.
Why havent we done that?
Why, when the initial Ukraine invasion in 2014 caused a gas price spike, did Bjorn Lomborg and other climate change deniers write an article very much like this one, in which he advocated against more renewables, and instead said we needed to invest in research to find the real solution.
So here we are again, 8 years later, and we're doing the exact same thing? Fool me once...
Perhaps the currently available energy is sufficient to meet all the needs in a fictional world where every home was insulated and had a heat pump, but I don't live in that world. Perhaps in some future after many years of infrastructure buildup I could live in that world, but that's not right now. And perhaps in a fictional world where 8 years ago more effort had gone into renewables, there would be enough energy for the current consumption, but I don't live in that world either - in the world I live in, the currently installed and immediately available capacity as of 2022 is far from sufficient for meeting our current needs, and if you're saying "Right now, we have enough energy" I am really struggling to understand what exactly you want to say with that. Are you implying that we should curtail our energy use to what's currently available (or less) and feel satisfied at that?
People are trying to confuse matters by talking about Primary energy as if your quality of life has a 1:1 relationship with fossil CO2 released.
So, if we are actually talking about "primary energy" then we would have enough if we used it efficiently. But we dont. Because our politicians prefer burning gas to heating homes. Gas burnt gets them a kickback, warm homes don't.
Hence why all the solutions to this gas price crisis that don't involve burning even more gas get drowned out.
You can say "well we don't have well insulated homes now", yes I know. But maybe you should be asking "Why don't we have well insulated homes?" because that answer will explain more about how the energy crisis plays out than thermodynamics does.
I live in an insulated house and am getting a heat pump, but of course, I can already afford my bills. My saving on my energy bill doesn't redistribute the energy to someone else.
Yes of course. If every person had a flying car we'd all be richer too.
> Why havent we done that?
Perhaps because the (energy, work) cost of digging heat pumps for every home is too high for us to afford?
How much energy is necessary to create a heat pump and how long does it take for it to pay off?
That's self-inflected and the result of poor choices. In a just world, Merkel would get more blame for cozying up to Russia, and the rest of Europe would as well for choosing austerity. As world events have shown, austerity is not robust in the face of events you can't control. It leads to a fragile energy system prone to catastrophic failure.
Poor choices, poor results. Europe can do better if they learn from this travesty.
This doesn’t even change the final outcome, it just speeds it up - USA won’t allow Russia to become China’s asset, and there aren’t that many options to guarantee that.
Nuclear weapons foreclose many options.
Seriously, can we really expect a country that can’t even manufacture cars to be able to refurbish nukes?
Not to mention that the assumptions of MAD doctrine might not have been true for quite some time now. Which means, even if those nukes left their silos, they might not get anywhere near the targets.
I haven't seen the new Jackass movie. Is this the plot?
Surely, you're not suggesting invading a nuclear power to seize their natural assets.
You missed my point. If that existing non-renewable energy was used efficiently, like a Germany and UK that used heat pumps for domestic heating powered by the exact same gas they squander now in poorly insulated homes with a COP 1/5th what they otherwise could have, the energy would be enough.
My second sentence was that on top of that we could have had even more cheap energy if they'd not basically outlawed wind farms, the cheapest form of energy for the last decade in Europe.
"All poverty is energy poverty" remember? So why did the government's not insulate and use efficient heating systems? Why did they "cut the green crap".
I think our shared point there is that all these things require years of infrastructure buildup - there is some blame on why earlier it hasn't been done as much as it could be (while it definitely has been done a lot over the last decade!), and a good argument that it must be increased.
But as soon as we're talking about "energy right now" (let's be generous and say within a year or two) then we need rapid solutions, and "becoming energy efficient" is not one of these, that's for a 5-10 year scale even if we're optimistic.
A second point is that effective heating and insulation is a big factor for the relatively northern parts of first world, however, it's not really relevant for the huge "energy poverty" of the third world, where most of the population is in warmer climates. For them, avoiding energy waste is not sufficient, they simply need more energy (much of it "embedded" in consumer goods that they would like to get) to go beyond their current standard of living, which they rightfully consider insufficient.
All the sensible responses to this crisis involved rolling out insulation in the short term.
REPowerEU: A plan to rapidly reduce dependence on Russian fossil fuels and fast forward the green transition
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_22_...
> Energy savings are the quickest and cheapest way to address the current energy crisis, and reduce bills. The Commission proposes to enhance long-term energy efficiency measures, including an increase from 9% to 13% of the binding Energy Efficiency Target under the ‘Fit for 55' package of European Green Deal legislation
A 10-Point Plan to Reduce the European Union’s Reliance on Russian Natural Gas
https://www.iea.org/reports/a-10-point-plan-to-reduce-the-eu...
> 4. Accelerate the deployment of new wind and solar projects
> 7. Speed up the replacement of gas boilers with heat pumps
> 8. Accelerate energy efficiency improvements in buildings and industry
> 10. Step up efforts to diversify and decarbonise sources of power system flexibility ("A portfolio of options will be required, including enhanced grids, energy efficiency, increased electrification and demand-side response")
What does conflict in Ukraine mean for UK energy?
https://eciu.net/analysis/briefings/uk-energy-policies-and-p...
> Despite not importing much Russian gas directly, a drop in global supply – Russia is the second largest gas producer (17% of global output in 2020) – will affect the international gas markets that impact the UK.
> As a result, bills in the UK (and likely globally) will soar because of conflict in Ukraine, potentially up to £3,000 in October 2022, (a £600 increase from previously expected levels). However, some doubt that bills will get this high as there are still significant data gaps needed to forecast future bill levels.
> Energy efficiency is an obvious near term step, as it could reduce the UK’s total gas demand by 7-8% and imports by 15% while delivering bill savings to households.
On Africa:
if they don't have the energy now, they need to build it. What is the cheapest available source of new energy? What is the best way to make that energy go furthest? None of these basics things are discussed, because tha article wants to shill for fossil fuels, and actively make these problems worse in Europe and Africa.
> The UK is set to lift its controversial ban of onshore wind projects from government support, in a major u-turn by the ruling Conservative Party over a policy that sent new turbine installation figures plunging
Well...yea.
It's unbelievably naive how some believe humanity should somehow start using _less_ energy. If they actually got their way, we would see a recession/depression that would be the most painful of our lifetime.
We should be focused on raising the standard of living for ALL people. We can work towards that goal by generating as much energy as possible with the caveat of doing so intelligently and responsibly.
This is defeatist bullshit.
No one is arguing that the whole world needs to immediately live exactly like the richest citizens.
Your attitude really disappoints and actually enrages me. Luckily, I can take comfort in knowing how counter to human nature it is. Humans will not accept a declining standard of living because a few people want to virtue signal. Try to force it on them at your own peril.
I am not calling for declining standards of living, or saying that, fuck it, let poor people be poor. I'm the first person to push for more nuclear power plants, more renewables. Simply reminding people that the whole technobabble bullshit about how new things are going to save us is wrong. We're not going to save ourselves. We're going to raise our standards of living, and kill ourselves in the process. Good luck with your human nature.
I guess we don't do this because too few bureaucrats can grift if we build nuke plants?
You're getting downvoted for living in the real world and opposing the approved climate messaging.
It is really a shame to see all the people that have been bamboozled by the "renewable energy" propaganda and refuse to see the obvious (very negative) implications of following through on that policy.
That is simply not true, already in 2017(?) PV and wind was cheaper in utility scale kWh prices, un fixed project auctions and without subsidies, than the then most modern nuckear plant in Europe, Hinkley C in the UK. Those utility scale PV and wind parks are faster to build as well.
Until we figured electricity storagebout on a scale big enough to sustain our needs nuclear beats coal by lightyears so.
Also like the other commenters I'm not at all sure renewables can't do the job. Prices have fallen fast
Nothing naive about it, there are costs associated with production of energy and spending less energy is simply about lowering the associated costs.
Europe being big on energy savings and efficiency is now better off compared to what would have had happened if they lost the Russian energy without the achieved efficiencies.
There are actual, real-life proponents of policies that would have us shrink our economies and decrease the standard of living.
Energy production often impacts negatively the surroundings of the production area and that's why even those who boast for energy production at all cost are also NIMBY folks. Notice how wealthy prefer to live away from energy production sites, in prestine environment? turns out the poor and the middle class want that too.
Solar panels, batteries, wind mills and such do not appear out of thin air.
Who wants a grid where your refrigerator can't run when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining?
You can't replace base load with intermittent generation sources and expect fewer price spikes.
Ya'll better get busy building those nuke plants like NOW.
No. But depending on what you're replacing with how much capacity, you can get cheaper electricity on average (for example removing coal). And the nuclear exit in europe, apart from germany, happened (and is happening) more to the lack of replacement capacity than expectation of direct replacement by renewables. In germany, the exit was more-or-less driven by fear. New NPPs are really (and I mean really) expensive and there is little expectation that with conventional NPP that can significantly change.
And stability & price are not the same.
> Ya'll better get busy building those nuke plants like NOW.
Have you looked at construction times in Western Countries, even pro-nuclear ones like france? That's like the worst idea. It'd take at least 20 years with conventional technology. Modular reactors aren't ready right now (and I'd be surprised if they solved the issues that are leading to the reduction in nuclear generation we're seeing around the world, but that question doesn't have a firm answer yet).
The solution is building out renewables and investing in storage. Hydrogen and P2G both don't have any fundamental difficulties, the will to implement them on a large scale just isn't there right now. Even regular electrochemical cells should be doable if needed. Due to wind turbines producing more in winter, you only have to bridge the normal day-night cycle and low-wind periods in winter across the EU.
We'd already be in a better position if we'd have invested more in electrifying stuff, since that usually improves the efficiency (even end-to-end when looking at gas power plants).