Hacker News Reader

Comment by MichaelCollins | Hacker News Reader

> The solution is not obvious,

The problem of relying on Russia for energy was obvious. There isn't a singular "the solution" because there were many possible solutions, nuclear energy being just one. In addition to investing in wind/solar, there are other solutions besides nuclear. Particularly, fracing and coal mining. Both of these are unpopular for obvious reasons (which is the reason everybody talks about nuclear instead), but I think both are better than the political autonomy of an entire subcontinent being threatened by a belligerent foe.

View on HN

> The problem of relying on Russia for energy was obvious.

In 2020, the EU imported 13 786 PJ of natural gas, while gross available energy was 57 767 PJ, i.e. gas imports accounted for 23.9% https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...

Also in 2020, 27.2% of petroleum gas imports into the EU were from Russia. https://oec.world/en/profile/international_organization/euro...

Put together, 6.5% of gross available energy in the EU was from Russian gas.

It's not so obvious that that is a problematic level of reliance threatening the political autonomy of an entire subcontinent.

If it meant that 6.5% of the population will be left without any energy, that would be quite terrible. If it meant a 6.5% drop in GDP per capita PPP, it would be worse than the drop from 2019 to 2020, but still only throw the EU economy back to 2013 levels.

That doesn't mean it isn't worth planning ahead for the consequences of reduced energy availability, but maybe we don't need to panic, either.

I can see why someone might hear that number and shrug. But given what’s happening to the energy prices, I think those 6.5% are more significant than “1/16th” feels like it ought to be.

Yes, the price increase is larger than the reduction in supply. Nobody wants to reduce their energy use by 6.5%, so everyone is trying to snatch up as much of the shrunk energy pie as possible, bidding up the prices in the process.

But there's a limit to the price war. At some point, a factory making widgets is going to look at price increases that make the cost of producing a widget greater than its expected sale price, at which point they'll probably stop their production lines, unless they feel like setting money on fire to keep them running. Those factory closures then provide for the necessary reduction in energy use. But everyone else still needs to pay the higher prices.

Fortunately, higher energy prices also incentivize increasing supply from alternative sources, so the EU probably won't have to reduce energy use by the full 6.5%. And as long as people setting money on fire are sufficiently rare, it will be energy-intensive, low-profitabilty users who give up first, so the economy likely won't shrink by 6.5% either. But a larger fraction will be captured by energy suppliers as profit.

> > The problem of relying on Russia for energy was obvious.

> Put together, 6.5% of gross available energy in the EU was from Russian gas.

In case anyone is curious, the sources I find suggest the following about the sources of the primary energy in the European Union:

~38% from oil, of which ~29% is from Russia = ~11% of total energy, plus

~24% from natural gas, of which 39--45% [note this is higher than in the parent comment] is from Russia = 9+% of total, plus

~14% from coal, of which 46--70% is from Russia = 6+% of total energy, plus

~11% from uranium (nuclear), of which ~20% is from Russia = ~2% of total energy,

altogether totaling >28% from Russia.

Other sources may disagree on the particular numbers, but the rough estimate of "one quarter" is in line with other sources: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/04/europe-russia-energy-...

Some sources for the individual numbers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_European_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_in_the_European_energy_... https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/infographs/energy/bloc-2... https://www.statista.com/statistics/1034930/eu-hard-coal-imp... https://www.dw.com/en/eu-ban-on-russian-coal-imports-comes-i...

> The problem of relying on Russia for energy was obvious.

Indeed. Always found it strange that Germany didn't see a problem with relying on Russia for their main energy source.

Germans would have happily helped train Russian military if 2014 did not happen. Money's good.

Where did you get that idea from? Without looking it up, I suspect Germany, as a NATO country, helped Ukraine as other NATO allies did. And supported the orange revolution, as the other EU nations did before 2014.

Germany (along with France and others) supplied military-related stuff to Russia, even after 2014.

Under contracts signed before 2014. Seems like a detail worth mentioning.

EDIT: Which is bad reason, but at least an understandable when it comes to foreign policy. And it is not that arms exports are actually hindered by morals, all the exports to Saudi, UAE, Mexico and every other crisis region show otherwise. Personally, I think the West shouldn't export to those countries or conflict zones. The West also needs the industrial base to maintain reasonably strong militaries so, and with defense spending being a less than popular thing after the Cold War ended, exports are necessary for that. This could change so, and already did in Germany with additional military spending.

https://www.dw.com/en/rheinmetall-poised-to-honor-military-d...

Some quick numbers: 2020/21 exports of weapons from EU cointries to Russia were aroind 100 million (or thereabouts, might even include icebreakers, good luck using those for conquering Mariupol). Since February 2022 EU countries committed to send 2.5 billion of military gear to the Ukrainian forces.

I guess details and context still matter.

Context is also that Russia trained their invasion forces in a modern German built facility.

Unless said facility was build after 2014 I don't see the problem here. Not that the training was very successful as far as all that invasion business goes, was it?

Motivated reasoning. Cheap energy is extremely attractive, so seemingly obvious downsides can be swept under the rug.

I think this is very human reasoning.

People laugh at Preppers and call them crazy for taking prudent preparedness steps as insurance against future risks. It's a very human thing to do.

During the early days of COVID, some people started coming around to preppers being not-so-crazy-after-all, which lasted for precisely a few months before the toilet paper returned and preparedness being an acceptable idea left mainstream thought.

Expediency and lifestyle will always trump prudence in the human mind. It's the primary reason we will eventually exterminate ourselves, regardless of the specific existential risk we succumb to. The Great Filter is no great mystery.

> People laugh at Preppers and call them crazy for taking prudent preparedness steps as insurance against future risks. It's a very human thing to do.

I think most of the time people are laughing at preppers on TV. Having an emergency radio, a gun, extra water storage, a back-up generator, etc. - I haven't experience many people who laugh at that, though certainly I imagine someone exists who does. The government publishes info on emergency disaster preparedness kits and other things too.

Due to Earthquakes, California asks that you have at least 3 days of supplies on hand at all times, with 7 days of supplies being prefered and 14 days of supplies being the best. Same thing from my county and city. They all know that when "The Big One" hits, your average citizen is going to be on their own for at least a couple of days.

Do they have stats on when to expect it?

The same time a 9.0 is due in the Midwest... any day now.

If everyone waits with getting their supplies until they expect to need them, then there won't be enough in stock to supply everyone with their 7-days of supplies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com