The Pound's Warning for Europe
compactmag.com
compactmag.com
No, it is absolutely necessary. What will go down as one of the worst blunders in history is allowing Europe to become so dependent on a single hostile country for energy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_Dunes_Solar_Energy_Pr...
96% of the renewable energy comes from hydropower https://www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/energy/renewable-energy...
Cold climates have a variety of renewable energy options; wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc.
If solar and wind can be used in Greenland (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01189-x), they can be used virtually anywhere.
Population: 57,000.
Not even comparable to most countries at all
(The original upthread post also said renewables, not just solar, so the objections are doubly silly.)
Alaska: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200219-the-solar-farms-...
> Their pilot project of two rows of 70 kW panels suggested that the farm would work on a larger scale. The first rows went in during the summer of 2018, and after eight months, the costs came in on target, says Chris Colbert, chief finance officer of Renewable. “We monitored production throughout the year, which also came in on target,” he says. That made it easier for them to get the attention of investors to allow them to expand.
Antarctica: https://www.antarctica.gov.au/antarctic-operations/stations/...
That's your point right?
It's a solvable problem if we all agreed to do it.
[1] https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/946/cpsprodpb/10F88/production...
I would love to live in the world of renewables, but reality is that it's not as easy as flipping s switch.
We can't even make batteries without causing immense pollution and harm to the environment.
We need more carrot (cheaper prices) and more stick (taxes/regulations) on fossil fuels to accelerate this change. I would think that energy independence would be valuable to sovereign nations -- relying on others for the energy you need is risky business when things get messy.
It's actually not getting much better, let's assume that we have multiple clean energy sources that can sustain our demands and I'll explain why I don't think we are not a in a good place.
Building electric cars causes so much pollution that you have to drive a lot (see: https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/when-d... ) to reach parity with gasoline powered cars and even then I'm not sure if you are still able to use your battery. At the moment the single problem electric cars actually solve is air quality within bigger cities, however it merely shifts the pollution elsewhere.
In countries where it can get cold, you usually have gas heaters, replacing those would be a Herculean task, it would cost astronomical amounts of money which is just unimaginable in the current economy.
Even if you have your clean energy sources the economics are not there yet.
> We need more carrot (cheaper prices) and more stick (taxes/regulations) on fossil fuels to accelerate this change.
You will likely end up accelerating the decline of your economy and will be forced into burning coal. We do't need more incentives, they are already there, fossil fuels are horribly expensive so if there is a way to get around them, the private sector will find a way, you don't need to give them handouts and you don't need to punish them with taxes. Unfortunately we do need to be realistic and stop nuclear shaming.
> I would think that energy independence would be valuable to sovereign nations -- relying on others for the energy you need is risky business when things get messy.
Absolutely, unfortunately geography is not equally kind to all countries, therefore not all countries can be truly sovereign, large blocs like the US and EU have a chance to do become independent, however not all individual EU countries have that luxury.
I am pro renewable energy and I do believe we need to move closer and closer to a world where we use clean energy more and more, however I also believe we need to be sober, understand reality and not give in to the hype marketing and cults.
This is patently untrue. The only thing holding wind back is ever more byzantine regulations coming largely from fossil fuels and nuclear. In any country south of lithuania (about 90% of people) solar or solar storage is also more viable than nuclear.
> Unfortunately we do need to be realistic and stop nuclear shaming.
Realism involves doing the thing that lowers emissions fastest with the smallest amount of resources.
For almost any country with <50% penetration this is wind and solar. Many countries can have a mix with up to 80% for less than nuclear.
Even for countries without hydro or good sunlight having whatever already exists (or gas if it replaces coal) fill the remainder is far more emissions prevented far sooner. If you have a funded commitment for those 80% renewables, by all means plan nuclear for the rest, but unless you do you're just helping fossil fuels stay on.
And when 4 day storage or electrolysis becomes viable that can be phased out too.
Then there is the absolute certainty that -- the millisecond let the likes of chevron or shell or anyone similar run nuclear plants -- we'll have some idiot manager order the 5 or 6 colossally stupid things you have to do in sequence to get another chernobyl (or significantly worse) in the name of cost saving or pumping up some kpi.
In Germany, Gerhardt Schroeder and Angela Merkel were perfectly fine promoting Russian gas and shutting down nuclear to improve their own positions and economic outcomes.
The same corruption happened in many places throughout Europe.
Now the chickens are coming home to roost.
Correctomundo, thank you so much for this. It was making my skin crawl to see this called an "economic blunder".
Your take is 100% correct.
In fact I would go farther and suggest that decision makers should be investigated at the highest level. Lots of German ones have interest in Russian oil companies. If "compromising European security to further your own interests" isn't a crime yet we need to make it so. One as serious as espionage or treason.
Name peaceful countries that have the capacity for energy export at that scale to Europe.
1) the capacity should exist for the EU to be energy independent
2) capacity that cannot be attained need not be supplied by only a single source
3) peaceful countries exist in great amounts but we would consider them either too far to be serviceable without impact to the planet (importing/shipping fuel from Australia or the USA); or we would consider ourselves to be exploiting people (Africa).
It's not that I care, but you should be downvoting spam, not people who have different takes. I'm also puzzled how is it a strawman if I was quoting it.
> 1) the capacity should exist for the EU to be energy independent
Please show it then and I'll go to Brussels myself and inform them about it.
> 2) capacity that cannot be attained need not be supplied by only a single source
Maybe instead of downvoting, you should read things first, I used plural 'countries'.
> 3) peaceful countries exist in great amounts but we would consider them either too far to be serviceable without impact to the planet
I'm sure there is also plenty of gas in the Solar system, yet somehow it might as well not exist from our point of view.
> the USA
I said peaceful, countries that are constantly at war with other countries don't count as peaceful.
> or we would consider ourselves to be exploiting people (Africa).
The reason Europe does not buy gas from Africa is because of wars and high terrorism, it would be a nightmare to secure it, even in the Baltic terrorists can blow pipelines up. I also find it curious that you would consider buying energy from Africa exploitation.
The first mistake was being reliant on gas for energy.
The second mistake was that it was Russian gas.
It’s the first mistake that should have been avoided, not the second.
-Freezing Yourself To Own Putin
-Demanding roubles for gas is a victory for Putin
-Sanctions won’t hurt Russia
-The West played itself with Russia sanctions
-You can’t blame Russia for all the world’s problems
-Banning Russia from SWIFT will hurt the West
How did this happen?
The UK economy has not been doing well since before Russia invaded Ukraine though, after Brexit and after COVID started.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57427997
https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/uk-and-global-econ...
"U.K.’s High Gas Prices to Hurt Consumers All Year, Industry Group Says Rachel Morison 20 January 2022 at 17:43 UTC" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-20/u-k-s-hig...
Gas prices now are around the same levels seen in Q3 2021. Russian invasion of the Ukraine took place on 24 February 2022
For whom? I'm on a flex tariff for gas, in Q3 2021 was paying about 3p/kWh, now I'm paying 10p/kWh, the price of gas has literally tripled for me and millions of people compared to the same time last year.
So yeah, how are they at the same levels?
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/uk-natural-gas
Which is the same as it was before the "mini budget"
the cost of gas for delivery in the winter is high due to predicted demand outstripping predicted supply. Prices per therm in Feb are 480p [0], and while prices are dampened a little next summer, similar high costs are there the following year. This time last year though prices for Feb 23 delivery were down in the 120p/therm level. The cost peaked at 330 last December then backed off a little
Cost for Feb 22 delivery this time last year was about 200p, and for Feb 21 delivery in Oct 20 was about 40p. Pre covid it was about 80p in Oct 2019 for delivery in Feb 2020 [2], so we're running at 5 times the cost of pre-covid despite the recent falls in price.
Sensible countries have put in measures to reduce and move towards rationing gas usage (thus reducing costs), the UK has put in measures to encourage gas usage by subsidising consumption.
[0] https://www.barchart.com/futures/quotes/NF*0/futures-prices
The "cap" is a terrible system, which has only resulted in a very short lag to prices hitting the consumer - The energy price cap changes every six months, though this will change to every three months from October as requested by the energy companies, opposed by all consumers but the consumer lost on that one.
In Q3 2021 you were paying about 3p/kWh on a wholesale price of 300, now you are paying 10p/kWh on a wholesale price of 400 - and your daily standing charge has increased just because they can get away with it.
We swap growth and prosperity for recession and hard times. But we keep geopolitical independence.
The alternative is to go along with the Russians until the next time, when the next time will be far too late.
I'm a lot less worried now.
is that really the fact?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/02/us-russia-puti...
how about this?
Putin tried for months to secure Ukraine and is being pushed back. He's instituted a draft to replace lost personnel there, and over a hundred thousand able-bodied Russians have fled the country rather than take the risk that they're called up.
I wouldn't put the odds at zero (because Putin is also not the most stable and sensible person), but it seems very unlikely that he would even try to send troops to open up a completely new front, against actual NATO members, let alone succeed in any meaningful way.
Also we're soon going to be a part of NATO along with Finland. The Baltic will be a NATO lake.
Apparently I can't read.
> The alternative is to go along with the Russians until the next time, when the next time will be far too late.
Sorry, but that didn't read as sarcasm to me?
Or, unless the "swapping growth and prosperity" is in reference to Brexit and is not a reference to supporting Ukraine, or is a reference to short lived gains by depending on Russian energy sources.
„You can have all the independence you want, as long as it exactly aligns with the US state department.“
The value of the Euro disagrees.
The US has long enough told the EU, specifically Germany, to ditch Russian gas and direct 2% of their GDP towards their militaries/NATO. Did Merkel listen? No. Only Poland and to some extent Romania listened. France already had the most capable military in the EU.
That's kind of like telling the US to ditch China for manufacturing. It would make sense, it's just easier said than done. The issue is that it seems that Europe lacks gas reserves, Russia was a convenient and reliable source and it would have made no economic sense to diversify the same way it makes no economic sense for the US to bring back manufacturing from China.
> France already had the most capable military in the EU.
The answer to that is World War 2, the Germans were reluctant to militarise, for a while they were outright forbidden to.
The alternative to to not provoke a conflict when you are not ready.
ie invest in alternatives - so you aren't on the hook down the line, but don't provoke a conflict when you are on the hook.
Russia has the economy about the size of Italy - and as you can see by the progress in Ukraine, it's not going to be able to sweep across Europe anytime soon.
There is no existential threat - apart from the one we have just created by timing the conflict when we are not ready.
Well, they have the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world...
Germany gets a lot of flak for buying Russian gas cheaply the last 30 years in ever increasing volumes. But it seems strange to argue that Germany just should have bought gas from Qatar or the US for double the price from the start.
How should Germany have done that? Import tax on Russian gas? Laws preventing importing cheap gas from the east? Sounds a bit aggressive towards our big neighbor to the east.
No, I think the article is just plain wrong. Europe benefitted from cheap gas over the last decades and it will be somewhat affected by higher prices for this and next year, but it will accelerate the transition to renewables and strengthen nuclear in those countries in Europe where it is still an option. In the end it push Europe in the right direction.
This is what people miss. What is the opportunity cost of over-paying for gas for 30 years? By not over-paying, Germany was able to invest in its own economy, and it is now in a position to help Ukraine and complete its transition to renewables.
Germany's strategy is currently unpopular because the costs all happen at once, whereas people generally put up with small costs spread over a long time, but it would have been foolish to harm German economic growth while Putin could just sell his gas somewhere else and grow the Russian economy at a faster rate than Germany's.
You can't really say what would have happened, but if nobody purchased that cheap gas, I think it's safe to say the Russia of today would look very different, with that being a rather large part of the country's total exports.
Everything on top would help reduce heating use of gas.
The major issue is that until then we are back to burning coal which is cheap but environmentally much worse than gas.
Last, your point on a negotiating end of the war is weird. Russia blew up their own pipelines. We are never going back to Russian gas in Germany in the near future. This war will be won on the battle field.
https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/eu-kommission-befuerchtet-...
I see a lot of posts written from point-of-views that can only be described as outlandish, as they do not reflect the grim reality. I'd be surprised if full-scale riots in every major Northern European city are not the order of the day in a couple of months, never mind years.
Arguably we're already past that. This is what too late looks like.
Living in Britain right now, I can tell you nobody I've met believes in capitulating to Russian demands - any dissatisfaction is purely on the reaction to that, and mismanagement of the response.
And a completely tone-deaf political stance - the proposed budget just said the quiet parts loud of the general Tory stance and highlighted just how "different" they are to the average man on the street.
Hmm... but when the Euro falls the attractiveness of its exports increases.
One consistent thing about these articles is that they fail common sense tests.
Anyway, Brexit is almost certainly to blame for the magnitude of the calamity in England. The bigger problem is that nobody buys anything from there, that English industry and innovation have been stagnating for a long time.
They're talking about manufacturing. Energy input costs are still denominated in dollars/rubles, so those exports will still be pretty expensive if the factory doors are to remain open. A falling euro will only make the labor portion of cost inputs decline. And because labor needs to eat, even those input costs will be rising as well.
Will a falling euro help? Sure. But probably not as much as you think.
Who waged that war?
For the same reason the U.S became so depended on China for manufacturing of electronics and most of the world on OPEC for energy. These bad actors provide good value for money, at least for the short term.
The Pound's Warning for Europe
I'm sorry, but who exactly waged this war?
google search term "great game"
Better this and previous European actions when faced with shortages…
Much of which is produced in greenhouses heated by Russian gas ... not sure what your point is.
The Netherlands is one of the more energy independent countries in the EU generally speaking.
a large percentage of those 20% imports are actually from France.
Guessing they must make some stuff.
How much of that is services vs. manufactured goods?
Around 18%: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
The Netherlands alone - a tiny little country - are world leaders in Yacht production, Food (per m2) and via ASML cutting-edge chip fabs.
Germany, our neighbours, are the production power house of Europe. They make basically everything the USA does and a lot of things produced in China. They're more quality focused than China (and to some extent the USA too).