War and subsidies have turbocharged the green transition
economist.com
economist.com
Elsewhere it mentions 90% of new generating capacity will be renewable over the next years, but that also kind of ignores that there'll still be 10% not renewable capacity coming online and, oh yeah, India might also have new coal plants coming online in the years ahead.
This is pretty important when considering that coal is still the most common source of electricity but also that electricity is only a part of our energy needs – switching to electrified transportation, industry and heating systems will all create more demand for electricity. Seeing as we want to phase out coal we would need renewable energy to account for more than 100% of net new production and we haven't even reached that.
Even with all the speedup in the green transition happening over the past few years it still doesn't happen at close to the speed needed – in fact we're not even close to seeing the end of coal regardless of everything going on.
So no new ventures, and no cheap transportation from our partners to our north. Seems like the North American industry is being starved.
The fact that it would very often be "cheaper" or more efficient to deal with any individual problem ahead of time somewhat loses it's appeal when you consider the huge amount of potential problems that are costly to even evaluate as to the benefits of dealing with them in advance.
Few people know this, but that was actually the original title for "War and Peace". It was his mistress who insisted that he call it "War and Peace".
For us the subsidies never came into play (they have always been maxed out and besides the payback time is short enough that I don't think subsidies should be there at all), but the war certainly did.
Finally, dropping the temperature a bit also really helped, unfortunately people have different comfort levels so this is a bit of an issue but by keeping one part of the house at a slightly higher temp everybody gets theirs and we still save a bundle.
New solar installs or heaters would then be considered.
The one room that we didn’t get any fresh air flow to, now stinks. The others are fine.
In a nutshell: blow fresh air into bedrooms / closets. 10 CFM is enough (small cpu fan level of airflow). Exhaust with quiet bathroom fans on constantly at low CFM. In + out = flow. Rooms with no flow = stinky, musty, germ contamination, good for growing mushrooms, bad for people and pets
Instead went with separate AC Infinity (grow-room) fans each pulling air through a filter. Works ok. Still iterating tbh.
This all predates the war. Another factor for us was wildfire smoke
I’ve taken to re-terming oil as “conflict fuel” myself. It literally empowers the Wests enemies against the West. Don’t burn fuel, don’t fuel conflict. There’s also the resource curse of being an oil baron nation.
And to anybody shaming the West-it has a good history of live and let live with the option to opt-in by being various amounts of agreeable to it. Stephen Kotkin makes this argument well so I’ll point people towards him instead of rehashing it here.
FWIW, this has nothing to do with the fuel itself - the highest density energy sources are natural source of conflicts, and conflicts themselves are naturally fueled by whichever energy source has the optimum balance of energy density, operational safety and logistics load.
The whole phrasing reminds me of an excellent old videogame, Original War[0]. The premise here being the US trying to take ownership of some magic nuclear fuel found on USSR-controlled land, by sending a force back in time to prehistorical era, in order to dig all the magic fuel up and move it to what will, two million years later, become USA territory. Without spoiling too much, the game starts with the main protagonist and his team landing in the tropical Siberia, only instead of meeting a mammoth, they find themselves being shot at by the Soviets.
Those first few minutes of the game introduced a minor but memorable plot point: the angry Soviets from alternate timeline landed earlier than the US, and were smart enough to immediately take over whatever fossil fuel deposits they could find, forcing the Americans to use their technological edge and retool their war machine to run on renewables. For a good chunk of the US campaign, you order solar-charged, battery-powered combat vehicles into battle against Soviet gas guzzlers, fighting to secure ownership of a rare nuclear fusion catalyst.
Point being, the "conflict fuel" will always be 1) the fuel that's powering societies around the globe, and 2) whatever is most practical for the military to use. In 20-30 years, 1) could easily change from oil to renewables (read: rare earth elements, or land near the equator, or whatever else is the bottleneck in scaling up energy production) or nuclear fuel.
--
A lot of houses have badly fitted windows & doors. Put your ear near it and clearly hear sounds coming in through little gaps, or even feel a small air current.
This video is from a guy who's had one built with factory built R-35 walls:
Our homes need fresh air, and heat exchangers are an excellent way of maintaining a comfortable temperature while allowing for fresh air to circulate.
This simple chain of cause and effect is oversimplified, which is why there's a whole article written about it.
At no point does the article claim "war is good because it's spurring green energy spending", or "we should have more wars to spend more on green energy", or "war has downsides, but upsides like increased green energy spending are worth it".
If you think that any statements that address the positive externalities of war simply shouldn't be uttered (because they glorify war, or encourage war, or whatever), then you're an idiot who thinks everyone else is an idiot.
Calling people idiots isn’t going to change people’s minds, and people hold bad opinions about things all the time for reasons that aren’t as simplistic as “they’re an idiot”.
As an example, I've encountered feminists who think that the very real issues men struggle with in America should not be discussed because the very act of discussing those issues might make some people think "hey, in some ways men are worse off then women" and this would influence those people to not support feminism. I'm not trying to pick on feminism here, it's just an example. If these feminists thought that the issues men face aren't real, or that the issues women face are so immeasurably worse as to make men's issue immaterial, that would be one thing and I would be happy to explain to them why I think they're wrong (and listen to their rebuttals). But I have no interest in engaging with someone who thinks that rhetoric can be suppressed and ignored just because it's inconvenient for them and their cause.
I do read the anger though, but I feel it's not the destructive kind, more the disappointed at the state of public discourse.
Instead it pretends it has significant upsides that are based upon a spurious theory.
Realistically renewables require an intense amount of capital that this war has suddenly made a lot more expensive. This will hamper green energy investment - older plants will be kept running for longer, new green energy plants won't get built. This will not be good for green energy.
The article is just a slightly less crass form of war cheerleading that they probably hope will age better than their 2003 Iraq war cheerleading.
Why are IEA forecasts spurious?
> less crass form of war cheerleading
Would the article be better if it just commented on the acceleration of investment in renewables, leaving unsaid the cause of said acceleration because some readers find it distasteful?
This is one of the more surprisingly anti-intellectual threads I’ve seen on HN.
What do they have to do with the war? Renewable energy was projected to grow anyway in spite of the war because of the declining costs of renewables.
However, since they are capital intense and war made capital expensive... that'll be a drag on investment, won't it?
>Would the article be better if it just commented on the acceleration of investment in renewables, leaving unsaid the cause of said acceleration
It would be better if they were honest about the cause.
>This is one of the more surprisingly anti-intellectual threads I’ve seen on HN.
If you say so.
And now it's growing faster. Because fossil fuel prices went up. That's the article's thesis.
They were exhibiting nothing more than a purely objective opinion based upon the purest of evidence of course.
Many Russians would believe that the idea that an article like that used spurious evidence to push a pro war agenda absurd. Like being pro drowning, as you put it.
This is basement-level trolling. The Russian economy shrank last year. Its central bank just forecast between a 1% contraction and 1% growth for 2023 [1].
[1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/russian-central-bank-...
A big decline in supply of fossil fuels (which is what has happened in Europe due to the war) shifts the trade-off significantly in favor of green energy. This shift can be so dramatic that it drives up the short term cost of green energy. That’s a good problem to have because it just means demand is really high, which can be solved by more investment in the supply side.
Your thesis that this would somehow reduce investment is completely backwards. You sell pickaxes during a gold rush, not before or after.
Yes, that's precisely why I said that the cost of capital going up due to war (higher interest rates) would have a dampening effect on green energy which is very capital intensive.
That's called "supply and demand in action".
The pro war argument (the Economist's) would *ignore* this facet, arguing only "fossil fuels are more expensive -> green energy will definitely be more popular".
It was quite a simple point.
If only someone looked at the rate of new and projected investment into green energy after a period of both (a) Russia invading Ukraine and (b) rising interest rates. They could write an article about it and clear up the confusion.
Which is what? What should they say about it?
You didn’t read the article because it never makes this claim. In particular, you got a foundational fact incorrect inasmuch as renewable prices are not going down. Nobody’s energy prices are. But relative to fossil fuels, on a real basis, they’ve become more competitive.
While I don't agree with the post you're replying to, the IEA has a long history of terrible predictions with renewable energy. Not sure if they've improved recently, but for the better part of two decades, they predicted negligible growth in the solar market, even after being contradicted every single year:
https://maartensteinbuch.com/2017/06/12/photovoltaic-growth-...
Just as the bad news about climate often uses the "faster than expected" cliche, the renewables stories are often about updates to predictions because they are higher than previously estimated.
It would be easy to assign that increase to any big event that had just occurred. I do notice some changes that I attribute to the war, but it's only pushing at an open door. On a global scale how much does it compare to solar being the cheapest form of energy and other technical, industrial and political progress decades in the making? I'm not sure I see any direct link for EV success. More that all the big manufacturers (with Japan as a weird outlier) with government connections being on board at last and FUD being dispelled.
No.
The government stepped in because poor people (and many not so poor) could not afford to heat their homes over winter.
It is (was) an emergency measure. The transition to green energy is well under way in the UK, regardless of temporary subsidies.
Saying "but the poor" while throwing money at the rich is pretty self-contradictory IMHO. If they'd at least made cash payments, even if it was the same per household, it would at least have incentivised people not to waste energy. But no, it specifically rewarded people for increasing their consumption.
But is there any evidence that's been the case, that people have increased their consumption?
Anecdotally, I can't think of anyone I know that hasn't actively reduced their usage
I do agree the implementation of the scheme was very poor.....
....the reasons for which are down to our current governments unfortunate mix of poor competence and fruity ideology (thank $Deity Liss Truss wasn't around for too long!)
And yes, some kind of flat cash payment that advantaged poorer people would've been better. And much as I loathe the Tories, I doubt they took the route they did because they wanted to give money to the rich in this case, or even encourage electricity usage growth. Assume incompetence before malice: they needed to do something to staunch the flow, and a price cap per unit was something they could do there and then without engaging extra bureaucracy, which a cash payment would've required.
It's a bad policy, but it's from the same government that paid people to eat out at restaurants during a viral pandemic, rather than a specific response to the war.
I'm not sure about here in the EU, but the UK has a cost of living crisis such that millions[0][1][2] are regularly skipping meals. People in that situation don't have the spare money be able to install PV or upgrade their insulation.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/one-four-britons-skip-meals...
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/jan/26/uk-student...
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/oct/18/millions-for...
- bread: £0.39 £0.05/100g
- chicken soup: £0.60 £0.15/100g
- 1KG rice: £0.48 £0.48/kg
- Baked beans: £0.50 £1.19/kg
- Kidney beans: £0.59 £2.46/kg DR.WT
- Tinned mackerel: £0.85 £0.97/100g DR.WT (sardines are half the price)
- Eggs: £0.20 / piece
- 500g pasta: £0.41 £0.82/kg
People are probably just used to eating take-out or buying £8 microwave dishes for the whole family and don't know how to cook on a budget.
If you're really desperate, markets usually put aside vegetables that are too old to sell but you can make soup out of them no problem.
This all isn't very appealing or even healthy (although compared to microwave or takeout ...), but at least you're not going hungry.
If you can only send your kid to school with 1 slice of bread, you have other problems than money.
It is when you consider many people simply don't know how to cook simple, healthy food. Our schools no longer teach basic cookery (and many parents neglected to pass on the skills).
Or more likely were never taught those skills, either.
Per calorie you can do similar with value brand digestives.
However, so far as I can see in the reporting, many people in the UK really are that short of money — It's not just not being able to budget right (dyscalculia is a thing, but not common enough to explain current observations by itself).
I also think that, just as pubs are required to supply free water on request[1], they should also supply free unflavoured lentils-and-rice on request, given how cheap it is.
> If you can only send your kid to school with 1 slice of bread, you have other problems than money.
They do indeed have other problems than money — money is also a problem, just not the only one.
I was going to add that a significant number can't even manage as much as one slice of bread, however all the news I can find specifically about schoolkids skipping specifically breakfast (and not the generic mass hunger I previously gave examples of) turned out to be reporting the same two studies by two different foods companies so I don't trust that factoid.
[0] 20 years ago: breakfast was Quaker oats with skimmed UHT, sugar, and whichever dried sultanas or raisins was cheaper; skipped lunch; dinner was Chinese instant noodles from Lidl at 13p per pack; total daily was about 50p. I could sustain this without feeling bad for 12 days out of 14, with cheese on toast the other two. My dad commented that I seemed to have lost weight by the end of term, so I'm not convinced that was genuinely sustainable despite feeling like it at the time.
[1] I'm told the law is more complicated, but in practice this is observed
This isn't about money. We have 64% of the adult population overweight and obese, 22% at age 5, and 37% at age 10. All those numbers are growing.
The excuse often brought up is that it's "expensive to eat healthy". Absolute bollocks. It's far more expensive to eat ready-meals, order takeaway, and dine out than to buy ingredients and cook.
For snacks, a banana costs £0.15 and fills you up for longer than a £1.00 chocolate bar. But people want the chocolate bar!
I've lived in a city centre apartment block for the last few years. The frequency with which I've seen the people around me having McDonalds, burgers, pizzas, and other oily, salty, high fat, high calorie food delivered shocks me. For some people, it's upwards of 5 times a week!
If you go to a "local" or "express" supermarket, microwavable ready meals and junk food represent most of the aisles, and when you take a glance at the shopper next to you, they are buying mostly junk and inconvenience food.
If you go to a supermarket after school closing time, you'll see tens/hundreds of kids buying energy drinks (despite the age limit), multipacks of chocolates, biscuits, sweets, crisps, 1 litre bottles of pop. Evidently, they have the money for it (from their parents). University students across the country keep fast food and takeaways in business via their student loans and grants.
When people here do cook, it's:-
1) Stir fry 2) Spaghetti Bolognese 3) Pasta and sauce dish 4) Something on toast/jacket potato
Every meal that gets microwaved in my office for lunch is one of these 4 things. Basically just throwing a bunch of stuff in a wok and mixing for 10 minutes.
This is of course all anecdotal, but it's plain as day that it's about personal choice for many people, and not money. Our country has a serious problem with food and alcohol addiction, and an extreme aversion to exercise. Most people would wipe out their life savings/all of their income to eat slop as much as possible, at the detriment to their finances and health.
Every stage of British life, from infanthood, primary and high school, to university and beyond prepare the population for gorging on high energy, salty, oily junk food.
We will easily hit 75% overweight/obesity by the end of the decade.
I have panels too. But I also have friends that can't pay their energy bill this month.
https://www.lbbd.gov.uk/news/2021/free-solar-panels-barking-...
(there is now an income limit which I disagree with but whatever...)
I told my neighbours and enthusiastically recommended them.
They "weren't sure". Here we are 2 years later and they're concerned about energy prices.
The problem here is not and should not be money. I'd be all for free insulation, solar panels, better boilers, etc. And we rightly already do all that.
Then people say no because doing things is scary and why bother when you'll just be bailed out? That's the "small-c conservative" mindset we need to get out of. It causes 101 other social issues too but now I am just ranting.
I hope the link above inspires others to get them too
The first statement is not correct and the continuation is misleading. It was not an individual descision of minister Habeck (Green party) to allow the demolition of Lützerath, but of the German federal parliament with its majority of Labour (SPD), Greens and Liberals (FDP) in the context of its Coal-fired Power Generation Termination Act ("Kohleverstromungsbeendigungsgesetz"). The previous version of the law from August 2020, enacted by a colation of the Conservatives (CDU/CSU) and Labour (SPD), provided for the demolition of five more villages and some little settlements. This was later, in March 2021, altered into its present form by a so-called guiding decision of the government (a coalition of Conservatives and Liberals) of North Rhine-Westphalia, the state in which Lüzerath is located, on which the modified federal law from December 2022 was based.
The Green Party of minister Harbeck was clearly the political force that had pushed hardest for a phase-out of coal as quickly and as extensively as possible. Of course, there are critics who believe that what has been achieved was not enough. Be that as it may, less would probably have been achieved without the participation of the Greens. For this reason it is dubious journalism to single him out.
An it is also not only very low quality journalism, but deliberate misinformation not to mention that Lützerath represents the end of coal mining in the region and instead putting it into the context of an alleged reopening of coal mines.
1) Supply is constrained (by the war and sanctions), demand is fixed to rising, so price goes up.
2) Price goes up, so there is more demand for alternatives, including dirty ones (coal) but also green ones (solar, wind, etc).
3) Increased investment in green energy sources will make them more competitive faster than expected and thus spur the transition.
The article is worth the read. Apparently "S&P Global, a data firm, thinks emissions from energy combustion will peak in 2027, at a level the world would still be producing in 2028 had the war not happened." This isn't theorized market activity, it's actual changes in generation capacity plans made over the last twelve months.
The salient difference being the state intervention this time around. Fracking was largely private R&D.
Finally, the government provided $10 billion in tax cuts for unconventional gas drilling over the past thirty years, so even that private R&D was subsidized.
If you want a meaningful comparison it should be something like dollars per kWh.
Also, renewables were already very competitive before the war started. The added price uncertainty since then is just widening the gap. Anyone who has the option is considering putting solar on their roof, replacing their gas boiler with a heat pump, and buying an EV. Once people start receiving 1000 euro monthly bills for heating, people are going to get creative trying to fix that. Such a thing has happened this winter and people are acting accordingly.
2) Price goes up
2 a) Demand remains the same or increases (we're talking about energy so demand will always be increasing)
2 b) there is more demand for alternatives, including dirty ones (coal) but also green ones (solar, wind, etc).
3) Businesses see an opportunity for higher returns
3 a) Increased investment in fossil fuel energy sources to take advantage of the higher prices. Wells with dirtier oil that were idle are brought back online because they are profitable, higher cost extraction gears up like tar sands.
3 b) Increased investment in green energy sources to take advantage of higher energy prices.
Looks like the type of comment you'd find on a boomer conspiracy theorists facebook group
https://www.world-grain.com/articles/16539-ports-grain-facil...
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/7480
https://www.oaklandinstitute.org/sites/oaklandinstitute.org/...
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-agriculture-farmland-economy...
>in 2014 Cargill did buy a 5% share in UkrLandFarming, one of the largest landholders in Ukraine
>Despite the moratorium on private land transfers, more than two million hectares — or about 7,700 square miles — of land have ended up being controlled by foreign companies through leases, Mousseau said. The largest investors are companies from Cyprus, the U.S. and the Netherlands.
The article you linked thoroughly debunks the claim that "Zelenskyy sold 17 million hectares of farmland to U.S. corporations". Fine, except I imagine it's not really what anyone repeating it was interested in.
The "Zelensky", "sold", and "17 million" bits are minor details that don't change the thrust of the claim, which is that US interests control huge amounts of farmland in the Ukraine. This presumably happened just before the war and means that the US... something something, blah blah - I'm not interested in pursuing this further, as I doubt there's anything insightful to discover there. But my point is, the article focused on debunking the details and called the claim false, even though it actually proved the core of the claim true.
"Zelensky sold 17 million hectares" may not be precisely equivalent to "western corporations took control of at least 3 million hectares", but it still barks up the same tree. But instead of exploring the more accurate version of the claim to see if it leads anywhere interesting, we just have one group sharing the spiced up pop version, the other debunking the irrelevant details of it, and both being smug about how superior they are to the idiots on the other side.
Smh.
--
[0] - I.e. ones not involving aliens, the Illuminati, reptilians, etc.
It's been like this for a while, in the USA at least. I remember growing up it was common for people to lease out the land near their homes. Every season, you'd see combines driving down the roads from one patch of land to the other. People who farmed the land themselves typically did so for fun.
Fragility, monopoly, monopsony. All things that are a net negative but still count as efficiency.
I'm not sure I understand the comment. Is what you're presenting negative?
You think the Dutch state owns farms? No it's banks. Ukraine opened itself up to foreign investment and small family run farms are swallowed up. Happened everywhere and now it's happening in Ukraine.
In addition the storage fluid can be rather friendly substance from a environment perspective (some use drinkable salty water). And cheap. And if you have a old pool or a old oil tank in your house you are basically halfway there regarding installation. Its basically chemical storage of energy, allowing for the (re)use of preexisting installations.
It looks real though: https://simonhackett.com/2021/05/23/redflow-gen3-zbm/
Datasheet: https://redflow.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/RDF1199-Redfl...
Nothing on price
The downside of flow batteries is that they're no longer solid state - they have mechanical pumping elements that require maintenance. I've only ever heard them discussed in the context of grid or industrial sized units, where the value provided by scale is enough to make the servicing economically worthwhile.
Which chemistry manages to use drinkable water for storage?
Gelion in Australia makes a zinc-bromine battery with an 87% RTE per their IPO filings. I've been watching them closely, but I've been hesitant to invest in a company whose products probably have years before they're in serious demand. Most flow batteries are well below 87% RTE.
https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/VRFB-battery-energy-s...
https://www.powerinfotoday.com/hydroelectric/redflow-reduces...
I’m seeing more and more of a new kind type of climate denialism pop up lately, which I like to call climate optimism. A climate optimist is aware that the climate crisis is real, is caused by humans, and is an existential threat to humanity. However, they claim that the worst of the climate crisis has already been solved with technology and capitalism. I.e. they think that the current and developing technology solution will prevent more climate disasters and now it is just up to the free market to apply it. In other words, there is nothing more that governments must do but to stop subsidizing the fossil fuel industry (sometimes natural gas is excepted). A prime example of a climate optimist is the youtube channel Kurzgesagt. But I see this a lot from people that like to cite Our World In Data.
This is climate denial because it completely ignores global trends in carbon emissions, production capabilities, infrastructure rollout in poorer economies, etc. We are still increasing our carbon emissions (albeit at a slower rate) at a time when we needed to have stopped releasing CO2 altogether.
EDIT: After reading the article (as someone posted an archive) I see—to my surprise—that this article is not guilty of my accusations.
It makes no conclusions about the future beyond these models and does not hand-wave away climate risk at all.
You point to Kurzgesagt, and while I'm not much of a fan of them, their most recent video on climate change presents a view that the situation is dire but not hopeless, which is a healthy view to present if you're aiming to convince people to care.
What's the "appropriate" response that you'd feel okay with?
I don’t think communism will save us actually (and we don’t have time to wait for a communist revolution anyway), and forcing people to adopt veganism or pre-industrial lifestyles isn’t gonna work either. But we do have to put a limit to carbon entitled behavior. We do have to limit the number of private cars on the roads, and the amount of meat in the western dinner plate. We could have done it gradually but at this point there is no option left but a hefty carbon tax which will prove fatal to many of these industries.
What is the appropriate response I feel okay with? Not denying the severity of the situation. Claiming that we’ve solved the climate crisis is a simple lie (this article doesn’t do that by the way; I think it is important to mention that).
You say we don't have time for a communist revolution. We don't have time for any kind of revolution, because revolutions famously don't really work or improve anything. This is extra relevant because your other statements still lean on the premise of a revolution happening, just one with consequences you think are more important than communism.
As for revolutions. I don't think what I'm calling for is anywhere near to a revolution. We only have to reduce our meat consumption and our private car travels. We consumed less meat and drove less just a couple of decades ago—at the start of this mess. And today we have technology and—more imortantly—infrastructure to mitigate some of the pain of this reduction. Ideally we need to go far further but like you correctly said, we don't have time for that.
Thing is, it already did. RCP8.5 is not going to happen, because it overestimated China's current-day coal usage by 500%.
Meanwhile events like the COVID pandemic and Russian invasion ultimately prevented the world from breaking the 2019 CO2 emissions record of 40.9Gt.
I'm not saying we should sit back and relax, but perhaps it's not all doom and gloom.
There, I fixed the title.
Recently, there was an HN thread about large amounts of UK wind curtailment. The largest battery storage system in Europe just went live to provide grid services that’ll negate the need for natural gas to provide those services, while reducing wind curtailment.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34358795
https://www.energy-storage.news/europes-largest-transmission...
A secondary role for LNG is to power gas peaker plants when renewables fall short. Mainly this can be done with existing gas plants. There's very little need for building more of those. Also, coal plants remain popular for this. Before the war the plan was replacing coal with gas plants. With current gas prices, that plan is out of the window and we're now looking at increased speed of the rollout of wind, solar, and batteries instead.
> that plan is out of the window
There hasn't been officially confirmed, soon there will be a report called "Power plant strategy 2026" that will give a better outlook as to what is gonna happen this decade.
It's a highly political topic.
Blue hydrogen from LNG is more of a research topic / aspirational thing for the fossil fuel industry than it is an actual thing. This seems to be more of a talking point than something that is being done at scale with any decent capture of carbon.
LNG in the industry is of course a thing. Heating things is done with gas and coal mostly. A lot of that will have to be transitioned away to something else. Hydrogen might be an option. But some industries might also switch to other forms of heating. E.g. there are some ways to use electricity directly for this via things like induction or plasma heating. Historically, using fossil fuels was cheap. But when you are going to use vast amounts of electricity to generate green hydrogen for industrial heating use cases, this changes. Using the electricity directly might be more efficient in some cases.
Oh good, only 3,000 more of these and things should be peachy.
War and subsidies have turbocharged the LNG and green transition.
The IEA projects "renewables are set to account for 90% of the increase in global generation capacity" between 2022 and 2027, "almost 30% higher than the agency’s forecast in 2021."
You want actual production figures for 2027?
But it's a system that President Putin, or anyone else can't withhold. Relationships change.
LNG from America ain't it.
Classic Rothchild/Agnelli Economist - never mind the 'heat or eat' struggling humans, this is really helping the 'renewable power' industrialists...
Im sure the western powers are extremely sad about the war, despite how it obviously amplifies a longstanding agenda. Coincidence, im sure.