European energy situation

[Koolau]

From Financial Times:

Germany is going to set the thermostat at 19C (66F) this winter to reduce natural gas consumption. It is trying to fill the storage tanks to 95% by November 1, before the winter comes. They are at 75% now.

Klaus Müller, head of the federal network agency (BNA), will be in charge of rationing gas supplies. He said residential users would have top priorities, and added that there was no way to make people cut back usage, but he hoped that people would cooperate. Müller is working hard to determine the priorities of the commercial and industrial users.


Notes: In 1977, US president Carter called for US citizens to set the thermostat at 65F during the energy crisis.

In France, the grocery chain Carrefour said it would set the temperature in its stores to 19C (66F), and was prepared to lower it to 17C (63F) if needed.

We don't have a thermostat and the temp rarely gets down to 65F. But seriously, Europe, and hopefully the rest of the world is learning not to trust their energy (or anything else) to others that differ radically on geopolitical issues. It just doesn't make sense. Let's hope this all shakes out with out too much misery. YMMV

 

[NW-Bound]

It's not easy for Europe to be energy independent when it has little oil and gas reserves. Besides Norway which has some oil at 63x its own annual consumption, the remaining countries have no oil to speak of. Some time ago, when researching how Germany keeps itself warm in the winter, I read about its gas import, and learned that besides Russia, the Netherlands also supplies some gas to Germany. But sadly, the Dutch gas reserve is a minuscule 18x its own annual consumption.

I just don't see how people will survive on iffy wind and solar power without nuclear energy. Perhaps something wonderful and miraculous will get invented soon.

 

[ls99]

Well, Germany can invade Russia again to secure gas supplies. Though the last time it did, did not work out too well. They can hope for Russia to go bankrupt and buy it.

 

[Teacher Terry]

Poland still uses coal. In winter the air pollution is bad.

 

[mpeirce]

I mean, to be fair, the only thing less environmentally friendly than burning coal is using lots of fuel oil to ship the same amount of coal thousands of miles!

I know people are working on techniques for producing steel with alternatives like hydrogen, but for now the only economic way to produce steel is with coal.

 

[Koolau]

Poland still uses coal. In winter the air pollution is bad.

Some (a lot?) of their coal comes from Russia. Prices for coal have gone up dramatically - all this directly from a friend who lives in eastern Poland.

 

[ls99]

I know people are working on techniques for producing steel with alternatives like hydrogen, but for now the only economic way to produce steel is with coal.

Yep, no added carbon from coked (no the white suff won't work) coal, no steel. Recycling steel or iron is energy hungry. Pick source for energy electric, coal, gas, oil, nuke, or if lucky Hydro. Forget the green stuff, it is unreliable to run a plant.

 

[Spock]

Despite the expected energy shortages, Germany is saying they may NOT keep their nuke plants open past the end of the year.
Apparently it's not really a crisis for them so no need to make energy more expensive here by shipping it there.

BERLIN, Aug 16 (Reuters) - Germany's government denied a media report on Tuesday that it had decided to postpone the closure of its last three nuclear power plants, saying it would make its final decision once it received the results of ongoing stress tests.
The plants are due to be shut down by the end of the year under legislation introduced by the government of former Chancellor Angela Merkel

 

[Telly]

From Financial Times:
In France, the grocery chain Carrefour said it would set the temperature in its stores to 19C (66F), and was prepared to lower it to 17C (63F) if needed.

I was in Paris, La Defense and a suburb in the '90s, work-related, in winter. Everyplace was so blasted HOT inside! If we opened a window to try to breathe, someone would close it in a few minutes, and make a mumbled utterance like windows were never meant to be opened, ever. Many French smoked, it was awful, stifling. They seemed to avoid any outside air, that it was bad, like "the miasma, the miasma"
Only fixed windows in the hotel I was in, I turned the temp down as far as it would go... still way too warm! The room above/below/to the left and right and wall to hallway were all conducting heat into my room. The heat loss through the windows to outside was not enough to let it cool down. I slept awful.
It's been years, don't know if anything has changed there.

 

[eytonxav]

A TED talk from a once strong renewables advocate:

 

[Koolau]

A TED talk from a once strong renewables advocate:

Yes, this TED talk has been presented recently in another thread IIRC. There are literally dozens of similar presentations available that discuss the limitations of renewables. Yet, in fits and starts, "we" (whoever that is) keep marching down this road to replacing FFs with renewables, even though "we" have no idea if it will work or if, heaven forbid, it will make things worse or have unintended consequences.

Most of the media "discussions" end up with people pointing fingers and calling each other names. That's not too helpful in the great scheme of things. The "watch word" these days is "denier." If anyone suggests a flaw in the march toward renewables they are called a "denier." In fact, as this guy (sorry, forget his name) points out, he's all for saving the planet from the ravages of climate change (which he obviously believes in.) Yet, in some circles, I'm certain he would be considered a climate "heretic" (denier) because he doesn't believe in the orthodoxy of wind/solar as our salvation. Throwing in the concept of nuclear as our savior probably makes him the devil incarnate in certain circles.

So, now that we have general agreement that climate change - or whatever we call it - is real, maybe cooler heads can find some agreement on how we approach the issue rather than simply calling people deniers who disagree with how to solve it. End of rant or whatever this is as YMMV.

 

[Pellice]

Yet, in fits and starts, "we" (whoever that is) keep marching down this road to replacing FFs with renewables, even though "we" have no idea if it will work or if, heaven forbid, it will make things worse or have unintended consequences.

So, now that we have general agreement that climate change - or whatever we call it - is real, maybe cooler heads can find some agreement on how we approach the issue rather than simply calling people deniers who disagree with how to solve it. End of rant or whatever this is as YMMV.

Yet, how else will the issue be approached except in "fits and starts?" Couldn't that phrasing be reframed as "gradual" - which it certainly is, it's been going on for 40 years - or even "cautious"?

The consensus on climate change also includes a consensus that we can't keep doing what we're doing, particularly as regards fossil fuels. It's not as though they're being abandoned at lightning speed. Here in NJ they account for the majority of energy generation, and it's not stopping any time soon.

The new climate legislation passed yesterday explicitly calls for continuing support and upgrading of nuclear power plants. And, watching Europe's largest nuclear power plant become a wartime target, well, that does make me think that every power source warrants caution. Nor does the new legislation cut off subsidies for fossil fuel production.

I guess the alternative to "fits and starts" would be "a comprehensive global plan." But even saying those words makes me smile at their impossibility. I don't mention a true capitalist market for energy because that hasn't been the case, ever (thinking of the wars over oil).

Could this new legislation be regarded as "some agreement on how we approach the issue?" since it has some incentives for most types of production, even coal, at least according to Joe Manchin.*


JM writes ("The reality is I specifically ensured that the Inflation Reduction Act provides incentives that would benefit coal. That includes increasing the value of the 45Q CCUS tax credit and providing direct pay for the first 5 years to help fossil plants. This is in contrast to the electricity tax credits that benefit renewables, which do not have direct pay.")

 

[eytonxav]

So, now that we have general agreement that climate change - or whatever we call it - is real, maybe cooler heads can find some agreement on how we approach the issue rather than simply calling people deniers who disagree with how to solve it. End of rant or whatever this is as YMMV.

The problem is that politicians do not want to take a stand against anything that is the current prevailing thinking and that would be contrary to their green narrative.

 

[Music Lover]

So, now that we have general agreement that climate change - or whatever we call it - is real, maybe cooler heads can find some agreement on how we approach the issue rather than simply calling people deniers who disagree with how to solve it. End of rant or whatever this is as YMMV.

It's interesting that supposedly this is one of the most pressing issues of our time but no one is allowed to ask inconvenient questions or point out certain facts that are overlooked, and any debate is actively discouraged.

I'm always skeptical when debate is not allowed, especially when the only solution involves taking more money out of my pocket.

 

[ERD50]

Yet, how else will the issue be approached except in "fits and starts?" Couldn't that phrasing be reframed as "gradual" - which it certainly is, it's been going on for 40 years - or even "cautious"? ...

I don't think it's an issue of bringing on RE too fast, the issue is closing the nukes and FF plants too soon to assure we have a stable grid during the transition (and probably for a long, long time, as I just don't see much in the way of viable storage at the levels we would need).

You covered some of this in your post.

.... The consensus on climate change also includes a consensus that we can't keep doing what we're doing, particularly as regards fossil fuels. ...

The last time I did a "deep dive" into the IPCC reports, I was struck at just how little effect an even very dramatic and instant move (actual past history now) away from FF would have. IMO, this is the 'scam' with regards to climate change. Getting off FF at any realizable (but still very aggressive) schedule just doesn't do much, too much is 'baked in the cake' already.

I suspect that our resources (money, time, human 'energy') are better invested in adaptation, and research - maybe there are better ways to stave off CC than shutting down FF so aggressively?

-ERD50

 

[bloom2708]

I have this same hunch about Electric Cars. Solar and Wind cannot save the planet and end up doing more harm.

Will the same be true about electric vehicles? A noble push with unintended results.

 

[Alan]

After discussion we have decided to close this thread as it has drifted well away from the OP’s original question and is now simply another thread on Climate change.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.