[TrackerFF]

Hopefully the current energy crisis (in Europe) will further accelerate development in renewable energy.

Seems much of Europe is still chained to LNG, and that demand is even wreaking havoc in countries which have been previously quite self-sustained, or really don't use LNG much themselves - with Norway being a good example.

[trgn]

Europe is going to come out strong out of this whole mess.

The political unity so quickly after the start of the war was unexpected (and admirable).

Ten years from now, Europeans will drive electric (if they'll drive at all), solar panels will be everywhere, and the continued flex-work-from-home revolution will have created an enormous amount of extra time for everybody. They'll be comfy in their sustainable homes and healthy cities, those few years of inflation a memory only.

It's a tough transition, that eventually every country needs to make, but Europe will be ahead of the rest of the world by miles.

And in the US, 10 years from now, the next gas price spike will again have people start to whine (yet again), we'll still be coughing on fumes when dropping our kids of at their school, the energy grid will continue to be unreliable in face of every minor or major natural disaster, and we'll wonder why nothing really materially has changed (and then blame the government).

[TacticalCoder]

> Ten years from now, Europeans will drive electric (if they'll drive at all)

Most cars sold in Europe aren't electric: only 13%. Average car life in Europe is 11 years or something like that. So, no, ten years from now Europeans won't be all driving electric, far from it. Also something like 2/3rd of all europeans live in suburbs or rural: so, yes, they'll still be driving (or using horses). People enjoying the public transports in cities are a minority.

[sofixa]

> Also something like 2/3rd of all europeans live in suburbs or rural

European Suburb != American suburb. I live in the suburbs of Paris, and i have two regular train lines (as in 15 minutes cadence in off peak times) within walking distance. The vast majority of commuters in and around Paris use public transit, even when they live in small towns of a few hundred/thousand inhabitants (because even those tend to have train stations). Car trips still exist, but there are massive new projects to improve public transit even more (multiple hundreds of km of new metro lines in the suburbs, multiple new tram lines in the suburbs, etc.).

[grnmamba]

Given the current uncertainty that people will be able to heat their homes in the winter, the threat of widespread power outages, and the rising cost of living across the board: No, it won't come out stronger. Once the first blackout hits, support for economic sanctions against Russia will evaporate, and people will demand a return to their previous living standards. The idea of a green fantasyland without cars is fiction.

[sofixa]

The Russophobe Eastern Europeans will absolutely stand by the sanctions. Everything is Russia's fault, they should be made to pay instead of us buckling under their blackmail. Pro-Russian elements in those countries will be loud but are IMHO unlikely to win except maybe in Bulgaria and Hungary (where they are already in power).

Western Europe, we'll see. Germany seems the most likely to crack with their appeasement bullshit and shameless ex-politicians. Fingers crossed they don't.

[timeon]

> The political unity so quickly after the start of the war was unexpected (and admirable).

It was there for few weeks. But soon everyone was blaming others for the situation and not doing enough.

[tomjen3]

The price to drive an electric car has spiked recently.

We are in this shit because of Putins war (75% of the blame), Europes general hatred of having a military (15%, say), and finaly Biden not being willing to use military force directly to stop Russia.

We can't do anything about the first, it will take decades to solve the second, but if Biden was willing to take of the gloves, Donbas and Crimera + a good chunk of Southern Russia could be in Ukranian hands come spring.

Then we could open up for their gas fields and end the problem.

Russia will try to push the narrative that this will mean a direct confrontation between them and NATO, but having seen how they do in Ukraine, this hardly matters.

Yes Russia have nukes, and some of their rockets no doubt work, but this scenarios does not trigger their criteria for use of nukes.

[olegious]

While Russia is for sure to blame for taking the final action by launching the war, let's not pretend the US hasn't been meddling in Ukraine for years across multiple administrations. I'd argue that in fact we can do something about "the first." Ukraine is a proxy war between Russia and the US, one that has been brewing since at least 2008.

Only a fool believes a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO/US is a good outcome or would improve the situation. Also let's not fall into the trap of believing propaganda about military performance from either side, it will take years for an honest assessment to come out.

[frumper]

It doesn't sound right to suggest there are criteria for using nukes. The only thing that needs to happen is someone with them decides to use them and does.

[tomjen3]

>Dmitry Medvedev, a former Russian president, who now serves as deputy chairman of the country's security council, outlined four ways that Russia could be "entitled to" use its nuclear arsenal—even against a nation that is only using conventional weapons.

>Number one is the situation, when Russia is struck by a nuclear missile. The second case is any use of other nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies," Medvedev said Saturday, according to The Guardian. "The third is an attack on a critical infrastructure that will have paralyzed our nuclear deterrent forces. And the fourth case is when an act of aggression is committed against Russia and its allies, which jeopardized the existence of the country itself, even without the use of nuclear weapons, that is, with the use of conventional weapons."

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-lists-justifications-use-nuc...

[frumper]

I don't doubt they have outlined when they will use them, I doubt that I trust humans to always follow a plan. Humans sometimes behave unpredictably, or even irrationally.

[viraptor]

> Hopefully the current energy crisis (in Europe) will further accelerate development in renewable energy.

Or investment into basic insulation and house upgrades. Single glazing and simple brick is still very common in the UK. Many houses could use much less energy if they didn't lose lots of it through the windows and ceilings in the first place.

[omnimus]

UK is not europe anymore :x. European north and center is highly insulated. By law in most coutries.

[detaro]

The UK didn't magically move on the map just because it left the EU.

[omnimus]

But it also is not representative of europe in general in insulation.

[data_maan]

There is nothing that needs to be developed for renewables per se, it is already available: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy

It just needs to implemented!

Just imagine how much the politicians suck: Science has given them the solution for the energy problem, science has showed how to even make it economically, and has done that already years ago. All politics would have to do is implemented. But they cannot even do that ...

[Lyapunov]

Hydro isn't available everywhere and wind as well as solar are unreliable. Energy storage in the required dimension is an unsolved problem too. So whatever you're trying to say here is unfounded.

[alkonaut]

If energy costs a lot, then anyone who can offer to sell energy production obviously has an attractive product. The problem as I see it is that what's needed is plannable capacity. While there is always need for more capacity, what we need most is capacity that works regardless of whether there is water in the rivers or wind in the turbines. And that's not easy. Biomass and Biogas for example.

[ephbit]

> Biomass and Biogas for example.

Right.

And this has a very important implication. For home owners who're currently deciding which heating technology to replace an oil or gas furnace with.

Biomass and Biogas will be needed urgently in the near future to supply powerplants (of utility order of magnitude) that can then stabilize the electrical grid against the fluctuations that are going to be caused by more and more wind and solar power.

The way I see it - as enticing as it may be - to replace an oil/gas furnace with a wood pellet powered one in our current situation is the wrong choice in the long-term.

The prices for electricity will rise further, yes, but the crucial role of biomass and biogas as one means to stabilize the grid will IMO lead to even greater price increases for the latter.

[timeon]

Wish I was optimistic like you. The other possibility is that there will be more coal (Germany, Poland, Czech Republic are already heavy producers). Norway may cut EU and UK from their electricity production (it seems to be #1 topic there and there were already articles comparing current network with NAZI-era plans on NRK). etc.

[pydry]

Unfortunately we'd need another 5 years to really make a difference whereas the gas crisis is going to hit us in months.

[Someone1234]

True. But 5-years ago this national security reliance on foreign gas prices was well known, and little was done in the intervening time. The worry is that when the current crisis subsides that inaction will yet again fall back into favor.

The solutions are, in part:

- National gas storage reserve (to buffet price/supply spikes somewhat).

- Expansion of green energy.

- Programs to reduce usage (e.g. home and business improvements).

Luckily for the UK extremely efficient heat pump based heating/cooling solutions that offer greater than 100% efficiency exist[0]. It is just a matter of the political will to covert away from gas to electricity and then retrofitting homes.

[0] https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/heat-pump-systems

[Schroedingersat]

COP is not efficiency. Efficiency is what you did / what you had the resources to do in an ideal world.

That makes thermal chemical heating 20-50% efficient, thermal electric heating 10-30% and heat pumps 50-70% efficient (depending on where you draw the boundaries).

You could also draw the limit at reduced carnot efficiency rather than reversibility, in which case heat pumps can be close to 100%

[Someone1234]

This is such pointless pedantry. Heat pumps having an efficiency greater than 1/100% is well known, well publicized, and you're trying to make some artificial distinction here that added nothing to this thread/context/discussion.

See:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/489467/can-a-hea...

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/06/heat-pumps-work-miracles/

I won't be further responding to this sub-topic, since it has nothing at all to do with the UK's inflation/energy prices. Plus frankly I feel like you're trying to confuse people rather than inform, I'd point people to the Department of Energy link above if they want to understand the benefit that modern heat pumps could offer to energy usage.

[Schroedingersat]

Characterizing them as >100% efficient is poor communication. It doesn't map to any intuitive understanding, it does not communicate anything about how much heating could be done with that energy (thus leading to people believing absurd claims), and it does not map to either the colloquial or technical meaning of efficiency in any other context.

Efficiency as a concept doesn't go over 100% and just because confusing and misleading explanations are the norm doesn't mean they should continue.

[danhor]

> It doesn't map to any intuitive understanding, it does not communicate anything about how much heating could be done with that energy

But that's exactly what it does. It's technically wrong, but communicates the understanding that you put 100% of electrical energy into it and get 250-450% of heating energy for your home out of it, as opposed to 100% with resistive heating. That some of the electrical energy comes out of the air outside or from the ground is irrelevant for most people.

What are absurd claims you reference?

[pydry]

It's not like this was an earthquake that we idly knew would come one day that just suddenly hit us out of the blue.

NATO made a deliberate decision to bring Ukraine into the fold in 2019 and Russia reacted predictably, but not before giving us an opportunity to back down first: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/02/world/europe/us-nato-resp...

We dove into this knowing full well the dire energy risks that escalation posed to Europe and are now acting shocked that we didnt prepare.

Even now Stoltenburg's official line is basically "suck it up, Europe" which I assume means that NATO leadership is perfectly comfortable with the idea of a European economic disaster this winter.

The solutions you mentioned are all great in theory but the workable ones mostly all have a 5-10 year horizon and we have a problem now.

[sofixa]

Russian war crimes apologists are the worst. Nobody forced Russia to invade a sovereign country (or to consider itself the rightful owner of those lands for that matter), that's entirely their fault. And it was mind bogglingly stupid, as we can see a few months in, with the massive losses to their army and economy. It wasn't something to prepare for because it was unthinkable. It was still a huge risk to prepare for though.

[pydry]

Nobody forced NATO to expand to Ukraine either. Or to invade Libya. Or to invade Iraq/Afghanistan.

Whataboutism as a rationale for war escalation with a nuclear power is insane.

To consider reining in NATO expansion war to be equivalent to war crime apologetics is beyond absurd.

If we get to winter and the Russian economy fares better than ours (and at first glance it looks like it will) then a lot of people should be eating a lot of humble pie.

Alas I suspect theyll just call for escalation.

[sofixa]

> Nobody forced NATO to expand to Ukraine either

Cut the Russian propaganda, NATO didn't expand to Ukraine. Ukraine, a sovereign country, wanted to join NATO, as is their every right. Denying Ukraine that right and excusing Russia's war crimes is pretty bad.

[armitron]

> Nobody forced Russia to invade a sovereign country (or to consider itself the rightful owner of those lands for that matter), that's entirely their fault.

Alas, the world doesn't operate based on the moral principles you imply, but cold hard realpolitik. Actions have consequences in the great power game between nation states.

> And it was mind bogglingly stupid, as we can see a few months in, with the massive losses to their army and economy.

The Russian economy is doing fine, business with India and China is thriving. "Massive losses to their army" I believe is far from accurate. I'll be greatly surprised if at the end of this, Ukraine isn't economically destroyed, geographically devastated. Territories lost will remain lost, and the deaths of so many people will have been for nothing more than furthering the geopolitical and industrial interests of the main instigators.

[sofixa]

> Alas, the world doesn't operate based on the moral principles you imply, but cold hard realpolitik. Actions have consequences in the great power game between nation states.

If there's anything the Russian invasion of Ukraine isn't, it's realpolitik. Invading a country because "they aren't a real country and they should be ours" is as far as the cold practicality of realpolitik as possible. (Unless you choose to believe Russia's propaganda that it was all due to NATO's expansion, which even if true is even stupider - check Finland and Sweden which joined). Invading with the walking clown of an excuse of an army is also pretty far from practical considerations.

> The Russian economy is doing fine, business with India and China is thriving.

What are you basing this on? Have you checked their official interest rates, inflation rates (of course a bucket of salt is to be applied with those) and the warnings from the central bank governess? Not only is their economy not doing great, they are still yet to feel the effects of being cut off from industrial machinery and electronics they used to rely on. China and India can't replace all their planes, tractors, cars, trucks, phones, computers.

> "Massive losses to their army" I believe is far from accurate

Well thankfully people are actively working on this so we don't have to "believe" into anything. We have cold hard data from the ground in OSINT, compiled by volunteers such as Oryx. The fog of war is certainly obscuring things, but it's plainly obvious to see that Russian losses are massive in absolute and relative terms, in men and matériel. And the Russian army confirms that itself by the type of machines it fields (they've started reactivating obsolete tanks from the reserves) and it's desperate recruitment drives.

[_kbh_]

> The Russian economy is doing fine, business with India and China is thriving. "Massive losses to their army" I believe is far from accurate. I'll be greatly surprised if at the end of this, Ukraine isn't economically destroyed, geographically devastated. Territories lost will remain lost, and the deaths of so many people will have been for nothing more than furthering the geopolitical and industrial interests of the main instigators.

1,000 tanks and close to 45k soldiers either KIA or WIA is not “massive losses”?. The world thought Russia had years worth of tanks, turns out it only took 6 months before they started breaking out the the 4 man T62s.

[TrueGeek]

The best time to install a solar panel is 5 years ago. The second best time is today.

[missedthecue]

The problem for europe is that solar panels, windfarms, and nuclear power plants don't produce natural gas. Electricity is great, but it's not a replacement for natural gas by itself. In Germany, only 25% of natgas usage is accounted for by electricity production.

[tialaramex]

It isn't difficult to synthesise methane (which is what natural gas is). You "just" need lots of energy. If the problem was "Even if we have plenty of electricity, how will we get methane?" the answer is you just synthesise it. Right now Europe's problem is keeping the lights on and their people alive in the coming winter.

Like many European countries, it is usual to heat German homes with gas boilers. You could (and if we don't want even worse climate change, must) replace those with electrical heating, most likely heat pumps with resistive backup. A heat pump doesn't care whether the electricity powering it is from a solar panel or a wind farm or what.

[trashtester]

Electricity, if the price is low enough, can fully replace almost every use case for natural gas. This will require some level of investment, of course, such as replacing gas ovens with electric ovens (or better, heat pumps) as well as replacing gas machinery with electric alternatives for most industries.

There MAY be a few cases where alternatives are harder to find (where you need the chemistry of the gas rather than the energy), but that is a pretty small percentage overall.

But to produce energy at prices that are competitive to typical prices for NG is pretty hard without either coal or cost efficient nuclear, at least in colder climates. Solar is perhaps close to becoming cheaper in sunny, dry areas further south, but wind power looks like a poor alternative at the scale needed, since it's so unreliable. Maybe one day batteries or other storage will be cheap enough that we can store wind power for a week or more, but for now, it looks like the only low-CO2 option is nuclear.

[dogma1138]

I suggest you look at how much natural gas is used by the chemical industry, in Germany ~25% of the natural gas consumed is consumed by non-energy related uses as in not heating, electricity production, smelting cooking etc, with ammonia and fertilizer production accounting for about 15% of total consumption alone.

That isn’t a small percentage and those industries have an enormous knock on effect globally there is a reason why the UN put the shortage of chemical fertilizers as one of the top priorities.

Cheaper electricity won’t solve that problem and the gas prices must come down because otherwise food prices would sky rocket world wide and we will be at a severe risk of having famine in developing countries.

And whilst there are other alternatives to natural gas such as gasification which is popular in China that still requires biomass and countries like Germany cannot simply shift their production to gasification for both environmental and practical reasons.

[trashtester]

In other words, Germany could cut at least 75% of their NG consumption, which is pretty significant.

This link describes how even the ammonia can be produced from hydrogen, which in turn can be produced from electricity (solar, nuclear, wind, take your pick):

https://www.freethink.com/environment/sustainable-fertilizer

[missedthecue]

Germany can do that maybe by 2040. Retrofitting every home in Germany to do away with gas heating and implement efficient electrical heating is easier said than done, to put it lightly. We're talking trillions in euros worth of investment and spending.

[trashtester]

If electricity doesn't come down enough in price, I fear it will take a lot longer than 2040. IF the price of electricity can be brought down below the price of natural gas per unit of energy, many use cases (the low hanging fruits) can be replaced relatively quickly.

Over the last couple of decades, though, the electricity price in Germany seems to have risen sharply, even when not including the last year.

It seems to me that many of the energy related policies in many countries have been focusing way to much on symbolism, instead of minimizing the price while also limiting actual harm to the population and the environment as much as possible. And when the price of electricity doesn't come down, consumers want to use it for as few things as possible.

[dogma1138]

You should look at how much electricity it would take to replace LNG in the chemical industry.

Whilst all of these are possible it’s possible with a multi decade mega project style of planning.

[trashtester]

So we should start increasing capacity now :)

And the first step is to have a realistic plan to make electricity as cheap and abundant as possible, as soon as possible, while still minimizing pollution.

Also, every step helps. If we cut consumption in half, we halve the rate of global warming (at least). It's not like its all-or-nothing.