I do think the conflict in Ukraine has hardened the resolve for the EU nations on energy security and getting off of regionally constrained commodities. They've gone all in on eliminating fossil fuels as quickly as possible. High prices necessitate demand destruction, lots of it will become permanent
Demand destruction in this case will probably be the end of Europe's ambitions of being a great power to rival the US or China as it loses much of its industry, as well as significantly increased excess winter deaths from colder indoor temperatures. Its decades long energy policy has made it simply too energy-poor to ever compete against energy rich North America, or China and its pragmatic energy policies.
Demand destruction in this case will probably be the end of Europe's ambitions of being a great power to rival the US or China as it loses much of its industry, as well as significantly increased excess winter deaths from colder indoor temperatures. Its decades long energy policy has made it simply too energy-poor to ever compete against energy rich North America, or China and its pragmatic energy policies.
By far the biggest mistake was thinking cheap imported gas from Russia wouldn't come at a geopolitical cost, though there are other mistakes for sure.
I love how every sport has a series of 'bold predictions' before the start of any league. Not long ago, the NHL and now NBA. Here is mine for the climate crisis.
As the world concentrates on fossil fuels and carbon emission, the true threat lies below us. Decades of uncontrolled fishing, and trolling of seabeds, acidification, algae blooms, dead spots and islands of garbage, the oceans surrounding south east asia will be the first to stop supplying sustenance to over a billion people, leading to a starvation event like the world has never seen.
I'm going to throw $100 down in Vegas on this, and see if I get lucky.
__________________
"We don't even know who our best player is yet. It could be any one of us at this point." - Peter LaFleur, player/coach, Average Joe's Gymnasium
The Following User Says Thank You to Harry Lime For This Useful Post:
leaving aside the kid thing, seems there is a lot people here can do that wouldn't change their lives much.
Travel less, and drive less. How many posters here have 2 or more cars?
Get rid of one of them and maybe take fewer big trips and you'd be doing a lot.
The Following User Says Thank You to GordonBlue For This Useful Post:
I love how every sport has a series of 'bold predictions' before the start of any league. Not long ago, the NHL and now NBA. Here is mine for the climate crisis.
As the world concentrates on fossil fuels and carbon emission, the true threat lies below us. Decades of uncontrolled fishing, and trolling of seabeds, acidification, algae blooms, dead spots and islands of garbage, the oceans surrounding south east asia will be the first to stop supplying sustenance to over a billion people, leading to a starvation event like the world has never seen.
I'm going to throw $100 down in Vegas on this, and see if I get lucky.
“It’s already too late to avoid mass starvation.”
That’s from Denis Hayes who organized the first Earth Day in 1970.
That graph actually shows that in Canada paying extra for "green" energy is more impactful than going car-less. Which is an interesting result.
Unfortunately a lot of these problems are somewhat institutional.
The childrens expected emissions are based on projects which can be heavily influenced by the amount of societal investment over the next few years.
Living car free for most, would require a robust, easy to use and affordable public transit next work. Just taking Lifts all the time will probably increase the emissions you are causing.
More efficient cars have largely been driven by and continue to be driven by regulation.
And livestock play an important role in the nitrogen cycle. going strictly 100% plant based for everyone would cause a fertilizer, soil quality crisis. and would leave a lot of chaff rotting . While us North American almost certainly do overindulge, plant based for climate reasons is a little too simplistic.
I think at some point in renewables development, it is not only going to be about base load generation, but we will need overbuild infrastructure with surge demand. Something like ideal syn-gas production that is not some much energy efficient but a good way to burn off excess wind and solar generation into something that is useful in the future, or gravity generator towers...
Unfortunately I'm not deep enough into it to have a good intuition on what that will end up looking like. But for all of this to work they are going to need to build a fair bit more than 17GW to supply 17GW.
But yes Alberta turn towards renewables has been impressive, and the speed it's happening too.
The Following User Says Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
I think at some point in renewables development, it is not only going to be about base load generation, but we will need overbuild infrastructure with surge demand. Something like ideal syn-gas production that is not some much energy efficient but a good way to burn off excess wind and solar generation into something that is useful in the future, or gravity generator towers...
Unfortunately I'm not deep enough into it to have a good intuition on what that will end up looking like. But for all of this to work they are going to need to build a fair bit more than 17GW to supply 17GW.
But yes Alberta turn towards renewables has been impressive, and the speed it's happening too.
Absolutely they'll need to build out more, as I'm sure there's people on here itching to type out that installed nameplate capacity isn't actual output. Regardless, I don't see how this is anything but a massive showing of what's possible. An 8x improvement in what, 5-6 years? That's massive. And there's no reason to think that the 17GW in the next 3 years is set in stone. It could very well be higher. Alberta is really showing all of North America how to do it.
All we need to do is get DoubleK on negotiating those inter-ties and the sky is the limit. BC, Alberta, and Saskatchewan being supported by lots of wind and solar backed by BC's hydro? Unstoppable
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
Some good news on Alberta. I wonder how much transmission congestion might lead to low output on sunny and windy days
Always felt one of the biggest thing Canadian provinces could do is build out massive solar, wind, hydro & nuclear capacity, and sell it across the border.
10GW is clearly more than Alberta needs, so it has to go elsewhere.
The Following User Says Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
Poland just announced a $40B deal with Westinghouse to build 2 new nuclear plants. If there's no delays (which hasn't been accomplished in quite some time), they will start producing electricity in.....
11 years
I'm all for nuclear, but the Russian gas problem will look quite different in 10 years
Poland just announced a $40B deal with Westinghouse to build 2 new nuclear plants. If there's no delays (which hasn't been accomplished in quite some time), they will start producing electricity in.....
11 years
I'm all for nuclear, but the Russian gas problem will look quite different in 10 years
Half owned by Cameco now.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
The deal is specific with the US government though so while good for Cameco financially, most direct spending outside Poland will almost assuredly be to the US
