And I'm sure there's a bunch who are just getting screwed over. But I do agree with Itse in that they could have protested when this thing started and tried to end it. But they didn't - so here we are.
I'm not saying I wouldn't have done the same thing they did if I was Russian but I also can't say I feel tremendously bad about it.
I think you can both feel bad for people but also wish that the moderates would stay in Russia to help the country develop a conscience and disseminate dissent. Canada is full of people who left unjust regimes to start a new life, many of whom were in very similar situations where their country was oppressive, they passively accept it, and then leave once it affects them personally.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
On a less contentious note Ukraine has all but encircled Lyman today, if Putin insisted on a 'do not retreat' order then Russia has lost another 10,000 or so
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Okay so this is veering off-topic massively so please mod feel free to move this discussion, but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
He's an engineer and very well educated. What are you?
"go do your own research" and "get educated" is the language of far-right conspiracy anger much like your original post "look what happens when you go green!" [yells at cloud]. Provide the information to back up your argument if you care so much about it.
"Go do research and get educated", while admittedly kind of rude (sorry), was more the annoyance I found when reading an immediate (and wrong, I believe, unless you can prove to me otherwise and I'd happily accept) reply to me that Germany did not in fact #### itself with its' energy strategy, which it did, and which was my point. Are you arguing they did not? Are you saying that in spite of this position generally speaking being the world's opinion all around? Is that what you and him are saying? Also, saying to people to 'go do research' is absolutely not "far right conspiracy anger". In fact- quite the opposite. The only ones who sound like "conspiracy theorists" or in "anger" are people who dogmatically push forward climate change at an untenable pace in the face of energy facts, without real technology present or realistic technological development timelines (and ignoring things like feeding people) that would create mass global panic, breakdown society as we know it and at an even more rapid pace, general chaos and especially destroy Canadians' lives / livelihoods / our economy, and accelerate the destruction of the global paradigm as we know it- oh and cause millions to die from starvation and malnutrition as well. Likely far more deaths than climate change will end up costing us. That is the cost of moving too fast on energy transition strategies, like Germany did, which again was my point. More on that in a second, but just because people are raising their hands and asking "uh hey climate change zealot guys, are you sure we should just you know brush away the foundation of our economic systems we have survived on for the last 200 years as fast as possible? Are we sure this is a good idea?"- yeah that question, just because people want to give pause and (how dare we, gasp!) want to THINK about it, have the discussion, like the very notion of the question is so untenable to be asked even though in the face of countless research, expert opinions, and now facts / case based data in the world today (like Germany here's reliance on Russia)- the fact these questions are met with the type of instant shut downs, sneers and rejections the likes you and Flameon IMMEDIATELY throw down (in hopes it meets popular opinion and generates thanks, basically), is precisely what strikes me as an equal if not greater "conspiracy theorist" "anger" reply. Sorry, no, screw off with that accusation straight up.
You think pointing out that Germany's decision to do their little green energy transition makes me sound like a foaming "far right" "nutjob" conspiracy theorist? Look at the facts sir. These people are going to freeze their asses off this winter. Hopefully people don't die from that decision, and if they did, would we label it with the same level of grandiose public criticism we would if even just one person died from a climate change related event? No, something tells me we wouldn't, or the news wouldn't anyway, which is exactly the ####ing point. It is at this stage in the public debate of climate change vs. fossil fuels use which, anybody as you correctly point out that has a shred of credibility knows, we must transition away from fossil fuels- of course I agree with this- but at this stage in the public debate, if people want to ask the question about "sure, but at what pace?!?" you will come in and label them as conspiracy theorists? Makes perfect sense. Sounds perfectly reasonable.
Sorry, what are you or Flameon really arguing? I am not sure I am even clear on that, so let's start over. Sure, here are some articles supporting my position but literally a 2 second Google backs up what is inherently obvious to the entire world except basically (coming right back at you now, and would this description be accurate of you?) dogmatic climate change ideologists who seem to unrelentingly refuse to face facts regarding energy consumption and requirements for our world:
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/fact...lear-phase-out
"The nuclear phase-out is as much part of the Energiewende (energy transition) as the move towards a low-carbon economy. Despite ongoing quarrels over its costs and an international perception that “German angst” caused the government to shut down reactors after the Fukushima accident, a majority of Germans is still in favour of putting an end to nuclear power."
"Germany has set itself a dual goal with its energy transition, or Energiewende: The country wants to move from fossil fuel-based energy generation to a largely carbon-free energy sector while also phasing out nuclear energy by 2022"
https://abcnews.go.com/International...story-82051054
"The decision to phase out nuclear power and shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy was first taken by the center-left government of Gerhard Schroeder in 2002. His successor, Angela Merkel, reversed her decision to extend the lifetime of Germany’s nuclear plants in the wake of the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan and set 2022 as the final deadline for shutting them down"
"[I]An energy dilemma on the other side of the world shows why. Germany is shutting three more nuclear power plants — nearly half of the nuclear capacity it has left — even as energy prices soar and the country struggles to cut its carbon dioxide emissions. The nation’s remaining reactors will close down by the end of 2022. This is the result of a pledge to rapidly phase out nuclear power that Germany’s government made hastily in the wake of the Fukushima accident. (Mr.Coffee comment... yes.... but......) At the time, the decision pleased longtime anti-nuclear activists, advocates for renewables and frightened citizens. But clearer heads warned that then-Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision was a mistake that would force Europe’s largest economy to rely on fossil fuels such as lignite, an especially dirty form of coal.
Which is precisely what happened. Though Germany has invested heavily in renewables, it nevertheless has had to burn massive amounts of coal since 2011 to keep its economy running.Absent nuclear, Germany also depends more on Russian natural gas, a deep geopolitical vulnerability that gives leverage to Russia’s authoritarian government."
There's more but it's late and I should go to bed. We can discuss this deeper tomorrow perhaps as I would be interested in your perspective as why you for some reason don't think this was a gigantic clusterF by Germany. I can go on with other news / articles from various agencies as well but to pretend like Germany's transition wasn't influenced by trying to go green is laughable. You think they just saw Fukushima and decided to just drop nuclear and move to wind / solar and that was that? You think this wasn't all orchestrated as a grander strategy by the country to "go green"? Really? You honestly believe that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hack&Lube
It's undeniable that Germany has been trying to pivot to solar and renewables since I was studying in the EU institutions there in the 2000s. This is was also a play to build up their manufacturing and technology presence in solar cells which would be to their economic benefit and help them leapfrog over other countries. They converted huge amount of empty land to solar and encourage farmers to set up solar from which many now resell energy back to the grid for profit. The German auto industry however, is trying to play catch up as they have so much invested in internal combustion technologies, capital investments, and workforce that many predict it will be difficult for that industry to shift to electric.
But - FlameOn is absolutely correct that their current reliance on natural gas for heating has nothing to do with their renewable energy initiatives but everything to do with getting away from nuclear after the Fukushima disaster in Japan. This was a knee-jerk reaction to a nuclear accident and they pivoted to relying on Russian natural gas for winter heating. Russia was considered a stable economic partner for Europe at the time. I personally feel modern nuclear is a huge part of any successful green energy initiative and kowtowing to the public nuclear energy bogeyman is the real mistake.
Again, nothing at all regarding this incident or Nordstream has anything to do with going green. You just wanted to inject your blind political ideology randomly where it did not belong. Chancellor Scholz wanted to buy Canadian natural gas but it was probably Trudeau that pushed for a hydrogen partnership instead. For what its worth, I think that was dumb. I worked in O&G for years and I'm very pro Canadian Oil. I also happen to think "going green" is not a bogeyman either.
I don't think going green is the boogeyman at all either and have written quite a bit on that topic on this site but perhaps you haven't seen my comments elsewhere (so no, I'm not a "conspiracy theorist" as much as you are a "left wing climate change ideological zealot". Let me be clearer. This is a function of speed. You can race into "going green" and transitional energy strategy like Germany did- and then get stuck in a real geopolitical pickle, like they are, and which I was pointing out. That's all I was saying. And I am right.
So again, sorry, what exactly is yours or Flameon's contention? I may be missing both of your points but if you're saying that Germany's reliance on Russian gas had nothing to do with "going green" you are wrong. What Germany did in this case, (ceasing all fossil fuel / coal power plants, etc. and then just buying the gas instead for baseload, because energy generation was raised by supplemented wind / solar) will always inevitably create a geopolitical vulnerability. IN fact going further, I think energy independence is going to be the pre-eminent geopolitical strategy issue of our lifetime and key to every nation's own security and economic systems. That doesn't sound like the kind of thing we should just roll the dice on with hopes and dreams that technology will just meet us on the curve, does it? That seems like an insane gamble, doesn't it? Because that is what Germany did, and again was what I was pointing out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlameOn
This had nothing to do with "going green". Germans shut down their nuclear reactors and exchanged it for Russian natural gas which was kneejerk because of Fukushima.
Going to natural gas is not going green.
First of all, many people do think going to gas is going green (blue hydrogen / ammonia) but second of all even if you were right that is sort of arguing beside my original point. Germany decided to abandon oil and gas production, figured 'hey, we can just buy baseload off Russia instead and then transition with this new Energiewende policy' and then fast forward are set up to get smoked this winter.
"In the midst of the Energiewende, Germany relies still heavily on imports of fossil fuels, as its domestic resources are largely depleted, or their extraction is too costly. However, the planned decarbonisation of all sectors by 2050 should all but eliminate fossil fuels from Germany’s energy consumption. Future dependence will focus on renewable electricity or sustainable fuel imports, such as green hydrogen."
Germany needing gas has nothing to do with a green transition.
It has to do with anti-nuclear, which is not even a little bit the same.
Not entirely true that this is just a nuclear issue - in 2010 nuclear was roughly 13% of total generation and today it’s 4%. Natural gas and oil in 2010 were 20% down to 14%. The issue is wind and solar went from 35% to 60%. These are not baseload power generators. So Germany decided to reduce both its fossil fuel AND nuclear power. Both were the wrong decision and certainly both of them should have been focused on. I don’t believe Germany had the capacity between 2010 and 2022 to completely transition fossil fuel base load to nuclear given the size of these projects and regulatory requirements.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Leondros For This Useful Post:
Not entirely true that this is just a nuclear issue - in 2010 nuclear was roughly 13% of total generation and today it’s 4%. Natural gas and oil in 2010 were 20% down to 14%. The issue is wind and solar went from 35% to 60%. These are not baseload power generators. So Germany decided to reduce both its fossil fuel AND nuclear power. Both were the wrong decision and certainly both of them should have been focused on. I don’t believe Germany had the capacity between 2010 and 2022 to completely transition fossil fuel base load to nuclear given the size of these projects and regulatory requirements.
1) electricity price is set by the marginal cost of generation, which is the last kilowatt added. Because of gas prices, the electricity price is higher. Again, electricity prices going through the roof is because of gas prices, it has literally zero to do with energy mix. It has zero to do with baseload (though I agree with every poster so far about the nuclear issue). The less gas you use, the cheaper your electricity will be right now. That's the calculation. Solar, wind, nuclear, biomass, etc costs have not changed, but gas is now than 10x more expensive than before. The entire increase in energy costs right now is due to reliance on natural gas. Without wind and solar (which are cheaper) prices would be even higher!
2) The reason everyone is fearful for the winter and natural gas is mostly because it's a heating fuel, not the electricity issue.
The Following User Says Thank You to Street Pharmacist For This Useful Post:
1) electricity price is set by the marginal cost of generation, which is the last kilowatt added. Because of gas prices, the electricity price is higher. Again, electricity prices going through the roof is because of gas prices, it has literally zero to do with energy mix. It has zero to do with baseload (though I agree with every poster so far about the nuclear issue). The less gas you use, the cheaper your electricity will be right now. That's the calculation. Solar, wind, nuclear, biomass, etc costs have not changed, but gas is now than 10x more expensive than before. The entire increase in energy costs right now is due to reliance on natural gas. Without wind and solar (which are cheaper) prices would be even higher!
2) The reason everyone is fearful for the winter and natural gas is mostly because it's a heating fuel, not the electricity issue.
This is a bit of a one sided way to look at it. When renewables are not producing well, the only choice is to use fossil fuels. So they may "save the day" on good days, but they don't help on bad ones. A long term energy strategy needs to account for those days. So then natural gas that could be used for heating needs to isntead be used for generating electricity. Relying on natural gas isn't the issue, it's tying themselves to one unreliable source where the failure occurred.
And it's not like Germany couldn't develop their own resources, they do have some oil and gas around, they've just made it very difficult for the O$G industry to function.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
This is a bit of a one sided way to look at it. When renewables are not producing well, the only choice is to use fossil fuels. So they may "save the day" on good days, but they don't help on bad ones. A long term energy strategy needs to account for those days. So then natural gas that could be used for heating needs to isntead be used for generating electricity. Relying on natural gas isn't the issue, it's tying themselves to one unreliable source where the failure occurred.
And it's not like Germany couldn't develop their own resources, they do have some oil and gas around, they've just made it very difficult for the O$G industry to function.
But that's not how electricity pricing works. The price for electricity is set by the marginal kilowatt. That means if you're using a 10% mix of gas, or 50% mix, the price is mainly set by the price of gas right now. You pay the windmill guy the same price for his electricity as you pay the gas turbine guy. It doesn't matter what's generating it. The Windmill guy is just making waaaaaaaaaaaay more money because he's not paying much for the electricity he's selling.
Natural gas is a global commodity, so German production would have no impact on their pricing unless a) it was massive enough to change the global market, or b) they nationalized it. There's not enough there to make a difference here
/Tldr The unreliable source right now IS natural gas and it's almost entirely responsible for the energy costs in Germany.
But that's not how electricity pricing works. The price for electricity is set by the marginal kilowatt. That means if you're using a 10% mix of gas, or 50% mix, the price is mainly set by the price of gas right now. You pay the windmill guy the same price for his electricity as you pay the gas turbine guy. It doesn't matter what's generating it. The Windmill guy is just making waaaaaaaaaaaay more money because he's not paying much for the electricity he's selling.
Natural gas is a global commodity, so German production would have no impact on their pricing unless a) it was massive enough to change the global market, or b) they nationalized it. There's not enough there to make a difference here
/Tldr The unreliable source right now IS natural gas and it's almost entirely responsible for the energy costs in Germany.
Germany looks to use under 9 billion cf of gas a year, and has at least 17Tcf of technically recoverable shale gas in one basin in the north(there is more in the south). Plenty, if they developed it.
While you say natural gas is a global commodity, it doesn't really function like that, due to the challenges of transporting it, which is why it has different prices all over the place. I don't really know how you could argue having a domestic supply vs relying on Russia would be a negative here.
I think Germany allowing themselves to become reliant on Russian natural gas was due in small part to their lingering collective guilt. A way to show that they are integrating their economies, and that Germany "needs" Russia as a friend and not an enemy, thereby guaranteeing Germany will never again invade. Obviously the anti-nuclear sentiment was a huge part of it.
The plan has obviously backfired spectacularly, but I still think that the intention was there.
Russia has proven not to be a friend of the West so many times, which is an absolute shame. Think of how prosperous a New West could be with Russia on board. If a level of trust existed between EU and Russia like Canada and the USA have shared for 150 years, the world would be a better place.
The Following User Says Thank You to CroFlames For This Useful Post:
I wonder if Edward Snowden is now going to get conscripted to go to Ukraine. Wouldn't that be funny. The poor guy should be a hero somewhere in the United States and yet look what he has to deal with
Germany looks to use under 9 billion cf of gas a year, and has at least 17Tcf of technically recoverable shale gas in one basin in the north(there is more in the south). Plenty, if they developed it.
While you say natural gas is a global commodity, it doesn't really function like that, due to the challenges of transporting it, which is why it has different prices all over the place. I don't really know how you could argue having a domestic supply vs relying on Russia would be a negative here.
I remember reading a loooong time ago that it was the association of beer brewers in Germany who basically got fracking banned. They said that the beer purity law of 1516 clearly states the only ingredients allowed in beer barley, hops and water. And if fracking takes place, it taints the water thereby altering one of the ingredients and thereby violating the beer purity law.
