Russians did such a good job promoting renewable energy and electric vehicles this year.

Submitted by darth_nadoma t3_zx1ln0 in Futurology

Russian invasion of Ukraine and subsequent shortages of fossil fuel supply have really supercharged the growth of Wind and Solar energy and the electric vehicles. The European Union was forced to realize that they can no longer rely on imported fossil fuels.

This has also affected other countries around the world. The United States were not dependent on Fossil Fuel imports, but even there Renewable electricity projects received a big boost this year.

980

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

MeteorOnMars t1_j1ybgib wrote

For years, when listing the reasons to switch off fossil fuels, I’d mention “bad actor suppliers like Russia and Saudi Arabia”.

But, I kinda gave up trying to convince people this was a serious point.

Then Russia sadly made that abstract argument blindingly obvious.

253

Kidrellik t1_j1zpj01 wrote

Thing is, nobody really cares about "Bad actor suppliers" as long they don't do what they're doing in their neighborhood. At least nobody in power. If Russia invaded a place like Kazakhstan or Azerbaijan instead, the sanctions would have been much less harsh just like with what happened in Georgia. But instead they invaded a country in Europe and forced another massive migration crisis right after a global pandamic without doing the usual steady stream of propaganda for 3 or 4 years to lay the groundwork.

I think it was because they thought they could steam roll Ukraine with half the troops they had and by just YOLO running to Kyiv like they did with the Crimea but Ukraine was ready this time and it ended up being a disaster.

45

Northstar1989 t1_j1zx47j wrote

>think it was because they thought they could steam roll Ukraine with half the troops they had and by just YOLO running to Kyiv like they did with the Crimea but Ukraine was ready this time and it ended up being a disaster.

It has more to do with the fact that both the US and European NATO countries have spent a significant portion of the last 8 years arming Ukraine to the teeth in preparation for further Russian attacks.

Also, the only real difference between Ukraine and Kazakhstan here that matters is Ukrainians are white. The US does more than enough naked Imperialism in brown countries that there's no way a similar level of support could have been mustered for Kazakhstan, due to racism...

2

Kidrellik t1_j1zy77e wrote

>Also, the only real difference between Ukraine and Kazakhstan here that matters is Ukrainians are white.

Well that and it's also much harder to arm a place like Kazakhstan or Azerbaijan. How are you going to do that? You can't go through Central Asia, China isn't going to let you and neither is Iran. Turkey probably will but they're going to charge extremely handsomely.

17

provocative_bear t1_j20ebbn wrote

The West responded harshly to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine because they were increasingly aligned with the West. If Russia attacks a province that’s already Russian-aligned, it gets a finger wag, if they attack a nation that we’re actually invested in, it’s on like Donkey Kong.

As for whiteness... I don’t think there would just be a simple finger wag if China attacked Taiwan, I think that it would be a full-on proxy war and a diplo-economic disaster for the world.

13

neglectedselenium t1_j20bgfm wrote

You're wrong, Ukraine was not armed to the teeth. That's BS. They still largely use soviet era tanks, aircraft, etc. A couple of thousands of Javelins and Stingers ≠ armed to the teeth. Another BS is your assertion that the US wouldn't help the brown/non-white people in case of a hypothetical russian invasion. Also wrong.

8

TheSensibleTurk t1_j2187ix wrote

As a middle eastern native who was on the receiving end of that US imperialism, I can attest that we owe to the US a lot.

The US repaired my grandparents' farm with the Marshall Aid in the 40s.

The US subsidized my dad's medical school tuition and my mom's pharmacy major tuition via USAID funds allocated to urbanization projects.

The US saved my dad's Kurdish relatives in Iraq first during the Gulf War, secondly after the US oversaw the creation of Iraqi Kurdistan.

The US brought me as a then-15 year old Turkish kid to America for a public diplomacy program in 2008.

The US gave me citizenship through the MAVNI program.

I am proud to call myself an American today and I believe that the projection of US power is a good thing for humankind.

8

Northstar1989 t1_j252xgf wrote

The Kurds are one of the very few groups of brown-skinned people that have, on the balance, largely benefitted from US Imperialism. Until the US abandoned Kurdistan almost entirely to its own fate at the end of the Second Gulf War instead of backing their dream of an independent state, directly leading to ISIS murdering enormous numbers of Kurdistan soon thereafter, of course..

Your experience is largely unique- and would not have occurred if you were a brown person from nearly any other part of the world.

At the same time the US was investing in Kurdish farmers like your grandfather and sending your parents to college, it was doing things like backing a literal genocidal regime in Indonesia, behaving in an initially friendly manner to Apartheid South Africa (until public pressure caused the US to finally start enforcing sanctions), and overthrowing the legitimately-elected Democratic Socialist government of Chile and replacing it with the murderous Pinochet far-right dictatorship that set up concentration camps across the country...

Just because a few lucky family like yours benefitted does NOT mean US influence was a net positive for most people.

−1

TheSensibleTurk t1_j25o8i1 wrote

I'm Turkish, and my grandparents were in Turkey.

Without the US, we would have ended up as a Soviet satellite.

The deposition of Allende was a legitimate act to counter the USSR. Communism is a totalitarian ideology and totalitarian ideologies require extraordinary methods to be combated.

As a soon to be minted foreign service officer and a reservist lieutenant, I will strive until my last breath to see Pax Americana perpetuated.

0

Northstar1989 t1_j25p9d4 wrote

>The deposition of Allende was a legitimate act to counter the USSR. Communism is a totalitarian ideology and totalitarian ideologies require extraordinary methods to be combated.

Allende was a Democratic Socialist not a "Communist" (by which you mean Authoritarian Socialist, in the style of the USSR) you troll.

His ideology was in no way Totalitarian, and he actively worked to maintain the institutions of Democracy.

Whereas PINOCHET the far-right "Capitalist" dixtator installed by the CIA was absolutely 100% a Totalitarian. He built Concentration Camps.

So by your own words, Pinochet should have been opposed by "extraordinary methods", not been actively supported and installed in the first place by the CIA.

Funny how you right-wing trolls twist morality in on itself so it becomes somehow right to depose a leftist Democracy to replace it with right-wing Totalitarianism.

1

TheSensibleTurk t1_j25qktq wrote

Sure, in the same way that the so called Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democratic entity.

Soviet sponsored proletarian revolutions had to be contained.

It happened in Turkey too. Before the 1980 coup, Soviet backed guerillas were wreaking havoc. My father was working at a rural government clinic at the time and he was kidnapped by the revolutionaries and held for ransom. At the height of it, the revolutionaries would set up checkpoints and execute any state employee, Katyn style.

Who put an end to that? Kenan Evren. Look him up.

You cannot treat cancer with antibiotics or painkillers. You treat it with chemotherapy which can hurt like hell. So it is with countering revolutionary Marxism.

0

Northstar1989 t1_j25s01l wrote

>Sure, in the same way that the so called Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a democratic entity.

Not at all.

There was nothing Totalitarian about Allende's government. Free, multi-party elections continued. The Constitution remained in force (in fact, it was ardent Constitutionalists in the government who fouled the first CIA Coup attempt).

Stop spreading file hatred and right-wing propaganda just because you are unable to face facts.

This has gone on too long. You are clearly a troll, likely a PAID troll. Nothing will stop you from repeating the same nonsense over and over, completely unsupported by facts and heedless of counterarguments.

You are being blocked. Good riddance.

1

FSOAspirant t1_j25sw9v wrote

You can block a reddit account. You cannot block the continued march of neoliberalism.

0

grundar t1_j22ftn2 wrote

> Also, the only real difference between Ukraine and Kazakhstan here that matters is Ukrainians are white.

Well, that and the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine.

(Russia sent >100,000 troops to Ukraine in a full-scale invasion, whereas it sent 2,500 troops for 1 week as part of CSTO at the invitation of the Khazakstan government. The situations are not remotely similar, and it's disengenuous at best to pretend otherwise.)

EDIT:

> You're just trolling and not even reading what I wrote.

No, I'm pointing out -- with sources -- how lazy and uninformed your assumption of racism is.

There are fundamental differences between Ukraine and Kazakhstan in terms of their relationships to Russia and the West; to assert that the only relevant difference between them is "Ukraine is white" is verifiably wrong.

5

Northstar1989 t1_j253im9 wrote

You're just trolling and not even reading what I wrote.

I compared how the US would have responded if Kazakhstan had been invaded instead of Ukraine, I didn't say it had been invaded.

−2

bjplague t1_j2d1myc wrote

more about culture then race really.

slapping the racist label on something then think you drove home your point and move on is lazy work.

0

MeteorOnMars t1_j21mf2t wrote

The locality delusion is one of the reasons I advocate cutting fossil fuel use regardless of where you live.

If you don’t buy gas at your local pump, the effect ripples through the whole system and is felt by every supplier.

1

AdmiralKurita t1_j20gt4h wrote

Here's a nice clip from Thank You For Smoking.

Jeff: Mr. Naylor is here to see if we can get cigarettes into hands of somebody other than the usual RAVs.

Nick Naylor: RAVs?

Jeff: Russians, Arabs, and villains.

Naylor: Yes, oh well, then, yes. I guess that is why I'm here.

4

DynamicResonater t1_j20p28n wrote

My best friend, not an educated man, just dumped $60K into a 3500 HD 4x4 truck he uses twice a year to actually haul something. I bought a Tesla that gets used constantly. He gave me static about it and laughed. I asked him how many foot rubs he has to give MBS to fill his tank. No laughs that time.

−1

MeteorOnMars t1_j21mu2x wrote

I bet his truck uses more electricity per mile than your Tesla does (because refining his gas requires electricity).

2

DynamicResonater t1_j257zok wrote

Not only that, but as the low-hanging fruit of easily-accessed oil dries up, it's going to take more and more energy to acquire and refine new sources of oil at higher costs. Like you say, oil requires a hell of a lot of energy to refine.

1

boersc t1_j22orcd wrote

Then again, how is that tesla's electricity made? Coal and other fossil fuels.

−3

ForHidingSquirrels t1_j23szd0 wrote

In the US it’s filled with 45% emission free electricity

2

boersc t1_j248u62 wrote

As it's extra electricity, you can only take into account the variable fuel. Wind and solar are always at their max, whether there are electric cars or not. So, for now, extra electric cars means more fossil fuels burnt.

−1

ForHidingSquirrels t1_j24h3bk wrote

Did you have chatgpt make that up since you’ve got no idea how to respond to reality?

1

boersc t1_j24z50j wrote

Sorry to burst your bubble, but for now this IS reality. Every extra usage of electricity means extra fossil fuels burnt, not extra solar energy or wind.

How else would the extra demand be met? Right now, we don't have a flexible renewable energysource that we can throttle.

In the long run, when we're approaching 100% renewable energy, sure. But for now, the sole benefit of electric cars is that the energy is created at a central place, where it is made more efficiently than in a car.

−1

DynamicResonater t1_j26u6sc wrote

There's such things as energy storage facilities that can be throttled faster and more efficiently than conventional baseline plants. California has several, for instance, and Australia is a world leader in it. Even so, EV's cause less fossil fuels to be burned than a new ICE, you know that right? It sounds like you do, given your last sentence, which somewhat counters your first.

1

DynamicResonater t1_j25bh0p wrote

My power mix in California is:

  • Renewable (Bio/Geo/Hydro/Solar/Wind) = 33.6%
  • Large Hydro = 9.2%
  • Nuclear = 9.3
  • Other = 7%
  • Natural Gas = 37.9
  • Coal = 3%

Even if EV's ran only on coal or natural gas they would still be far cleaner than ICE vehicles. Sorry, but I've seen your argument dozens of times and it's been refuted repeatedly by legitimate scientific organizations.

1

burning_legiion t1_j23dakb wrote

Tesla's are shit compaired to ACTUAL car companies, the quality is absolutely subpar for the cost. If somebody like, say, VW, or Toyota, wanted to make an actual electric vehicle, whether it be for the masses or the rich, they would do it much better in much less time than it took Tesla to do it.
That said, only EVs are NOT the answer, as they as well require a hell of a lot of energy, and that would drive up the prices as well. Not mentioning the cost of manufacturing, the battery replacement/storage problem, etc.

−1

DynamicResonater t1_j258pj4 wrote

I'll agree with you that Tesla's QC could be better, but I've seen far worse from the Big 3. Just FYI: Toyota and VW both make EV's and they're not that great, certainly not better than Tesla. I agree that EV only is not the answer, we'll likely need syn-fuels, and H2 to fill the gap until EV's are ready to replace ICE's completely, which is very likely based on the current state of battery research still in the lab. You might want to do more research on EV's so you're more up to speed before commenting.

1

burning_legiion t1_j26d3yg wrote

What I'm saying is that IF the established large car manufacturers actually wanted to switch to all EV, they would make a much better car than Tesla very quickly, it's just a fact for obvious reasons. But it's not their main goal at the moment, and thus the difference. The quality of materials in Tesla for the price is not up to par compared to an actual car manufacturer. Take a BMW for the same price as you paid that Tesla, if you can tell me with a straight face that the build quality and assurance of that Tesla is better, then fine, but it's not, and we both know it. But OK, I'm glad you're happy with your purchase either way.
I did my research, ain't getting one in the near future without EVs solving several crucial problems, that's for sure.

1

DynamicResonater t1_j26px0l wrote

I worked at BMW in Munich and was in QC for a while. The problems I've found in my Tesla are minor compared with what was passed off on the assembly line in the Munich 3 series plant. Also, the Model 3 is considered one of the most reliable EV's in the US. Sorry, bro, but your "if-they-only" arguments are worthless in the real world. I'll put my Model 3 against anything in its price class.

1

shillyshally t1_j1y0243 wrote

That's the only thing Russia did right and they did that by accident.

78

Anoscetia t1_j1ydw5k wrote

They also strengthened the bond of countries in NATO beyond belief and supercharged cooperation in other ways than purely militarily. If Putin had waited maybe a decade longer (I know he might not have that long) the alliance might have crumbled. Now it's as strong as it has ever been.

40

Northstar1989 t1_j1zxspe wrote

>If Putin had waited maybe a decade longer (I know he might not have that long) the alliance might have crumbled. Now it's as strong as it has ever been

And spent the whole time trying to smear Ukraine's reputation and disrupt the alliance in subtle ways, maybe.

Putin is impatient, though. He's called the collapse of the Soviet Union one of the greatest tragedies of human history (he's not entirely wrong, but he's right for the wrong reasons entirely... The US utterly failed to help most of the successor states and millions of people went through untold levels of suffering and, hundreds of thousands contracted diseases like HIV and Liver Cancer due to excessive drinking and IV drug use as a result... Capitalist NeoConservative greed for the win...) and is determined to make a strong start on rebuilding the Russian empire within in his lifetime, no matter the human cost...

4

neglectedselenium t1_j20c7ty wrote

Well firsr of all, that's the feature of authoritarianism: they all grow impatient, they have no correct info and are surrounded by the yes men. In case of putin, he doesn't even use the technology. Second, the US was always open to post soviet russia. Hell, they were even invited to G7. They were given massive aid, but because of the widespread corruption, the money was stolen. Russian Democracy ended in 1993 when tanks were deployed against the Parliament

3

Northstar1989 t1_j2521nb wrote

> were given massive aid,

No they were not.

The historical facts simply don't back your bogus assertions.

Several high-ranking members of the US intelligence community and several senators/Congressmen even went on record that it was a mistake NOT to provide the kind of massive aid you described. It should have happened, but it never did.

1

DynamicResonater t1_j25cvrq wrote

The collapse of the USSR was a tragedy that could have been avoided if the US didn't have Bush in office at the time. Gorbachev was on the right track and had he succeeded in his reforms, Russia would look a lot more like Sweden or Norway right now. Yes, the USA ruined one of the greatest opportunities in history to make the world a better, more stable place.

2

Northstar1989 t1_j25hvx8 wrote

I agree.

Bush and some of the Reagan admin holdover (particularly in the CIA) only saw an opportunity to collapse a rival, whereas Gorbachev was attempting the extremely difficult task of reforming the Soviet Union into a group of Democratic Socialist republics with actual multi-party elections...

I'm pretty sure that version of Russia, had it come to be, would be a much better version than the current Dictatorial Kleptocracy run by Putin.

Of course, even with US help the whole thing likely would have still fallen apart. It just would have been much more of a "soft landing" (gentle/bloodless dissolution) rather than wars (Chechnya), uprisings (Baltic states), and a massive portion of the Russian population falling into poverty and alcoholism/drugs/organized crime.

2

bottleboy8 t1_j1y3akp wrote

>The European Union was forced to realize that they can no longer rely on imported fossil fuels.

They are importing natural gas from the US now.

"In January 2022 imports reached the highest monthly, amounting to 4.4 billion cubic metres."

It's a shame that Russian pipeline mysteriously blew up.

24

Borkido t1_j1yiakl wrote

Yes while the us undoubtedly benefited from this i have serious trouble believing they would risk a diplomatic incident of this magnitude. Sabotaging the energy infrastructure of a nato ally would put the alliance at rist and i dont think even the turbo capitalists across the pond would rist that for some short term financial gain. The us also benefits from the ukraine war as a whole but i think its a stretch to assume cia put putin up to it.

13

random_shitter t1_j1z2vah wrote

I expect it was agreed beforehand in a very backroom agreement that this was the best method to deny Russia its pressure tool & making something that was almost certain but unpredictable into a predictable certainty & stopping political fallout for the receiving countries from "we don't want to dance to Putin's tune even though he could alleviate current inflation".

It costs some extra euros but that more than weighs up for the prevention of active societal unrest.

0

StateChemist t1_j2260yb wrote

So you are saying you think NATO all agreed and killed the pipeline?

2

random_shitter t1_j234mse wrote

This was a NATO(supperted) military operation, yes. Only way to pull it off.

1

StateChemist t1_j25go7m wrote

I have no objections if it was a unanimous NATO decision then. Good for them.

1

thehoagieboy t1_j1zm0or wrote

This is why my electricity is going through the roof. A significant amount of my electricity is generated with Natural Gas. Good ole supply and demand. Thanks Putin.

3

darth_nadoma OP t1_j1y3l0p wrote

I always knew that the Americans did it.

−12

ovirt001 t1_j1zjdnq wrote

It was Russia. They had the motive (reduce supply further) but didn't want to do it outright.
For anyone ignorant to how Russia operates, I'd suggest reading Red Notice and Freezing Order.

8

xTheShrike t1_j1zze68 wrote

Biden literally said the US would "shut down" the Nordstream pipeline if Russia invaded Ukraine. When asked how the US would do that he said in his characteristic weird fashion "We have our ways".

The guy admits the US did it but what he said is ignored.

−5

bottleboy8 t1_j1y419k wrote

It's one of those "who had the motive" mysteries.

4

Kryosite t1_j1yd94r wrote

I mean, plenty of pro Ukrainian groups and anti-government Russian groups also have plenty of motive.

7

Jack04trades t1_j1yy653 wrote

Wait. But everyone told it was our country who destroyed our own gas pipeline. Obviously to freeze europeans and lower the money flowing into Russia 's budget. No. It cant be that other countries lying as well.

1

Shakathedon t1_j1zgjex wrote

Im in the geology/environmental consulting field and a lot of our petroleum/energy clients are pivoting to buying up land and developing solar farms.

23

JimmyMyJimmy t1_j206me9 wrote

I’m in the same field. Some of our clients have completely closed their facilities, did some reclamation, then sold to huge developers. We’re definitely seeing a move away from fossil fuels.

9

neglectedselenium t1_j20cect wrote

Thank goodness. This process should have started back in the 70s after the oil embargo, but better now than later

8

Bugfrag t1_j1ydopl wrote

Seriously, almost every single sentence is incorrect.

>Russian invasion of Ukraine and subsequent shortages of fossil fuel supply have really supercharged the growth of Wind and Solar energy and the electric vehicles.

Global investment in energy is linearly increasing over time since the early 2000s. It's following a trend well established from previous years. https://about.bnef.com/energy-transition-investment/

>The European Union was forced to realize that they can no longer rely on imported fossil fuels.

The EU knows this for a long time, including when Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014. EU and are still improrting including from the US.

>This has also affected other countries around the world. The United States were not dependent on Fossil Fuel imports, but even there Renewable electricity projects received a big boost this year.

It's not the Russians. Renewable got a boost because Democrats won the presidency and got enough members in the House and Senate.

18

random_shitter t1_j1z31y9 wrote

... And still the IEA noted that current global renewables investments are 30% higher than projected just a year ago.

14

grundar t1_j22hl1p wrote

> And still the IEA noted that current global renewables investments are 30% higher than projected just a year ago.

Slight correction, the 30% increase is to what will be installed over the period 2022-2027, not just for 2022 (IEA report).

However, that's a pretty minor correction, as the phrase the prior comment was complaining about is pretty much straight from the title of the IEA's press report:
> "Renewable power’s growth is being turbocharged as countries seek to strengthen energy security"

2

Bugfrag t1_j1zgy8k wrote

In any case, a 30%-higher-than-project means that the IEA projection is off.

It says nothing about the actual investment amount

−1

random_shitter t1_j20mjg6 wrote

>Global investment in energy is linearly increasing over time since the early 2000s. It's following a trend well established from previous years.

>a 30%-higher-than-project means that the IEA projection is off.

You just say anything to stick to your mantra. Sigh.

5

Bugfrag t1_j21wpml wrote

Ok. Let's do this properly then:

A) Can you source the claim that it's 30% higher than projected?

B) Can you describe/cite the methodology for projection

It's your claim, so back it up

I already read the IEA Jan 2022 report. It's not there. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-investment-2022 See

−3

random_shitter t1_j234jom wrote

Sigh.

>In December, the International Energy Agency published two important reports that point to the future of renewable energy.

>First, the IEA revised its projection of renewable energy growth upward by 30%.

https://www.civilbeat.org/2022/12/small-islands-and-putins-war-are-accelerating-the-global-shift-to-clean-energy-in-2023/

You're a bad faith arguer. You may reply but I will stop wasting time on your nonsense.

0

Bugfrag t1_j236zyt wrote

A) Things could have been simpler if you simply put the link to the IEA report. Why do you expect anybody to have stumbled into the Honolulu Civilbeat?

B) Clearly you didn't look at my post which referred to global investment. You would have noticed that the units are in dollars.

Your cited resource refers to global capacity, units in GW. These are not equivalent comparisons.

Note that both of my sources (including report from IEA that I searched myself because you didn't provide any) report things in $.

Did you even check out the two references I posted?

In conclusion:

  • you made a claim without support
  • when pushed for data, presented items that's not even in the same unit.
1

Bugfrag t1_j238s4x wrote

And lastly, after reading the methodology to get that 30% number:

The IEA are changing the forecast model for cumulative capacity of 2022-2027 time frame. Their earlier forecast was off. (Read page 17-18 on the IEA report, but it's in the secondary Civilbeat digest)

It's definitely not a year-to-year change

Actual change in capacity is linear (see page 21 on the IEA report, not on Civil beat)

1

Jack04trades t1_j1yyl3l wrote

Oh. So that's why after renewable energy being pushed forward, in this year there was lots of blackout's in USA. Damn, people. Its not green energy. Its green for your own country. But to make these solar panela and wind turbines you are making hell lots of easte as well. Also "green energy" cannot replace burning yet, its still a lot worse in efficiency. Maybe in future it'll be better, i hope. But not now.

−9

Whiskeypants17 t1_j1z3j2i wrote

Are you sending this from a coal mine? Might want to check on your oxygen supply friend

7

Jack04trades t1_j1z4pdf wrote

Nuclear, gas stations are the main source of energy yet on the planet. France has 6 of them for a reason.

−2

neglectedselenium t1_j20cq87 wrote

Yeah but it gets billions of $$$, massive community outrage and million years to construct a single nuclear plant. So hell no, no politician can afford to waste their points on that

0

Jack04trades t1_j22isbt wrote

Nuclear plant takes 5 to 10 years to build. And in Russia we invented and already using a new process of reusing nuclear wastes again. So it's basically almost endless nuclear energy right now. And you forgetting one thing: in previous comment i told i hope green energy will bece truth. But its not green now at all. You just dont know some little things about it, and most of you dont care. Because its green for you, not for the place where its produced. For example parts of wind turbines made nano carbone texture, which cannot be recycled, so its just buried into the ground. But politics will not tell you that, because its just gives as much dollars as nuclear plants.

1

Bugfrag t1_j1zetbo wrote

>Oh. So that's why after renewable energy being pushed forward, in this year there was lots of blackout's in USA.

This argument does not make any sense at all.

The investments are being ramped up this year. Congress started to allocate the money, but that does not mean the infrastructure is completed.

If anything the blackouts indicates that a majority fossil fuel based approach is insufficient. Additional infrastructure is needed.

>Damn, people. Its not green energy. Its green for your own country. But to make these solar panela and wind turbines you are making hell lots of easte as well.

The main difference is that renewable waste is isolated during production but clean during its operational liferime. Waste generated for Coal, as a comparison, happened during (a) mining (b) refinement (c) transport (d) continuously while it's burned to generate energy.

>Also "green energy" cannot replace burning yet, its still a lot worse in efficiency. Maybe in future it'll be better, i hope. But not now.

Comparison between efficiency of the two technologies makes absolutely no sense

Efficiency of renewables is different compared to fossil fuel efficiency. For solar, if we don't capture the energy, the sun will still shine. For fossil file power plants, ~70% of the energy generated are burnt away/lost as heat.

5

2012Aceman t1_j1zur5l wrote

Well, the Middle East wasn't exactly a paragon of stability even with oil. Interesting to see what comes next for them now that fossil fuels are being cut back.

11

abark006 t1_j21bjre wrote

It’s going to be fun when he Saudi oil princes no longer have enough oil sales to keep living their lives and lose the favor of the west. I wonder what will happen when the United States no longer cares about those oil imports. Humm.

5

20thcenturyboy_ t1_j21x3eh wrote

They all know what the future looks like, which is why you've seen such a push to make Dubai a tourist destination, and all the latest Saudi kings have tried building new cities with economies not centered on oil. Let's check back in a bit and see if they were able to get away with a transformation or if their autocratic societies will collapse as global warming makes the region entirely uninhabitable.

3

Human_Anybody7743 t1_j225b5j wrote

They're also playing the colonialism and energy game pretty hard. "Investments" in hydrogen and renewable infrastructure all over the world (as well as at home).

Ammonia won't be as lucrative as oil and gas, but they still have some top tier energy resources, an easy market, and are working hard to position themselves to control and profit from potential competitors.

Hopefully the autocracy collapses anyway.

2

Scrapheaper t1_j1yrat2 wrote

One point that always seemed to get sidelined in discussions around why we shouldn't use fossil fuels is the issue of energy security: if we (meaning the UK in this case) are dependent on importing fossil fuels for electricity then changes to the global supply affect our energy supply a lot.

In the past I think people tended to assume this wasn't really a problem, but it's become very apparent that it is...

7

boopbeepbop7 t1_j1yiwz3 wrote

Yes unfortunately, though the cobalt that is mined to help batteries hold on to more charge and provide longer ranges of travel without charging as much in EV’s is practically mined via slave labor in the Congo. Horrible conditions those poor people have to suffer through. So an increase in electric vehicle for us only keeps the slave labor mining business going.

5

ovirt001 t1_j1ziwlu wrote

LFP batteries don't use cobalt. They're lower-range, sure, but longer range will need a new battery tech anyway (and several are in the lab).

3

wagglemonkey t1_j2074vq wrote

Idk what your watching but the electric vehicle industry is NOT doing well this past year.

3

Human_Anybody7743 t1_j2267jk wrote

50% YoY growth in the face of massive supply chain issues seems like doing well to me.

4

jphamlore t1_j20ghyl wrote

Actually the Russians proved countries should keep their coal power plants ready to go.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-reactivates-coal-fired-power-plant-to-save-gas/a-62893497

> The Heyden plant in Petershagen, near Hanover in northern Germany, is scheduled to return into service from August 29 until the end of April, operator Uniper said on Monday.

> With a capacity of 875 megawatts, Heyden is one of the most powerful coal-fired power plants in Germany. It started operation in 1987.

> Germany plans to phase out coal-fired power generation by 2038 at the latest. However, the war in Ukraine and the resulting disruptions to the energy market are causing some plants to be temporary reactivated.

Germany plans to keep coal as a backup for more than 15 years into the future.

3

MyTnotE t1_j1zo8b0 wrote

Well, Europe’s using more coal than ever because Russian oil isn’t available. So, there’s that.

2

pogolaugh t1_j21roj3 wrote

We should be sure to push for non car transportation methods as well. Wether it be biking, walkable cities, buses, subways etc. The US was rebuilt once already for cars, we can rebuild the cities again for humans, the way it should have stayed and always been.

2

ignoblecrow t1_j22n70h wrote

Remote working could have a significant impact, huh?

1

FIicker7 t1_j1y8vud wrote

For every action their is an equal but opposite reaction.

1

kapege t1_j1zu7v5 wrote

And they put people to public transport and on their bicylces, too.

1

Prestigious-Gap-1163 t1_j2091ve wrote

Serious question do “people” in general really start to want EVs or is this just something people at the top say. I admit it seems that people are paying more attention to the future of them, but is the reality leading to large scale implementation?

In recent reports from Toyota and other major automakers they claim that ev is not the future. It will be split between ev and hybrids pretty evenly for a long time to come.

1

frupp110 t1_j21g35e wrote

It’s like when the taxi drivers in NYC went on strike because of Uber. No one gave a shit and just paid less for arguable an easier service. Bullet meets foot.

1

xkcx123 t1_j26h93l wrote

Don’t mention Iceland since most cities have larger populations.

Name one country that has over 10,000,000 people that uses all renewable energy.

Electric vehicles are no better than ice vehicles if you look at the larger picture of where the energy comes from and so fourth. The majority of electricity in the world comes from coal or other fossil fuels.

Show me a car that is 100% powered by solar power or wind power in a major city anywhere on the planet that’s no a one off situation.

1

vuxanov t1_j1yvbn4 wrote

Its the opposite, people are switching to gas powered cars due to insanely high electricity cost in Europe caused by Russia.

0

darth_nadoma OP t1_j1yvmqt wrote

Until recently Russia was their biggest petrol supplier.

1

Anacharsis_Cloots t1_j21fhrd wrote

To have a massive surge in electric cars not only for the wealthy but for everyone, we need cooper , a fuck ton of it to make enough electric service stations for everyone.

From what I've heard, the is a massive shortage on it...what to do then ?

I honestly think EV is viable for some people, but to force globalize it in Europe is a massive error imo, Europe , especially Germany is very advanced in thermic motors, that consumed less and less petrol, EV will probably be imported from the US or China, ruin the European car business...

0

Atomskii t1_j21hjzm wrote

Simultaneously that also did a good job of promoting coal plants in Europe ...

0

boersc t1_j22o7ao wrote

While true, the problem is that electric cars still run on fossil fuels. Just not in-engine.

0

MindTheGapless t1_j1ztu3b wrote

The reality is that it's not sustainable from multiple points a move to fully electric with the current reliance on lithium. Even just looking at the electric grid, it can't support a fully electric move in the timelines being proposed unless billions are poured into infrastructure.

−1

chameleondoesitagain t1_j20x7ju wrote

yes, lets blame russia and not a failing western government and their slave system. The real problem is that our politicians are such bureaucrats that make so many rules that it blocks the progression into the future. Now countries with less democracy bypass the west

−1

sllabtaem t1_j21zjio wrote

Electric vehicles are not environmentally sustainable in their current form, the processes to obtain the minerals like lithium are incredibly harmful to the surrounding environment

−1

Neat-Internet9682 t1_j1z9j07 wrote

You are a swine. May the breath of a million dying termites invade your nostrils

−3

SWATSgradyBABY t1_j1yr7kz wrote

Isn't it interesting how this wasn't an issue when the US invaded Iraq?

−4

neglectedselenium t1_j20dtgy wrote

Why would that be the case? The US didn't try to blackmail their allies with oil and or gas embargo, your whataboutism has no standing

4

ZoharDTeach t1_j1zqrsj wrote

You're just spinning your wheels if you aren't including nuclear power. Wind and solar aren't reliable enough. Wind never will be.

Currently EVs are just making rich people richer. But there is potential.

−4

Ph0enixRuss3ll t1_j1ypap3 wrote

Stop looking on the bright side and being positive. War is hell and the innocent lives lost are not justified with energy supply innovation.

−5

Zemirolha t1_j1ysmhl wrote

How can you judge others when you kill people in your own country with an unfair system? First, give example.

It is impossible having 100%sure about something. Even more about others. Maybe they are just a reflex on western actions.

2

Ph0enixRuss3ll t1_j1ytyll wrote

Opinions are like assholes: everyone has them; only the gays know how to use them.

Expressing judgments I'm 100% sure of is just me doing self care by being selfish enough to speak my truth rather than just echo your expectations.

Don't even try to fight with me about politics if you come out assuming I care for USA any more than I have to. USA is a terrorist government with a terrorist death penalty that executes innocent people often enough to have the whole government cursed. But at least we're not currently subject to a dictator tyrant who's trying to colonize neighboring countries to try and get his soft old man dick hard.

I kill a chicken and let the blood fall on the head of Vladimir Putin. Curse him and all his evil minions.

−5

Zemirolha t1_j1zddsm wrote

Why killing the chicken , dude? It suffers and do not deserve punishment!

1

Ph0enixRuss3ll t1_j1zm4ut wrote

Blood magic requires blood. Just be thankful I'm an ethical humanitarian who loves people a lot more than animals.

−1

Zemirolha t1_j255555 wrote

We are advancing fast with meat from cell culture and it will result on no more killing sensient animals for food production. Probably will be one or two steps for cell culture making blood too.

Is a sacrifice required or only bood is needed?

1

Jack04trades t1_j1yz6zs wrote

You are half right man. But dont say "at least" there is no excuses for both your country or mine (Russia) our voth government are complete shit. Just be honest, there is no good guys politics. Every time i hear there appeared i new good politic in Russia, i think: its all for show. Eventually it was really is. And same for every single country. Yiu dont have even elections as well as we are. Your choice is only between republican's and democrat's, who are two sides of one coin, made of shit. If you wanna discuss, im opened for conversation,.but please, lets be polite.

0

Ph0enixRuss3ll t1_j1zkp9m wrote

You're definitely Russian: "everything is shit and the only hope is to have no hope".

Over here we've got Bernie Sanders, AOC, Pete Buttigieg: there's plenty of people I'd love to have lunch with and thank them for their selfless civil service.

I'm a globalist with global views; I'm not proud to be American. But I am thankful at least I'm not Russian. Especially as a gay man. I definitely would have been murdered for being more proud of being gay than proud of my country.

This is me being polite. If I thought you were worthless I'd show it by ignoring you and/or blocking you. That's what online life teaches: the opposite of love is not hate; it's indifference. I do love the occasional Russian. American ignorant optimism is annoying I love the rough, bleak realism some Russians have. I just have no love at all for the Russian fascist government or its evil dictator who murders gays for sport.

3

Jack04trades t1_j207i78 wrote

>You're definitely Russian: "everything is shit and the only hope is to have no hope".

I didn't say that, you did.

>But I am thankful at least I'm not Russian.

Thats kinda rude, but nevermind.

>I'm a globalist with global views

Not sure what do you mean by globalist, in my case i believe the only future of humanity is to unity as one planet, instead of making more differences between each other, which leads to problems.

>Especially as a gay man. I definitely would have been murdered for being more proud of being gay than proud of my country.

Where did you get this info? i have like 5 gay friends and they have no problems in Russia. As well as we have gay clubs free to visit. We are not some kind of arabian country. Maybe our people not as polite as western to gay people, but not everyone.

>I love the rough, bleak realism some Russians have.

Most of us are like that. Our country is a way more tough to live in than yours. We have same problems, but less freedom. No weapon, no selfdefenses, and many more.

>Russian fascist government

Here you are wrong. Yes, our government is shit as hell, and most of russian would agree with that. We (again, most of us, except brainwashed part) hate our "president" who is actually dictator.

But its not fascist. Here is etemology:

>A form of open dictatorship based on racism and chauvinism, aimed at the eradication of democracy, the establishment of a regime of brutal reaction and the preparation of aggressive wars.

Our government (not country, or russians ourselves) indeed do all things, except those i checked as bold.

We do not have racism and chauvinism. Our country full of different races, also during current war in Ukraine, we still accept ukrainians, who running from battles. Simply because many russians have part of their families living there (ukranian part). For example currently my grandma and my uncle living in Odessa right now, and there is nothing i could help them with. Except for what i did: hide from being mobilized to this war.

>its evil dictator who murders gays for sport.

Yet, i do not understand where did u find this information. If you have any link or anything else, please, share.

2

freemyslobs1337 t1_j20d00y wrote

Good answer, though some may disagree.

I never found life in Russia seeming all that bad compared to the extreme American poverty I have experienced. Nobody here has a summer home, and very few under 30 own a home period, there are/were some benefits to the Russian economy, like fairly low cost of living (total cost of living crisis in the us since the great recession)

At least until this war. So many controls were placed on Russians, the sanctions likely stole the supply of meds I would absolutely need to reside there (doubt I could get permanent residency because of the reason I take them, unfortunately (mental illness) )

I really do love Russians, despite some being quite hateful, I do keep in mind hate is caused by numerous things. And I love the perspective you give and like to hear it, gives me hope that Russia is not totally fucked and I might be able to live there sometime for a while...

Stay strong, keep hope, and fight where you can. Neither good nor bad times last forever. And they form great souls, the Russian soul has formed from struggle and I appreciate it greatly.

5

Ph0enixRuss3ll t1_j20xd8s wrote

America: a country without aristocracy has made successful businessmen their aristocracy; no matter how they made their money because the toxic positivity likes to insist the system is perfect and only rewards good works. Enter Donald Trump who never did anything other than inherit, lie, cheat, and steal; enter neofeudalism.

1

Jack04trades t1_j22i245 wrote

Fairly low cost of living indeed. Paired with very low salaries xD Right now im paying bills for my flat that i own, it cost me 20 percent of my salary. Our real taxes are 45-54 percents not 13 as many of us believe. Which is twice higher than USA. For the end i wanted to say, that im one those people that nobody can "buy". I dont care about money as long as its enough for me to just live. I could become politic here and make Russia a better place, but if i will, i will be surrounded by lots of rats and snakes, risking to find my family eventually fall of the windows. Thank you for warm words, it helps!

1

freemyslobs1337 t1_j22j50y wrote

20% of your salary.?!?!

LMAO LMAO LMAO. I FUCKING WISH. CAN I GET SOME OF THAT?

I worked about a month of full time at a decent wage, and only made enough for a single months RENT, disregarding other bills. People my age spend upwards of 50% of their income on housing.

A great chunk of Americans spend their entire paycheck on bills.

There is a cost of living crisis in America and has been for a decade.

Also, you ignore all the other taxes in America Everything is fucking taxes and employers have a tax on them too.

1

Jack04trades t1_j22k4x6 wrote

We have those taxes as well, taxes: for buying anything store are 20 percent, for alcohol additional 15 percent, for your own flat or house, car, etc. If you wish we can actually compare our salaries. Lets start from something. For example i waste like 20 percent of my salary for food per one person. And its that if i buy food using discounts. Many of them. Also when i was speaking about up to 54 percents of taxes it was that what i mean about employee. You get your salary minus at least 44 percent.

1

freemyslobs1337 t1_j22m7lm wrote

Read my other comment here.

1

Jack04trades t1_j22p5rh wrote

Im sorry. But i don't know how to see entire thread :( reddit seems unconviniet to me. Could you, please, tell?

1

freemyslobs1337 t1_j22m5au wrote

Median US income for 16-25 year olds is 31-36 thousand dollars.

Average rent CURRENTLY paid is 16 thousand a year. Current asking average price for an apartment is about 20k per year. The average American spends another 2k per year on utilities, which does not include internet or phone bill (two required things in America), thats another grand for internet. Toss another grand for your phone bill, you have $24k in bills. You are gonna need a car, public transit is minimal and cities are not walkable Another $1500 for gasoline. Well, you are gonna need to pay for your car so thats another 6k per year. Another 1.5k in insurance costs for said vehicle. This is America, though, so it doesnt stop there. At this point if you are poor enough, you get assistance, but the average 16-25yo makes too much, there is a low income threshold for that. For health insurance, you are gonna need another 6k per year. Another 4k for food.

That adds up to 43 thousand dollars. The average 16-25yo does not make enough to survive, but makes too much for assistance. This age group also often has student loans that are another few thousand per year. 50% of 18-29yo's live with their parents.

Tell me about summer homes? Nobody has those here.

You said OWN, or do you rent said flat? Because a mortgage for a condo here is going to set you back 17k per year. I certainly dont own any flat or apartment or home, neither do most people under 30.

1

Jack04trades t1_j25dirt wrote

>Median US income for 16-25 year olds is 31-36 thousand dollars.

Median Russia is 8100 USD.

>Average rent CURRENTLY paid is 16 thousand a year.

Average rent currently paid is 4860 USD.

>The average American spends another 2k per year on utilities, which does not include internet or phone bill (two required things in America), thats another grand for internet.

Average russian pays 1296 USD (in my case its 1500). For internet its additional 144 USD and around 30 USD for phone bill + around 77 USD per mobile phone.

>You are gonna need a car, public transit is minimal and cities are not walkable Another $1500 for gasoline.

We don't have to have a car to move around country or in cities, we have public transport everywhere, but only in 3-4 cities its somewhat okay, also we have good subway in Moscow and SPB. Overall for public transit we pay around 480 USD per year, as for gasoline we pay average 1300$ (mostly more).

>Well, you are gonna need to pay for your car so thats another 6k per year. Another 1.5k in insurance costs for said vehicle.

Can't tell how much is for car (taxes), but for insurance average is 1000 USD.

>For health insurance, you are gonna need another 6k per year. Another 4k for food.

As for medicine, its taken from our social insurance, which you MUST HAVE ANYWAYS (nobody asking, its automatically given and takes 5% of your taxes paid or more).

As for food it takes 1621 USD per year because from this point you have to use discounts, or you have no money left. Otherwise it would be around 3000 USD.

>Tell me about summer homes? Nobody has those here.

If you mean those little homes in village, its not just summer homes, people selling flats to go live outside city, when they are tired of it. Most of them are elders.

What exactly do you wish to know?

>You said OWN, or do you rent said flat? Because a mortgage for a condo here is going to set you back 17k per year. I certainly dont own any flat or apartment or home, neither do most people under 30.

Yes, i own a 70 meters flat with 3 bedrooms, kitchen and bathroom.

Its not mine completaly, i've got it in inheritance, after my grand-grandma died and i earned it when i wasn't even in first class at school.

As for mortgage - ours flats currently worth of 5 millions rubles for 25 meter flat (studio), which is 67567 USD. You will pay around 4054 USD per year for that for 25+ years (which is actually untrue, since those numers doesn't include % for mortgage which is AT LEAST 10%).

​

As you can see, almost all prices are the same as yours, but your salaries are higher. The only main exception is medicine, which is well known in world.

But the problem is that if u go for rent, even with median salary, you will give 60-70% of your salary just for rent, others 30-40% will go for food, public transit, and to pay your bills. In the end you have nothing at all.

And the fun thing, is that i told its median salary, but most of people who get this salary are living in 3-4 cities. Two of them is Moscow and SPB. So its almost like half Russia are living with lesser salary, like 20-40% less.

1

freemyslobs1337 t1_j26s10v wrote

About 32% of Americans make less than 30k USD. This range, in America, is EXTREMELY poor. Like, 30k means you are in need of immediate financial assistance or you will die.

A 3 bedroom house in the US is worth anywhere from $300-900k dollars. I will NEVER own a home, period, full stop, nor will most of my generation.

Summer homes, as in second homes, which is something pretty unique to Russia, even if its mostly elders that own them.

Honestly, it actually seems for young people in the US (I exclude the older folks as they own literally everything and young people will NOT inherent most of it, only the ultra wealthy will own it, indeed a common way to retire here is to reverse mortgage your house (they pay until you die, then take the house), as well as the extreme costs associated with someone dying, most people will not inherent much ), the situation is damn near the same. Average income is lower than the cost of living by a good margin.

The numbers will speak for themselves - 8.2% of people in the US are food insecure, compared to 5.5 in Russia

It also appears, though data is limited, about the same rate of young Russians and Americans live at home with their parents.

Seems we are both in a pretty shit economic position.

1

Jack04trades t1_j27goxo wrote

Yes, i do agree. Imo its all because of the incompetent governments who instead of investing into yours and ours nation future, instead of making allies and unite, fight each other for decades, wasting our money for weapons and all other things we dont actually need. For example our army really have some problems with equipment, but thats not because its shit or something. Its because most of it being stollen by corrupted people and sold from our analogue of your ebay. They simply want to be hell wealthy and rich for exchange of someone lifecost.

1

Ph0enixRuss3ll t1_j20az0u wrote

One of my ex boyfriends was Russian: a literal refugee who fled to America after his father literally tried to murder him.

I would say all of Putin's power is based on racism and chauvinism. He's got the people thinking Russian is a race and got them pretending nationalism is something other than just plain old racism.

The world definitely needs more women leaders because chauvinism is just toxic masculinity in politics; oh it's right for him to use protecting others as excuse to be violent because that "what men do".

Maybe he doesn't literally murder gays but he murders political adversaries because he's just an evil king who's got people too depressed to ban behind an adversary who could defeat him.

America has too many freedoms. The fools here are all armed to the teeth with way too many guns and thinking the right to kill is more important than the right to live. The country of idealized vigilante justice and realized mass murder.

Too depressed for activism is not unique to Russia; here we just accept monthly school shootings as the norm because big money politics is more interested in gun sales than the safety of school children.

1

Jack04trades t1_j22gsv8 wrote

Im aftaid women leaders in politics aint much better. We had one women leader in Yakutsk, first year she eas doing very well her name is Sardana Sarkisyan. But after that ahe showed her true face. Since she was from the same politic party as most of our politics (Edinaya Rossiya, pronounced as Russia as One), she didn't care about people after getting some advertising. Even in her city where she was a major, people noticed that she did nothing of what she promised to. Its highly depend on a human as a creature itself. For about evil king, and shooting in your schools, i do agree.

1

Ph0enixRuss3ll t1_j22l8ek wrote

Generally women are better than men, but they are people too; they can also be petty tyrants who abuse power.

1

Jack04trades t1_j22p9dd wrote

Its arguable, depends on the case you want to solve.

1

MrBojangles09 t1_j1z6cap wrote

We’re just as reliant to Russia if switching to renewables.

−5

stizzity28 t1_j1z2izk wrote

Hard to charge your EV when your whole power grid gets knocked out.

−6

FragnificentKW t1_j1zh0gc wrote

I’ve seen this meme floating around a lot lately. As anyone else who’s been through a hurricane or similar event that knocked out the power grid can tell you, gas pumps also stop working when the power grid is down

15

snklkjnqqe t1_j1zjg1s wrote

Decentralized renewable power is a great benefit during disasters or when maga idiots attack your substations.

Power lines are the Achilles heal of traditional centralized power.

7

Ok-Heat1513 t1_j1y8uc8 wrote

Umm is this sub literally Russian propaganda? Holy shit I had a sneaking suspicion, but this shit confirms it😂 time to ban the sub.

−9

Guiver5000 t1_j1y09am wrote

I mean people are dying, the eu has people struggling to hear their homes. But hey wind and solar that will NEVER supply what we need saw a boost. Seriously? Look. I am all far renewables but nothing we currently have is the answer… it’s just not. Currently nuclear and eventually and hopefully fusion will solve our problems. In the short term people are struggling, suffering and dying. So knock it off.

−15

Sea_Cup_5510 t1_j1y0whq wrote

Technology is not there yet, they never really pushed or showed any effort in doing so. Now they realize that they need to push that Technology and maybe and hopefully find a way to do so efficiently and cheap.

14

White_Ranger33 t1_j1y2tlp wrote

Not possible at scale without Russian raw materials.

−10

Sea_Cup_5510 t1_j1y2yw2 wrote

The Russians aren't the only ones with materials. But they definitely have cheaper ones. Anything is possible if it makes them enough money lol

7

shapu t1_j1y24dq wrote

It is possible for both points to be true.

4

MeteorOnMars t1_j1ybom0 wrote

Nuclear (fission or fusion) will never scale much beyond what they currently supply. They as inefficient with regards to water usage and have strong water-requirements with regard to access and temperature. With increasing global temperature and water scarcity, these pressures against nuclear are going to keep it down.

Edit: I mean fractionally supply. They might increase moderately in absolute supply.

2

JefferyTheQuaxly t1_j1zl1fl wrote

actually recent years are proving that we can actually entirely supply our planet using wind hydrothermal and solar energy. literally several nations this year had days or weeks where 100% of their energy was being supplied by renewables. China is desperate to become energy independent and in 2023 are set to build more solar panels than the entire rest of the world has in the last 10 years combined. they are doing that because they themselves believe that renewable energy can supply a huge chunk of their energy needs, and theyre literally supplying the world with like a quarter of all goods made annually. they believe they can become energy independent with solar panels still despite their massive industry.

another example, if the united states wanted to just a small 50km piece of land in nevada filled with solar panels could probably supply the entire united states with energy.

2

stupendousman t1_j20dqk2 wrote

> actually recent years are proving that we can actually entirely supply our planet using wind hydrothermal and solar energy.

Actually no.

0

drquaithe t1_j1z2825 wrote

Why the downvotes? Guiver5000 is correct, Europe needs its nuclear energy capacity in order to be significantly more independent of gas imports in the short term. Germany closing down fission stations and using gas instead is indefensible.

0

freemyslobs1337 t1_j20b9cc wrote

Europe is not struggling that much to heat their homes, lol.

You realize that there are like 3 countries that drop to deadly temperatures in Europe? And that houses are usually well insulated to keep heat in?

0