Submitted by MrGuttFeeling t3_118j8pk in UpliftingNews
Sadly for the planet though Europe dramatically increased imports of American LNG to replace the Russian gas, and American LNG is one of the dirtiest sources of gas available. It has far higher emissions on extraction (uses fracking) than the Russian gas. So it will take a huge renewable energy push to make this a net gain for the planet. Let's hope it really does lead to a vastly accelerated roll out of renewable energy.
Personal and very localized perspective, but the war has caused a massive spike in interest in renewables. We started planning for a heat pump and PV modules on our roof right before the war and all companies involved told us they were getting swamped in the months following the invasion.
Wait til you find how many coal plants Germany has fired up since the war began.
Yes I somehow suspect these optimistic stories that the war has been good for renewables is deliberately designed to disguise the truth that the war has completely derailed the entire climate change efforts. No one is even talking about emission reduction targets now, just how quickly we can ramp up fossil fuel alternatives to Russian gas. Huge win for the fossil fuel industry as the majority of the European public is quiet on the issue.
The Germans are typically very smart people.
But the decision to close down nukes in favor of fucking coal plants was one of the dumbest decisions a country has ever made (visible to the world stage) and its economic and environmental cost continues to this very day.
In the long term, it’s the right decision. Nuclear was the right option to get off coal/LNG/oil 20-30 years ago. But now the right option is renewables. They are cheaper than nuclear and can come online far faster. Ironically, the oil and gas industry is pushing for nuclear over renewables because it will buy them more time to extract profits.
Sorry but we'll just have to disagree here.
And no, the oil and gas industry is not pushing for nuclear. They have astroturfed/bankrolled the largest anti nuclear "environmental" groups for decades in an attempt to kill off nuclear (like the dipshits in Germany) and force the necessity of more fossil fuel base load plants (again, like the dipshits in Germany).
The bottom line is there is no form of energy on earth with the combination of desirable traits (clean/virtual zero emissions, energy capacity and energy density, capacity factor, and safety) that can compare to nuclear. Literally only solar is safer, and not by much per TWh.
If there is going to be a realistic net zero future, you're going to need nuclear base load plants supplemented by renewables and their overcapacity as replacement for peaker plants. Renewables as a total replacement for base load via overcapacity and batteries is totally infeasible, given the space requirements one would need for overcapacity is so great that energy storage is no longer an issue.
It's also worth noting that radioactive waste, all of which produced to this point couldn't even fill a single football field at two casks high, is able to be processed and reused, with 96% reclamation rate, with the half life being reduced from 10k years to a few hundred. This tech has existed since the late 80s, along with melt-down-proof reactors, but was cancelled due to ignorance and politics. Luckily, the climate crisis is causing people to dig it up and develop new tech inspired by it, like the new liquid sodium SMRs that are being proposed.
This is absolutely right. The fossil fuel industry has done an amazing job at holding back the development of nuclear. In countries like Australia, which have some of the largest per Capita carbon emissions, and who coincidentally have the world's third largest coal reserves, have a moratorium on nuclear energy. It's never been properly explained why. And now fossil fuel is back with a vengeance - all because of the Ukraine war. After decades of being on the back foot, it's now being embraced again. And no one in Europe is talking about emission targets. Oil and gas company profits are at an all time high. Security and war is the only thing that matters. If I was a powerful fossil fuel executive I would probably think it's a good investment to align myself with the military industrial complex to push for a prolonged war in Ukraine.
It's interesting, if you look at the Western oil companies that were operating in Russia (Chevron, BP, Exxon, Equinor etc) and profiting from the corrupt Russian State, you might think they financially suffered due to the war and sanctions. The exact opposite. Profits have never been higher because they took out their main competition.
[deleted]
Also coal plants have been used extensively and they pollute more than gas.
Yeah and some of the other gas we imported came from China...who got it from...Russia.
Or importing oil and gas from India....who got it from ...Russia.
Getting Europe dependent on LNG was part of the plan. One reason the US blew up Nord Stream, to accelerate the process. Europe didn't turn into a green energy paradise, their energy prices soared because they don't have clean energy to keep up with demand.
Sod off Vlad.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments