* In 1974, Washington and Riyadh struck a deal by which Saudi Arabia could buy US treasury bills before they were auctioned. In return, Saudi Arabia would sell its oil in dollars—not only enlarging the currency's liquidity but also using those dollars to buy US debt and products.*
[0] https://www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/2143450/saudi-arabia-wan...
US forces nearly all countries to buy USD that eventually get returned as SA-owned debt (huge monetary policy benefits). SA gets more or less bribed by the worlds largest military.
Awkwardness is when SA wants to do stuff that’s is against US morals (like murdering journalists) or when China firmly but politely asks to buy in RMB (like it has recently).
US generally sees petrodollar regime as second only to the military (as evidenced by their eagerness to invade Iraq and gain leverage over SA).
I think there also was the (possibly implied) promise of military protection by the USA
The country which was in midst of protests which their government, dictatorial btw, decided to violently suppress?[7]
Yeah, nice guy all around that Gaddaffi. Oils the only reason anybody would want him gone.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTA_Flight_772
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Yvonne_Fletcher
[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda%E2%80%93Tanzania_War
[4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chadian%E2%80%93Libyan_conflic...
[5]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian%E2%80%93Libyan_War
[6]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya%E2%80%93Switzerland_rela...
[7]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Libyan_Civil_War
[8]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Berlin_discotheque_bombin...
Defensive military alliance - NATO - go!
Gee, I wonder how many similar incidents we can count among NATO states going back from 1988
> So in exchange to gaining access to US treasuries (debt) before action, they had to buy US treasuries?
I have no knowledge about this besides what's been written in this thread, but I assume that having the ability to buy before the auction means they get a good deal.
Which currencies are as strong or are in a better position, and are backed by stronger economies than the euro?
Easy, initial answers are the Swiss Franc and the Norwegian Krone.
Expanding the thought experiment a bit, it's possible that CAD is, big picture and long term, in even a better position. Probably AUD as well.
The GDP of .ch and .no put together are 6% of the EU's.
I'm sorry, but they just aren't significant in the large picture.
"... are as strong or are in a better position, and are backed by stronger economies ..."
... and I would argue that .ch and .no are in quite a bit better position and are backed by stronger economies.
If the saudi and other arab nations' deals with china and their acquiring of yuans are significant, it could signal the end of the petroldollar.
I highly doubt they will stop using it now, but if any big producers from the middle east stop using the dollar its basically worthless overnight.
At least the euro can't be insta-killed by some dude half-way across the world.
The dollar is on a house of cards, its a dumb way to structure the currency's worth.
Sounds like a propaganda meme, at least for Iraq that I know a little about.
Iraq was invaded for failure to fulfill WMD disarmament requirements, which was known and very _legal_ reason for invasion, according to the agreement made after Desert Storm. Iraq not just failed to prove that it destroyed all WMDs and precursors, it actively and blatantly prevented UN investigations, which is documented in UN resolutions in 1992, 1995, 1996, 1998 and 2002.
Note it's not just US, those are UN resolutions.
The propaganda meme keeps floating around because UN weren't able to find WMD after invasion, but the point is that the reason was not whether they find or not. It was Iraq's responsibility to provide proofs of WMD destruction, but instead they actively interfered with that. Who knows, maybe there are still WMD stockpiles, hidden somewhere in the vast country.
All of it a result of moronic politics around nuclear and a failure to build out fossil fuel capacity while the green energy transition was still in progress.
Nuclear certainly is crucial in the mix. And used as such: Europe has a lot of nuclear power.
But nuclear is slow. Terribly so. Even an operational plant needs days to react to increasing or decreasing demands. And building such plants from scratch, or extending existing ones, takes decades. Never months.
Plus transitioning to nuclear just builds another set of kochs and saudis.
Plus it makes your entire economy beholden to one of China, Russia, France, or the US.
Plus it just kicks the can down the road. If you consider direct thermal forcing. We are exactly where we were in the late 19th century with greenhouse gases. There is no option but to transition to a steady state economy, and starting a bunch of projects that only pay off if you use as much energy as possible from them (and even then, solar + storage will be a fraction of the cost by the time they open) isn't the way to get there.
Plus those same five countries won't even let half the world have nuclear power plants.
Plus the world's uranium reserves won't actually last very long if you carry on with exponential growth (doubly so without reprocessing and breeding).
Then there's all the usual risks people mention.
The solution is the same as it has ever been. Degrowth, stopping waste, and renewables.
If however Europe can't continue to burn gas and oil when demand exceeds supply because of the weather, then there is a major problem that is going to need fixing in a very expensive and time consuming way. If green hydrogen don't drop in price and no other storage solution can arrive to become cheap than gas and oil, then the climate change goals won't be achieved.
To add to the problem in northern Europe, the locations for hydropower is practically already at maxed utilization. They are also quite old and with large maintenance debts. They are also is causing extinction of several species, and fixing that would cost prohibitively much money, and the solutions will reduce outputs.
The thing is, 5x solar and wind sounds great but if I can specific the time and space for it, I would make a great profit of trading 5 units of energy for 1x at a different space and time. The price difference in northern Europe can be a factor of 10 or even higher between low and high. 5 kwh worth 3 cent each is worth much less than 1 kwh worth 40 cent.
Then comes storage, curtailment, and backup (always necessary: fossil-fuel plants always produce around 9% of electricity in fully-nuclearized France).
Moreover backup is now provided thanks to gas turbines, and we know to run them thanks to hydrogen (clean), which can be green hydrogen (cleanly produced thanks to renewable sources overproduction).
Sure. Let me just build hydro dam where there's no hills and dig some geothermal where's no geothermal activity and we're all set!
Those benefiting from huge potential for hydro, offshore wind or solar (deserts...) are at an advantage. Those benefiting from a low production time-profile correlation with most other ones also are blessed.
Those totally unable to deploy anything probably don't need huge amounts of energy or are rich to the point of already importing it (is there a counter-example?).
At any rate you could build nuclear faster than that will take to be ready for market in the best case.
A non nuclear mix is also cheaper and isnt uninsurable without a catastrophe liability waiver.
The best time to build a nuclear plant is 40 years ago.
Everyone thinks about power like you need one big dam, or one big plant (coal or otherwise). There's a lot of small fast flowing streams that have potential to create extra energy.
I think hydro needs to be reimagined. IT always need to flood valleys to be in the mix.
I actually have no idea how to estimate that. Anyone have a good estimate on that? Intuitively, I'm thinking that most of those rivers are fed by many small streams, so it would be approximately equal. I'm entirely unsure of that though so treat it as having huge error bars.
Sure the water in that creek might be falling hundreds of meters, or even kilometers, but without a dam the height differential at your generator is only going to he a few metres at best. Enough to power the lighting, fridge, and washing machine in the houses that the creeks happen to run by, but not much else.
With the advent of long lasting perovskites and (hopefully) some less polluting battery technologies you're not even better off cost-wise.
You might be able to do something with a long pipe parallel to the creek to get more head, but then you're going to spend a lot of your energy on wall friction unless it's very wide.
Could be, but that's a bunch of stuff you don't have to power with the existing system. Given how many creeks there are, that seems like it could really add up.
> With the advent of long lasting perovskites and (hopefully) some less polluting battery technologies you're not even better off cost-wise.
That's fair. I've learned in my life that I don't have a good intuition for what the costs of large infrastructure projects are.
A nuclear plant will probably have multiple 1GW reactors, with very high capacity factors. I think your numbers are very optimistic.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Star
2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Sunlight_Solar_Farm
Yes, there was some anti-nuclear sentiment after Fukushima which made for an opportunity. But it was long in the running. Both the SPD and CSU/CDU had interests here. Lots have been written on this in established media, should you wish to delve deeper.
The Merkel government then stopped it, then resumed it again.
And now Greens try to claim it wasn’t their fault, despite it being the foundation of their party since the mid-1980s.
It was reverted as soon as the CDU took over, and reverted back after Fukushima. But it is originally a "Green" idea and ideology, and it remains to be one today (see: Bavaria trying to get their plants recertified after 2022, because of the gas situation, and Berlin - staunchly Green - fighting it.)
Read up on your history once more. Schröder/Fischer were both voted out of office in 2005.
Let's respectfully disagree here.
Anyway, don't let this cloud your judgement. There are economic issues here, and economics concerns trumps environmental, in Germany and elsewhere. This would have happened even if no anti nuclear campaigning had ever taken place.
In fact, it might even have happened faster if there wasn't also a big push for renewables, which have taken a lot of resources. The people really responsible should answer for this and not some convenient scapegoats.
you can read about this concept here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heating_element
Electric water heaters and baseboard heaters are common, and extremely efficient. In fact, resistive heaters in the scientific sense (watts in vs. watts out) are the most efficient form of heating.
They're extremely reliable and cheap because of how simple they are.
They may not be _cost effective to run_ in many regions due to high cost of electricity (per watt as compared to gas). But here in BC Canada, resistive elements are extremely common due to relatively cheap power (Hydro in our case). For whole home heating, heat pumps are usually used in new builds because of their advantages, but they're still very tied to the grid and have elements in them for defrosting and the like.
If you scaled up nuclear you'd similarly see prices of electricity drop, and if you have the grid infrastructure (or build it), electric heating (for your home, water, cooking, whatever) becomes pretty attractive.
But I'm glad you've been convinced :)
Anyone using electric baseboards is getting highly subsidized electricity because any other energy source is cheaper.
Only place I saw baseboard heating was in school portables.
Electric heating is about the simplest machine you can possibly make (it's just NiCr wire and a thermostat which is already there), and the cost would almost exclusively be the labour of installation. Even heat pumps (including for water) could be built in relatively short order.
The problem is it would entail quadrupling the electricity generating and transmission infrastructure. This is the hard part that takes decades.
It’s something I’ve always wondered:
At night, it might be more cost effective to heat a bedroom electrically than an entire household with gas. But that’s a forced air heating issue: you can’t block 75% of a furnace’s airflow and expect it to keep working. Europe usually has boilers and radiators so dialing down heating to just a room is possible.
Or better yet, heat the person with a mattress pad instead of the building air at night.
Electric resistive heaters are 100% efficient - they convert 100% of the electricity into heat.
Electricity heating does produce a bunch of heat at other places though, and it all comes from work, whereas the gas could only produce maybe 70% as much work if used some other way.
Yes there are inefficiencies at generation and transportation. But I don't think those are usually counted when talking about the efficiency of a home device. And it certainly won't be enough to bring it down to 0%.
As an illustrative example, you could get the same heating effect by putting the electricity through a computer or other appliance, or by putting the gas through a heat engine to produce electricity which is used inside the home and warming the house with the waste heat.
I know about heating by computer because for the last several years I've heated my apartment solely by mining Ethereum on my computer. The only dedicated heaters that my apartment has are resistive electric heaters built into the walls, so it's better for me to get a little Ethereum plus heat than just heat.
You could frame it as fraction of the heating that is possible at carnot efficiency, I guess. Ie. the amount of heat you put into your room / the amount of heat you with a perfect machine could at typical temperature differentials.
Then an element would be about 10-15% efficient (as measured at the wall vs. an ideal heat pump) and gas would be...awkward to calculate (I'd have to open up a textbook if not just multiplying max COP and max thermal efficiency of a heat engine), but somewhere in the 20-30% efficient range. Electric including a thermal generator would be in the 8-10% range somewhere.
Electric heat pumps would be around 50-70% by this metric, or in the 25-40% range somewhere if using a thermal generator.
Thinking about it, I like this metric because it really highlights how much more wasteful burning gas to heat a home with electricity is if you're not using the waste heat for something. If you're not using renewable electricity, even heat pumps don't break even if they're not high quality and well maintained.
Really drives home the importance of insulation and good curtains in cold areas.
Edit: looking at absorption heat pumps, they seem to be a little better than my guesstimate. I think they outperform fossil fuel powered electric heat pumps.
- Large parts of the Uranium are coming from Russia
- Nuclear power is not competitive and nuclear power is very expensive (especially if you conside the costs the government will be left holding the bag on, becuase nuclear power plant companies will spin off their power plants to new companies to go bankrupt once the profiting is done and the cleaning up the nuclear remains starts), no matter how much the pro-nuclear people want to lie about it
- Nuclear power is statistically not dangerous compared to fossil fuels, but not compared to renewables.
- The world's uranium supply is running out. Already since the late 1980s, uranium mines have been unable to meet the world's annual demand. The nuclear industry has so far filled the fuel gap with material from military and civilian stockpiles.
- Nuclear waste is a problem no country except Finnland is anywhere near solving. Germany has been trying to find a permanent nuclear waste storage location since 1999 and have not come closer to finding one since then, because every time the current favorites are revealed the "not in my backyard" screeching starts and local politicials force a restart of the search.
- Many of the world's nuclear power plants are old, because hardly any new ones have been built in ages, because ...
- The construction of nuclear power plants is unbelievably expensive and takes decades, and much of the know-how on how to build nuclear power plants has been lost in europe over the past decades because so few are being built, which drives up the costs even further.
- We still have 7 years of CO2 budget in Germany, so why do some politicians talk about building new ones, although they would only be finished in 20 years at the earliest (and we in DE can't even get the berlin airport built in anything close to the deadline, how long does a nuclear power plant take then ?)
- Budgets for nuclear power plants take budget away from renewables
- We have to change from a centralised to a decentralised grid, nuclear power is a step in the wrong direction
- Nuclear power plants make us dependent on dictators
- Climate change has an impact on reactor operations. With global warming, extreme weather events are on the rise. Unlike renewables, however, nuclear power plants are not adaptable. Rather, their danger increases in our changing climatic conditions.
- Our neighbour france has heavily invested in nuclear power and is is a complete shtshow. There are constant headline to the extend of "Low temperatures caused another french nuclear power plant to go off the grid, worsening the skyrocketing energy prices in france" (The same with "too high temperatures" any many other reasons). Even before the war they had an energy shortage.
The 3 remaining nuclear power plants in germany are: - Emsland (1335 MW) - Isar/Ohu 2 (1410 MW) - Neckarwestheim 2 (1310 MW)
All three are pressurised water reactors and thus not as bad as boiling water reactors, but total rubbish compared to liquid salt reactors.
Moreover, all three have been in operation for over 30 years and all three are due for a "periodic safety review" (every 10 years), which was allowed to be ignored during their last 3 years of operation due to a "grace period under the Atomic Energy Act". If they were allowed to continue running, the operation time extension of the of all three would start with at least one month downtime, because these inspections would have to be started again. These inspections would most likely also reveal necessary repairs, wich would further delay the timeframe.
By the way, all three power plants have not been employing new staff for some time because they knew the would soon be shut down soon anyway.
In short: these nuclear power plants have been preparing for their shutdown since 2011 and have let everything slide over the last few years because everything will soon be demolished anyway. There are not the necessary fuel rods, not the necessary personnel, not the necessary will of the operating companies and no safety checks that would be necessary for continued operation.
Also: Merkel decided in 2011 (one day after the nuclear power plant disaster in Fukushima) to not allow nuclear power after the 31.12.2022. Merkel, famously in the green party . (for anybody with no clue about german politics: Merkel is in the conservative party)
The conservative opposition needs things to disagree on with the government, the current government had no scandals so far and the conservatives are still salty for being voted out of government, so they just make sh*t up and currently that is the myth of our magical saviour nuclear power.
Nuclear power is about as safe as wind and solar if looked at per TW. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
A nuclear reactor can be built in three years, though admittedly this hasn't happened in Europe. They are mostly (85%) built in under ten years. Figure 3 shows we should expect around 5 years. https://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nucl...
There is no exploration going on to find new uranium deposits because there isn't much willingness to make new mines
Not immutable. There are other sources that are much friendlier
>- Nuclear power is not competitive and nuclear power is very expensive (especially if you conside the costs the government will be left holding the bag on, becuase nuclear power plant companies will spin off their power plants to new companies to go bankrupt once the profiting is done and the cleaning up the nuclear remains starts), no matter how much the pro-nuclear people want to lie about it
I doubt this hyperbolic assertion. Prove it.
>- Nuclear power is statistically not dangerous compared to fossil fuels, but not compared to renewables.
Again, prove it. This is unsupported, and in fact from what I've seen, false. So provide some evidence.
>- The world's uranium supply is running out. Already since the late 1980s, uranium mines have been unable to meet the world's annual demand. The nuclear industry has so far filled the fuel gap with material from military and civilian stockpiles.
This is again, an unsourced claim. In fact, a quick google shows: "There is not now, nor has there even been a shortage of uranium. Fear about reliability of the supply of uranium has been used in the past as an excuse to get something else done." Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/llewellynking/2020/06/08/uraniu...
>- Nuclear waste is a problem no country except Finnland is anywhere near solving. Germany has been trying to find a permanent nuclear waste storage location since 1999 and have not come closer to finding one since then, because every time the current favorites are revealed the "not in my backyard" screeching starts and local politicials force a restart of the search.
I agree this is a problem, but it isn't one that is unsolvable. It's a cultural issue, not a physical one.
>- Many of the world's nuclear power plants are old, because hardly any new ones have been built in ages, because ... >- The construction of nuclear power plants is unbelievably expensive and takes decades, and much of the know-how on how to build nuclear power plants has been lost in europe over the past decades because so few are being built, which drives up the costs even further.
This isn't inherent, it can change, especially with political need.
>- We still have 7 years of CO2 budget in Germany, so why do some politicians talk about building new ones, although they would only be finished in 20 years at the earliest (and we in DE can't even get the berlin airport built in anything close to the deadline, how long does a nuclear power plant take then ?)
CO2 budgets are now irrelevant currently. China and Russia do not give a shit about CO2 emissions; their energy and GDP are heavily dependent on them. Globalization was the only mechanism that allowed the world to enforce these two countries to behave with emissions, and with the ongoing breakdown of the globalized system, there's no reason they'll reduce emissions. Why cripple Germany's economy to meet a target that the world's largest emitters aren't willing to get anywhere close to?
>- Budgets for nuclear power plants take budget away from renewables
Possible, but renewables have their own downsides, which are well articulated everywhere.
>- We have to change from a centralised to a decentralised grid, nuclear power is a step in the wrong direction
Why?
>- Nuclear power plants make us dependent on dictators
How? How does solar not do the same, in the case of China? 80% of the world's solar panels are made in China, in fact, that rely heavily on the consumption of Coal to produce. Source: https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/07/14/us-chinese-solar-panels...
>- Climate change has an impact on reactor operations. With global warming, extreme weather events are on the rise. Unlike renewables, however, nuclear power plants are not adaptable. Rather, their danger increases in our changing climatic conditions.
This makes sense, but I'd suggest that it's probably possible to take this into reactor design.
>- Our neighbour france has heavily invested in nuclear power and is is a complete shtshow.
Source on this, I don't know much about it. I've heard only good things about France's nuclear program.
I agree this is a problem too, and this is why people point out there is also a physical issue which transcends culture.
In terms of radioactive properties remaining over a period of millennia during which a culture can be expected to have lost its identity, or been forgotten completely.
If the problem is not truly unsolvable, a permanent solution may still not be possible without close co-operation with a future sympathetic culture.
Some added information so: The Green party pushed for an exit of nuclear power as part of a social-docrat government. This exit eas actually pretty well worked out and planned. When Merkel took, one of the forst things was to throw that rather good plan out. Only to revert that decision, hastly at that, after Fukushima. That second nuclear exit, the one Germany is currrently going through, was hastly done, ill planned and rushed.
And lastly, nuclear power does exactly nothing to compensate for reduced gas deliveries. Germany, as in deed a good portion of Europe, is heating with gas. And not nuclear power or electrical.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/g...
The amount of flak that purple sliver garners is way disproportionate to its importance - especially since it's not even dispatchable.
Plus germany relies on natgas for a ton more than just electricity. Will we make fertilizer with nuclear power too?
But yeah, people are definitely being a little over dramatic on the severity.
(Yeah it's about that expensive).
Im not sure if shifting that allocation would have been such a good idea though coz theyd now be using even more gas and coal.
Heat is the main challenge and heating alone is problematic all by itself.
Gas dependence was a huge mistake, nuclear is not the short term solution we are looking for and getting away from gas dependence in the past couldn’t have relied on nuclear.
Think heating when you hear gas, not electricity.
That is not a law of Physics. Electric heating is perfectly fine. It’s true that we cannot do it quick enough to matter in this case, but that is not a good reason to just shrug and not learn anything from this. We will need a long-term strategy, because even if we manage to come up with a temporary solution, it’s clear that these things will happen again in the future. It’s just too good as a way of applying pressure on European countries. Long term, it will have to be electric if we want to improve our energy supply and have a remote chance of not staying too far from our climate goals.
We should have seen this coming for quite a while. It was in fact predicted, but mostly ignored by politicians who seemed to thing that oil crises from the 1970s were fun and that energy independence was irrelevant.
Different types of power have different characteristics. Nuclear power plants runs at constant load and changes in power are slow. They take on the order of days to start and stop, and can not on their own follow load changes on a country wide network.
This isn't good or bad, it just is. They can manage the same base load day every day until they need servicing. But that also means you need other power sources to take the top load. That's usually natural gas turbines, even if it could be other things. Hydro is optimal, but most countries have a limited capacity for that. Which is, somewhat ironically, a similar situation as wind and solar have, but for completely different reasons.
Keep that in mind when people talk about replacing natural gas with nuclear. They do different things.
This mostly isn't physics, but rather a reflection of nuclear power's high capital costs. Nuclear plants have demonstrated that they can ramp up and down pretty quickly compared to e.g. most combined cycle natural gas plants.
https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12...
"For example, according to the current version of the European Utilities Requirements (EUR) the NPP must at least be capable of daily load cycling operation between 50% and 100 % of its rated power Pr , with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% of Pr per minute. " - it goes on to discuss how most modern light water plants significantly outperform this requirement.
"Most of the modern designs implement even higher manoeuvrability capabilities, with the possibility of planned and unplanned load-following in a wide power range and with ramps of 5% Pr per minute. Some designs are capable of extremely fast power modulations in the frequency regulation mode with ramps of several percent of the rated power per second, but in a narrow band around the rated power level. "
> Keep that in mind when people talk about replacing natural gas with nuclear. They do different things.
Having some nuclear base load certainly helps, though, if natural gas is disrupted. Instead of having both the dispatchable power and variable power impacted from reduced natural gas supply, you instead only have a portion impacted.
One strategy is to build a bunch of renewable for during the day. Add some nuclear base load. And then with the surplus power you get sometimes, do power-to-gas with electrolyzer cells. Finally, use natural gas peaker plants and burn natural gas where justified in industry. This is a nice diverse mix with storage.
Yes, last winter France imported a lot, because more than 4 reactors were shut down for maintenance due to corrosions problems that has been found. These problem should had been found earlier, and would allowed to make the maintenance before the winter, but due to covid, inspections have been postponed.
If you look at previous years winter: https://www.rte-france.com/eco2mix/synthese-des-donnees?type...
For example, 01/11/20 to 26/12/20 (their website allow only 8 weeks period graph) you can see that overall France exported a lot of electricity to other EU countries in the middle of the winter.
Are you able to expound on why this is the case? Are you specifically talking about furnaces that use some kind of oil being very common in Europe?
Also, in an emergency situation, can't nuclear be used for heating, albeit through powering things like space heaters rather than the normal furnaces?
So no, nuclear power cannot be used for heating and Europe definitely doesn't have an electricity problem.
Europe is still going to have access to gas if Russia cuts its whole supply come winter -- in fact, 60% of the European gas supply will still be present. Probably a bit more, since lots of crisis efforts have been made to provide gas from other sources. Only part of the heating needs have to be replaced.
Let's say Germany still had the, what, 8000 gigawatts of nuclear power online that it has shut down during the last decade? Wild-ass guess, but it's a lot. That's base load, of course. Electric power.
Resistive heating is dirt cheap to deploy in terms of capital costs. You can buy a 2000W heater for $20, perfect for domestic use. So the operating costs dominate. Using a heat pump is 3-4 times better in terms of operating costs; that's not as easy to deploy but many places will already have A/C installed and that's usually the same thing.
So then it becomes a question of economics; many industrial processes cannot be replaced with electricity. But as we've seen, heating of living spaces can easily be done with electricity.
So in the kind of crisis we're discussing here, those thousands of gigawatts of nuclear electricity would be pretty damn useful for emergency heating of German homes and businesses, during months where the gas would be more profitably used for the industrial processes that require it.
It sure as hell wouldn't have been cheap, but it would be cheaper than shutting down half the economy, which is what we're preparing for right now.
It's a moot point, of course, because those ~17 nuclear plants are already shut down. But it would very much have made the issue dramatically less painful.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/could-germany-keep-i...
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=104&t=3
Also probably helpful to think about it on a per person basis. Another comment corrected me that Germany has 80 million people, so let's use that. 8000 gigawatts (8 terawatts) divided by 80 million looks like 8,000,000,000,000 watts / 80,000,000 persons gives you 100,000 watts per person which does not seem realistic. With my air conditioner running at full blast, that's probably just a couple kilowatts, and that covers 3 people. Lights use a few watts. A beefy computer is around 100 watts.
It's possible that Reuters got gigawatts and gigawatt hours confused.
But I don't think it ruins the core of my argument; it wasn't hinging on Germany having reduced their annual power production by 99%. If Germany in fact shut down 15GW of nuclear production (15 plants), that's still on the order of 200 watts for every person in Germany, or one new 1000W resistive heater running 24/7 for every fifth household.
That's the kind of "on the margins" capacity that would indeed make a Russian gas embargo dramatically less painful.
Population Germany: 80+ million
Home heating is primarily a luxury for comfort, not survival. Given sufficient insulation, we generate enough heat from food to muddle through.
Is it fun to shiver under blankets during an energy crisis? No, not at all. But are people going to die? Not likely, assuming access to space alien technology like blankets and coats.
Public Health England say:
> The most recent data on fuel poverty in England indicates that there were 2.28 million fuel-poor households in 2012. 5. Cold homes can affect or exacerbate a range of health problems including respiratory problems, circulatory problems and increased risk of poor mental health. Estimates suggest that some 10% of excess winter deaths are directly attributable to fuel poverty and a fifth of excess winter deaths are attributable to the coldest quarter of homes. 6. Cold homes can also affect wider determinants of health, such as educational performance among children and young people, as well as work absences
in the summary at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Excell winter deaths (excluding COVID19) were in the ~29,000 region in 2019, which makes for ~2,900 deaths even though blankets and coats exist.
Electric heaters are extremely expensive to run relative to gas or heat pumps.
Heat pumps are great and extremely efficient, but not they are as hard to install as air conditioners (because they are air conditioners that work in reverse).
Same with portable air conditioners.
But heat pumps are also available in single units now. They're getting quite popular because they can be self installed (no refrigerant engineer necessary).
And stop spreading FUD about people freezing to death in there houses in winter, please.
Edit: Assuming a plug in wall-heater does all of that, just how many of them would you need by November this year to change something?
1. Cool, nuclear power, cheap electricity, great.
2. Hmm, looks like sometimes they explode in a pretty rude, nukey way. Maybe we should stick with coal, oil, and gas.
3. Yikes, climate change. But if we pull all our coal/oil/gas plants down we won't have enough energy and prices will skyrocket. Not enough wind/solar/hydro yet.
4. So... maybe nuclear is a good idea again? Cheap electricity?
We're here. So your argument is we can't use nuclear because electricity is too expensive in Europe, when the whole idea is to increase the supply of electricity and thus bring down the price?
> Also, that wall heater doesn't heat your water supply
There are electric water heaters.
> how many of them would you need by November this year to change something
Maybe someone in this thread is arguing that we can both build a bunch of nuclear plants and distribute electrical heaters to people in ~4 months, but I'm not. This is all a long term thing isn't it? Don't we have to do this anyway for green energy?
Also, nobody will freeze to death in his house over this.
Please don't condescend! I agree this is a big job.
> Of course you can heat with electricity, in the case of heat pumps even sustainable. Thing is, there are millions of house holds, commercial and industrial users that have decades of infrastructure in place heating with gas. No way to replace that in mid, let alone short term.
Again we agree. My point is that we have to electrify for green energy anyway. May as well do it, right? Is your argument that we should only ever heat with gas, and electrification is a waste of time and money? Is there enough gas to do that?
> Also, nobody will freeze to death in his house over this.
The thing you're referring to is someone saying "In an emergency situation (a matter of life and death for the vulnerable)". Isn't it reasonable to consider this scenario? Why is it FUD?
"People will die" from this mistake is hysteria. Nobody informed about the energy problems will take that seriously. Gas is not electrical power to start with.
If a Jumbo crashes you expect around 400 death. If 2 crash into each other it's twice as many (search for Tenerife if you are too young to remember). If you build 2 skyscrapers for 16,000 employees you risk 16,000 deaths if the worst happens ("Less" than 3000 died, so the cold facts aren't that bad after all.) If you build build a nuclear power station with millions of people around, you risk many more deaths. Not everyone of them immediately, but cancers caused by radiation will continue for decades. Building such things is engineer hubris and some day something worse than what we have seen so far will happen.
> "If you build build a nuclear power station with millions of people around, you risk many more deaths."
Don't build it near millions of people. See this map of the UK[2]; London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Sheffield are where the most people are, and where the nuclear power plants aren't.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/09/fossil-f...
[2] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Dramatic, sure, but nuclear power kills far, far, far fewer people than buckets of water or BIC lighters.
For Chernobyl the overall death toll is estimated between 50 and 4000. Nobody knows and nobody knows how to even count. How do you count the disabled and sick babies born after it?
For Fukushima 1600 fatalities were reported during evacution. I am not an expert, but I guess it's difficult to attribute because the whole area was devastated already by the tsunami.
There will be lucky outcomes also in the future. But if you have hundreds of thousands or millions of people around, some day we'll be out of luck.
I agree with your sentiment on massive incompetence regarding Energy policy but this is an exageration.
1. Russia won't cut off gas despite it's threats because gas is quite literally one of the few revenue sources for the Russian economy. Much like Qatar, Russia would implode without Gas money.
2. There are plenty of other gas providers Qatar, Norway, Algeria, even US/Canada LNG, who can sell to the EU.
What they likely won't sell is at the cost of Russian gas which is the pressing point for Central and Eastern European countries.
But the point is, you would shut down heavy industry and go into deficit before you were faced with a doomsday scenario of people freezing during winter.
> Russia would implode without Gas money
Russia can sell to China and India. US/CAN has insufficient LNG transport capacity to completely replace pipelines from Russia. Germany has insufficient import terminal capacity.
Yes, they wouldn't run out of gas, but the price would likely spike 5-10x and crater the EU economy which is equally as bad.
Regarding import terminals: there are LNG terminals all over Europe that are far from their full capacity which all have connections to the German net. That alone would suffice in delivering enough LNG. Apart from that, we're on the fast track of having extra terminals ready by autumn.
Also price spikes as massive as those you mentioned will be prevented by emergency government regulation of the market (already announced).
As someone who works in the industry, I have a lot of confidence stating that we will be fine, thank you.
Russia literally shut down Nordstream today for at least 10 days.
Getting paid for gas in Euros or dollars they can't spend is worse than not selling it.
Just to be clear despite autocorrect, Russia did not shut down a major western clothing retailer, but the Nord Stream 1 pipeline.
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2022/07/11/nord-stre...
It is also worth noting that Gazprom has already stopped supplying gas to countries and companies refusing to bow to the rubles demand—Poland, Bulgaria, Finland, as well as some customers in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany.
German govt bonds are still being purchased by the ECB under QE so it makes sense their yields are suppressed.
Green parties did not win that much direct power, but they totally won the energy debate and their policies have become the mainstream consensus among European elites.
Over the past years, European governments (not just the German one) have been busy closing down any energy source that was not renewable or relied on imports from other countries.
Now it turns out that renewable energy sources are still not able to cover the basic needs of the population and the economy, and the dependence on imported fossil fuels has allowed an authoritarian government to launch the largest war on European soil since the World Wars.
I don't know if Green parties will actually face a backslash, but it seems clear that the energy transition in Europe will end up making the continent poorer and far less secure in exchange for little, if any, actual benefit for the environment.
Makes sense.
In Germany, coal was pushed by the conservatives.
It has to be said tho that the Green party is doing "realpolitik" now. While they aim at one hand to drastically accelerate renewables, right now they also invest heavily in getting a more secure energy situation in the near future still using a lot of fossil fuels, including rapidly building up LNG terminals and securing deals with parties they previously frowned upon, e.g. a gas deal with Qatar, the government of which the Green party previously heavily criticized for the human rights situation in the country. And e.g. they accepted - with some bickering - the temporary gas (as in petrol) price subventions the other coalition parties wanted, in exchange for temporary public transport price subventions (a 9-Euro regional ticket, that is valid for a month at a time, 21M sold by July 1, population 83M).
They are still rejecting nuclear power generation, neither wanting to build new plants, nor keeping old plants running (the operators of said old plants already called the idea of keeping those plants running "infeasible" to outright "stupid").
It remains to be seen what the blowback will be if inflation doesn't at least slow down, or if autumn and winter come and people start getting cold. Tho right now, the politicians and leading experts and "experts" say, it doesn't look like there there will be a shortage on a scale that gets life-threatening to some people.
[0] 20-24% share in recent polls, vs the 14.8% they actually got in the last election in Sep 2021. They are actually slightly ahead of the SPD (social democrats) in the polls now. The SPD is the majority partner in the coalition.
It boggles the mind that a so called Green Party is investing in fossil fuels.
The current government that has the Greens as a major coalition partner isn't really investing in new fossil fuel stuff, but replacements of existing fossil fuel stuff. E.g. the LNG terminals are meant to replace the capacity lost from ceased imports from Russia.
Building nuclear now isn't really an option anyway, at least not to deal with the current situation.
The operators of nuclear plants already signaled that running their plants longer is not an option. That would require a lot of investment, and more importantly a lot of time to renovate, modernize and re-certify these things. An effort I believe they said was in the range of 3 or more years.
Building entirely new plants, even with existing designs, would require at least 4 years even on a very expedited schedule.
So in the short term the only option is to keep using fossils - sourced from some place not-Russia. The Greens, while they certainly do not like that, understood this.
Would we Germans be better off if we had some nuclear plants left? Sure. But we'd also be better off if we instead had that energy mix that the Greens envisioned at the start of the century, that entailed renewables at the core, a bit of carbon (mostly from renewable sources, with tech to make it more or less carbon-neutral in totality) and storage, and investments (driven by government incentives) to use less energy in the first place.
If I had to blame anybody, it would be the 16 years of Merkel governments which managed to fuck up both nuclear and renewables, not the Green party.
All in all, quite reasonable and well thought through under the current circumstances.
Blaming the greens is internationally some kind of dumb idea that likes to reduce politics to stereotypes. The real effects will be much more subtle and indirect.
Could still end up with the greens losing votes. Currently it doesn’t look that way at all. (German perspective here.)
I don't know about Germany, but it is my impression that opposition to nuclear power was a common theme among the green movement in general for decades.
Obviously their agenda also included investing in renewables, as well as reducing consumption, but that wasn't going to happen fast enough, either for political or technological reasons.
I have voted for the local Greens several times over the last couple of decades even though I disagreed with and was frustrated with the views they held on nuclear power until recently.
I'm also unfortunately familiar with many of the common and overblown negative stereotypes towards the greens in general.
Insofar as nuclear power could have played a part in reducing our dependency on fossil fuels over the lasts couple of decades, though, I don't think it's unfair to say the greens in many countries did a lot to hinder that.
There are many parts in Europe where the homes are not heated by gas, but by the waste heat from the local power plants, regardless whether they are gas-based, coal-based or nuclear.
Any existing nuclear plant could be converted to also provide heating for the nearby houses, if the infrastructure of plumbing for the transport of hot water would be built.
However, the last part of the heating infrastructure, where the hot water pipes would have to be passed through the house walls and through the walls of all rooms, would be extremely costly in comparison with an electric heater, even if the operating cost would be lower.
So it is very unlikely that such a conversion would ever be done to already existing houses, even if it is possible.
Heat pumps would have much lower installation costs, while still being more efficient than resistive heaters.
If we’re going for the cheapest option, then why not fuck the planet completely and all burn coal?
They were right all along and are now the ones fixing the situation, after only recently being voted into government.
The polls show: The two most popular politicians in germany are both greens. They are the second biggest party in current polls with 22%, 6% behind the biggest party. In the polls they are the biggest party in the current government (when the current term started a few months ago they were the second biggest party in the current government)
Things are going great for them and there are no signs of that changing.
He said that we should be more friendly with Russia and that Russia has been trated unfairly. And then said we should buy more gas and oil from the U.S. What do you make of that? Why would you buy LNG from the U.S if Russia is such a great friend and its gas pipes are nearby?
Then went at great lengths to say how Europe is the biggest foe for the United States and not Russia.
Not to mention that fiasco at the Helsinky summit. If you talk a lot of nonsese people stop treating you seriously.
If I remember right he fancied NK leader as well. Just a clown or showmen or whatever you want to call him but definitly a reliable adviser.
Germany has been warned about its dependency on Russian gas by its EU neighbours and past U.S administrations long before that clown. It's just that Germany thought Russia is not completely stupid and made a risky and bad bet. Now it has to pay. It may be for the better because now it can invest in more renewables(i.e has a cleaner slate)
There is still a lot of inflation outside of energy prices. All of the demand-pull inflation from the pandemic is still there. A weak Euro does not automatically translate to "pushing exports" here. From the article:
>"For years, policy makers have welcomed a weaker currency as a means to stimulate economic growth, since it makes the bloc’s exports more competitive. But now, with inflation in the euro zone at the highest since such records began, its weakness is undesirable as it fans price gains by making imports more expensive. In June, euro-area consumer prices jumped 8.6% from a year earlier. Some policy makers have highlighted a weaker euro as a risk to the central bank’s goal to return inflation to 2% over the medium term, ..."
[1] https://techstartups.com/2021/12/18/80-us-dollars-existence-...
They were not. Minor changes to official definitions can make graphs look funny but doesn't change much else https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2021/01/whats-behind-the-rec...
Why not? Intuition says that it should. So I think that’s what GP is trying to understand.
It seems like you’ve substituted their model with yours but haven’t explained how yours works.
Velocity [1].
Ignoring it is like sticking a water wheel in the ocean and asking why it doesn’t turn given the depth. Quantity doesn’t turn it. Flow does. And that depends on more than how much water is present.
There's a very simple mathematical identity: MV=PQ
M is money supply, V is velocity, P is price level, and Q is all goods and services.
So if the economy produces the same amount of stuff (Q is constant) and if V falls in the inverse ratio as the increase in M, then the price level will not change.
* inflation is mostly imported
* cost of living crisis
* incoming recession
So they are under pressure to both try to contain inflation (but see above) and prop up economy.
Couple that with their slow-ish response speed, because the monetary policy committee only meets 8 times a year, and you get a recipe for a lacklustre response. IMHO.
our tiny economy makes no difference to global spasms.
But the flagellatory "everything is terrible and we are merely worms" attitude that prevails among the bien-pensant class right now is so saddening. The UK does have an influence on the world, a pretty outsized one at that, because it is one of the larger and more modern economies. Ahead of it are the US, the world's two most populous nations (China, India), and two comparative economic powerhouses, Germany and Japan. That's it. If you want to count the EU as one economy, great, it takes Germany's place.
Does this mean where Britain goes all must follow? No, of course not. But neither does it mean total insignificance.
If the US wanted a total war they could have left that place a toxic wasteland with everything dead for thousands of miles. Instead it appeared to be some lame attempt to capture "hearts and minds" with a completely failed attempt at setting up democracy. Was it a total failure, yup. Was it a stunning military defeat? Nope. Just more M-I-L money burning. Money goes into one side, instruments of death coming out the other.
- in time of a crisis, the world seems to ralley around the dollar, as it is backed by the strongest economy and the strongest military.
- this crisis has hit Europe hard, as it is not only close to the war, but of course, too dependant on Russian oil and especially gas.
- there was a lot of inflation internationally, the US federal bank was the first to raise interest to combat inflation. The EU lags behind and is limited in action due to the fear of destabilizing some of its member countries with too high of a debt.
Consequently, there is a lot of good reason for the Euro to be weak at these times. However, if the energy crisis can be solved and the war contained, a weak Euro also is also pushing exports from the EU. So there is a lot of reason for this trend to be stopped, if not reversed, until the other extreme is reached again.