Combating climate change and energy security

[Suff]

(Bloomberg) -- Top German industries could face collapse because of cuts in the supplies of Russian natural gas, the country’s top union official warned before crisis talks with Chancellor Olaf Scholz starting Monday.

“Because of the gas bottlenecks, entire industries are in danger of permanently collapsing: aluminum, glass, the chemical industry,” said Yasmin Fahimi, the head of the German Federation of Trade Unions (DGB), in an interview with the newspaper Bild am Sonntag. “Such a collapse would have massive consequences for the entire economy and jobs in Germany.”
…

Russia has reduced shipments through Nord Stream pipeline by 60% and the pipeline is scheduled for a full shutdown this month for maintenance. Germany has raised doubts that Nord Stream will resume supply after that.

Until very recently Germany and the EU have been trying to get gas power designated as renewable so they can transition from coal.

Then Ukraine.

Now their energy security is at huge risk.

Instead of ramping their Nuclear back up and going all out on wind and solar, they put themselves in the back pocket of Russia.

When politicians talk energy security this is exactly what they mean

The bizzare thing is those most for energy security are most against the low hanging fruit of energy given to us for free that we just need to harvest.

Attitudes are now changing. Rapidly.

[cromwell]

Which way though Suff?
In my neck of the woods there are more people saying that we should get fracking than there are saying we need more wind power.
We need more nuclear power but that won't be on stream for years.
A gas power station can be up and running a lot quicker than that.
If there are power cuts this winter more people will blame the green policies of the government, whether that is fair or not.
A lot hangs on what happens this winter.

[Workingman]

So how long will it take to transition to picking this low hanging fruit - years, maybe?

How much CO2 will be released building all these windmills and solar panels. Volume and types of rare earth metals used in solar cells? Area of land covered in solar panels. Here's a clue for windmills. And one for solar panels.

Rome wasn't built in a day and the problem is now.

Like it or not, nuclear and gas are going to be part of the transition for decades to come.

Germany turned to Russian gas for two reasons. 1. The Fukushima disaster in March 2011 and its knee-jerk reaction to that in its intent to turn off its nuclear power. 2. The depletion of Europe's gas reserves from Groningen, Troll and the North Sea. It is worth noting that it did so to secure future needs in commissioning NS 1 and NS 2, also in 2011 and 2012. This was a time of more peaceful relations between Russia and the West. There was even a joint NATO-Russia counter-terrorism exercise, Vigilant Skies 2011.

During the Lisbon Summit in November 2010, NATO leaders and
President Dmitry Medvedev agreed to embark on “a new stage of
cooperation towards a true strategic partnership”, based on the goals and
principles of the NATO-Russia Founding Act and the NATO-Russia
Rome Declaration (28 May 2002).

Sure, things have gone downhill since 2014 and Crimea, but at the time of commissioning of Nord Stream it was a different world. 20:20 hindsight after the event is another thing.

[Suff]

Germany was trying to get Russian gas certified as renewable last year. Well after 2014.

Germany took a decision to put its energy security in the hands of Russia instead of developing their own.

If they had been determined to keep their energy security and had invested in renewable at that time, then it would not be an issue now.

As for the attempt to try and say that wind turbines are Co2 generators because they cost to build. I found a 2014 article ranting about that. It claimed the Co2 cost to build one was 245 tons.

Now I read the list and it was talking materials to build the foundations and body. But let's go for broke, let's say the mining, casting, building and setting up to operate cost 4,000 tons of Co2 for a fully up to spec 15mw wind turbine.

Now let's calculate the Co2 emitted to generate 1Mwh of electricity. The US give these figures, it is 400kg per Mwh and this includes both renewable and nuclear power so it is a good measure.

Now back to the 15mw offshore wind turbine. That's 6 tons per hour. But it isn't because it is only 46% efficient. So let us say 2.5 tons per hour on average, 24 hours a day.

After. 10 weeks it has exceeded the 4,000 tons of Co2 to build it. For the rest of its 15 years of life, it will mitigate some 700,000 tons of Co2 which would otherwise have been emitted.

One wind turbine.

Take that one back to the fossil fuel lobby where all these fairy stories come from. CO2 atmospherics is all about numbers and the numbers say that if we do not go Zero emissions we are toast

[Workingman]

Germany was trying to get Russian gas certified as renewable last year.

You have any links for this claim? I can find stuff for biogas and biomethane, but these are different things.

But let's go for broke, let's say the mining, casting, building and setting up to operate cost 4,000 tons of Co2 for a fully up to spec 15mw wind turbine.

OK. lets accept that, even though there is no proof of the figures, not that it matters, the CO2 has been emitted. All the other claims about CO2 per Mwh are just fluff - the CO2 is out there, we can't claim it back.

CO2 atmospherics is all about numbers and the numbers say that if we do not go Zero emissions we are toast.

OK, so how exactly, are we going to get to zero emissions? I am asking about true zero emissions not credit trading or net-zero - true zero. We can't, not now and not ever, the whole thing is a con.

Even avid proponents of renewables say there is no such thing as zero or net-zero.

[Workingman]

Meanwhile Rolls-Royce has announced potential factory locations for its SMRs: Richmond in North Yorkshire, Deeside in Wales, Ferrybridge, Stallingborough in Lincolnshire, Sunderland and Carlisle.

16 of them can be up and running in the next 25 years.

On 24/7/365.

[Suff]

That 700,000 is actually 300,000 but yo get the idea.

[Suff]

Net zero is only possible with a combination of mitigation as well as reductions in fossil fuel use.

One thing is absolutely certain, if we keep burning gas and coal for power and oil for transport we are going nowhere in terms of reductions.

[Suff]

You have any links for this claim?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60229199

There are others.

Germany is publicly disagreeing with the move but is privately lobbying for it. France is publicly lobbying for it.

[Workingman]

Now who's "greenwashing?

Well, you, the BBC and other media.

The plan says nothing about gas, and nuclear, being "green", but that they can be classed as "sustainable investments" in the transition period if they meet certain targets. A BIG difference. There is no mention of either of them being "renewable", not in the EU proposal nor in your link nor here

In fact in the final link German Environment Minister Steffi Lemke described the proposal as "wrong", see here for more details, adding that nuclear energy could lead to environmental disasters and large amounts of nuclear waste, and Climate Protection Minister Robert Habeck called the plan "greenwashing", saying it "waters down the good label for sustainability."

The German position is light-years away from what you falsely claim. Only the media is claiming that the proposals make gas and nuclear "green" as it is part of its agenda.

As I said earlier:

Like it or not, nuclear and gas are going to be part of the transition for decades to come.

That is the ultimate truth.