discussion SIX countries poised for blackouts after Russia's ruble deadline passes

[ProudLBS]

Just now, John Slayne said:

but what are you measuring that efficiency against? 20% efficient to do what? i don't understand

percentage of solar energy that is converted into electricity

[frenchyisback]

11 minutes ago, John Slayne said:

 

 

Anyway your original point was that this situation is the result of 'leftist pacifist' governments, which is factually incorrect. European leaders admitting they need to increase military spending is exactly proof that they are right-wing, actual leftist don't consider that necessary at the moment. It's far more important to invest into energy to make Europe energetically self-sufficient, like what are they gonna do with all those weapons, invade Russia for gas? As if.

 

This is the kind of thinking that got Russia to invade Georgia & Crimea. Putin pray on the weak.

 

Also, Europe can NEVER be self sufficient in Energy. They don't have the sun, the wind, the fossil fuel nor the rare earth needed for self sufficient energy production: win. solar, or electric. Germany is the best example as they can barely use 1/3 of all their wind and solar installed capacity because they don't have enough sun or wind & that is why they went back to coal after cancelling nuclear. 

 

Moving toward electric will only just make them more dependent on China Vs being more dependent on Russia.

 

Even Nuclear will make Europe dependent on Russian uranium or Nigerien uranium. 

Edited July 3, 2022 by frenchyisback

[John Slayne]

2 minutes ago, ProudLBS said:

percentage of solar energy that is converted into electricity

and 20% is bad because? a quick Google search was enough for me to find that there are already PV cells capable of reaching 50% efficiency, and even in the UK, a famously cloudy and rainy country the average efficiency is between 15-20%, not 5%

 

but investment in solar energy doesn't just mean more solar panels, it's also investment in the technology so in the future we could easily go from 50% to even higher.

 

Quote

Assuming intermediate efficiency, PV covering 0.6% of U.S. land area would generate enough electricity to meet national demand.

taken from University of Michigan. and that is assuming we can't use any other source (which is not true of course) and we can't increase the efficiency (also not true)

 

so I don't understand this tirade against solar, nobody is advocating for full transition to solar, but rather a combination of existing nuclear + investments in new solar, wind, hydro, and anything else renewable, which is the bare minimum for fighting climate change.

[John Slayne]

6 minutes ago, frenchyisback said:

 

This is the kind of thinking that got Russia to invade Georgia & Crimea. Putin pray on the weak.

 

Also, Europe can NEVER be self sufficient in Energy. They don't have the sun, the wind, the fossil fuel nor the rare earth needed for self sufficient energy production: win. solar, or electric. Germany is the best example as they can barely use 1/3 of all their wind and solar installed capacity because they don't have enough sun or wind & that is why they went back to coal after cancelling nuclear. 

 

Moving toward electric will only just make them more dependent on China Vs being more dependent on Russia.

 

Even Nuclear will make Europe dependent on Russian uranium or Nigerien uranium. 

Europe is already demonstrably *not weak*, you can't seriously tell me that the EU has Georgia level army  I already provided receipts for military spending across different European nations, Russia doesn't hold a candle to the EU.

 

But for the sake of the argument, again, how will the military spending fix the energy crisis aka the topic of this thread? If anything, it will make the problem worse since army costs energy, not the other way around. Like do you think the EU should go to war with Russia over gas?

 

Any receipts for Europe 'not having enough wind or sun' to meet its demand? It's basically one big peninsula and islands so I'm sure there's more than enough wind on the coasts + sun in the Southern regions. But even in the cloudier parts, solar panels maintain reasonable efficiency and will continue to be even more efficient as the technology gets better with the right investments, see my reply above.

[ProudLBS]

47 minutes ago, frenchyisback said:

Even Nuclear will make Europe dependent on Russian uranium or Nigerien uranium. 

uranium is recyclable, several European countries have uranium reserves and Canada and Australia exist too if necessary, so there's no need to rely on Russia or Niger.

Edited July 3, 2022 by ProudLBS

[frenchyisback]

25 minutes ago, John Slayne said:

Europe is already demonstrably *not weak*, you can't seriously tell me that the EU has Georgia level army  I already provided receipts for military spending across different European nations, Russia doesn't hold a candle to the EU.

 

But for the sake of the argument, again, how will the military spending fix the energy crisis aka the topic of this thread? If anything, it will make the problem worse since army costs energy, not the other way around. Like do you think the EU should go to war with Russia over gas?

 

Any receipts for Europe 'not having enough wind or sun' to meet its demand? It's basically one big peninsula and islands so I'm sure there's more than enough wind on the coasts + sun in the Southern regions. But even in the cloudier parts, solar panels maintain reasonable efficiency and will continue to be even more efficient as the technology gets better with the right investments, see my reply above.

 

 

Europe is demonstratively weak, that is why everybody wants to join NATO and get the US defense guarantee. If Europe was strong, Sweden would have not felt the need for NATO Article 5 since the EU treaty has an equivalent article 42.

 

That is why Putin won't even deal with European leaders and considers the US its only interlocutor when discussing security in Europe. 

 

Military spending will help by keeping Russia from performing the next invasion.... which will save us from the next energy crunch.

Til then, if Europeans want to solve their energy, they will have to diversify cause they will never be independent. Just like China get a no more than 15% of your energy needs from same source: Nuclear (Uranium from Niger), LNG (North America & Quatar), Oil  (Middle East), Electric battery (from China) & Wind, Solar for local production on the margin....

 

They have started but it took them way too long so they are gonna have to be patient to finally be free from the Russian energy pressure.

 

& About your receipts:

Analysis: Weak winds worsened Europe's power crunch; utilities need better storage

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/weak-winds-worsened-europes-power-crunch-utilities-need-better-storage-2021-12-22/

 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2022 by frenchyisback

[frenchyisback]

10 minutes ago, ProudLBS said:

uranium is recyclable, several European countries have uranium reserves and Canada and Australia exist too if necessary, so there's no need to rely on Russia or Nigeria.

 

I think the environmental regulation make their exploitations financially impossible in Europe... Am I wrong?

 

for Canada & Australia

Australia is definitely a reliable partner... if their new leftist government doesn't destroy the Uranium industry since they won on a platform on being more environmentally friendly.

Edited July 3, 2022 by frenchyisback

[ProudLBS]

23 minutes ago, frenchyisback said:

I think the environmental regulation make their exploitations financially impossible in Europe... Am I wrong?

They're not impossible (in fact some Australian company wanted to build a mine in Spain but I think that went nowhere), but it's cheaper to import from countries with looser environmental regulations.

Edited July 3, 2022 by ProudLBS

[John Slayne]

25 minutes ago, frenchyisback said:

Europe is demonstratively weak, that is why everybody wants to join NATO and get the US defense guarantee. If Europe was strong, Sweden would have not felt the need for NATO Article 5 since the EU treaty has an equivalent article 42.

 

That is why Putin won't even deal with European leaders and considers the US its only interlocutor when discussing security in Europe. 

 

Military spending will help by keeping Russia from performing the next invasion.... which will save us from the next energy crunch.

This is literally not true. Putin does deal with European leaders, but just because he lives under the delusion that Russia is still a superpower doesn't make it true. I literally provided receipts for military spending and even the invasion of Ukraine is a receipt of its own - Putin couldn't even take Kyiv, what makes you think he could take an inch of land in the EU? Like there's absolutely no way, please...

 

And preventing Russia from performing the next invasion will how exactly bring more Russian gas to Europe? Your point makes no sense. If Putin decides to cut off Europe for political reasons it won't matter how big the EU army is, unless you want to invade Russia, but that's obviously never going to happen. 

30 minutes ago, frenchyisback said:

Til then, if Europeans want to solve their energy, they will have to diversify cause they will never be independent. Just like China get a no more than 15% of your energy needs from same source: Nuclear (Uranium from Niger), LNG (North America & Quatar), Oil  (Middle East), Electric battery (from China) & Wind, Solar for local production on the margin....

 

They have started but it took them way too long so they are gonna have to be patient to finally be free from the Russian energy pressure.

 

& About your receipts:

Analysis: Weak winds worsened Europe's power crunch; utilities need better storage

https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/weak-winds-worsened-europes-power-crunch-utilities-need-better-storage-2021-12-22/

 

 

 

Those pictures you posted literally prove my point about the coastline and south of Europe? Not to mention that as PV cells become more efficient they will be available for wider use even in the Northern regions. Investments to renewables are crucial for fighting climate change, but now also to become politically independent from Russian and ME. 

[frenchyisback]

2 minutes ago, John Slayne said:

This is literally not true. Putin does deal with European leaders, but just because he lives under the delusion that Russia is still a superpower doesn't make it true. I literally provided receipts for military spending and even the invasion of Ukraine is a receipt of its own - Putin couldn't even take Kyiv, what makes you think he could take an inch of land in the EU? Like there's absolutely no way, please...

 

And preventing Russia from performing the next invasion will how exactly bring more Russian gas to Europe? Your point makes no sense. If Putin decides to cut off Europe for political reasons it won't matter how big the EU army is, unless you want to invade Russia, but that's obviously never going to happen. 

Those pictures you posted literally prove my point about the coastline and south of Europe? Not to mention that as PV cells become more efficient they will be available for wider use even in the Northern regions. Investments to renewables are crucial for fighting climate change, but now also to become politically independent from Russian and ME. 

• Putin couldn't invade Kyiv because of US intel support & US spending $40Billion VS EU's $4Billion in military support. 
• My point is if you're strong enough, Putin won't even try to invade. See how's he's been avoiding Lil Lithuania because it is in NATO & thus gets US guarantee.
• You can call Putin delusional. The fact is he's at the head of the 2nd largest stock of nuclear weapon, so if he thinks his equal is the US president, we all have to deal with it whether we like it or not.

• The forecast used the old offshore wind target. The planned tenfold increase in offshore wind would follow in 2050. The Netherlands' lack of space might not mean building in conservation areas, but rather not to build at all. The North Sea's "fragile ecosystem" marked the opening and closing statements of the government's offshore plan, and the theme runs through it. No increase in human activity is to be permissible in the North Sea, if the ecosystem can not not bear it, the plan decrees. It raises questions about how much more wind power capacity the North Sea can take.

  https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1755489/eu-offshore-wind-trade-off-density-efficiency

• The UK coast are the only ones truly worth it and they don't have enough to power all of Europe with current storage capacity... not even close...  

[Robert]

This is just another indication we must switch to sustainable sources of power with nuclear energy being the most obvious. 

[Ger.vaz]

People in here implying that this is cause Europe didn’t spent as much as USA in military 

American really are f**** up, you only think in guns and war. This is really all Your fault and should be ashamed of causing all the wars just to then name yourselves “heroes”