Okay this is a genuine question but why are the G7 not backing down when clearly their populations are the ones suffering?
It feels strange to me living in the UK that the sanctions have been spearheaded by the US when they are mostly shielded from Russia. Whereas for European countries, it is obvious that they are dependent on Russian gas and yet they are not willing to negotiate.
The average citizen cares about their energy bill and putting food on the table more than some idealistic notion of standing up to bullies.
Because energy companies, even European ones, are making bank. So are asset owners.
Every crisis is someone's opportunity to make money off other peoples' loss. As long as their assets are safe and keep going up, nobody cares about CoL going up. Well, at least until riots happen and political extremism grows to new heights.
Come on France, 'do yer thang' (riots), we'll follow suit.
> Come on France, 'do yer thang' (riots), we'll follow suit.
Somewhat unlikely for now. The government is shielding the population from the worst, as they should, by capping electricity prices and with grants/loans to those worst impacted. The average Brit is being hit much worse than the average French.
You are not shielding the country. By printing money to pay for high energy cost, you maintain demand high when there is scarcity (instead of letting the demand adjust, people using heating as little as they can, companies finding substitute for gas, etc), that's a recipe for making the problem worse.
The free market excuses work for luxury goods but they don't work for necessities. Prices have already reached the point where a large percentage of the population will not be able to afford any form of heating whatsoever over the winter. As a country we already know that a non-insignificant number of people develop serious illness or die because of a lack of heating.
Making the choice to take no action further compounds the issue as you deepen the coming recession and create more people who cannot pay to heat their homes or keep the economy going.
The answer to a crisis like this is price caps, investment in alternatives, taxes on profits, and if necessary targeted restrictions on energy use.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with covering a situation like this with debt in order to keep people and the economy alive.
They will afford heating, only they will heat just the room they need at the temperature they need rather than heating to comfort. And keep in mind, if demand goes down, prices go down.
Will everyone afford heating? The most painful point hasn’t been reached yet and some reports suggest it’s got a long way to go (tripling by the end of winter).
> They will afford heating, only they will heat just the room they need at the temperature they need rather than heating to comfort
How do you know this? Did you do the math? And you know it's not just heating, right, it's electricity too. They'll eat only raw food to not waste energy on ovens and cooktops?
> And keep in mind, if demand goes down, prices go down.
Not with external pressure (war) and near total lack of supply no it doesn't.
>the sanctions have been spearheaded by the US when they are mostly shielded from Russia. Whereas for European countries, it is obvious that they are dependent on Russian gas and yet they are not willing to negotiate.
This was my problem with the Syria war too.
US: We want war! Europe you will get refugees, good luck.
>US: We want war! Europe you will get refugees, good luck.
Europe could have also have pursued a strong military, independent of US protection, energy independence from Russia and a strong domestic tech sector allowing it to stick it up and sanction US and Russian warmongering.
But as it stands, it has to 'shut up and take it'.
Also in the UK. Personally I'm sick of seeing our government cosy up to authoritarian regimes because they have something we happen to want. In the UK we're particularly unlucky in that the people currently in charge don't really care if the poor in our society freeze or starve as they've stated so astutely in the recent leadership contest.
The rest of the G7 at least seem prepared to shield their population as much as possible through planning and government intervention, which is probably why they seem much less concerned.
On top of that, the answer to the pain of the current sanctions isn't to go back to relying on Russian gas. It's to pump covid levels of investment into alternatives that don't require us to prop up quasi-dictatorships in order to keep the lights on.
>alternatives that don't require us to prop up quasi-dictatorships in order to keep the lights on
But how? The entire economy of the city of London is based on being the word's money laundering capital, vacation playground and best buddy for Russian Oligarchs, Saudi Royals, CCP big shots and other wealthy dictators and warlords. It's Thacher's legacy.
Yes Thatcher had her part to play, but election after election after referendum, the will of the people is more of the same Great British exceptionalism.
People moan about it because they and their governments haven't understood the consequences of their votes and actions. They wanted to have their cake and eat it too.
It doesn't help that elections are also just popularity contests and charades of endless lies and empty promises. Your average voter is far too I'll equipped to make informed judgements on complex issues making them easy to influence through fear mongering by groups with vested interests in seeing the results they want.
> I am extremely comfortable with people having to suffer the obvious consequences of their choicse [sic]
Of course, because you probably don't have to live with any serious consequences of your choices, and you're most likely unaffected by these ones either.
Almost half if not more than half of the population in a democracy usually doesn't get to make a realistic choice, they voted for the losers without enough power to enact anything.
Most people don't get to live with the result of their choices but the result of others'. This means the pain is lessened for those responsible, and heightened for others. Are they allowed to moan without triggering your sensibilities? How would you know which is which?
Then realistically you probably didn't get to "suffer" the real consequences from most of your democratic process related choices. If you voted for leadership that went on to wage an illegal war you don't get to bear any of that responsibility. People love to bang their own drum about democracy, and freedoms, and their power, and the contribution they made. Until you bring up what the leaders they chose did. And then it's no longer their responsibility, then it's just a stamp on a paper, not a share of the responsibility. What are the consequences you suffer for something like that?
Part of my point is that unanimity (amongst the people) in democracy is pretty much unheard of. So Brexit was not done by everyone. Realistically it wasn't even done by a majority of the population. All the others are in for the ride despite being against it.
Democracy may be the best system we've got now but it sure sucks sometimes. It's why it's called the dictatorship of the majority, and many countries are democratic and yet have very little protections for the different minorities, particularly the ones who have no chance of becoming a majority anytime soon.
The other part of the point is that most times people don't suffer from some of their decisions despite taking credit for any when it suits them. Similar to sport fans where when their team wins "we won", and when it loses "they lost".
An interesting point about both is that the proponents garnered their support through extensive lies, directly and through the media.
Public support of the Iraq war went hand in hand with the UN both finding WMDs and approving action[0].
The lies about Brexit are pretty infamous: from £350m/week for the NHS to stoking immigration fears and the fabrication of EU powers.
While it's disappointing that people are convinced by these types of lies, I'm not sure they're fully to blame; or that it does much good to do so. The bigger question is how do you combat these lies. The ones that seem to tickle the part of the brain where factual arguments don't seem to have much sway.
I think it'd be more accurate to say the will of some people given the effects of the current voting system. That's without going into the effectiveness of tabloid newspapers in inventing public opinion. While people bear at least some responsibility for their actions, I do think they can be put into perspective when you consider the circumstances which led to them.
> London is based on being the word's money laundering capital, vacation playground and best buddy for Russian Oligarchs, Saudi Royals, CCP big shots and other wealthy dictators and warlords.
Having lived in Zurich for many years, those are fightin' words! /j
I am full blown xenophobe, not quasi, but not in this case since I was from her home country and were visiting her for a week - but we spend probably half an hour in Zurich trying to find someone that knows the place and speak German or French at acceptable level to give us directions. It was during the late evening and out of 15 people we stopped like one was swiss.
I'm sorry to hear you had such an outlier of an experience - I've never been met with anything except understanding when asking for directions in any of the national languages.
> we spend probably half an hour in Zurich trying to find someone that knows the place and speak German or French at acceptable level to give us directions. It was during the late evening and out of 15 people we stopped like one was swiss.
Stopped...successfully? And does Swiss German count as "an acceptable level of German" :)? I don't find it hard to believe that 14 people would pass you by (as people would in a major city), but I find it hard to believe that out of 14 people, none would speak the major national languages.
No one passed us by. Everyone was very polite while we tried to communicate.
We didn't speak English, and the ones that we met that spoke German or French were also foreigners. Just all of the people that we met that night were foreigners (I can remember Spaniard, Italian and Brazilian). It was 30 years ago. Zurich for me was even then insanely cosmopolite city.
Why Thatcher and not Blair? His reforms have a more direct influence on the situation we find ourselves in. After all, it was Mandelson who said "We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich."
Because it's all politicians since Thatcher ? But i will admit that the Third way, like it's French equivalent 10 years ago, can do more harm faster than regular liberals.
I think it's deeply ingrained in British culture, through its very much alive social class system. Precisely what Brits (seem to?) like about that qaint system is what makes it possible to maintain such a careless elite class that is not only not punished for creating extractive vehicles such as the City, but even praised and rewarded for it, through British identity politics. "Great" Britain, world power, A-rank capital, and so on.
Brits never saw a social revolution, and it shows.
It's also worth remembering that Russian forces have committed an assassination [0] on UK soil using radioactive material, and attempted another one that was bungled and killed an innocent English police officer _in England_ [1].
The general feeling towards Russia in the UK is very hostile, and there are certainly a huge number of people happy to put the squeeze on Putin. There is little to no enthusiasm for appeasement here, and the pressure is on the government to ease the pressure on the vulnerable without bending over to Russian foreign policy.
> the people currently in charge don't really care if the poor in our society freeze or starve as they've stated so astutely in the recent leadership contest.
I am prepared to believe that until next week they are fully aware that the people who will elect them genuinely don't care about the poor. After that I hope the idea of getting re-elected by the public will induce a sudden change of plan, if not heart.
It didn’t have to be that way though. It probably does now, but reducing dependence on Russia would have been wise in hindsight. It doesn’t take a genius to see that depending on Russia is a bad idea.
Backing down means handing the victory to Russia, which is politically costly in the short term and probably not financially cheaper in the long term. Whether europe wants it or not, they are involved in a war, and you can't just back down in a war without consequences.
You could also argue that the current prices are just a teaser of what's coming anyway so more incentive to innovate now instead of later. Very harsh and not completely true, but I think there's a little bit of truth to it
Russia is exporting more oil and gas to china and India and in long run will export to Africa as well in addition to building 19 nuclear reactors across the world from Egypt to Argentina.
China is reselling Russian lng while India is reselling Russian oil as blend.
True intelligence is backing down now but stopping all Russian imports gradually over next 10 years
You’ve guessed incorrectly how much the average citizen cares about standing up to Putin. Most people believe that the consequences of not standing up to him would be far worse
Impressive how much propaganda can achieve. The average citizen also wanted to stand up to Saddam, Gaddafi, xi , Al Assad before they take over the world
Interesting how people care about Ukraine where Russian actions are arguably very localized to military targets but no one is concerned for over 500k dead in Iraq and their current civil war, all caused by certain NATO countries. Half of the ME is on fire, but no one care. Just a bunch of hypocrites.
Yet people didn’t oppose when their own governments were slaughtering people. Countries
ruined for decades if not centuries. Whataboutism would be if I justified Russian actions, but I’m not doing that. I’m looking at the western butchers pointing fingers at Russian butchers. Hypocrite.
And still, a considerable amount of people in Hungary (in my opinion 40%+, mostly from the poorer demographics) are strongly opposed to sanctions against Russia if that means the utility costs increase. I bet the memory of the countries on Russia's border function better, but don't underestimate the power of falling living standards paired with wishful thinking (that is, Russia will stop definitely at Ukraine's borders).
Anyways, Putin is, hopefully, not mad enough to step into nuclear territory. We'll see how he fares when he's cornered in (when Ukraine's counteroffensives get too serious to hide from the Russian public and he has to mobilise to hope to win, or back down.
Do I understand correctly that what you propose is making this derailed "super"power richer and more connected to the countries it's been trying to subvert for fifteen years?
The G7, NATO and others have showered Ukraine with more money than it will ever be able to spend on military assets (which they are also being showered with). Ukraine needs experienced solders and expertise in the conflict zone. NATO, G7, etc. are unwilling to make that escalation so they'll keep on throwing more money and resources into a black hole to appear to be doing something when they're not willing to do the one thing that must be done if they want Ukraine to prevail. The only question is how long will the people of the nations supporting Ukraine continue to let this go on? Unless those supporting Ukraine do so with their own bodies, the end result of the conflict is guaranteed, all we're doing now is prolonging the pain.
They are trying to quickly end the war, it’s Russia who’s prolonging it on purpose. Russia attacked with 1 against 4 in manpower, and is completely fine with the war lasting for a long time.
We now see how western powers are forcing Ukraine to do devastating counter offensives that will lead to quicker defeat. And even then I think Russia will take its time.
We’re approaching a 10 year long business cycle where cheap energy is everything, and Russian’s know that. There is no way out without huge money printing to replace Russian energy, all the while we finished biggest money printing cycle in our lifetimes.
Russia waited since 2014 and chose a best time. Europe will fold sooner or later.
If he didn’t want to prolong the war, why he sent only a fraction of his army? Why they’re attacking only southern and eastern parts and not from Belorus?
Looking at last 2 decades you think Putin is incompetent? You can say many things about him but that’s the last fucking thing on the list.
He lost half of his Spetnaz regiments during the first week, and 80 to 90% of the para (that means close to half are dead or incapacitated).
It would be like France loosing half its marsouins and chasseurs alpins, and 80% of the legion in a week. A disaster.
And the worse is that Ukrainian migs are still flying over occupied territory. That's unforgivable. It's the proof that the fox3 capabilities they were boasting about are in fact shit. Now they lost Thales for their optics and avionics, so that might be an explanation on why their engagement range for air to air combat seems limited, but this is a bad look.
You really think that reaching a stalemate with a military as small as that of Ukraine was his aim? The equilibrium reached is slowly but surely swinging against Putin.
He ran away from the capital. He is running out of troops and is getting close to conscription. He is dragging out ‘50s and ‘60s tank relicts to fight after losing his prime weapons. His airforce is hiding and his best ship was sunk. His oligarchs are starting to desert him and are getting bombed or falling out windows.
The allies could have backed down in WWII, handing major concessions to the Axis. Would we be better off today?
Backing down to a bully will only encourage and empower it further. The current situation in Europe is status quo in poor countries, so the world isn't ending...
Because we fucking hat it with Russia. Yeah we could back down and then maybe they will send us some gas and then what? What will be their demand next time?
Yes we need to deal with this crisis by constructing enough nuclear power plants that we never need power again, and that means overriding all rules about planning permissions.
This means that energy prices will be higher than before this winter, and then lower and green forever after. Technically Europe still needs to import Uranium, but we can get that from anywhere and a single ship or aircraft can transport enough for it never to be an issue.
I'm not in the UK but we are having a similar cost of living crisis in Ireland.
I'm happy to pay the price of solidarity with Ukraine.
I work with both Russian and Ukrainian people and none of them want this war.
People are dieing and being forced out of their homes. I know this is happing everywhere but I would like to support these people:
1 because I know people in that country and
2 because like Britain in the second world war they are fighting for some form of a fair democracy.
If that means I have to buy cheaper food and not have heating.. It's a small price to pay compared to what my friends are going through.
> I'm not in the UK but we are having a similar cost of living crisis in Ireland.
I'm irish, living in the UK, and the cost of living crisis is significantly worse here. The standard rate that Electric ireland are about to increase to for both gas and electricity is lower than I paid last winter, and we're about to see our bills almost double from that (and do the same again in 6 months). My bill in october will be almost 4x the cost of what it was last september.
because if we had not done this, ukraine would have been obliterated, and russia would have been knocking at the EU's door. having war on our doorstep, and being called up because poland is being attacked is not what I want.
The Inflation issues we have are partly because of russia, partly because we have a stupidly designed pricing structure. From my understanding we only import about 20% of our gas.
However global gas price sets the entire uk's electricity price. Gas sometimes accounts for 50% -60% of the UK's electricity generation, but that shouldn't result in a 1000% rise in costs.
Surprisingly, the U.K. isn’t nearly as affected as mainland Europe by Russia’s antics. But sky-high crude prices, regulatory capture and lack of storage (government neglect, again) mean that, shockingly, U.K. is going to suffer worse than Germany.
Blaming this all of this on the UK’s stance wrt Russia is mostly a move by politicians who don’t want to admit how badly they’ve messed regular governing up.
The sanctions were spearheaded by europe, the US followed, initially reluctantly (Biden wanted some symbolic sanctions like freezing a few bank accounts and banning a handful of people from travel). It is european countries (and EU countries), that Putin claims are in Russia' sphere of influence (Baltic states, Poland, czech republic, etc). That stated nostalgia for lost power was easy to dismiss until 2022 (and I dismissed it). But the Ukraine invasion made it clear they cannot be dismissed anymore and if Ukraine becomes a military success for Russia, the next provocations and aggressions will target EU countries.
So no, this is not something imposed by the US, it is a policy initiated by europe, for europe's benefit, and with the support of the US.
> Okay this is a genuine question but why are the G7 not backing down when clearly their populations are the ones suffering?
The G7 includes the EU as a non enumerated member. The EU, which does not include Ukraine but does include the Baltics and some Nordic states which fear for their own safety. Not to mention how intertwined the G7’s interests are with NATO.
There is a really derpy “if you ignore all the killing that’s happening in this war, it would totally make financial sense to end the sanctions” vibe to some of these comments. The people who are at risk have a say as well.
I think worth pointing out that while this is a Europe-wide issue, the challenges faced by the UK are exacerbated by a lot of other dumb shit going on - the UK is way less reliant on Russian gas than some other countries.
Aside from the obvious Brexit hangover, there is now a messy and confused series of economic policies in place and no clear leadership with regard to policies that could help tackle this issue. The quite literal absence of a functioning executive makes it difficult to take action, and even after a new PM is in place on Monday it’s not clear what’s going to happen.
At least for my part, I’m entirely happy with a massive tax increase on myself and people like me if it helps to ensure that tanks don’t roll into Romania, and my neighbours don’t starve or freeze to death over winter. The “average citizen” in any case is probably more compassionate than you give them credit for.
I as an "average citizen" living in Germany care more about an idealistic notion of standing up to bullies than living in complete comfort.
I don't know about the UK, but here nobody is going to have problems putting food on the table or freezing to death this winter. [Edit: I should say, no more problems than we already have.]
My small discomfort at higher heating prices pales in comparison to the death and destruction that Russia is inflicting on Ukraine. If my small discomfort can stop that at all sooner then I am happy to face some discomfort.
I don't understand how people fail to see that our standing up for Ukraine and putting an end to this Russian war as soon as possible is also purely in our self-interests. Russia rampaging through all of Ukraine, and then Georgia, and then Kazakhstan, and then Uzbekistan, and then Finland, and then ..., and then maybe on to NATO (Poland? Balitics?) -- this is not in our interests.
"Oh, but Russia won't do that!" Yeah, that's what all the experts said about Ukraine also. No, sorry, Russia must be stopped now because Russia can no longer be trusted at all.
Not sure what experts you are talking about, Russia itself said Ukraine is no more if it continues to pursue NATO membership. They were saying that since orange revolution in 2004.
Also, looks like your neighbors don’t share your opinion.
Also, blaming that while there's a pandemic and war impacting the supply of the most critical raw materials (energy and foodstuffs) is a curious (being very generous here) choice.
Americans who fancy themselves net-zero climate advocates might want to take a look at Britain for a guide to the future. Household energy bills were expected to rise 40% this autumn, but on Friday the government regulator announced they’ll leap 80% in a single bound.
This boost follows a 54% rise in April and brings the average household’s annual bill to £3,549 ($4,208). The median household income is £31,400, which gives a sense of the growing proportion of each household’s budget that will go toward central heating, cooking and keeping the lights on. For the ruling Tories, this is a political calamity.
And that’s merely what households will spend directly on energy. Britain is also in the grip of an energy-price crisis for businesses, whose rates aren’t subject to a cap. Some small businesses report they can’t get any utility to supply them without paying a steep deposit up front, because energy companies are concerned that high prices will push more small firms into insolvency. Lower-income households in particular will bear the brunt of this as prices for goods and services skyrocket and companies lay off employees.
If you think this couldn’t happen in America, think again. The underlying cause of Britain’s energy misery is its fixation with climate goals, especially the ambition to achieve net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050. To meet that goal Britain has grown hostile to domestic energy exploration, banning shale-gas fracking and slapping windfall-profits taxes on North Sea oil and gas producers that will deter investment. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has hurt, but the U.K.’s policies made its citizens vulnerable to such a global shock.
The U.K. is belatedly building new nuclear plants, but those will take years to come online. Unreliable wind and solar raise the cost the electric grid must pay to balance supply and demand when the winds are still and the sun is behind clouds, and more than 80% of English households rely on gas rather than electricity to heat their homes. All of this drives up the cost of supplying power, and then the government adds about £153 in green levies and a 5% consumption tax directly on household bills.
Frankly speaking, this is a load of shit. It's an embarrassingly transparent attempt at pushing an anti-renewable agenda onto a situation that has absolutely nothing to do with renewables.
This source says the exact opposite. Investment in energy efficiency and renewables have been cut for years. If the insulation and wind power for example was installed, now it would be extremely useful.
Agree, the people pushing the line that it makes little or no difference are the ones who swallow the line that it's cheaper to generate electricity from wind than fossil. Subsidies distort the economics and the press selectively represents the case because of the "net zero" religion, as it's become. The technology doesn't exist yet, but lemmmings want to lead us off a cliff in order to "be on the right side of history."
Don't get me wrong, I wish it were that case that we could abandon all our environmentally destructive ways, but imo, there has been a distinct lack of second order thinking when it comes to energy policy, certainly in the UK, and don't get me started on Germany. France, at least, have had successive governments who appear to care more about their citizens' wellbeing than shareholders and asset strippers.
Honestly, this article understates the situation. Everyone is bricking it. I go to the barbers, the barber wants to talk about it. I go to get a burger, the server wants to talk about it. A really large chunk of the country is doing calculations and really not liking the results.
Small businesses and charities are already receiving their new contract quotes and deciding to shut down.
And our next Prime Minister shows exactly no sign of caring about or even understanding the seriousness of the situation.
> Honestly, this article understates the situation. Everyone is bricking it.
Yeah, it's really quite bad. I'm yet to talk to anybody who isn't worried about this, from low class to upper class.
> Small businesses and charities are already receiving their new contract quotes and deciding to shut down.
Sadly we will now lose many historic institutions that COVID lockdowns didn't quite manage to kill off. Some pubs for example have been around for hundreds of years.
> And our next Prime Minister shows exactly no sign of caring about or even understanding the seriousness of the situation.
I believe I saw Boris _finally_ committing to building new nuclear power stations, but this is maybe 10 years too late. Nuclear power was such an obvious quick win in terms of energy security, green climate action and energy costs. I hope the UK is able to keep its remaining reactors online a while longer until new ones can be phased in.
Britain has for a long time neglected energy efficiency improvements and investment in renewable energy. The houses are the worst insulated in Europe [1].
UK has extremely good wind resources, very mild winters, bearable summers, a lot of capital available, a generally organized society. As a starting point, from energy point of view, it is extremely advantageous compared to say Finland or Germany.
Now vote someone who will act on it. Insulate the houses, build the windmills and nuclear plants. Stop complaining.
> Britain has for a long time neglected energy efficiency improvements and investment in renewable energy.
Like the EU nations, the UK was designed and built to use energy in what seemed like a sustainable way. Obviously every Country in Europe is now reconsidering what to make reductions.
If anything this is quite promising for the UK's winter, as there are so many quick-win improvements to be made (assuming we can get sufficient supplies of insulation).
> The houses are the worst insulated in Europe [1].
The majority of the UK doesn't get too much below zero, spending a brief time at -10 degrees. Places in Europe can reach -30/-40 for a sustained period.
We're also talking about houses that are quite old and hard to upgrade (if not impossible due to restrictions).
0. Secure food chains _now_. Nobody is talking about this yet. Droughts + fertilizer shortage + energy crisis + inflation = disaster. Name a single Country that got a good harvest this year. Personally I have begun to slowly store long-storage food items to get way ahead of panic buying.
1. Invest in nuclear power heavily. It's okay saying "people should change their lives to be more sustainable" - without ever giving details about exactly how that is supposed to be done. The people saying such things have _zero_ idea about how their Country actually works.
2. Reduce or remove green levies and stop subsidizing green energy initiatives. It is simply false to state that green energy is cheaper when it is heavily subsidized - if it was so affordable and cheap it should be able to fund itself, but it can't. If it needs growth and is such an amazing investment, allow for private investment. If the UK tax payer _must_ subsidize it, we want part ownership of it so we can set prices.
3. Stop pushing for electric cars when we don't have the energy infrastructure or raw materials. Fuel cars are likely to stay until 2050 or so. Hybrids also make more sense as the 'cheap' energy is likely to fluctuate.
4. If a war were to break out, it will likely happen very soon. Countries are on their back-foot, governments need a distraction and tensions easily rise over limited resources in contended locations. We need immediate preparations for defense and offense.
1. It takes 20 years to build a nuke plant, 2 years to do wind and 6 months to do solar. Solving the problem 20 years from now is not solving the problem.
2. In case you haven't noticed, the wind subsidies are now negative. Wind subsidizes natgas, not the other way around.
3. If the lithium supply gets cut off, existing EV's don't stop working. If gasoline gets cut off, gasoline cars are stranded. EV's are crucial for self sufficiency.
20 year to build a nuke plant? You'll want to learn about the "plan Messmer". Or 6 years to build 13 900 MW reactors. When they only had experience with UNGG tech and wanted to use PWR.
I think in the end, 55 reactors were build in 12 years, replacing all coal and gas plants except for 2.
I mean, 50 000 MW in 12 years, basically. For today equivalent of 50 billions USD.
> 1. It takes 20 years to build a nuke plant, 2 years to do wind and 6 months to do solar. Solving the problem 20 years from now is not solving the problem.
As another comment suggested, it shouldn't take 20 years to build a nuclear power plant. "Modern nuclear power plants are planned for construction in five years or less" [1] (with delays, as with all projects of such scale).
> 2. In case you haven't noticed, the wind subsidies are now negative. Wind subsidizes natgas, not the other way around.
Then why is there still a "green tax"? If wind is as great as suggested, why is it being invested into natural gas, and not into more wind?
> 3. If the lithium supply gets cut off, existing EV's don't stop working. If gasoline gets cut off, gasoline cars are stranded. EV's are crucial for self sufficiency.
Lithium is just one raw material, out of many. It's not just power generation, we need massive investments into the electrical infrastructure, green energy to actually supply it (or it's pointless) and a way to feed power from EV's back into the grid on mass (to make up for the shortcomings of green energy). Some of these things will take years and years to fix. Look at how long it took to roll out fiber across the UK, and that's just a small glass cable. In the meantime, the Country actually needs to be able to run.
EVs will one day be the future in one form or another (I still think hydrogen could make sense), but for now and the near future petrol and diesel are here to stay. 2030/2035 will come and go without mass adoption of EVs (the typical lifecycle of a car is much longer than the intended 10 years). I suspect we will see more and more hybrids at that time to aid the transition, but we still won't have the infrastructure.
It feels strange to me living in the UK that the sanctions have been spearheaded by the US when they are mostly shielded from Russia. Whereas for European countries, it is obvious that they are dependent on Russian gas and yet they are not willing to negotiate.
The average citizen cares about their energy bill and putting food on the table more than some idealistic notion of standing up to bullies.
reply