Let us review some recent history: In 2021, Germany owed 27% of its total energy supply to natural gas. We imported over 40% of this natural gas from Russia. Then the Ukraine war happened, and by September the gas had slowed to a trickle. To compensate, we increased imports from the Netherlands and Belgium, but neither land supplies nearly enough to make up the shortfall. Our Green Minister of Economic Affairs, Robert Habeck, decided that Germany must turn to liquid natural gas (LNG) imports. Right now, Germany can import LNG only via three floating terminals, and so we still use relatively little of it.
“ It is like they want to be the world’s greatest energy transition retards.
They are. No retard like a green energy government retard. Ok, maybe a health expert government retard.
Don't know if this tops it or not, it's a competition no-one wants to win anyway:
Swedish greens of all sorts wants to (drum roll) demolish all hydro-electric power dams in Sweden, and all other dams too.
Hydro is about 1/3 of our power production. The other dams (thousands of small ones) are crucial to avoid flooding every spring. F.e. the lake nearby where my mother lives varies in surface height with as much as 5 meters between snow melt floods in Spring and late Summer. Should it cease to be regulated, half the town would be flooded every year.
That's to say nothing about what would happen to every building and town built close to water after every water-way was finally regulated and controlled a little over a century ago. Good-bye to large parts of Stockholm and Gothenburg, for starters.
I say again, as I have said for 20+ years: the rise of Green parties correlates with the shuttering of mental institutions, as does the rise of feminism and multiculturalism.
It is high time to turn both clock and calendar back a century, and start over.
And CO2 is not a problem…
The greens mostly majored in subjects like gender studies and black history, and have not clue one about anything related to science or math...It's all a giant mystery to them, so this is what we get when they become powerful in Government...Complete idiocy on all fronts...
It's amazing the only thing that surpasses their stupidity is their corruption.
I can’t help but suspect that the leakage of methane from LNG tankers crossing oceans must pale in comparison to the emissions from government ministers bloviating at conferences.
It's always been a grift and power grab, facts be damned!
Only Germany would shut down its nuclear power to burn more coal.
I think the sooner we face it the better: there is no such thing as green energy. Everything has a cost and an impact. That doesn't mean however that we should all start freezing and starving or dismantling many years of progress in technology and industry.
Rick Rule has the best take: we need more energy of all kinds: wind, solar, nuclear, gas, oil, etc. and each one used where most appropriate.
Perhaps they are counting on general ignorance about what LNG actually is, or are even subject to that ignorance themselves. I'm not a total doofus, but I was unaware that LNG is actually methane (so is natural gas, it turns out – another surprise!) Methane is so scary to climate apocalyzers that they want to put diapers on cows to filter their farts, and turn omnivorous homo sapiens into vegans.
I just spent an interesting couple of minutes with Alexa exploring the differences between natural gas, LNG, and propane (my heating fuel). According to this not-entirely-trustworthy source, natural gas and LNG are not chemically distinct; LNG has just been cooled to liquid form for more efficient transportation and storage, although it tends to have fewer trace amounts of stuff like sulfur. If this is accurate, then is the greater carbon cost of LNG mostly due to the energy-intensive extraction process plus the leakage during transportation and storage? Alexa is cagey about comparing the amount of CO2 emissions at the endpoint while acknowledging the leakage issue of LNG.
VIP = very important publication.
Since all economic transitions are driven by experts and professionals, we may be sure that they know what they do. More expensive electricity will open up a new market for energy-saving devices and installations. Increased emissions will be great for a new market of household and industrial air purifiers. Both will bring about millions of jobs in certification, licensing, export/import regulations, mandatory maintenance, specialized waste disposal, and so on. Closing down coal mines will consume $$ millions. After 10-12 years, the same mines will be reopened due to shortage of renewable energy sources - $$ millions more. Circular economy.
Thank you for your article. The absurdities you describe are similar to what is happening in California, USA. A large nuclear plant in southern California (SONGS) was needlessly shut down at the end of January, 2012 instead of undergoing straightforward repairs. The same businesses went after Diablo Canyon in 2016 when they announced a plan to close Diablo Canyon in 2025. An independent nonprofit, Californians for Green Nuclear Power (CGNP) was the lone party of 55 that advocated for extended Diablo Canyon operations before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC.) Now, there is a coalition backing extended operations at Diablo Canyon. Barring unforeseen circumstances, the CPUC will grant Diablo Canyon extended operations on November 30, 2023. For details, see: https://cgnp.org/sb-846-update/ Just as in Germany, the businesses desiring nuclear plant shutdowns are fossil fuel interests. Just as in Germany, they employ public relations tools to maintain "business as usual" - dominance of fossil-fired generation. After all, "it's just business."
From a climate buerocrat point of view these scientific details don't matter. Leakage of LNG from its source in the US to Germany doesn't count into the CO² statistics of Germany so it's not relevant for "the plan"
I have been eating a lot of beans and tortillas, due to mRNAs in meat. Can I help?
LNG causes up to 3 times the emissions of coal
Really it makes sense. How can such a complex energy gobbling production process, as required to produce and transport LNG, compete with the low complexity, low energy requirements of producing coal? Might we gain more advantage over emissions at the exhost stage, as has been done with cars? Or has that been tapped out? Still, I can't help but think we focus on new technologically complex goals more because we are exploring exciting new ideas than because these new ideas are actually better than the old ones... thinking of that old saying: 'KISS', you know, keep it simple silly!