We're on track on a big part of Europe being energy-restricted this winter, so at least right now there's not an abundance of energy even for the current needs of the first world, much less for those who cannot pay much and would need not the same amount but growth.
In the long term many things are possible, but right now we don't have enough energy, and "if we deployed new renewables" is not an argument - we already are deploying new renewables pretty much as fast as we can, and even if we would deploy them twice as fast, it will still take quite some time to get to where renewables can create all the energy we need - especially if look at the market share of renewables in total energy which includes not only electricity but also heating and transportation.
> especially if look at the market share of renewables in total energy which includes not only electricity but also heating and transportation.
You missed my point. If that existing non-renewable energy was used efficiently, like a Germany and UK that used heat pumps for domestic heating powered by the exact same gas they squander now in poorly insulated homes with a COP 1/5th what they otherwise could have, the energy would be enough.
My second sentence was that on top of that we could have had even more cheap energy if they'd not basically outlawed wind farms, the cheapest form of energy for the last decade in Europe.
"All poverty is energy poverty" remember? So why did the government's not insulate and use efficient heating systems? Why did they "cut the green crap".
I see your point, however, I've seen a lot of local renovation projects for energy efficiency and my conclusion is that while they should be done (because they're cost effective), that is the slow, long-term solution since that effectively requires reconstructing much of the housing stock, which is going to take decades - so that's not a plausible solution for any short term problems, filling the energy gap with more generation is faster.
I think our shared point there is that all these things require years of infrastructure buildup - there is some blame on why earlier it hasn't been done as much as it could be (while it definitely has been done a lot over the last decade!), and a good argument that it must be increased.
But as soon as we're talking about "energy right now" (let's be generous and say within a year or two) then we need rapid solutions, and "becoming energy efficient" is not one of these, that's for a 5-10 year scale even if we're optimistic.
A second point is that effective heating and insulation is a big factor for the relatively northern parts of first world, however, it's not really relevant for the huge "energy poverty" of the third world, where most of the population is in warmer climates. For them, avoiding energy waste is not sufficient, they simply need more energy (much of it "embedded" in consumer goods that they would like to get) to go beyond their current standard of living, which they rightfully consider insufficient.
> Energy savings are the quickest and cheapest way to address the current energy crisis, and reduce bills. The Commission proposes to enhance long-term energy efficiency measures, including an increase from 9% to 13% of the binding Energy Efficiency Target under the ‘Fit for 55' package of European Green Deal legislation
A 10-Point Plan to Reduce the European Union’s Reliance on Russian Natural Gas
> 4. Accelerate the deployment of new wind and solar projects
> 7. Speed up the replacement of gas boilers with heat pumps
> 8. Accelerate energy efficiency improvements in buildings and industry
> 10. Step up efforts to diversify and decarbonise sources of power system flexibility ("A portfolio of options will be required, including enhanced grids, energy efficiency, increased electrification and demand-side response")
> Despite not importing much Russian gas directly, a drop in global supply – Russia is the second largest gas producer (17% of global output in 2020) – will affect the international gas markets that impact the UK.
> As a result, bills in the UK (and likely globally) will soar because of conflict in Ukraine, potentially up to £3,000 in October 2022, (a £600 increase from previously expected levels). However, some doubt that bills will get this high as there are still significant data gaps needed to forecast future bill levels.
> Energy efficiency is an obvious near term step, as it could reduce the UK’s total gas demand by 7-8% and imports by 15% while delivering bill savings to households.
On Africa:
if they don't have the energy now, they need to build it. What is the cheapest available source of new energy? What is the best way to make that energy go furthest? None of these basics things are discussed, because tha article wants to shill for fossil fuels, and actively make these problems worse in Europe and Africa.
> The UK is set to lift its controversial ban of onshore wind projects from government support, in a major u-turn by the ruling Conservative Party over a policy that sent new turbine installation figures plunging
> We're on track on a big part of Europe being energy-restricted this winter, so at least right now there's not an abundance of energy even for the current needs of the first world
That's self-inflected and the result of poor choices. In a just world, Merkel would get more blame for cozying up to Russia, and the rest of Europe would as well for choosing austerity. As world events have shown, austerity is not robust in the face of events you can't control. It leads to a fragile energy system prone to catastrophic failure.
Poor choices, poor results. Europe can do better if they learn from this travesty.
Another way to fix the problem would be to help Ukraine a bit more and forcibly take the gas from Russia as reparations. At this point it’s obvious their military was all bluff.
This doesn’t even change the final outcome, it just speeds it up - USA won’t allow Russia to become China’s asset, and there aren’t that many options to guarantee that.
Why assume this one Russian weapon actually works, if all others turned out to be shit?
Seriously, can we really expect a country that can’t even manufacture cars to be able to refurbish nukes?
Not to mention that the assumptions of MAD doctrine might not have been true for quite some time now. Which means, even if those nukes left their silos, they might not get anywhere near the targets.
Or, more likely, Europe capitulates some time this winter and part of Ukraine goes to Russia. It seems pretty likely that Russia is betting they can survive sanctions longer than Europe can survive without gas. They don't have to actually win in Ukraine; they just have to insert chaos long enough for Europe to freeze.
There is no assumption that Europe would freeze this winter. The aspects I'm complaining about are the inconvenient and costly measures that would be required to ensure that the currently stored and otherwise available energy is sufficient to not freeze and not be pushed to make deals Europe does not want. And while Europe does need gas in the long term (as it's a key industrial resource, not only a source of energy), this is the last winter with a dependency on specifically Russian gas, the ongoing capacity building for alternate sources (e.g. LNG terminals) combined with other investments IMHO would be sufficient to not freeze in the next winter even if the war goes on for years, which I believe it won't.
There is plenty of gas in Europe, it is just mostly used for industrial purposes not residential heating. Somehow people assume that houses will go cold before factories will slow production.
We're not deploying new renewables "pretty much as fast as we can". We're not even close to doing that. In actuality, we have ludicrously-rich power centers which are actively subsidizing fossil fuels and warring against renewables. Imagine if all that effort were redirected.
Well, we'd get there faster, of course. But that's still not right now, that would be still many years, especially for the third world which can't afford the investment.
If every home was insulated and had a heat pump, we'd all be richer.
Why havent we done that?
Why, when the initial Ukraine invasion in 2014 caused a gas price spike, did Bjorn Lomborg and other climate change deniers write an article very much like this one, in which he advocated against more renewables, and instead said we needed to invest in research to find the real solution.
So here we are again, 8 years later, and we're doing the exact same thing? Fool me once...
Can you elaborate why you're saying that right now we have enough energy ? Because to me it's obvious that the third world has far from enough energy (like, they'd need multiple times more to reach a first world stanard of living), and even in first world there's not really enough at the moment, as indicated by the EU energy crisis.
Perhaps the currently available energy is sufficient to meet all the needs in a fictional world where every home was insulated and had a heat pump, but I don't live in that world. Perhaps in some future after many years of infrastructure buildup I could live in that world, but that's not right now. And perhaps in a fictional world where 8 years ago more effort had gone into renewables, there would be enough energy for the current consumption, but I don't live in that world either - in the world I live in, the currently installed and immediately available capacity as of 2022 is far from sufficient for meeting our current needs, and if you're saying "Right now, we have enough energy" I am really struggling to understand what exactly you want to say with that. Are you implying that we should curtail our energy use to what's currently available (or less) and feel satisfied at that?
People are trying to confuse matters by talking about Primary energy as if your quality of life has a 1:1 relationship with fossil CO2 released.
So, if we are actually talking about "primary energy" then we would have enough if we used it efficiently. But we dont. Because our politicians prefer burning gas to heating homes. Gas burnt gets them a kickback, warm homes don't.
Hence why all the solutions to this gas price crisis that don't involve burning even more gas get drowned out.
You can say "well we don't have well insulated homes now", yes I know. But maybe you should be asking "Why don't we have well insulated homes?" because that answer will explain more about how the energy crisis plays out than thermodynamics does.
>If every home was insulated and had a heat pump, we'd all be richer.
I live in an insulated house and am getting a heat pump, but of course, I can already afford my bills. My saving on my energy bill doesn't redistribute the energy to someone else.
In the long term many things are possible, but right now we don't have enough energy, and "if we deployed new renewables" is not an argument - we already are deploying new renewables pretty much as fast as we can, and even if we would deploy them twice as fast, it will still take quite some time to get to where renewables can create all the energy we need - especially if look at the market share of renewables in total energy which includes not only electricity but also heating and transportation.