Do we need to replace all the fossil fuels from Russia?
Conservation, electrification, etc. LNG from the US
100 million barrels of oil globally can’t be reduced to 95 million?
Coal generated electricity from Poland? Horrible but necessary
Conservation, electrification, etc. LNG from the US
100 million barrels of oil globally can’t be reduced to 95 million?
Coal generated electricity from Poland? Horrible but necessary
If conservation gets you anywhere why weren't you doing it before? There is a lot of room for insulation that was already cost effective at last years prices, so I doubt those who could do it will.
https://www.spglobal.com/en/research-insights/featured/movin...
And we only need to cut 5-10% globally
Even getting consumption down 5% would be helpful. Other countries can increase output.
> The unprecedented collapse in worldwide mobility as a result of lockdowns and travel restrictions in March and April 2020 slashed oil demand by over 20 million b/d, or 20% of total demand.
So the 20% drop was temporary, during the most strict lockdown months. Extrapolating that to longer-term periods is obviously a mistake.
> We expect about 75% or 6.3 million b/d of demand to come back in 2021
So the demand would be down by 5% (25% of 20%), YOY. No predictions as to how much it could come back in 2022.
The graph a little bit further down the article predicts oil demand to keep going up at least until 2035, and 2040 for all oil products.
(There's already a broad policy consensus about this, see the Paris Agreement)
Weighing an energy crisis in Europe against a prolonged war in Ukraine I think most europeans will agree with me that the energy crisis is the preferred option.
We actually don't have a lot of reserves due to a mix of pissing of Russians (at mid/end '21) and massive speculation.
> Weighing an energy crisis in Europe against a prolonged war in Ukraine I think most europeans will agree with me that the energy crisis is the preferred option.
Lower class people and even lower middle class people are already hurting. I can handle a surprise increase in heating costs and a jump in gas prices, but people who need to drive to work daily aren't that lucky (and, to make matters worse, the government just reduced the home office incentives in Germany).
Once prices hit serious peaks (doubling and up) or actual supply issues appear, support will fade very quickly,even in the privileged classes.
I stand by what I said. Europe really doesn’t want this war, and I bet most people are willing to suffer an energy crisis with the hope that it will stop earlier. And if governments fail to offer remedies during the energy crisis, it is on them and they will suffer in the polls.
and yet, the war is not really contingent on people suffering this energy crisis - it's merely a possibility. Putin can still wage the war and the only true response europe can have is to wage war in return.
War in response to putin will be even harder to swallow after the people have suffered a year of energy rationing i reckon. When your house is cold and food scarce, the people in europe is more likely to be willing to accept appeasement.
Putting up with pain at the gas pump is different to having your children conscripted and sent to die in a far off frozen land.
For example we saw a significant drop in electricity consumption when we moved from CFL to LED bulbs
Not everyone can afford efficiency measures so governments will need to subsidise them - particularly in the UK where the housing stock needs huge improvements (though that depends on a Conservative government doing the right thing)
Industrial energy consumption is another challenge though
That makes an economic bet quite a bold one. If Russia's polity were that sensitive to economic fluctuations, the war would have most likely never got started...