Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Aussie academics suggesting that a need to ween Europe off unreliable Russian gas might lead to a faster rollout of the green revolution.
Will Russia’s invasion of Ukraine push Europe towards energy independence and faster decarbonisation?
Published: February 25, 2022 4.22pm AEDT
Ellie Martus
Lecturer in Public Policy, School of Government and International Relations, Griffith University
Susan Harris Rimmer
Professor and Director of the Policy Innovation Hub, Griffith Business School, Griffith UniversityIn 1973, the world’s post-war boom hit the rocks. Oil producers restricted supply, sending prices soaring. In the aftermath of this oil shock, nations like America began seeking energy independence.
In 2022, we may well see history repeat, as the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfolds.
Why? Major European nations like Germany have turned to Russian gas to fill the gap between coal plants retiring, the move away from nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster, and the point where zero emissions renewables and storage can act as full replacement.
…
Will this speed up the shift to renewables?
It was only in January that Germany’s new climate and economy minister announced major new measures to accelerate his nation’s slowing renewable roll-out and power industry with clean energy.
And now? We believe the crisis has the potential to accelerate Europe’s trend toward renewables, as it seeks to reduce its reliance on Russian gas.
We may see increased efforts to shift to interdependent renewable generation, such as the proposed offshore windfarms intended to be shared by multiple European nations.
But this is not guaranteed. In the near term, there is a huge risk that the crisis in Ukraine focuses attention on energy security at the expense of decarbonisation.
We may see a return to coal power. Countries like Germany may even be forced to rethink or delay their nuclear phase out.
Other major fossil fuel exporters such as Australia are already lining up to fill any gaps in European markets.
…
This is a setback for international climate efforts, given Russia’s role as one of the world’s top five greenhouse gas emitters.
…
Wanton environmental destruction is a war crime, on par with targeting of the civilian population and the destruction of cultural heritage. In 2020, the Red Cross issued guidelines for protecting the environment during wartime.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/will-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-push-europe-towards-energy-independence-and-faster-decarbonisation-177914
At least they kindof admitted that renewables are not an easy path to energy security. But what a lack of perspective.
I have a Ukrainian friend who has family members and friends in the firing line of the invasion. Real people are hurting. Yet these climate obsessed academics actually think it matters whether Europe burns a little coal this winter to keep the lights on, and even appear to believe that “environmental destruction”, bulldozing a few trees with a tank, is “on a par” with murdering civilians.
Bill McKibben says the EU needs more renewable energy.
————–
This is how we defeat Putin and other petrostate autocrats (By Bill McKibben)
After Hitler invaded the Sudetenland, America turned its industrial prowess to building tanks, bombers and destroyers. Now, we must respond with renewables
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/25/this-is-how-we-defeat-putin-and-other-petrostate-autocrats
“Now, we must respond with renewables”
You misspelled unreliables…
LOL ! 😀
” The Conversation: Will the Ukrainian Invasion Accelerate European Decarbonisation? ”
Yes, I guess. In the next revision of the “taxonomy”, the EU bureaucrats will state that lignite has no carbon. (N.B.: iin the 400 volumes of the treaties of the Union there is not a single recommendation to learn and use chemistry).
Yeah, we were really concerned about the environmental damage when blasting through tree lines to get at the enemy in Vietnam. It really was on par with targeting civilian populations …. sure.
It depends-what’s the mpg of a Russian tank?
That’s gpm.
How will the EU build the solar panels, windmills, EV’s, charging stations by the millions, heat pumps, grid storage without the coal, oil and gas to power all the machines to dig up, transport, manufacture, distribute, insulate, install, train and maintain all this new infrastructure to replace what took a century to build.
Clearly, they will not be able to do that. It’s all a unicorn pipe dream. Next question…
odd question with tongue planted firmly in cheek: Does “Academic” mean “village idiot” in the Australian dialect of the English Language?
Unfortunately yes it does , along with journalists,public servants, politicians from both major parties and captains of green industry ESG
There was a time when I thought the Krauts, and Frogs, and Limeys were pretty smart. Uh, that’s been a while ago. Now I see that they are no different than the fools who are guiding the US. Clowns and buffoons each and every one of them. When do the real folks get really tired of all this nonsense and break out the torches and pitchforks to take back their countries?
So many “real folks” are so easily bought off with promises, no matter how many times those promises are afterwards ignored or are of the give with one hand, take back with the other hand.
That is why the swamp hated TRUMP!, he was keeping his promises.
If the swamp creatures had to start keeping their promises, what would the run on for their next election?
I know that several (many?) European countries have laws against fracking. I have also read somewhere that they have no frackable fields, which I find hard to believe. Why have laws if it isn’t feasable? How can there be no fields when coal has been so abundant? What’s the factsm?
consider the US cities who have passed legislation against nuclear bomb testing within their jurisdictions — or something of equivalent possibility or likelihood.
in the Ukraine, yeah.
The Conversation is a third rate news source that often publishes those who cannot get their work published in the best journals. A few decent reseachers that use this site actually hurt their reputation when they have to list this as one of the sources of their publications. They would do well to look for some open source website with a smaller readership but better reputation.
To illustrate my point:
An international security professor at a UK university has just commented on The Conversation about the Ukraine invasion. He speaks about Putin’s rambling speech. I cannot check up. I do not know Putin ever delivered an English speech and I cannot speak Russian. I was interested in history and world events before this prof was even born and feel we are living in different worlds but he actually rambles on about solutions.
The full hour speech with English over, is publicly available.
Putin makes a statement following the Security Council meeting on Donbass recognition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjMnTo85S4A
Inside history of Ukraine. I think there might be another video also.
The people at the conversation never fail to surprise at their lack of intellect. Just when you think they can’t dip lower, they do. The Russian saga is proof that RE is a failure. Rather than move from home grown FF to RE, Europe has moved to imported Russian FF and created a monumental problem that threatens to destroy western Europe and even Western civilisation. The only solution is to rapidly ramp up coal, gas or nuclear and starve Russia of the money they seek to destroy the west. The same applies to China, who are about to embark on their own expansion exercise in the Pacific and Australia will be a BIG target, considering that’s the biggest source of iron ore and uranium ore.
WARNING: If it is in The Conversation, take it with a grain of salt.
Fixed it for ya Clyde.
Thanks. My picture was too grainy.
Meanwhile they’re praying for Steve to listen to his heart-
Christians in MP Steve Baker’s seat pray for him to quit role on climate thinktank (msn.com)
Like Putin in is heart of hearts who feels Ukraine belongs with Russia. There’s always the one supreme lefty who feels the best for all the masses of feelings.
Not if they interfere and the Russian nukes carbonize them all.
“Public policy is virtue signaling, speechifying and learning polite speak hiding one’s real intentions.
Not common sense doers, movers and planners. They’d starve if someone didn’t cut up, prepare and/or package their food for them.
These climate change environmentalists who fear climate change so much will be sent to re-education camps in Siberia if Putin gets his way .
An explanation is needed as to why, to quote the header, “move away from nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster”
Nuclear properties played very little part in this incident. Any large engineering plant on that site could have been damaged by this unusually large tsunami. Why pick on nuclear? Why banish it in other countries which have reactors nowhere near a tsunami risk?
Is there any reason in physics or chemistry or other hard sciences to be so reactive to an accident involving a nuclear plant? Or, from anyone who knows the real reasons, was it almost entirely political? Geoff S
This is the point where governments try to work out how to produce energy with windmills that consume as much energy in production and installation as they make, and they find out they can’t.
The only good point … is that all those woke causes … they will be the first to lose funding when the economic collapse starts (as it has).
The Conversation seems to specialise in articles with little basis on reality.
It will decarbonise through impoverishment and discomfort.
I don’t see Germany cutting off its Gas from Russia just yet . .
It will accelerate removing some of those pesky carbon-based life forms.
Someone nees to explain to dumbass Greens the mathematical reality of multiplication by zero (zed for the Brits).