Comments by "robheusd" (@robheusd) on "DW News" channel.

  1. How is Germany solving the energy problem? They want to phase out nuclear and coal, but then also want to abandon Nordstream 2? Meanwhile German underground gas reserves are transported via Poland to Ukrain. Gas shortages will increase. Netherlands stops producing gas. How are they going to solve the gas issue if they don't want Nordstream 2?
    42
  2. And must buy large amount of weapons too....
    5
  3. They know how it ends when you military confront Russia.....
    5
  4. As a typical gas consumer, you have the option of a) doing nothing and pay for the gas you need to heat your building, or b) invest in energy efficiency (isolation, more efficient heating equipment, etc) and reduce your gas bill and break even over the investment period. There a number of factors involved here in making a decission about such an investment in order to at least reach break even, which are for example: how much do i need to invest for an x% of gas reduction, and what is the price of gas. Comparing western europe with eastern europe, two factors are beneficial for investing in eastern europe, namely colder winters (which would increase the amount of gas reduction) and lower labor costs (which lowers the amount that needs to be invested). However, lower gas prices mean on the other hand that it takes more time to break even. This however can partly be overcome by rerouting the gas which is saved by investing in lower gas consumption to western europe, and sell the gas at a higher price, which would reduce the amount of time needed to break even. This could even result in a surplus, which could lower the energy cost of the end consumer of which the houses get renovated for improved energy efficiency. Such an european gas leverage system (west europe pays for investments in eastern europe to reduce gas consumption and increase energy efficiency in return for part of the amount of saved gas) could benefit both sides (less need for russian gas in eastern europe and creation of jobs) and work beneficial in both reducing energy dependence on russia, and would be part of the climate goals. Replacing russian gas with LNG on the other had will only increase the price of gas and would also increase CO2 emissions, and is therefore not the right solution. Nuclear energy is also not the right solution, because you need energy sources that can be put online quickly to balance energy demand vs. energy production, and as more volatile sources are used in the energy mix (solar and wind) you need more reserve capacity to bridge the gap. Gas turbines and hydro power can do that, nuclear can not.
    4
  5. ... and reducing arms sales/gun control
    3
  6. Sounds as like the Ukrain crisis / was is beneficial for climate because we now are forced to use other energy sources..... DO YOU WANT THE RISK OF NUCLEAR WARFARE TO 'SAVE' THE CLIMATE ???? The world has gone completely nuts !!! CO2 emissions wil sure INCREASE as a consequence of the warfare.....!!!!!!
    2
  7. Boris Johson, prime minister of a country which invaded/colonized half of the world: invading other countries is bad. BJ is a joke!
    2
  8. That is too simplistic. Better think of it as a household that were living together for many years, have shared a lot of property, and then split and keep living next to each other, while the household was not evenly or fairly split, and they still have struggles over who owns what to whom.
    2
  9. And exactly how would that solve Ukains energy crisis?
    2
  10. ... and an excavator right next to the building, and all isolation of the brick wall stripped of from the brick outer wall, how can a grenade or rocket explain that kind of damage?
    2
  11. "To be an enemy of the US is a problem. To be an ally of the US is fatal." Henry Kissinger
    2
  12. There is no mystery of who ordered the blowing up of the Nordstream, the US has made it clear there would be no more Nordstream after the military operation of Russia.
    2
  13. The real plan all along was to drive a wig between Europe and Russia and cut russian gas&oil sales to europe, replacing it with american LNG and/or oil/gas from suppliers that sell gas/oil in US dollars, and increase weapon sales to Europe by driving up europe's defense spendings..... all you need is a violent conflict in a zone of vital interest for Russia for that to happen --- Ukraine!
    1
  14. The gas crisis in Europe is not because Russia withhoulding gas, but because the gas was not ordered by europe. Russia sent 10% more gas to Germany as what was ordered. Part of the transport network have been used now for reverse flow of gas: Germany send gas reserves through Poland to Ukrain for which pipeline were used that have normally the opposite flow direction (from Poland to Germany).
    1
  15. You forget that nuclear can only be used as base load, you need energy sources that can be put quicly online to bridge the gap between demand and supply, and the more volatile energy sources you have, the bigger the gap. Only gas turnbines and hydro can be used for bridging that gap. Unless we find an affordable way to store lots of energy.
    1
  16. What if we just all stay for winter in spain, so we don't have to heat our houses. I bet they have overcapacity on hotel rooms too in Spain in winter.....
    1
  17. If NATO wants Ukrain independence, but west ukrainians wants to join the west and east ukrainian want to join russia, hw to resolve that issue? Why not regional autonomy?
    1
  18. It is frightening to see how european people are so brainwashed that they choose to blockade cheap gas deliveries from Russia, and were unconsciously dragged into this geopolitical conflict between Ukrain and Russia, leading to this war and all its consequences. Now we are the mercy of our bosses in Washington and a large part of our supplies now have to come from Qatar, a despotic country in the gulf region, with an absolute monarchy, no democracy and no human rights, and involved in all kind of geopolitical issues (the delivered the weapons to the rebels fighting Khadaffi in Libya, they supported terrorist jihadi groups in Syria, etc.). And how do people deal with on one hand the scientific concencus that climate change is manmade, and with enough efforts we can prevent catastrophic climate change, but when it comes to changes in the geopolitical climate, making Russia into the enemy of the west while europe was dependend on cheap russian oil and gas, we see no way to stop it and find ourselves in the catastrophy of a war that could lead to a full nuclear conflict if we are not carefull, and are facing an energy crisis. Didn't we realise that war is bad for the climate, and that there are other ways to resolve political problems, like in the case of Ukrain, not dragging the whole of Ukrain into the western sphere of influence, bt keeping it a neutral buffer state, and federalising it's government, etc? The gas problem is especially problematic as gas in the economical sense has lots of inertia, that is you can not easily shift to an alternative source, since the costs of gas delivery is mainly infrastructure (distribution, heating installations, storage facfilities). Replacing oil with alternative sources is much less costly, it is more easily storable, etc. I think we would have been better off not confronting Russia and not meddling in Ukrain, but instead had decided to transition away from fossil fuels in a more moderate way, at much lower costs and less economic instability in a period of 30 years. That is what it would take to transition away from fossil fuiels alltogehter. We can't do that in a matter of months or years.
    1
  19. Correct, and it is better for the environment too, less air polution, and much better then wood-based biomass!
    1
  20. Ukrain is only selling grain for the Dutch meat industry - Russia is feeding hungry africans....
    1
  21. Germany should know that with friends like the US, you don't need enemies. Who blew up the Nordstream?
    1