Comments by "robheusd" (@robheusd) on "Energy crisis: Will a green transition throw the global economy into recession? | Business Beyond" video.

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. Correct, and it is better for the environment too, less air polution, and much better then wood-based biomass!
    1