This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
This seems to equate Europe with Greater Germany.
France loves their nukes, they're going to add another 6 modern reactors to their existing fleet of 57, and are planning a second tranche of 8 more for the 2030s. Zero reactors are scheduled to go offline, they intend to run them until the reinforced concrete itself reaches its lifetime limit.
The solar situation is clearly worse than the US (top tier solar potential, globally), but actually comparable to China. Both have a few thousand kilometers between the good solar locations (Spain, Italy, Inner Mongolia, West Chinese Deserts) and the major energy consumers (European Blue Banana, Chinese Coast), so both will have to put down a lot of ultra high voltage DC power lines. Europe has a lot less distance to bridge, but needs maybe 20% more panels than China. Both can (and do) also just move the big consumers to where the panels are. Greater Germany can also somewhat compensate the lack of solar potential with better land-based wind resources. Those can make very cheap power as well (but are less well suited to integration with battery storage, so they'll need serious innovation with flixible loads).
Of course, the biggest problem of the EU in all of this is the same as the US: its insanely difficult to get permitting for anything of that scale. China needs to bridge thousands of kilometers more with power lines, but can just build those. A 50 GW UHVDC link between Germany and Spain pretty much needs subsea cables, because no way you'll get the permit for 2000 km of fat power poles - not in Spain, not in Germany, and certainly not in France.
Oil is funny. Europe just needs to stop burning it. Norway alone makes enough crude to satisfy the entire European chemical feedstock demand, if you add the UK you don't even need to retool the refineries to crude-to-chemical optimization.
I'm well aware that France has nuclear reactors, and probably I should have mentioned that, but didn't want to get to into the weeds about a side point. France is very much an outlier and Europe, and their fleet of reactors was mostly built in the 80s and 90s, and it was built mostly to serve their own national needs, not to be the powerhouse for all of Europe. They can export some energy, but not nearly enough to power the continent.
I also don't think the solar situation is at all comparable to China. Europe is significantly further north than China, like 10 degrees or more, with only the northern parts of China overlapping with the southern parts of Europe. That massively increases the seasonality problems of solar. Building solar panels in Spain to export energy all the way out to Germany, the Baltics, and Eastern Europe doesn't seem like a real solution, even if you ignore the difficulty of crossing multiple international borders. I know they've gotten some energy from solar and wind, and that's great, but they haven't increased capacity nearly as much as they would need to "just stop burning oil," let alone the natural gas they import.
None of this is to say that Europe is doomed, or anything, it's just that they're facing strong headwinds in energy that will limit their growth. Meanwhile in the US we just have a huge abundance of seemingly every source of energy.
That's true, there's also not nearly enough transmission capacity installed for them to literally do that. But still, that's a lot of base load taken care of. France exports about 17% of the total electricity it generates. So on average, around 10 of those nukes permanently power its neighbors (and peaks go significantly higher, of course).
You can just look that up. The world bank has a pretty through study on the solar potential of different countries. They made a nice map to show the results and published their methods. Inner Mongolia is less than 10% better for solar than Spain, and has similar seasonality. The better regions are thousands of kilometer further west, and have "challenging terrain" (lots of mountains).
Yeah, they basically have to roof over half of Spain, and quickly, if they stay committed to the current strategy - but they could do just that, and indeed have started to do so. It's the cheapest way to make power, after all, they just need to invest. And I wasn't joking about the DC subsea cables. They're already building the first one, to France. The EU is investing in GW scale DC power lines to strengthen the internal electricity market between direct neighbors.
And that's just par for the course with large scale solar. China is miles ahead with doing all that, and the US will also have to put up many GW of new transmission capacity towards the East Coast. Solar has gotten to cheap not to do that. The alternative is to just move all the data centers, aluminum smelters, ect. to where the panels are. We'll certainly see both.
More options
Context Copy link
A lot of countries have nuclear reactors and plans to build more. It's only really Germany that has major energy issues and lacks credible plans to deal with it (even if this bleeds over into other places) .
Poland is about to get its first, I believe, and Czechia is expanding theirs.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is a very common failure mode on The Motte. Many people think that all of Europe is like the worst aspects of UK and Germany combined. You can see this in any thread that even mentions censorship in Europe and threads that talk about energy politics.
A similar situation applies to LNG. Reduction of cheap LNG supply is a local problem specific to certain countries. Most uses of it for energy production can be replaced with just plain electricity produced by other methods. LNG isn't even particularly important as transportation fuel the way oil is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link