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 -
tl;dr some quick attempts to get inside the mindset at the Kremlin concerning events in the war, in the run-up to Putin's speech expected in a few hours. Everything below could be immediately and awkwardly falsified if he announces some desperate escalation like general mobilisation or a nuclear strike against a Ukrainian military target.
Ever since the Ukrainian successes in the northeastern campaign, I've been trying to get inside the mindset of the Kremlin to figure out what their likely response is.
One thing that is almost certainly true (and easily underestimated) is that they are in their own psychological bubble, and there is no elite team of intelligence operatives whose primary job is to give Putin objective analysis. Human minds don't work that way: we easily form fenced-off epistemic communities that downplay our shameful fears and play up our pride. You can even see this reading the reports of US decision-making throughout the Cold War, when interservice rivalry ran hot and the USAF nuclear strategy advisors were giving opinions based not on what was in humanity's interests or even the USA's, but instead what would get them the most planes and status compared to the army and navy. And of course, you can see it easily on reddit, even getting a rush of ideological whiplash as you flit from one politically aligned sub to another.
(What about people like Girkin? Well, he's a doomer, and an outsider, and his criticisms are mostly quite careful. As far as I've noticed, he talks about the conduct of the war, not the wisdom in initiating it in the first place; or he says that Russia should be more committed, without once questioning whether the war is winnable even with full commitment.)
Given all the above, I think a useful and necessary starting point for understanding Russia's position is to try to imagine what your view would be if Russia's strategic situation was a lot better than you probably currently think it is (this is one reason why contrarian posters are valuable to any subreddit that takes itself intellectually seriously).
What does this involve? Maybe it means you think that Ukrainian morale is weak. Maybe you think that the EU is less united than it appears, and winter will be harder than Europeans are prepared for. Maybe you think that the United States is being opportunistic and will drop Ukraine without looking back when the conflict starts to swing back Russia's way. Above all, you're probably convinced that there won't be another breakthrough like in Kharkiv oblast: that was a one off, heads have rolled, and now discipline and morale have been restored to the troops. Reinforcements are coming in, Iran is sending useful drones, and the forthcoming referenda will encourage a surge of volunteers from the DPR and LPR.
Let's say that you, like Putin, were in the grip of this relative sunny outlook. What would follow from it for your reflections on the wider strategy of the conflict?
Above all, I think you would be aiming to take the long view of things, because the fundamentals are on your side. Forget today's battles and next week's offensives - focus on longer-term military-industrial capacity, and associated active measures in the Russian and foreign populations. You probably don't want to risk a general mobilisation - that might compromise your longer-term war fighting ability - but you want to get as many new volunteers as possible, ideally from less economically active areas of the country. And finally, nuclear weapons wouldn't be on the table; after all, you're winning this war, albeit more slowly and less gloriously than you'd hoped. Why would you risk alienating friends and allies and giving NATO a chance to intervene?
But you might ask, at what point does this Pollyanna-Putin outlook begin to crumble? When does the filter bubble burst, and Putin has his Downfall-style meltdown? When Ukraine liberates Kherson? Lysychansk? Donetsk? Sevastopol? I think the only answer we can give here is that people in general are very bad at facing up to uncomfortable realities, and can keep themselves from accepting painful truths for their entire lives if necessary. Or think of psychologist's Leon Festinger's now famous work on cognitive dissonance on doomsday cults: when the doomsday prophecy fails, people will go to great lengths to avoid accepting that they've been duped. I expect Putin to go out the same way, with his final thoughts being confidence that Russia can still be victorious, even as he has an unfortunate fall from a window.
("What about you doglatine? Why are you so sure that Putin's the one in the filter bubble rather than you?" Answer: Well, I've been trying to make clear predictions throughout this conflict both online and to my circle of geopolitics friends - this post is in that same vein - and I'd say I'm fairly well calibrated so far in terms of events on the ground. Part of the appeal of making explicit predictions is to try to break yourself out of these epistemic lagoons in the first place. All that said, I recognise that of course I'm in a filter bubble, sometimes through deliberate choice (once the novelty value wears off, it's just not fun to consume propaganda you disagree with). But even if my intentions were pure, filter bubbles are all but inescapable. Usually the best you can hope for is to get good at spotting the early signs of a bubble collapse so you can make a clean exit with your life savings and a modicum of your dignity intact. But that's far easier said than done)
In any case, I am curious what others think.
This is definitely a side note to all the other things going in this thread, but I can't help but wonder how this will play out. I just received a notice from my German gas provider and the price per cubic meter has gone up x5, that's on top of a 60% increase in electricity price. Fortunately my wife works at a place where they're legally obligated to keep the heating on, I do WFH and am unusually cold-resistant and whatever else we'll actually consume fits comfortably in our budget, but not everyone has that privilege.
Across Europe, there will be a large number of people that will be unable to pay for some of the basics of life this winter. Assuming that they'll not just be content to lay down and die, this might have serious consequences starting from cascading economic consequences of non-payment of absurd utility bills to populist parties surging in support. Another thing to consider is that this winter we're still able to largely run off of Russian gas which filled our storage tanks over the summer. That won't be the case next winter.
It's definitely going to be a tough winter, but in terms of total demand reduction, there's probably quite a lot of low-hanging fruit to be plucked, whether it's turning down the thermostat 1 degree, turning it off for longer periods, waiting till later in the year to turn it on. Much of that will happen organically as people see their gas bills. Of course, that won't directly help people who are already struggling to pay their bills, nor will it help industrial processes that are reliant on gas, so some state intervention will be required. However, I'm less worried than I was a month ago, and encouraged both by how quickly Europe has filled its storage and the trends in euro gas futures (now down to their lowest since July... still high, but the worm may have turned). As for next year, we'll hopefully have more infrastructure in place, like the floating LNG terminals in Germany, more renewables, more heat pumps, more insulation, etc..
I know almost nothing about energy forecasting, but naively could the lower futures prices reflect an expectation of rationing or price ceilings as well as they could reflect an expectation of abundance?
More options
Context Copy link
LNG is the most expensive way to move gas. That alone will massively increase prices for Germany. Renewables were always a joke for Germany as well, they don’t get enough wind or sunlight for them to work and battery tech is still not close enough to compensate. Insulation helps residential homes keep warm, but that’s it, and how many are able to afford it? I don’t quite understand your optimism here. Time will tell
While this sentiment is probably unpopular in the green space these days, over the past year or two I've realized that actually fielding scaled renewable systems anywhere roughly north of the Mason-Dixon line requires something like two orders of magnitude more battery capacity than even "battery-backed renewable" systems design for these days. Expected grid usage needs to go up. Way up.
To fully switch from fossil fuels, we presumably need to switch heating over from largely combustion furnaces to heat pumps: heating a home in northern Europe in winter takes far more energy than cooling one in a warmer climate. Electric transportation adds to grid usage. Including these, total demand is almost certainly highest when solar is least useful. A few net-zero days in summer is cute, but doesn't really provide a viable path to storing summer sunlight for winter, and without that investments in solar would be better placed in nuclear.
Question(I am a licensed HVAC tech and am well aware of the shortfalls of heat pumps)-
Are heat pumps enough for Northern Europe and Germany in the winter(heat pumps can’t keep up very well below 25 degrees F, and better insulation doesn’t extend that well) and can Europe afford to buy them(that is, install an AC unit in every house/apartment)?
Use of heat pumps in, say, Spain or France where it doesn’t stay frozen all winter probably makes sense. But my understanding is that Germany and Northern Europe are significantly colder.
My understanding based largely on this video is that state of the art heat pumps manage to perform such that even in places like Chicago using them to heat with energy from a natural gas power plant uses less fuel even including transmission and generation losses than a domestic furnace when the temperature is above -15C (5F). I'm not quite sure how cold any given place in Northern Europe gets, but Chicago isn't exactly known for being warm in the winter.
I'd like to see what the cost premium for "state of the art". Skimming the web I see that there are heat pumps that start to struggle below 40F, some 25, some 15, and I'm sure nobody's deliberately buying the crummy models to spite their electric bill, so there must be some kind of tradeoffs.
I had a house with a heat pump, and it worked fabulously through 95% of each of our mild winters ... right up until the temperature was freezing enough, at which point our options were "turn off the heat" or "auxilliary heat" ... which the manual said works via resistance heating, but my bills suggested that Aux Heat simply sets dollar bills on fire until the house is warm. More seriously, it looks like you can get around the problem with a lower-temperature refrigerant and a freeze-proofed outdoor unit, but is that a few hundred extra dollars per house or a few thousand or what?
It's one of those things where there are both generations and quality tiers. A Mitsubishi hyperheat that supposedly works down to -17F will cost 5x as much as a Midea which performs as well as the last (-5F) gen of Mitsubishis.
I'm keeping my wood stove for when it gets down to the teens, but I'm lucky to live in a mild climate where that's as low as it gets.
Don't know why anyone who has gas as an option in places that get below 0F would want one, unless it's mostly for summer AC and they have a long shoulder season.
More options
Context Copy link
Is there any kind of portable fossil-fuel heater you roll out for emergencies?
Massachusetts is giving incentives to install heat pumps as part of the HVAC unit when it is time for replacement. It has been going on for a few years so there has to be some data on how it works.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you believe that you've never been in a cold place "heated" by an air source heat pump. The problem isn't just efficiency, it's efficacy. Burning stuff provides just as much heat when it's cold out as when it's warm. A heat pump can't move nearly as much heat when it's cold out as when it's warm.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It used to get pretty cold even in Southern Finland. Then global warming happened and now we’re lucky to get a solid snow cover that lasts even some weeks. The highest electricity demand (natural gas is practically never used for heating / power here) is in late december / early january while the coldest weather is more likely to hit only after that, so heat pumps would generally work well enough.
More options
Context Copy link
It doesn't actually get very cold where most people live. I live in Stockholm and it rarely gets below 25f for extended periods.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
LNG isn't as cheap as pipelines, but it's how a majority of the world imports their gas (Japan, China, India, South Korea....). And it's only a medium-term solution for Germany.
You seem to be operating with outdated information. In 2021, renewables provided 250 TW/h out of Germany's electricity production of 600 TW/h, about the same proportion as fossil fuels, the remainder being made up by nuclear power. In fact wind power alone was the single biggest source of electricity production if one separates out lignite and hard coal as fuels.
Energy storage is still a problem, but one that we're making great progress on. Gas and nuclear can cover base load medium-term, and there's exciting stuff also happening in geothermal. Ultimately the answer will be integrated global energy grids and lots of redundant electricity storage capacity (maybe fusion too), but we'll be waiting a while for that.
Why does it matter what the majority do? They already have the infrastructure set up for LNG, Germany doesn’t. Once it’s set up it will still cost far more than using a pipeline.
That’s great and all that they manage to eke out that much energy from renewables, why isn’t it 100%? Because my information isn’t outdated. Germany is still a cloudy place without much wind compared to many other places.
Progress is being made on storage but it won’t be made quick enough by winter. Gas prices are still going to be eye watering and the worlds 4th largest economy is likely to go into recession
More options
Context Copy link
LNG seems to be competitive with pipelines over long distances, so while local gas is always better LNG imports at least have lower per-mile costs and higher flexibility.
But have you seen graphs of German solar production? It doesn't matter how much power you produce in July to push your annual average up, you're not running heat pumps off it in January. And you're not running it off a battery for six months either!
"Net Zero" is the biggest con of renewable advertising. The net is full of fucking holes in important places.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Environmentalists have been claiming we can insulate and save our way to zero energy for decades, and they've got people believing it. We can't. The US EPA estimates a typical 20% reduction in heating and cooling in the most favorable climate zone. Unless European houses are typically uninsulated with leaky windows, it's not likely to be much better there. Now, 20% is a big number... but not when you're talking about the kinds of shortages expected in Europe. Same for thermostat reduction (and the better your insulation, the less you save from that)
I am a licensed HVAC tech and the 20% reduction number is a lie from the people who make these products so they can convince homeowners they’re cost effective. The real number is usually a lot less.
Do you have any sources for this? (I have no understanding of any of this but I know some people considering getting a heat pump)
Sources, no. Experience, yes. HVAC and insulation improvements are sold, mostly, financed, with the goal that the customer pays sufficiently less on the electric bill to make up for the payment. In general that doesn’t happen and the note on the improvements are rolled into the house payment the next time the homeowner refinances.
Now there are energy efficiency gains from a lot of that stuff(double paned windows, extra attic insulation, etc), just usually not enough to pay for itself in power bills(which the marketing data these EPA claims are based off of is trying to prove).
As for heat pumps in specific, they’re usually cheaper than electric resistor heating and more expensive than gas. They may or may not be greener than gas; depends on what your electricity comes from.
More options
Context Copy link
The 20% number wasn't heat pumps, but overall improvements from insulation. Looking at the EPA pdf, they make some pretty major assumptions that homes have no underfloor or rim joist insulation, 23% duct leakage, dreadful windows, and an arbitrary 4% HVAC mischarging figure.
I've been around a lot of homes, and haven't seen many that would make me consider that an average sample to base improvement estimates on.
Hell, my piece of shit house was cobbled together in the sample era and has none of those issues left to fix as low hanging fruit. Other than half the west wall currently being a plastic sheet... I should probably get back to that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I've never felt as cold as indoors in Germany in early March. It was quite a shock for someone who was used to -25C outdoors temperatures barely affecting indoor temperature due to decent insulation and central heating (that I always have to turn way down to avoid boiling inside).
I swear I get sick every time I go to a Mediterranean country in the winter. Usually when the day temps are like 15C. My body just cannot take the shock of insides of houses being colder than the outside.
More options
Context Copy link
It was also a revelation for me when visiting Ireland how much colder it feels when you actually can't escape (comparably milder than in Finland) outdoor temps to warm insulated homes for most of your time.
More options
Context Copy link
Dunno about Germany, but having spent a few weeks in Airbnb in winter in Ireland, wow. The host gave us electric blanket and told us to never mind that the room was not room temperature. And Ireland is not even cold!
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah I think this is a common thing! Coming from the Netherlands, I've heard people from Eastern Europe complain about the cold here. I was confused at first like "bro wtf, it's like -20C right now where you are from, how on earth are you cold here?!", but yeah, if you don't go outside too much and you crank up that thermostat indoors, I guess the Netherlands is effectively colder in the winter.
Likewise, I've experienced the opposite going to Norway in the winter. Everywhere inside was uncomfortably warm and stuffy for me. I prefer a bit of fresh air and 19C indoor temperatures all day.... But I guess that's harder to manage when it's -25C outside, compared to when it's 5C.
The Netherlands are also super humid. -20C and dry is much better than 5C and humid.
This is a huge effect.
Montreal and parts of ontario are near massive rapids, so no matter how cold it gets there's a constant churn of moisture entering the air.
I've almost fallen over shivering when the wind was right and it was -10 in Montreal, which would usually take -30 and heavy windchill in dry rural Ontario
(mind you very cold and dry conditions still messes up your skin vastly more... your core temperature might be find, but you get the equivalent of a major sunburn from just the wind)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There's already a bunch of journalists and politicians making hay of asking that of people. But I doubt that will be of much consequence compared to whether the winter is mild or harsh.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link