Further delay of Nordstream 2, substantially raising gas price

[jeba 4,347]

4 hours ago, yourkeau said:

 they do exactly what Brits and Americans do: egoistically approve and fund Nord Stream 2, so that the Russians can cut gas of Poland, Italy, Greece (EU members, BTW).

Why should German gas consumers be forced to pay avoidable fees for the benefit of other countries? Choosing the most economical option is common sense. That kind of egoism is the foundation of the concept of free markets.

[yourkeau 7,719]

2 hours ago, jeba said:

Why should German gas consumers be forced to pay avoidable fees for the benefit of other countries? Choosing the most economical option is common sense. That kind of egoism is the foundation of the concept of free markets.

Sure, just dismantle the EU and don't expect Poland and Italy to protect your borders (the fees which someone else is paying for you). And also pay the full price for maintaining the army.  

 

 

 

[mako1 864]

17 hours ago, jeba said:

That kind of egoism is the foundation of the concept of free markets.

I think you were the one in my viewing of Star Trek the Wrath of Kahn who laughed when Spock goes in the reactor to save everyone. Something about Ayn Rand and foolishness?

 

https://youtu.be/KqpcmQhnl48

[Gambatte 897]

On 12/24/2021, 1:42:05, Krieg said:

and the conditions were better much more people would do it

Sure the government taking cash from taxpayers / consumers, and handing it to people who take green step is one way. And I'm not necessarily against it.

But I think is not optimum. In fact it would also be regressive (renters, often less well off, would be subsidizing even more house owners, which are often better off already).

 

A better way in my opinion would be taxing more polluters (petrol, kerosene for heating, large cars (almost always unnecessary), large single houses (does a family of 3 really need a 200qm EFH like my colleague?), meat), and feed the revenues to green things (better household insulations, trains, Fahrradwegs, large wind and solar sites, green education, whatever...)

[fraufruit 41,947]

3 minutes ago, Gambatte said:

does a family of 3 really need a 200qm EFH

 

That's really not a big house especially if they get more children. Some people's standards are a bit higher especially when they can afford it.

[Gambatte 897]

23 minutes ago, fraufruit said:

Some people's standards are a bit higher especially when they can afford it.

Yes.

Thats exactly how we have been screwing the planet. After all people believe they "can afford it", as you wrote.

I don't think we "can afford it".

 

 

On 12/24/2021, 1:42:05, Krieg said:

 

 

[emkay 10,158]

28 minutes ago, Gambatte said:

large single houses (does a family of 3 really need a 200qm EFH like my colleague?),

Size isn’t necessarily relevant to energy efficiency. Our house was built 2007 and significantly more energy efficient than neighbouring houses half the size, built in the 1960’s.  

[Gambatte 897]

1 hour ago, emkay said:

Size isn’t necessarily relevant to energy efficiency. Our house was built 2007 and significantly more energy efficient than neighbouring houses half the size, built in the 1960’s.

 

I would rather look at total energy consumption, rather than energy efficiency. My family would say "you're speaking like a physicist". Well...🙄😬

 

Everything else being the same, smaller pollute less. And almost always it satisfies the same needs (not if your "needs" include impressing your peers).

 

Most people that live in big houses, or drive big cars, or fly private, or whatever, they don't do it because they need it, they do it because they like it.

And they believe they "can afford it". But it's not true, we (we as a whole) can't actually afford it.

[Krieg 14,926]

The house is the workplace of plenty of people.  The 9 to 5 jobs are not an option to everyone anymore.  Plenty of people need offices, studios, etc at home.

[BethAnnBitt 2,906]

2 hours ago, Gambatte said:

 

I would rather look at total energy consumption, rather than energy efficiency. My family would say "you're speaking like a physicist". Well...🙄😬

 

Everything else being the same, smaller pollute less. And almost always it satisfies the same needs (not if your "needs" include impressing your peers).

 

Most people that live in big houses, or drive big cars, or fly private, or whatever, they don't do it because they need it, they do it because they like it.

And they believe they "can afford it". But it's not true, we (we as a whole) can't actually afford it.

Last time I checked we aren’t living in a communist state.  So the government doesn’t get to dictate the size of my apartment/house that I rent/own.  Availability and affordability were our driving factors.  Heck, someone I know lives in a tiny apartment 2/3 of the year and on a boat for the rest.  However we enjoy paying for an extra BR and bath so our grandchildren can come and stay on a moment’s notice.  Otherwise we’ll have to find a place to rent for them.  Is this a luxury?  Of course, but it’s our choice.   Is it over the top?  NIMO.  BTW we don’t even own a car.  

[Gambatte 897]

[fraufruit 41,947]

2 hours ago, Gambatte said:

Most people that live in big houses, or drive big cars, or fly private, or whatever, they don't do it because they need it, they do it because they like it.

 

OK. Now you're throwing in everything. We were talking about a house where probably each person has a bedroom and possibly a guest room and home office. Throw in a good sized kitchen, dining and living room. Really not a big house but a nice one. Has nothing to do with big cars, private planes or the rest.

 

You make it sound like they are bad people.

[yourkeau 7,719]

Yes, punish people living in villages, growing their own food, and owning a cow. Because a house is so luxurious. Make them go bankrupt and move to the city so that big corporations do not have anymore (already minuscule) competition from small farms. 

 

People with money will always find ways to avoid all taxes ever. 

[Rushrush 286]

Was reading a good article in Focus and the Greens have admitted that not only will they miss their green energy targets but that people will be very upset. Was very honest of them.

 

i was out with some pensioner friends today and I thought they are going to be in for some serious painNone of them can afford to see a huge jump in heating or electricity costs, for them it will be a choice between heating and eating.

 

Seems the US is determined to repeat the Texas disaster of last year, but like Texas, which was Republicans bei g Republicans this was greens setting out to destroy the grid. Lonish article but worth reading

 

https://doomberg.substack.com/p/new-england-is-an-energy-crisis-waiting?r=8ahwm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email

 

 In the Nordic region — where vast supplies of hydro power tend to cap prices — costs surged 470 per cent from a year earlier.

 

OUCH 🤯

[wien4ever 446]

22 hours ago, Rushrush said:

Was reading a good article in Focus and the Greens have admitted that not only will they miss their green energy targets but that people will be very upset. Was very honest of them.

 

 

Yes I don't really understand the practicalities of the Green agenda. I actually agree with some things - we should not be unnecessary wasteful and should promote energy efficiency, but the whole thing needs to be balanced and I would like a more clear calculation of the benefit to the environment (full costs to the environment of renovating old buildings, meaning how much environmental damage is made from the creation of insulation, solar panels, new heat pumps, etc etc ). Why not keep nuclear while focusing on phasing out coal first? Why these blanket rules of no more oil by 2026, what if I manage to upgrade my 1960s house and reduce my consumption to just 600 liters of oil per year, why must I replace it with a non-oil option? Why are my neighbors with new houses and fancy energy efficiency rating still consuming more per year than I am , yet they are supposedly "more energy conscious" than me? Someone I know has a house built in 2006, they are consuming 2500 liters a year in heating+water and 4300 in electricity (3 people). It makes no sense. I think the renovation rules and taxes should be based on consumption and not on some made up calculations from architects.

 

 

 

 

[MikeMelga 7,250]

On 31.12.2021, 17:18:53, wien4ever said:

 Why not keep nuclear while focusing on phasing out coal first?

Because Russia wants them closed. Make no mistake that a large part of the anti-nuclear movement was promoted by KGB.

 

Quote

Why are my neighbors with new houses and fancy energy efficiency rating still consuming more per year than I am , yet they are supposedly "more energy conscious" than me? Someone I know has a house built in 2006, they are consuming 2500 liters a year in heating+water and 4300 in electricity (3 people).

Are you sure about that? My new house (2014) is at least 4x more energy efficient than my previous apartment (1991), at least from heating cost perspective.

I was paying 1800€ per year of heating for a 86sqm apartment, with other apartments surrounding me.

Now for a semi-detached 150sqm house I'm paying 800€! My neighbour, same size but with 2 surrounding houses, is paying 500€!

[mako1 864]

Quote

Because Russia wants them closed. Make no mistake that a large part of the anti-nuclear movement was promoted by KGB

Unless you can source that, it's just your regular anti left/commies everywhere hysteria. Or did the KGB fiendishly plot to explode Chernobyl to influence the west?

[MikeMelga 7,250]

3 hours ago, mako1 said:

Unless you can source that, it's just your regular anti left/commies everywhere hysteria. Or did the KGB fiendishly plot to explode Chernobyl to influence the west?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_movement

 

This is for nuclear weapons, but you can't build nukes without reactors to enrich plutonium. And many of those groups advocated both end of weapons and civilian programs.

 

I read an article by DW(?) a few weeks ago about influence of soviets/sympathy on the radical wing of the Green party. Let me check if I can find it.

 

it's well known that soviets infiltrated or even created groups in the west to promote discord. Same as being done now with anti-vaxx movement and others.

[mako1 864]

...and the ex KGB cheif of Dresden is likely campaiging or using straw men to campaign for nordstream2. Official US policy was to oppose it in order to sell US natural gas, among other reasons, but $ was the key one.

 

In the Putin annual press conference the other day one of the questions mentioned on the German news was the high cost of energy/gas in Russia. So I don't think that nordstream2 is going to magically decrease prices if the russians are also paying more. (Some suggest the saudis are mad at Biden for not visiting.)

Maybe the nordstream2 supporters can translate the question?

 

And Kazakhastan has also had riots (Deutsch; spazierengehen) regarding fuel prices and they are firmly in the fold of moscow.

 

So it's not just in Germany/Europe that the energy prices are rising.

 

And as always, with thermal power sources, it seems cheap because we don't count the external costs. The cost of burning things for energy gets paid by those who are affected by climate change. The quicker we move on to renewables the better.

[mako1 864]

If people get notice that their energy company is no longer delivering, one should check that the company is actually declaring bankruptcy. Stromio has sent out notices that it will no longer deliver but has not declared bankruptcy. The Verbraucherschutz says it is pretty clear they can't just do that, a contract is a contract. They don't get to walk away from the bad deal without paying. You will have grounds to sue.

Time to use your Rechtschutzversicherung! (Although I am guessing those that think they can save a few euros by buying electricity from the discounters might not be the same group who has Rechtschutzversicherung).