coastalheron12 said:What’s even the point of talking about cost without mentioning value?
When we're talking energy—real Value (not just some vague Benefit, but actual Value)—it matters way more than the Cost. And let's be real, the Value from wind is probably the lowest of any energy source out there.
To actually wrap your head around this, you have to look way past the paid ads and the fancy studies. For example—just a thought—you won't find anyone telling you that to get an output worth 100 from one power plant, you basically have to build three more that will run at Zero.
So, I gotta ask: if you asked those folks over at ExxonMobil, how is Germany or anyone else supposed to pay for the energy from those other three? 😁 Because they aren't going to pay with "positive vibes," that's for sure.
And look, I'm not trying to be arrogant here—it's just basic math. This is exactly what gives ExxonMobil extra leverage as one of the biggest European energy suppliers in the mid-term future, assuming they can finally shake off the Russians. They won't fully, obviously, but still.
You keep bringing up fossil fuels for Norway, but you're totally forgetting about hydro—which makes them multiple times self-sufficient.
Also, I've got to ask: why did Germany produce 20% less wind energy last year compared to the year before?
Sure, we could sit here and debate the efficiency of different energy sources, but honestly, you can do all that if you just decide to ignore climate change entirely. And I’m not really feeling that vibe. The real key to the energy transition isn't just making stuff, it's cutting down consumption. And the secret to cutting consumption is rethinking how we actually build our homes and spaces. That’s a much bigger engineering headache than fixing the grid, because most of us live in old buildings that bleed energy—about 40% of all energy used in the EU just vanishes through inefficient buildings. If buildings were efficient enough that you could drop the heat by just one degree on average, you could slash gas consumption by what the IEA puts at
10 billion cubic metres within a year, etc.
We’re going to need energy tomorrow and the day after, and it won't be coming from oil or fossil fuels—at least not the way we use them now, unless we're complete idiots. But even with fossils like gas, we can make a massive dent in moving away from Russia at a European level (okay, you aren't part of the EU, but whatever). Take Spain, for example; they have plenty of LNG terminals, but they aren't much help to the rest of Europe since there aren't enough pipelines. One project was the MidCad pipeline meant to link Spain and France; we'll see if anyone actually breathes life into that given the current mess.
Unfortunately, I haven't run into anyone who actually believes in climate change, doesn't think the IPCC report is some "globalist conspiracy," and also happens to be against wind turbines. Like I said, the issue is their inherent instability; they’re never going to be the sole energy source in this format. When you bring up Germany's 20% drop last year, we should also talk about the massive overproduction the year before, when prices went negative and people were practically being paid to use electricity just so it wouldn't go to waste—some of it spilled over to neighboring countries, and they tried to block some of it with PST-s.
One thing is certain. Solving this is going to require way more integration between EU countries.
