(2/n) But first some context: since 2005 Ukraine pro-western election and following gas "crisis" Russia wanted to choke Ukraine by cutting its supplies,to elect the "right" ppl next time. This was impossible though since it would cut supplies to other western customers too.
(3/n) About then Germany Green and pro-coal SPD government agreed to start the "energy transition". Both parties agreed to kill low carbon nuclear first, to keep coal longer and then transition to "temporary natural gas" to enable more renewables.
Political compromise.
(4/n) Germany transition started with a huge boost for renewables (good) and similar big push to build a fleet of "ultra modern" and "high tech" coal power plants (bad).
Noticed this "bump"? These are "Schröder's coal babies" replacing old coal. Everyone was happy.
(5/n) By then everyone more or less agreed that coal had no long term future though. To balance intermittent wind&solar without nuclear, flexible natural gas was marketed as a "transition fuel", "big friend of renewables".
But where could Germany get lots and lots of cheap gas?
Gerhard, meet Vladimir. Vladimir, this is Gerhard. This has always been a dream deal for both.
Central European countries cried foul, they KNEW that Putin is in it for the long game. But they were dismissed as "rusophobic" by "Russenverstehers" Putin apologists and appeasers
(7/n) Gerhard thought that he can "civilise" Putin's Russia by doing business. RU elites had other values and goals, but played the game nonetheless.
For everyone living close to Russia (already bombed like Georgia in 2008, or not yet like Ukraine) this was criminally naive.
(8/n)Nord Stream 1 was built but it was not enough to kill Ukraine supply, so a second one was conceived. Germany wanted to become a gas hub for Europe, while promising security to Ukraine.
For Putin's plan to work, one more thing needed to be blocked: German LNG ports.
(9/n) For Germany to be really dependent on Russia, and therefore obedient there should be no alternative ways for Germany to supply gas. In Europe this means LNG shipping from Qatar and USA.
Look at this map, why are there no LNG ports in Germany? Strange, no?
(10/n) Back in 2011 CEOs of BUND, WWF and NABU simultanously quit their jobs and joined a new NGO, funded with a LAVISH donation from Gazprom to "protect" the Baltic sea.
The argument was that gas pipeline is much more eco, because (US)LNG ships impact the Baltic. And Russia.
(11/n) Until 2011 a new gas pipeline had a lot of enemies among German environmentalists, but after Gazprom donation the three CEOs changed their opinion.
Maybe they realized that gas has no substitute in Energiewende? Or maybe they just wanted to retire to a nice cozy job.
The whole thing was scandalous enough so BUND published a disclaimer that they would never accept money from Gazprom or nuclear (sic!).
But in principle they agreed that Gazprom is:
➡️the lesser evil
➡️right that LNG shipping is BAD
➡️Ukraine can be ignored for the right $$$
(13/n) Over the years there have been several attempts to build Germany's gas independece from Russia. But they all failed.
Germany would be thus forced into a trap, gnawing on its own leg to become energy independent and sovereign nation again.
(14/n) Many in Europe dislike Donald Trump for all the right reasons (climate change denial to name one).
But when talking about these things he was SPOT ON. When he brought it at the UN, he was laughed at by the German delegation.
Who's laughing now?
Almost nobody.
It is war.
(15/n) My moral from this story:
➡️antinuclearism in Europe threatens our climat goals AND physical security
➡️activism without critical thinking can actually do more bad than good
➡️activism MUST be science based, otherwise it becomes just noise
➡️we need to #switchOffPutin now
If you want to do more for the planet and humanity but worry about doing the right things first, come and join us at @letsreplanet or @fota4climate where we explore and hope to overcome these uncertainties togeather.
W weekend wybrałem się do #choczewo#kopalino na spotkanie spółki @PEJ_PL z mieszkańcami. Chciałem na własne oczy posłuchać jak to wygląda na miejscu, co interesuje mieszkańców a co nie, i kto im pomaga i przeszkadza w tym by tę wiedzę zdobyć.
Mój kom. dla @wyborcza3miasto:
"- Ze spotkania na spotkanie widać, że rozmowa staje się bardziej merytoryczna. Spółka lepiej się do tego przygotowuje, wymieniła niektórych ekspertów na bardziej komunikatywnych. Widać też, że wójt gminy Choczewo bardzo zabiega o interes samorządu"
"Ludzie, którzy w tam naprawdę mieszkają, a nie są tylko właścicielami działek w większości widzą możliwość rozwoju dzięki budowie elektrowni. W rozmowach natomiast nie pomaga ingerencja zewnętrznych podmiotów, czy to działaczy rozmaitych organizacji, czy polityków."
Hi #energytwitter , this here is a THREAD about yet another worrying case of fossil fuel interests trying to influence our debate about clean energy.
1/n
It's a story about an industry lobby group that mingles with supposedly well wishing scientists and spreading IPCC denial to the youth.
So🐻 with me, your peer review is valuable.
We start off with the facts: our climate situation is so dire that @IPCC_CH calls for "all hands on deck" mobilization of all low carbon technologies, including nuclear and CCS.
"Societal preference" is certainly an obstacle, but we are running out of options. From AR5: