Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Not Even a Recession: The Great German Gas Debate in Retrospect [pdf]

econtribute.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: Not Even a Recession: The Great German Gas Debate in Retrospect [pdf]

#71

Post by ivan_gammel »

jackfoxy wrote: post #34
ivan_gammel wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The USA didn't invade Texas. Texians (Anglo Texans who had migrated) and Tejanos (Mexican Texans) alike were fed up with Santa Anna's rule and successfully rebelled, forming the Republic of Texas which lasted for 10 years, at which point the Republic accepted the American offer of annexation in a referendum. The Mexican/American war spun out of the aftermath of the annexation.

My point is a country cannot invade itself. Chechnya is part of Russia the same way as Texas is part of USA.

Re: Not Even a Recession: The Great German Gas Debate in Retrospect [pdf]

#72

Post by redeeman »

_kbh_ wrote: post #64
redeeman wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That means sacrificing something small (like a gas shortage) okay.. tell that to the ones that simply cannot afford it > for something valuable (no major war in Europe). /me looks at Ukraine: there seems to be a war... /me looks at globe.. in... Europe. is the war lasting longer because the EU and US sends arms to Ukraine?

> is the war lasting longer because the EU and US sends arms to Ukraine? The war is lasting longer because the Russians have decided that the number of dead Russians and recaptured positions that need to happen for the war to end is higher than what Ukraine has currently achieved. This war could be over tomorrow if Russia decided to leave, if anything western weapons and aid are making the war end faster by speeding…

im not saying anything about that, but answer my question, is the war lasting longer due to US/EU actions, or is it shorter? it seems ukraine cannot defeat russia even with all the aid we give them, might the war simply be prolonged by giving a false sense of hope? how many more are we making die?

Re: Not Even a Recession: The Great German Gas Debate in Retrospect [pdf]

#73

Post by H8crilA »

redeeman wrote: post #72
_kbh_ wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is the war lasting longer because the EU and US sends arms to Ukraine? The war is lasting longer because the Russians have decided that the number of dead Russians and recaptured positions that need to happen for the war to end is higher than what Ukraine has currently achieved. This war could be over tomorrow if Russia decided to leave, if anything western weapons and aid are making the war end faster by speeding…

im not saying anything about that, but answer my question, is the war lasting longer due to US/EU actions, or is it shorter? it seems ukraine cannot defeat russia even with all the aid we give them, might the war simply be prolonged by giving a false sense of hope? how many more are we making die?

You'd be right if not for what Russia plans to do next in the event of a victory in Ukraine. Ukraine is not the target, it's a target in the sequence of targets.

A few months before the war broke out Putin issued a very clear ultimatum to the West: withdrawal of NATO forces and installations from every country east of Germany. He issued none to Ukraine because he wanted the entire country.

The war will continue for as long as Russia is able to wage it, therefore we must destroy Russia as a political system that exists today. Or declaw it to the point of irrelevance. That is the way out of this war, unless you're willing to go back to USSR borders. And even then it's not clear they would stop.

Russia is surprisingly open about its goals. Just read what serious people in the Kremlin say over the years (and definitely tune out the garbage that they spew on Rossiya 1 for the older generation homo-sovieticus, no one in the Kremlin cares about that shit). Thanks to the large influx of Russian-speaking immigration we have quite a lot of capable experts that understand it well.

War, unlike marriage, only requires consent on one side. I.e. the "collective west" is in a war just because Russia wants that, and there's nothing "West" can do to exit the war. They can only win it.

Re: Not Even a Recession: The Great German Gas Debate in Retrospect [pdf]

#74

Post by _kbh_ »

redeeman wrote: post #72
_kbh_ wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is the war lasting longer because the EU and US sends arms to Ukraine? The war is lasting longer because the Russians have decided that the number of dead Russians and recaptured positions that need to happen for the war to end is higher than what Ukraine has currently achieved. This war could be over tomorrow if Russia decided to leave, if anything western weapons and aid are making the war end faster by speeding…

im not saying anything about that, but answer my question, is the war lasting longer due to US/EU actions, or is it shorter? it seems ukraine cannot defeat russia even with all the aid we give them, might the war simply be prolonged by giving a false sense of hope? how many more are we making die?

> but answer my question, is the war lasting longer due to US/EU actions, or is it shorter?

Western aid is letting Ukraine finish the war faster so its making it shorter.

> it seems ukraine cannot defeat russia even with all the aid we give them, might the war simply be prolonged by giving a false sense of hope?.

I don't know why you think Ukraine cannot beat Russia, Russia just admitted they had to take ~100k causalities trying to Bakhmut in 9 months. Those statistics are entirely impossible to sustain.

> how many more are we making die?

We are making as many Russians die as we need to until they finally go home.

Re: Not Even a Recession: The Great German Gas Debate in Retrospect [pdf]

#75

Post by eric-hu »

grt_thr wrote: post #49
mperham wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: Moreover, the country did not simply get lucky with particularly mild winter temperatures, as often alleged. The average winter temperature in the 2022/23 winter of 2.9°C was actually slightly colder than the average temperature over the four previous winters.

https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/03/09/climate-change-eur... Not sure how the second warmest winters ever recorded can be cooler than the average of the next 4 warmest winters.

The paper is specific to Germany, and your linked article reported statistics about Europe. Apples to oranges.

Re: Not Even a Recession: The Great German Gas Debate in Retrospect [pdf]

#76

Post by nawgz »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #47
nawgz wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless there's some non-linear interactions that I'm unaware of, it seems like the mean temp is the only thing you'd need to know wrt how much energy you need to use to keep it roughly at some other temp thru the season

IDK, extremes matter. -5 to +7 has the same average as -20 to +22, but the effects on energy use are widely different (e.g. the former may command a little heating for some time; the latter will command both extreme heating and possibly also cooling). It's the same as with climate talk in general. "Ooh, the average yearly temperature only rose this much, or even fell down relative to 5/10/20 years ago." - sure, but i…

> the latter will command both extreme heating and possibly also cooling

I fully disagree with your use of "extreme" here, you have no evidence for that. Homes naturally have insulation which would mean the +22 temperatures would heat them, and some of that leftover heat would therefore reduce the need for heating. Indeed, it seems likely to me that the rate of heat leach would keep both these situations identical except for the fact you managed to inject "also using AC" in here like anyone ever does that.

Quite a weak argument.

The overall climate of our planet has nothing to do with the energy cost to heat a home.

Re: Not Even a Recession: The Great German Gas Debate in Retrospect [pdf]

#77

Post by nawgz »

Retric wrote: post #41
nawgz wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless there's some non-linear interactions that I'm unaware of, it seems like the mean temp is the only thing you'd need to know wrt how much energy you need to use to keep it roughly at some other temp thru the season

Heat loss is linear. Resistance heating is linear. Furnaces using slightly colder outside air are just a tiny bit less efficient, but it’s really close to linear. Heat pumps are non linear and do use electricity from natural gas.

So if I understand you, the only non-linear effect in play is that Heat Pumps are MORE efficient when the temperature differential is higher, is that correct?

Re: Not Even a Recession: The Great German Gas Debate in Retrospect [pdf]

#78

Post by Retric »

nawgz wrote: post #77
Retric wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heat loss is linear. Resistance heating is linear. Furnaces using slightly colder outside air are just a tiny bit less efficient, but it’s really close to linear. Heat pumps are non linear and do use electricity from natural gas.

So if I understand you, the only non-linear effect in play is that Heat Pumps are MORE efficient when the temperature differential is higher, is that correct?

Heat pumps are LESS efficient when the temperature differential is higher.

https://learnmetrics.com/heat-pump-efficiency-vs-temperature...

Re: Not Even a Recession: The Great German Gas Debate in Retrospect [pdf]

#79

Post by grt_thr »

eric-hu wrote: post #75
grt_thr wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/03/09/climate-change-eur... Not sure how the second warmest winters ever recorded can be cooler than the average of the next 4 warmest winters.

The paper is specific to Germany, and your linked article reported statistics about Europe. Apples to oranges.

There isn't a German expedition energy market, there is a European one.

Re: Not Even a Recession: The Great German Gas Debate in Retrospect [pdf]

#80

Post by Mlller »

tuukkah wrote: post #68
Mlller wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that is the point (which is not clear to me from the start of this subthread), it is rather settled: The linked article shows that Germany could get over not buying Russian gas anymore well; and it sends vastly more military aid to Ukraine than Finland – Zelenskyy “noted that Germany was now Ukraine’s second-largest backer after the United States” ( https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/14/world/europe/ukraine-zele... )…

> [Germany] sends vastly more military aid to Ukraine than Finland The statistics disagree if you remember to compare per capita or per GDP. (Finland looks bad only if you include the refugee costs in a per GDP calculation - not many Ukrainians wanted to travel to Finland so far.) https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-s... Also, one should take into account that the amount of unnecessary military…

Marginal note: This statistic covers only the time span until Feb. 24th, so it doesnʼt comprise Germanyʼs “Biggest Military Aid Package Yet” (ca. 3 Billion) – https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/13/world/europe/ukraine-germ... – which probably led to Zelenskyyʼs statement. Dividing by capita or GDP and making geographical, economical, strategical allowances is fine – one could do that in the case of Germany, its imports, exports, closings, openings and other decisions, too.

But this doesnʼt address the point stated by GP as follows: “The point is whether Russia could extort countries (eg: prevent from sending military aid to Ukraine) or not”, proceeding with a comparison in which Germany is heavily dependent, Finland is not, which implies: Germany could be extorted e.g. to prevent it from sending military aid to Ukraine. And this is hardly tenable when “Germany was now Ukraine’s second-largest backer after the United States”.

As I conjectured, the events indicate at some effective extortion, but a psychological one, that is leveraged by both sides drawing contradicting conclusions from the same premises (which does not mean that both arguments are equally sound).

I certainly did not mean to imply that Finland looked bad, of course it looks excellent.

Post reply on HN