France is only going to continue fund the Russian military for 5 more years. It is nice that they are speeding up the process away from fossil fuels, but 5 more years of funding a military invasion is 5 years too much. How much more do Russia need to do before the cost of buying Russian gas and oil is too much?
France ends gas heaters subsidies
91–100 of 112 posts
Re: France ends gas heaters subsidies
#92The thing about Europe weaning itself off Russian hydrocarbons is that it was going to happen anyway, with all the green targets etc. It might as well happen a bit more quickly. Especially so in France, which already has massive carbon-free electricity sources.
It was going to happen anyway, but not on a short term. While we here in the Netherlands where coerced from natural gas into electric (heat pumps), just over the border in Germany people are subsidised to actually get natural gas as a green move (as they where moving from oil and coal).
Please take a look at the actual regulations: https://ec.europa.eu/finance/docs/level-2-measures/taxonomy-... states the conditions for investments in gas to be considered green is
> (ii) the power to be replaced cannot be generated from renewable energy sources, based on a comparative assessment with the most cost-effective and technically feasible renewable alternative for the same capacity identified; the result of this comparative assessment is published and is subject to a stakeholder consultation;
> (iii) the activity replaces an existing high emitting electricity generation activity that uses solid or liquid fossil fuels
> (v) the facility is designed and constructed to use renewable and/or low-carbon gaseous fuels and the switch to full use of renewable and/or low-carbon gaseous fuels takes place by 31 December 2035, with a commitment and verifiable plan approved by the management body of the undertaking;
> (vi) the replacement leads to a reduction in emissions of at least 55% GHG over the lifetime of the newly installed production capacity;
So in short gas is only green if the investment replaces coal or oil, reduces GHG by 55%, is replaced with renewables before 2035 and no renewable alternatives exist. This is a very limited scope. For heating purposes Germany is moving away from gas as well: https://www.bdew.de/service/daten-und-grafiken/entwicklung-b... From 2025 on each installed heating has to be powered by 65% renewable energy. This basically rules out gas+oil.
Re: France ends gas heaters subsidies
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was going to happen anyway, but not on a short term. While we here in the Netherlands where coerced from natural gas into electric (heat pumps), just over the border in Germany people are subsidised to actually get natural gas as a green move (as they where moving from oil and coal).
Please take a look at the actual regulations: https://ec.europa.eu/finance/docs/level-2-measures/taxonomy-... states the conditions for investments in gas to be considered green is > (ii) the power to be replaced cannot be generated from renewable energy sources, based on a comparative assessment with the most cost-effective and technically feasible renewable alternative for the same capacity identified; the result o…
Thanks, that clarifies much.
Re: France ends gas heaters subsidies
#94When I lived in France, gas-powered "heating mushrooms" were a common sight in most restaurants and cafés. They basically generate radiation heat so people can comfortably sit outdoors in the early spring / late autumn months. I always thought that this seemed like a capital waste of energy, basically "heating" an unenclosed outdoor space. In the grand scheme of things those heaters probably don't make much of a dent…
>>In the grand scheme of things those heaters probably don't make much of a dent in the overall energy consumption (but who knows), I think we should ban them though as it really sends the wrong signal. So instead of actually solving problems that waste the most energy, we should virtue signal instead? ban something because 'it sends the wrong message', not because it is an actual problem?
Once you notice virtue signaling, it’s everywhere!
Re: France ends gas heaters subsidies
#95When I lived in France, gas-powered "heating mushrooms" were a common sight in most restaurants and cafés. They basically generate radiation heat so people can comfortably sit outdoors in the early spring / late autumn months. I always thought that this seemed like a capital waste of energy, basically "heating" an unenclosed outdoor space. In the grand scheme of things those heaters probably don't make much of a dent…
>>In the grand scheme of things those heaters probably don't make much of a dent in the overall energy consumption (but who knows), I think we should ban them though as it really sends the wrong signal. So instead of actually solving problems that waste the most energy, we should virtue signal instead? ban something because 'it sends the wrong message', not because it is an actual problem?
How is it virtue signalling tho? These heaters do waste a lot. I find it a hard argument tackle other sources and not this is because they are used less.
It's like putting emission regulations on most cars except SUV's only because they're less common in Europe.
Re: France ends gas heaters subsidies
#96Russia has food and energy, sure QoL will be greatly reduced but it will go through, what will happen in developed country if it can't get gas to produce fertilizer? At least America will get to sell gas and food to europe I guess.
This is fearmongering. How much of Europe's natural gas consumption is used as fertilizer feedstock? Europe has plenty of alternative gas sources from Algeria to Norway, all the way to LNG. The only benefit of Russia was geographic proximity to the baltic and central europe countries and their price point. The main reason Russia's gas made sense in Europe was the transition of Coal Plants to NG plants (which is itsel…
>Europe has plenty of alternative gas sources from Algeria to Norway, all the way to LNG.
I'd still call syria blocking pipelines at the behest of Putin, Armenia being filled with Russian military and Azerbaijan having it's production part Russian owned significant. It's done with a reason because switching sources ain't as easy as often portrayed.
Re: France ends gas heaters subsidies
#97Russia has food and energy, sure QoL will be greatly reduced but it will go through, what will happen in developed country if it can't get gas to produce fertilizer? At least America will get to sell gas and food to europe I guess.
> Russia has food and energy
For a lot of basic machinery (and in the case of staple foods, seed), Russia is very dependent on imports which sanctions will adversely effect both the availability of and the availability of funds to pay for if they have a willing supplier. So, no, I don't think Russia is generally self-sufficient for food or energy even if they currently export it.
Re: France ends gas heaters subsidies
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>In the grand scheme of things those heaters probably don't make much of a dent in the overall energy consumption (but who knows), I think we should ban them though as it really sends the wrong signal. So instead of actually solving problems that waste the most energy, we should virtue signal instead? ban something because 'it sends the wrong message', not because it is an actual problem?
How is it virtue signalling tho? These heaters do waste a lot. I find it a hard argument tackle other sources and not this is because they are used less. It's like putting emission regulations on most cars except SUV's only because they're less common in Europe.
How it is not virtue signaling when OP literally said "sends the wrong signal.". Can't be more clear than that.
How many of these heaters are in a typical city? In which period of the year are they turned on? Total is probably mimiscule compared to gas used for heating or cooking.
Re: France ends gas heaters subsidies
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Old lady with a meager pension can still wear more clothes and ensure that her home is properly insulated. Same goes for the family with three kids. Indoor temperatures going down by a degree or two really is not a big deal.
> and ensure that her home is properly insulated. Netherlands is planning to get rid off gas for a while. I've attended a presentation by the city. They planned to spend 12.500 EUR per house to switch to an local heating plan. Basically a source of hot water will enter the home. This pipe is way bigger than a gas pipe, this is why 12.500 EUR is needed per home. They mentioned that likely you'll pay the same for heati…
> They mentioned that likely you'll pay the same for heating as before.
You will not. You're describing city heating, which was easily 4-5 times as expensive as equivalent gas. That was before the > 2x price hike recently.
Re: France ends gas heaters subsidies
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and ensure that her home is properly insulated. Netherlands is planning to get rid off gas for a while. I've attended a presentation by the city. They planned to spend 12.500 EUR per house to switch to an local heating plan. Basically a source of hot water will enter the home. This pipe is way bigger than a gas pipe, this is why 12.500 EUR is needed per home. They mentioned that likely you'll pay the same for heati…
You (and many others) forget a thing: gas is not only used to heat... It's used in various industrial sectors. Did you know why there is a fertilizer crisis in agriculture? Because modern fertilizers are made from gas, via ammonia. Oh, of course we have classic manure, but unfortunately if not enough because the Green New Deal want to push a meat-less diet not because of pollution but because doing so means that food…
> of course we have classic manure, but unfortunately if not enough
The Netherlands has an enormous oversupply of poop. It's been exporting it for years, to whoever will take it.
> the Green New Deal want to push a meat-less diet not because of pollution but because doing so means that food production is a big industrial business, not something little player can run and compete
I'm afraid you entirely lost me here. This (meat can be done profitably at a smaller scale than plant production) is quite simply a fabrication.