[conspire] (OT) Peter Zeihan, geopolitics writer

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Nick Moffitt (nick at zork.net):

> This is a pretty interesting talk, but I must take issue with his position on solar and wind at this time index:
> 
> 	https://youtu.be/BSpT0yEtFBY?t=1357
> 
> He's correct in that Germany has made some bone-headed political
> decisions on energy (notably about retiring perfectly functional
> nuclear plants) that it has slowly (perhaps too slowly) begun to
> reverse.  And it is true that the biomass fuel nonsense is a
> carbon-intensive scam (hence why I hate the term "renewables": give me
> something actually renewed, not something you *could* renew if you
> made the effort!).
> 
> But the notion that wind and solar are only good for "places with a
> lot of sun and wind" is misguided.

I think you're over-reading Zeihan's commentary on that point.

He didn't say there was anything _wrong_ with developing wind and solar
in places that don't have a lot of sun and wind.  He merely said he was
a _big fan_ of those in places that have them.  In the case of Germany,
he's implying that wind and solar will not, using current technology
(even the cutting-edge stuff) be able to meaningfully address Germany's
now-critical and crippling natgas shortfall, as to its use in
electricity generation, the petrochemical industry, the rest of German
heavy industry, and in heating -- as Zeihan says, the basis for their
entire industrial model.

Remember as context, the question interviewer Quentin Hardy asked was
"Let me make a case, here:  Are renewables, alternative energy sources,
wind and nuclear and solar, interesting as part of the overall energy
picture in a way they weren't before?"

Some bits from his 2020 book:

"o Germany is not a sunny or windy country. Despite spending nearly 2
trillion euro on alternate energy infrastructure and setting up
omnipresent regulatory structures to favor the greentech sector, which
have doubled power prices from 2000 levels (which were already more than
double average US prices), Germany receives less than 10 percent of its
electricity needs from green power. Germany is more dependent upon fuel
imports now than before it started its green surge.

o Half of Germany’s exports and all its energy imports rely on access to
countries beyond the EU. The United States is Germany’s largest end
market, while China ranks third.

o Nearly all of Germany’s manufacturing supply chains rely upon access to
countries within the EU.

o Germany’s (and Europe’s) demographic collapse deepens both the
consumption and the production problems.

o With the Americans’ departure, security competition is back on the
table."


Anyway, Zeihan said nothing about thinking the Germans shouldn't harvest
all the wind/sun energy they can.  He just thinks that won't help a lot,
which strikes me as fair enough.

Elsewhere (in his books), he pointed out that while American supplying 
of fuels tends to be quite flexible as where we get energy from and in
what form, the German system is _not_ flexible.  The best they (and
nearby countries) have been able to do in the short and medium term, to
address the immediate crisis, has been to shut down all of industrial
manufacturing, all of fertiliser production, almost all petrochemical
product production, all aluminum smelting, and almost all steel production.
Meanwhile, they've been buying LNG on the spot market, at about a 10x 
markup over previous gas prices.  And the prospects for next winter 
are worse, because they'll have drawn down natgas reserves -- exhausting
their storoage.

Natgas has had for them the winning ability to spin up and spin down
supply as needed, without long cycle times.  With greentach/renewable
supply, you cannot spin up as required; it's either available because
the wind is blowing or the sun is shining, or it's not.  Coal has a long
spin-up time (is "baseload").  So is nuclear for safety reasons, but 
Germany phased out nuclear under Merkel.