Topic: Gas/Energy (Read 96 times)

This reminds me of the Dave Chappelle stand up  where he talks about Donald Trump and some of the ideas he ran on and one of them was bringing back coal, this is hilarious- https://youtu.be/zNkk4CRvPyw

That being said I hope we can solve our energy problems sooner than later, my gas bill this month was $275. That’s just tucking insane and my place isn’t even all that big.

You forgot the other part, which is the price, and is the offer of these services sufficient to cover the entire demand?

• People are grumpy if prices rise by a percentage, let alone switch to other environmentally friendly alternatives, which will cost them a lot.
  
• This is if we ignore the political cost as demonstrations, protests and riots can arrive before governments adopt sustainable solutions.
  

It is complicated, and it is political and economic, but the environment comes last, so governments will burn coal because it is the cheapest and fastest until they find sustainable solutions.

Do not forget that it requires other investments in exploring other resources, and securing them with lines instead of transporting them across the sea.

I live near a nuclear plant. So near that I directly see it when I open my windows in the morning. I don't know what definition you give to 'cleaner' but if you walk around a nuclear plant there is nothing clean. The lands are filled with potentially radioactive garbages. They have already done some dumping in a wild river and garbages are stored because they don't know how to get rid of it. At worst, the radioactive material is buried underground.
And I live in a country supposed to be one of the most advanced in nuclear technology. It is the worst energy to use and it's not a matter of pollution and ecology, it's a matter of safety.

Green energy is a marketing trick to fool people. So many companies are proud to show on their website "green energy" while in reality, they use something like 10% of green energy (sun, wind, water,...) And do you think when you want to watch a show, your TV can make a difference between coal, nuclear, sun? Nope.
All the stuff with solar panels, wind turbines ect pollute at least at the same level as coal. Yes, coal pollutes, but if people could stop giving birth like rats...

As someone mentioned with gas, the crisis started well before the war. Especially in Europe since some of us are too dependent on it.

I did not suffer the oil crisis of 1973, but we could experience it again. The world can live without Russia's production because there are several countries that can replace Russia. The point is, it will have a cost and some countries won't be able to afford it

Let's be honest, gas is a fossil fuel and it's been touted as "green" by many people but it is no such thing. Sure it might not be as polluting as coal, but it is a finite and diminishing resource that is usually associated with oil extraction. Nuclear power is what's needed and besides everyone getting afraid on the word, it is a lot cleaner and subsequently healthier than a comparative coal fired power station. It was a bit naive of Germany to suddenly rush to close them all down after the tsunami affected one in Japan. Gradually a complete shift to renewable energy like wind and solar needs to happen, but battery capacity needs to improve or there will be inadequate storage to handle spikes.

It's not just about green energy right now, it's also about banning any kind of support that the Russian government might get from other sources since the sanctions will only be in place if they cut out the most essential regime of the Russian Empire, which is the supply of non renewable sources of energy like Gas etc.

Now, one has to inevitably see the rise in oil prices which would be hard for many people and at the same time, they would have to switch to more greener options, switch to renewable sources of energy and make a statement, at the same time make things more environment friendly and sustainable as well.

One can burn gas only if he has a supply/supplier of gas and also affords that gas. If that doesn't happen, coal starts looking better than burning your own clothes.
With this current war because one thought that if he has gas he can be king-of-the-world, no planning can be done vs gas, hence proper solutions are getting searched for. And for a not-too-long period, unfortunately that's coal.


This is an overrated crap. Sun doesn't shine 24/7, sun doesn't produce electricity on panels covered by snow. Do you actually know how much pollution does the creation of those panels create?!
And when there's no sun, what we do? Stop everything, from factories to traffic lights? Also bad luck for those using electricity for heating?
If you can get all countries work together in this, you may have a tiny chance. So the cleanest you can get that works 24/7 may be... atomic energy.

The use of gas is much more efficient on both financial and environmental way. Once EU will start using coal again to supply energy towards consumers instead of gas the whole ecosystem will collapse gradually resulting in more pollution.

The infrastructure is already in place helping with heating. Not everything has to be electric to help the planet survive as the other resources have to be used in order to balance the ecosystem. Why thinking is better to burn coal to produce electricity or heating while there is a better alternative.


Using coal is old fashioned and not environmental friendly. Technology has evolved over the last decade giving alternative ways of creating new energy that produces zero emissions and countries where the sun burns energy which doesn’t affect the air quality.