Comment by thelastgallon
4 hours ago
Any country that keeps gold in US or dollar reserves may end up looking very foolish. Sanctions and asset (financial and real) forfeitures coming soon to a country near you.
The simplest and easiest geopolitical strategy that is available to any country: switch completely to renewables (solar, maybe wind), EVs, green hydrogen/ammonia and synthetic fuels. Keep out of oil and natural gas. Keep out of dollar system. Any country can be immune to geopolitical drama, dollar shenanigans. Remember China has export restrictions on oil. When things get tough, most of the oil countries (with refining capacity to export) are going to have export restrictions. Thats the only way to deal with the mobs in their own country.
From: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KPq7jyQcemA
Richard Campbell: Politicians aren’t going to do things that aren’t popular, so we have to make these solutions popular for there to be a chance to build political will.
Richard Campbell: Corporations are inherently conservative, and power companies doubly so. Until there is a public groundswell demanding these changes, they won’t act. It’s up to us to make enough noise and show that these are good solutions worth pushing forward.
> switch completely to renewables (solar, maybe wind), EVs, green hydrogen/ammonia and synthetic fuels
You think other countries can't restrict those things? Restricting components related to those things will work just fine.
By the way, you can never switch completely to just renewables, it doesn't scale that well. They are simply too inefficient, unsecure, to "switch completely" in a country scale. Maybe just your house or some districts. You still need coal/gas/nuclear to maintain the power grid.
Oil is needed for many components inside stuff you mentioned. Oil is a must in military. If you want clean, abundant, cheap, secure energy, invest in nuclear.
Everything has tradeoffs. Diversify it.
> You think other countries can't restrict those things? Restricting components related to those things will work just fine.
Eh, once you have built your grid in solar and wind, you don't really depend on the countries that sold solar panels and wind turbines for you. Those last for a long time, long enjoy that you can even spin up manufacturing yourself; it's not really something inscrutable.
There may be an argument that depending on the state of the world that raw materials to manufacture some of those things may become more complicated to access, but that is true even for countries that currently make those.
> If you want clean, abundant, cheap, secure energy, invest in nuclear.
Absolutely, yes.
Energy should be abundant and diversified.
Easiest. If that is the easiest way you see I am afraid to ask what the harder alternatives would be.
How is it hard? It's difficult to build electrical generation these days and not go renewables because they're so cheap and fast to deploy.
It's not a total solution, but market forces wise everything says "build solar and batteries with your money". Governments practically don't need to do anything for this to be the default.
I am a non-hater of renewables. I add this because in plenty of _your_ circles, you are either all in on renewables or you are a coal thumper, basically. I am neither. We need to add nuance by complicating this conversation.
The main problem of renewables is that it is intermittent and that fact remains to be solved. I want this solved or at least improved because it is the bottleneck. In fact, it is such a bottleneck that its energy generation factor is noted as 1:10, i.e.: a power plant rated at 100MW, registers as 10MW in comparison to nuclear and hydro (and obviously coal and gas.) So this means that to add a 1MW worth of energy generation to the grid, 10MW must be built.
Another problem that hits wind farms is that when there's wind blowing somewhere, it tends to blow everywhere, or some large area. So suddenly there is too much energy want to flow in to the grid which hits the core of the problem with grids at this point because energy that is inserted into it, must be extracted to the exact same magnitude at the same time. So a 100GW demand must be met by 100.0GW production. Now if 110GW is produced, something _MUST_ consume it, so there are two choices:
1. make someone consume it, i.e., sell it to them. They have to buy it so the price will drop until there are enough buyers and this does not stop at 0, prices will go in to the negative. So the market will pay you to use electricity. The market. Or:
2. shut off the power plants until we are back at 100GW (or whatever can be met by consumption.)
3. there is also a catastrophic third option. If you have a situation where too much energy (read power if you want to) is inserted into the grid, then its frequency will rise, this damages the infrastructure and connected consumers, so they will get disconnected. Read large and broad power outages. These situations are also non-trivial to recover from. I.e.: to "restart the grid" afterwards. See what happened in Spain last(?) year.
How do you run a power plant in a market that demands payment to accept the energy you want to sell? You cannot. So this is the windfarm paradox, feel free to compare to Russel's paradox. It goes something like this:
A windfarm makes money whenever the wind blows because only then does it have energy to sell.
A windfarm cannot make money whenefer the wind blows because then the market price goes to zero.
So a windfarm makes money when the wind blows and does not blow at the same time.
To solve this problem, energy consumption must be made capable of also being intermittent. Either run "factories" intermittently, which might very well be part of the solution. And/ or, have huge accumulation capacity in the grid that can swallow the over generation.
TLDR: renewables is the easy answer but very hard thing to do. The hard answer is the one I have given, together with getting more nuclear going which is difficult and expensive. But.. what can we do?
2 replies →
Batteries don't solve the storage problem, but surely you know this.
China is pursuing the strategy you're describing, but there's a reason they're also building nuclear, they're increasing LNG infrastructure, they haven't phased out coal, and they've built a huge amount of oil storage.
Solar and wind can be part of that strategy but it's not so simple, otherwise people would do it
3 replies →
It was a strategic decision during the cold war. Presumably if the USSR invaded Europe would be occupied. The gold would be used to fund the resistance.
> Any country can be immune to geopolitical drama
that is sadly not true, if you have a powerful or determined neighbor they can invade you which definitely qualifies as geopolitical drama
and moving country to get far away from say China or Russia is far from trivial