STICHWORTE: • • • • • •von

Im Energiekrieg

Viel wird geschrieben dieser Tage und naturgemäß ist vieles falsch bzw. wird von der Realität rasch überholt. Das gilt auch für meine Kommentare und das kann auch für den hier zitierten gelten. Ich fand ihn zumindest anregend. Deshalb heute die Auszüge:

  • “Russia’s attack on Ukraine represents a demand for a new world order that, over the long term, will support higher prices for fossil fuels, especially oil. Such an economy would probably be centered on Russia and China. The rest of the world economy, to the extent that it continues to exist, will largely have to get along without fossil fuels, other than the fossil fuels that countries continue to produce for themselves. Population and living standards will fall in most of the world.” – bto: Ja, eine Beschränkung auf China und Russland könnte zu einem Wettbewerbsvorteil führen.
  • “If a Russia-and-China-centric economy can be developed, the US dollar will no longer be the world’s reserve currency. Trade will be in the currency of the new Russia-China block. Outside of this block, local currencies will play a dominant role.” – bto: Das sehe ich noch nicht. Aber in dem Szenario könnte es natürlich eine Blockbildung geben.
  • “(…) the underlying problem is the fact that, on a world basis, energy consumption per capita is shrinking. Energy consumption is essential for creating goods and services. The shrinking amount of energy per person means that, on average, fewer and fewer finished goods and services can be produced for each person. Some countries do better than average; others do worse.” – bto: Die Verfügbarkeit von (billiger) Energie ist eine wichtige Voraussetzung für Wohlstand.
  • “With low fossil fuel prices, Russia has been faring worse than average; it wants to remedy the situation with long-term higher energy prices. If Russia can start transferring its energy exports to China, perhaps the new Russia-China economy, with limited support from the rest of the world, can afford to pay Russia the high prices for fossil fuels that Russia requires to maintain its economy.” – bto: Klar ist, dass höhere Preise im russischen Interesse sind.
  • “[1] It appears that Russia now fears that it is near collapse, not too different from the collapse of the central government of the Soviet Union in 1991. Such a collapse would lead to a huge drop in Russia’s living standards, even from today’s relatively low level.” – bto: Das bekommen sie jetzt als Konsequenz des Krieges. Insofern folge ich zwar der Logik, dass höhere Preise im russischen Interesse sind, aber nicht der Logik, dass dieser Krieg den russischen Interessen dient.
  • “[2] The thing that seems to have been behind the 1991 collapse is the same thing that seems to be behind Russia’s current fear of collapse: continued low oil prices.” – bto: Nun haben aber erst die höheren Preise der letzten Jahre den Krieg überhaupt ermöglicht. Also sticht auch dieses Argument nicht wirklich.
  • “[3] While oil prices depend on “supply and demand,” as a practical matter, demand is very dependent on interest rates and debt levels. The higher the debt level and the lower the interest rate, the higher the price of oil can rise.” – bto: Hier lohnt es sich, die weitere Agrumentation zu lesen.
  • “(…) before the US subprime housing bubble popped in 2008, inflation-adjusted oil prices were able to rise to $157 per barrel, adjusted to the 2020 price level. Once the debt bubble popped, inflation-adjusted oil prices fell to $49 per barrel. It was at this low point (and correspondingly low prices for many other commodities) that the US started its program of Quantitative Easing (QE) to lower interest rates. After two years of QE, oil prices were back above $140 per barrel, in inflation-adjusted prices, but these soon started sliding down. By the time oil prices dropped to $120 per barrel, oil companies started to complain that prices were falling too low to meet all of their needs, including the need to drill in ever less productive areas. Now we are at a point where interest rates are about as low as they can go. Short-term interest rates are near zero, which is where they were in the late 1930s. Thus, even before the Ukrainian invasion, oil prices were raised about as high as they could go, through low interest rates and generous debt availability.” – bto: Demnach gab es keine Aussicht auf weiter steigende Preise. Das sehe ich auch anders, weil absehbar war, dass die Kapazitäten nicht ausreichen.
  • “[4] The fundamental problem behind recent low oil prices is the fact that the current mix of consumers cannot afford goods and services produced using the high oil prices that producers, such as Russia, need to operate, pay high enough wages, and do adequate reinvestment.” – bto: Das liegt daran, dass der Aufschwung sehr fragil ist/war, weil wir es eben mit Rekordverschuldung zu tun haben.
  • “To try to hide the increasingly difficult problem of keeping prices both high enough for producers and low enough for consumers, central banks have lowered interest rates and encouraged the use of more debt. The idea is that if a person can buy a fuel-efficient car at a low enough interest rate and over a long enough term, perhaps this will make the vehicle more affordable. Similarly, interest rates on home mortgages have fallen to very low levels.” – bto: Das ist ein Gedanke, dem ich folgen kann. Es ist ein weiterer Aspekt der (Geld-) Politik der letzten Jahrzehnte.
  • “[5] No one knows precisely how much oil, coal and natural gas can be extracted because the quantity that can be extracted depends on the extent of the price rise that can be tolerated without plunging the economy into recession.” – bto: Allerdings wissen wir, dass es immer Nachfrage geben wird.
  • “If prices of these fossil fuels can rise very high (say, $300 per barrel for oil, and correspondingly high prices for other fossil fuels), a huge amount of fossil fuel can be extracted. Conversely, if energy prices cannot stay above the equivalent of $80 per barrel oil for very long without a serious recession, then we may already be very close to the end of available fossil fuel extraction. Both oil and gas producers and coal producers can be expected to go out of business because prices do not leave a sufficient margin for the required investment in new fields to offset the depletion of existing fields. Renewables will falter, as well, because both building and maintaining renewables requires fossil fuels.” – bto: Beide Punkte stimmen. Es muss sich lohnen, Öl zu fördern und wir brauchen fossile Energien, um die Erneuerbaren zu fertigen.
  • “What Russia (as well as every other oil producer) would like is a way to get the tolerable oil price up significantly higher, for example, to $150 per barrel, so that more oil can be extracted. The hope is that a Russia-and-China-centric economy might be able to do this. Ideally, the tolerable maximum price for coal and natural gas would rise, as well.” – bto: Das ist eine Überlegung, die allerdings auch unabhängig von einem Krieg in der Ukraine möglich gewesen wäre.
  • “[6] Europe, in particular, cannot afford high oil prices. If interest rates are increased soon, this will make the problem even worse. China seems to have definite advantages as an economic partner.” – bto: Dass China perspektivisch der attraktivere Partner ist, glaube ich sofort.
  • “Europe is already having difficulty tolerating very high prices of imported natural gas and coal. Rising oil prices will add even more stress. (…) Given the problems with Europe as an energy importer, China would seem to have the possibility of being a better customer that can perhaps tolerate higher prices. For one thing, China is more efficient in its use of energy products than Europe. For example, many homes in the southern half of China are not heated in winter. People instead dress warmly inside their homes in winter. Also, homes and businesses in northern China are sometimes heated with waste heat from nearby coal-fired electricity plants. This is a very efficient approach to heating.” – bto: Ich bezweifle, dass China die Energie effizienter nutzt. Aber dennoch ist China natürlich der bessere Markt.
  • “China also uses more coal in its energy mix than Europe. Historically, coal has been much less expensive than oil. What is needed is a low average price of energy. A small amount of high-priced oil can be tolerated in an economy that uses mostly coal in its energy mix. When all costs are counted, wind and solar are very high-priced energy sources, which contributes to Europe’s problems.” – bto: Ich denke, durch die Kritik muss China nicht einmal mehr bezahlen – eher weniger, was den Vorteil für China noch vergrößert.
  • “[7] Russia realized that the rest of the world is utterly dependent upon its fossil fuel exports. Because of this dependency, as well as the physics-based connection between the burning of fossil fuels and the making of finished goods and services, Russia holds huge power over the world economy.” – bto: Das dämmert den Entscheidungsträgern nur langsam.
  • “We live in what historians may someday call the Fossil Fuel Age. . .With high energy consumption goes a high standard of living (…) A reduction of per capita energy consumption has always in the past led to a decline in civilization and a reversion to a more primitive way of life. (…) The likely problem with fossil fuels has been hidden behind an imaginative, but false, narrative that our biggest problem is climate change caused primarily by fossil fuel extraction that can be expected to extend until at least 2100, unless positive steps are made to hold back this extraction.” – bto: Wir geben keine Antwort auf die Frage, wie wir die Welt mit billiger Energie versorgen.
  • “In this false narrative, all the world needs to do is to move to wind and solar for its energy needs. (…)  this narrative of success is completely false. Instead, we seem to be hitting energy limits in the near term because of chronically low prices. Wind and solar are doing very little to help because they cannot be depended upon when needed. Furthermore, the quantity of wind and solar available is far too low to replace fossil fuels.” – bto: Das leuchtet mir bekanntlich ein.
  • “Few people in America and Europe realize that the world economy is entirely dependent upon Russia’s exports of oil, coal and natural gas. This dependency can be seen in many ways. For example, in 2020, 41% of world natural gas exports came from Russia. Natural gas is especially important for balancing electricity from wind and solar.” – bto: weshalb es bei der Energiewende eine so wichtige Rolle spielt.
  • “[8] Russia’s attack on Ukraine seems to have been made for many reasons.” – bto: Jetzt wird man aufmerksam, denn mit der Begründung tue ich mich schwer …
  • “Russia is also aware that in some sense, it has far more power over the world economy than most people realize because the world economy is utterly dependent on Russia’s fossil fuel exports. Sanctions against Russia will likely hurt the countries making the sanctions as much or more than they hurt Russia.” – bto: und treibt Russland mehr in Richtung Russland.
  • “If the sanctions really did push Russia down, the result would tend to push the whole world economy toward collapse, because the rest of the world is extremely dependent upon Russia’s fossil fuel exports. (…) if a greater output of goods and services is desired, more energy input is required. Efficiency changes can somewhat help, but efficiency savings tend to be offset by the higher energetic needs of the more complex system required to achieve these savings.” – bto: Vor allem dauert es, bis diese Maßnahmen einen Effekt auf den Markt haben.
  • “[9] If higher energy prices cannot be achieved, there is a significant chance that the change in the world order will be in the direction of pushing the world economy toward collapse.” – bto: Außer es gelingt, eine alternative Energiequelle zu finden.
  • “We should be aware that we are reaching the limits of fossil fuels and other minerals that we can extract, unless we can somehow figure out a way to get the economy to tolerate higher prices. The danger that we are approaching is that the top levels of governments, everywhere in the world, will either collapse or be overthrown by their unhappy citizens.” – bto: Davon kann man ausgehen, vor allem wenn gleichzeitig die Nahrungsmittelpreise steigen.
  • “We were warned that we would be reaching a time period with serious energy problems about now. The first time came in the 1957 Rickover speech discussed in Section 7. The second warning came from the 1972 book, The Limits to Growth by Donella Meadows and others, which documented a computer modeling approach to the problem of limits of a finite world.” – bto: Diese Skepsis teile nicht. Wir müssen einfach neue Energiequellen erschließen.
  • “The Ukraine invasion may be a push in the direction of more serious energy problems, emerging primarily from the fact that other countries will want to punish Russia. Few people will realize that punishing Russia is a dangerous path; a serious concern is that today’s economy cannot continue in its current form without Russia’s fossil fuel exports.” – bto: Ich denke, der Praxistest steht. unmittelbar bevor.

→ zerohedge.com: „Russia’s Attack On Ukraine Represents A Demand For A New World Order“, 6. März 2022