Search results

Nope, you made the claim, burden of proof is on you. I doubt that, so provide a source.

Whats the new method? What is the capacity?

Coal has a lower energy deficiency than other energy sources, requiring more of it to be used for the same energy output. Likewise, coal Liquefaction infrastructure doesn't currently exist in Europe and is rather expensive to build too.

Where exactly are major oil deposits in Europe? Uranium? Whats the efficiency for Wind and Solar there and, while you're at it, who controls those supply chains? We can also do a quick glance at how Europe hasn't lost anything:

Which means Europe has lost 40% of its natural gas and something like 30-40% of its oil supply. Coal can't make up for that, and we are seeing the effects:

Not sure what you mean with the first, but on the case of energy, @Agent23 is largely correct coal just isn't as effective nor that available in Europe nowadays. Likewise, it's not just a matter of energy at this point:

We're about to find out:

In general yes, although see France right now for what happens without a good political culture to match.

You still need Natural Gas for industrial process applications and things like fertilizer until Gen IV Fission or Fusion gets sorted out.

The problem was this was never about geopolitical goals for Germany; Russian gas just made economic sense after they turned against Nuclear following the 1998 elections. American gas isn't competitive naturally against Russian.

Basic laws of supply and demand are at play here as well; you don't remove production without causing demand inflation. What caused the price of Natural Gas to spike in the U.S. after January of this year, I wonder? So instead they could be dependent on more expensive U.S. energy supplies...

Not one cent.