您的位置:首页 > 经济经济
德国网民讨论:研究表明,停止俄罗斯天然气供应的成本可能将占到德国 GDP 的 12%
Study puts cost of halting Russian gas supply at 12% of German GDP
2022-05-17
互联网
629
收藏
举报
译文简介
德国网民对一篇关于停用俄罗斯天然气对德国经济影响的报道的讨论
正文翻译
Study puts cost of halting Russian gas supply at 12% of German GDP
Government adviser says Europe’s largest economy faces big hit if Berlin accepts Russia gas ban
Germany’s economy faces losing around 12 per cent of its annual output — some €429bn — if Russian natural gas supplies stopped abruptly, according to a new study by an adviser to the government.
研究表明,停止俄罗斯天然气供应的成本可能将占到德国 GDP 的 12%
政府顾问表示,如果柏林当局接受禁止购买俄罗斯天然气的禁令,这个欧洲最大的经济体将面临重大打击
根据政府顾问的一项新研究,如果俄罗斯的天然气供应突然停止,德国经济将面临约 12% 的年产量损失——约 4290 亿欧元。
The study by Tom Krebs, an economics professor at the University of Mannheim who advises the finance ministry in Berlin on economic policy, is more pessimistic than most previous estimates and is likely to stiffen the government’s resolve in resisting calls for an immediate EU embargo on all Russian energy imports.
It is also likely to fuel an often-fraught debate between German economists over whether the country could handle the economic impact of a ban on natural gas.
The estimate comes as Brussels is preparing to step up its sanctions on Moscow over its invasion of Ukraine by phasing in a ban on oil imports from Russia, adding to an earlier coal embargo, while Germany is searching for ways to reduce its heavy reliance on Russian gas.
“An instant and complete stop of Russian natural gas imports would, in combination with the already agreed coal embargo and the forthcoming oil embargo, probably amount to an economic slump comparable to the decline in GDP during the 2009 financial crisis or the 2020 Corona crisis,” said Krebs.
Other estimates have put the impact of a sudden halt to Russian gas imports at between 0.2 and 6.5 per cent of German GDP.
Germany, which until the war received 55 per cent of its imported gas from Russia, reduced this to 35 per cent in April by increasing alternative supplies and aims to lower it to 30 per cent by the end of the year. However, the economy ministry said recently it would take until 2024 to reduce the share of gas imports coming from Russia to 10 per cent and industry leaders worry that a sudden gas shut-off could still paralyse large parts of the country’s manufacturing sector.
曼海姆大学经济学教授汤姆·克雷布斯为柏林财政部提供经济政策建议,这项研究比大多数先前的估计更为悲观,可能会加强政府抵制欧盟要求所有成员国立即实施对俄罗斯能源进口禁运的呼吁的决心。
这也可能引发德国经济学家之间关于该国是否能够应对天然气禁令的经济影响的经常令人担忧的辩论。
这一估计是在布鲁塞尔准备加强对莫斯科入侵乌克兰的制裁、逐步禁止从俄罗斯进口石油以及早些时候增加的煤炭禁运政策的时候作出的,而德国正在寻找减少对其天然气严重依赖于俄罗斯的的方法。
“立即完全停止俄罗斯天然气进口,再加上已经商定的煤炭禁运和即将到来的石油禁运,可能会导致经济下滑,与 2009 年金融危机或 2020 年新冠危机期间 GDP 的下降幅度相当, ”克雷布斯说。
其他的估计表明,突然停止俄罗斯天然气进口对于德国 GDP的影响在 0.2% 至 6.5% 之间。
德国在乌克兰战争开始前从俄罗斯进口天然气的占其全部需求的 55%,今年 4 月通过增加替代供应将这一比例降至 35%,并计划在年底前将这一比例降至 30%。然而,经济部最近表示,要到 2024 年才能将来自俄罗斯的天然气进口份额最终降至 10%,行业领袖担心,突然关闭俄罗斯天然气进口仍可能使该国大部分制造业陷入瘫痪。
Some economists support the government’s gradual approach, warning a sudden, continent-wide supply cut-off could permanently damage the competitiveness of Europe’s economy and even fuel social unrest. But others say ending Russian energy imports would be “manageable” for the German economy. Rüdiger Bachmann, an economics professor at the University of Notre Dame, who co-wrote a report that suggested the maximum hit was just 3 per cent of GDP, told the FT an embargo would only lead to a “temporary crisis”. He added: “Germany has the fiscal capacity to pay for this.”
Krebs’ study analysed the “second-round effects” of gas shortages that would force key industries to stop production, including in the automotive, chemicals, metals, food, glass, ceramics, machinery and paper sectors.
Drawing on earlier studies of the impact on Japanese industrial production after the Fukushima nuclear disaster, Krebs concluded there would be a fivefold magnifying effect of the initial impact of lower production in gas-intensive industries.
Krebs presented two scenarios, one in which Germany could not easily replace much of the Russian gas it imports and another where this is more successful than expected.
In the first scenario, he assumed a drop in production that wipes out between 3.2 and 8 per cent, or between €114bn and €286bn, of German GDP. On top of that he predicted a hit to demand caused by higher prices equal to between 2 and 4 per cent of GDP. In total, the loss of GDP in the year after an abrupt ending of Russian energy imports would be between 5.2 and 12 per cent.
一些经济学家支持政府的渐进式做法,警告称,欧洲大陆范围内的突然供应中断可能会永久性地损害欧洲经济的竞争力,甚至会加剧社会动荡。但其他人表示,结束俄罗斯的能源进口对德国经济来说是“可控的”。圣母大学经济学教授吕迪格·巴赫曼与其他人联合撰写了一份报告,认为经济的最大降幅仅为 GDP 的 3%,他告诉英国《金融时报》,禁运只会导致“暂时的危机”。他补充说:“德国有财政能力为此买单。”
克雷布斯的研究分析了天然气短缺的“第二轮影响”,这将迫使许多关键性行业停产,包括汽车、化工、金属、食品、玻璃、陶瓷、机械和造纸行业等。
根据福岛核灾难后对日本工业生产影响的早期研究,克雷布斯得出结论,天然气需求密集型行业产量下降的最初影响将放大五倍。
克雷布斯提出了两种情况,一种是德国无法轻易替代其进口的大部分俄罗斯天然气,另一种是比预期更成功。
在第一种情况下,他假设生产下降会抹去德国 GDP 的 3.2% 至 8%,即 1140 亿欧元至 2860 亿欧元。最重要的是,他预测更高的天然气价格对需求造成的打击相当于 GDP 的 2% 至 4%。总体而言,突然终止俄罗斯能源进口后一年的 GDP 损失将在 5.2% 至 12% 之间。
In the milder scenario, the hit to production would be between 1.2 and 3 per cent of GDP, so the overall loss of GDP would be between 3.2 and 7 per cent.
“When it comes to natural gas, there is a significant difference between a one-year adjustment period and a three-year adjustment period,” wrote Krebs, whose study was funded by the Macroeconomic Policy Institute in Düsseldorf, which is part of the trade unx-affiliated Hans Böckler Foundation.
Last month, Russia cut off gas supplies to Poland and Bulgaria after they refused to change the way they pay Moscow for gas to enable the Kremlin to access the cash it receives for energy exports. But officials in Germany — and official technical guidance from the EU — indicate they believe a sanctions-compliant payment method is still possible.
在较温和的情况下,对生产的影响将在 GDP 的 1.2% 至 3% 之间,因此 GDP 的总体损失将在 3.2% 至 7% 之间。
“在天然气方面,一年调整期和三年调整期之间存在显着差异,”克雷布斯写道,他的研究由杜塞尔多夫宏观经济政策研究所资助,该研究所是贸易工会附属的汉斯-伯克勒基金会的一部分。
上个月,俄罗斯切断了对波兰和保加利亚的天然气供应,原因是它们拒绝改变向莫斯科支付天然气费用的方式,以使克里姆林宫能够获得用于能源出口的现金。但德国官员——以及来自欧盟的官方技术指导——表明,他们认为符合制裁的支付方式仍然是有可行性的。
评论翻译
domestication_never
The expanding war is going to blow up the gas infrastructure anyway. It's a state of total war between ukraine and russia. It's only a matter of time before Russian gas infrastructure is either sabotaged, or targeted.
无论如何,不断扩大的战争将炸毁天然气基础设施。这是乌克兰和俄罗斯之间的全面战争状态。俄罗斯天然气基础设施遭到破坏或成为攻击目标只是时间问题。
AlesseoReo
That’s the biggest proof to me that this war could be ended with a turn of the switch if anyone was willing to risk it. It has been 70 days of war and yet the infrastructure was carefully avoided by all participants. If any of the sides wished if they could stop the supply immediately but gas is more important apparently.
这对我来说是最大的证明,如果有人愿意冒险,这场战争可能会随着(天然气管道)开关的转动而结束。战争已经持续了 70 天,但所有战争参与者都小心翼翼地避开了基础设施。如果任何一方希望,他们可以立即停止供应,但天然气显然更重要。
Fenris_uy
Ukraine knows that they aren't going to win the good will of the western population if they caused brownouts in Germany by attacking the gasoducts.
乌克兰知道,如果他们通过攻击天然气管道导致德国停电,他们不会赢得西方民众的好感。
audigex
Yeah Ukraine aren’t stupid enough to annoy the people sending them weapons
And Russia just can’t afford to stop the cash rolling in
It isn’t really in anybody’s interest to stop the flow of gas
是的,乌克兰没有愚蠢到惹恼那些给他们送武器的人
而俄罗斯就是无法阻止现金滚滚而来
阻止天然气的流动并不符合任何人的利益
Old-Fisherman-7
Germany's decision to close its Nuclear energy must be one of the most ridiculous economic decisions I've come across. Most of the renewable energy gains just came at the expense of Nuclear energy (which is also clean and low variable cost), and increased their reliance on fossil fuels.
All because of the overreaction from Fukushima.
德国关闭其核电站的决定一定是我遇到过的最荒谬的经济决定之一。大多数可再生能源能产生收益只是以核能(也是清洁且可变成本更低)为代价的,并增加了它们对化石燃料的依赖。
都是因为对福岛事故的过度反应。
TheDovahofSkyrim
Well, from what I understand, their reactors were getting old as well, and rather than pay for the maintenance/upgrades they would require, they opted instead to funnel a lot of the money towards renewables.
Nuclear is fantastic, but it also isn’t exactly cheap. Still, the best solution would probably be about 2/5 nuclear, 2/5 renewable, and 1/5th flex with various energies depending on the situation/location.
好吧,据我了解,他们的反应堆也在老化,他们不打算支付为此需要的维护和升级费用,而是选择将大量资金用于可再生能源。
核能很棒,但也不便宜。尽管如此,最好的解决方案可能是大约 2/5 的核能、2/5 的可再生能源和 1/5 的其他能源,具体取决于情况/位置。
10133960
It's a misnomer to say nuclear is expensive. It's true in the current regulatory frxwork. However, that's only true because nuclear is held to far higher standards than any other industry. This is obviously a result of the irrational fear people hold of all things nuclear. If other industries were treated the same way they would be ridiculously expensive too. This is where newer industries like wind and solar benefit. Government regulations build up over time like plaque in your arteries, slowly killing an industry. Newer industries aren't as encumbered by regulatory burden and are therefore able to be more dynamic.
说核能很贵是用词不当。在当前的监管框架中确实如此。然而,这是正确的,因为核能比任何其他行业都遵循更高的标准。这显然是人们对所有涉及核的事物都抱有非理性恐惧的结果。如果以同样的方式对待其他行业,它们的价格也会高得离谱。这就是风能和太阳能等新兴行业因此而受益的地方。随着时间的推移,政府法规的建立就像动脉中的斑块一样,慢慢地扼杀一个行业。
Puzzled-Bite-8467
Nuclear is expensive because of insurance and low production numbers. If we produced nuclear at scale, say build 3 gen3+ reactors from big manufacturer take the best one and build hundreds of them then nuclear would be cheap.
由于保险措施和较低的产能,核电的价格昂贵。如果我们大规模投产核电站,比如说从大型生产商那里建造3种第三代+的核反应堆,选择其中最好的一种并建造数百座,那么核发电就会很便宜。
Old-Fisherman-7
It has a high initial cost to build, but after that its of course much less expensive than fossil fuels. Renewables out compete it in ideal circumstances, but US energy data clearly shows that wind and solar rarely reach max energy output.
I wouldn't say we should go all nuclear of course, but it is by far the most reliable energy source and its not even close.
I also have come across a lot of misleading data for renewable energy capability. Even leaving out the fact that energy like solar only averages 25% of its max (which puts it below Nuclear in price per kwh), nuclear is also cheaper in terms of space and construction.
核电站的初始建造成本很高,但建成后它当然比化石燃料发电便宜得多。可再生能源在理想情况下会与之竞争,但美国能源部的数据清楚地表明,风能和太阳能很少达到最大能源输出。
我不会说我们当然应该全部使用核能,但它是迄今为止最可靠的能源,甚至还没有(其他能源与其)接近。
我还发现了很多关于可再生能源能力的误导性数据。即使忽略像太阳能这样的平均发电率仅为其最大功率值的 25%(这使其每千瓦时的价格低于核能)这一事实,核能在占地和建造等方面也更便宜。
FifaPointsMan
Renewables can never replace nuclear power. They should have build new nuclear power but the average german person is extremely anti nuclear power. Now they are paying for it (and the rest of Europe).
可再生能源永远无法取代核能。他们应该建立新的核电站,但普通德国人非常反核电。现在他们(以及欧洲其他地区)正在为此付出代价。
Sir_George
Make life easier and make it 3/5 nuclear. The costs will be worth it in the long-term.
让生活更轻松,(在能源结构中)接受 3/5的核电。从长远来看,这些成本是值得的。
smarty86
A lot of the gas reliance is independent from electricity production and used for various other production processes, so that huge part has nothing to do with nuclear energy.
Also I am very happy to not have anymore nuclear reactors in our country and I am an electrical engineer and have done a whole lot of research which led me (and obviously our government) to the conclusion that nuclear is not the future. Of course we also need to reduce reliance on other fossil fuels asap, but I am ready to pay that price if it means we will be 99% renewables asap. That is ultimately the only available energy source in the future, it's just a question of when fossil fuels run out not if. Additionally our next 100 future generation don't have to pay for waste disposal and collateral damage of nuclear waste.
So no, this decision is not one of the most ridiculous decisions, incl economically.
许多天然气依赖独立于电力生产并用于各种其他生产过程,因此很大一部分与核能无关。
我也很高兴我们国家不再有核反应堆,我是一名电气工程师,做了很多研究,这让我(当然还有我们的政府)得出结论,核能不是未来。当然,我们还需要尽快减少对其他化石燃料的依赖,但如果这意味着我们将尽快实现 99% 的可再生能源,我愿意付出这个代价。最终这将是未来唯一可用的能源,这只是化石燃料何时用完的问题,而不是是否会用完的问题。此外,我们的下一代 以至今后所有后代不必再为核废料处理和附带损害付出代价。
所以不,这个决定不是最荒谬的决定之一,即使从经济角度上也不是。
fec2455
The German government caved to the reactionary views of their voters, it wasn't a rational move. Removing existing nuclear generation and replacing it with coal and NG due to overblown concerns about disposal costs is absurd. Future generations are much more impacted by the increased reliance on coal than they are by a very manageable waste disposal issue.
德国政府屈服于选民的反智观点,这不是一个理性的举动。由于对处置成本的过度担忧,取消现有的核能发电并用煤炭和天然气取而代之是荒谬的。与非常易于管理的核废物处理问题相比,对煤炭的依赖增加对后代的影响要大得多。
TheBlack2007
Guess where Europe gets its nuclear fuel from? That’s right: ROSATOM in Russia…
猜猜欧洲从哪里获得核燃料?没错:俄罗斯国有的国家原子能公司……
MightyH20
There's simply no way renewables compete against Nuclear energy economically over a 100 year time span.
Every economic equation will teach you one thing. That is that fuel dependency is always worse in terms of economical viability compared to non- fuel dependency.
The matter of fact is namely that nuclear energy (with traditional technology) is dependent on the fuel uranium. That requires mining, refining, transportation, (...). As opposed to unlimited wind, solar, geothermal energy.
Not to mention other factors such as geopolitical dependencies, that in terms of energy, can be exploited resulting in negative political landscapes and inequality.
“在 100 年的时间跨度内,可再生能源根本无法在经济上与核能竞争。 ”
每个经济方程式都会教给你一件事。 也就是说,与非燃料依赖相比,燃料依赖在经济可行性方面总是更差。 事实上,核能(采用传统技术)依赖于燃料铀。 这需要采矿、提炼、运输等等等等,与无限的风能、太阳能、地热能相反。 更不用说地缘政治依赖等其他因素,就能源而言,这些因素可以被利用,导致负面和不对等的政治格局。
percybucket
Trouble is that nuclear has a huge upfront cost with returns far in the future, hence isn't very attractive to private investors. Economists had been assuring us the market knows best, so massive state projects were ditched outside France and Scandinavia. Without socialization of risk, nuclear isn't viable in Europe. The carbon credits system allowed governments to pretend climate change could be handled by market forces and also made renewables more attractive to investors.
Economists had also been telling us to follow the Law of Comparative Advantage and forget about self-sufficiency as trade would bring us all together. Again, the flaws in economic theory when it meets the real world are being exposed.
麻烦的是,核能的前期成本很高,而且回报在很远的将来,因此对私人投资者的吸引力不大。经济学家一直向我们保证,市场最了解情况,因此欧盟除了在法国和斯堪的纳维亚半岛之外的国家都放弃了大规模的核电项目。没有风险社会化,核能在欧洲是行不通的。碳信用体系允许政府假装气候变化可以由市场力量来处理,也使可再生能源对投资者更具吸引力。
经济学家也一直在告诉我们要遵循比较优势法则,忘记自给自足,因为贸易会让我们走到一起。再一次,当经济理论遇到现实世界时,它的缺陷就暴露无疑了。
a1b2c3d4e5_1
Over reaction?
You do know the Fukushima is still an ongoing disaster with NO end in sight and no limit on the amount of money needed?
The Japanese will still be paying for Fukushima for several generations before it is even possible to be truly decommissioned.
Meanwhile they are so desperate and out of money they are discharging nuclear waste water into the sea.
Over reaction? Or is it more like underestimating the risks and costs?
“反应过度?”
你应该知道福岛仍然是一场持续的灾难,看不到尽头,需要的钱也没有限制吗?
在福岛真正退役之前,日本仍需要几代人为福岛买单。
与此同时,他们非常绝望,没有钱,他们正在将核废水排放到海中。
反应过度?还是更像是对风险和成本的低估?
Old-Fisherman-7
Nuclear has produced 20% of America's energy for the last several decades with almost no major issues. It has been proven to be the most reliable energy source by a mile, and with all the variable costs associated with other energy sources over the decades, it has also likely been the cheapest.
20% of the worlds most energy consuming country, for decades. I think you are underestimating how big of a deal that is. Even IF something like Fukushima happened in America, the investment in Nuclear would still be worth it.
在过去的几十年里,核电站生产了美国 20% 的能源,几乎没有出现重大问题。它已被证明是最可靠的能源,而且几十年来与其他能源相关的所有可变成本,它也可能是最便宜的。
几十年来,世界上能源消耗最多的国家 20%(的电力来自核能)。我认为你低估了这笔交易的重要性。即使像福岛这样的事情发生在美国,对核能的投资仍然是值得的。
a1b2c3d4e5_1
The real cost of nuclear risk, waste disposal and decommissioning had not been priced in correctly.
And the carbon costs for fossils were not priced in correctly as well.
Leading to under investment in renewables research and manufacturing and the situation we have today.
A single Fukushima wiped out all benefits and cost savings for Japan. And that goes for any country as well.
We will probably not see the true decommissioning of Fukushima in our lifetimes, if at all while the costs continue to accrue for future generations.
核风险、废物处理和退役的实际成本没有正确定价。
化石的碳成本也没有正确定价。
导致对可再生能源研究和制造的投资不足以及我们今天的情况。
一次福岛核事故就抹去了日本的所有利益和成本节约。这也适用于任何国家。
我们有生之年可能不会看到福岛核电站真正的退役,即使在未来几代人的成本继续增加的情况下。
Old-Fisherman-7
Economically it is a ridiculous decision. There's simply no way renewables compete against Nuclear energy economically over a 100 year time span. Despite all the billions thrown towards trying to make renewable energy economically advantageous, and nuclear energy getting virtually no investment, it is still superior.
And I'm not even factoring in the fact that Nuclear energy is way, way, way more reliable than renewable energy.
I dont know how much research you've actually done. People talking about nuclear waste often don't seem to be people who know a lot about the subject, no offense.
从经济上讲,这是一个荒谬的决定。在 100 年的时间跨度内,可再生能源根本无法在经济上与核能竞争。尽管投入了数十亿美元来试图使可再生能源在经济上具有优势,而核能几乎没有得到任何投资,但它仍然比其他能源优越。
而且我甚至还没有考虑到核能比可再生能源更可靠的事实。
我不知道你实际上做了多少研究。谈论核废料的人往往似乎不是很了解这个主题的人,并不想冒犯人。
AlesseoReo
What are you on about, nuclear is already more expensive than most renewables and that trend won’t get better unless there’s purely scientific breakthrough in nuclear that would probably require new reactors or a massive rehaul anyway. But price nuclear is in no way cheaper even without calculating the risk potentials.
你在说什么,核能已经比大多数可再生能源更昂贵,除非核能出现纯粹的科学突破,或者可能需要新的反应堆或大规模的改造,否则这种趋势不会好转。但即使不计算潜在风险,核电的价格也绝不便宜。
Old-Fisherman-7
What are you on about, nuclear is already more expensive than most renewables and that trend won’t get better
Source? Provide papers please.
“你在说什么,核能已经比大多数可再生能源更贵,而且这种趋势不会好转”
你的说法有来源吗?请提供证明。
AlesseoReo
Sure.
Nuclear Energy Agency:
https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_51126/low-carbon-generation-is-becoming-cost-competitive-nea-and-iea-say-in-new-report
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf
BloombergNEF: https://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/BNEF-2021-Executive-Factbook.pdf
"renewables are the cheapest power option for 71% of global GDP and 85% of global power generation. It is now cheaper to build a new solar or wind farm to meet rising electricity demand or replace a retiring generator, than it is to build a new fossil fuel-fired power plant. ... On a cost basis, wind and solar is the best economic choice in markets where firm generation resources exist and demand is growing."
Lazard: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020
当然没问题。
这是来自“经合组织核能源署”的:
https ://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_51126/low-carbon-generation-is-becoming-cost-competitive-nea-and-iea-say-in-new-report
这是来自“政府间气候变化专门委员会”的:
https ://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf
彭博新能源财经:
https ://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/BNEF-2021-Executive-Factbook.pdf
“对于全球 GDP的71%和全球发电量的85%而言,可再生能源是最便宜的电力选择。现在建造一个新的太阳能或风电场以满足不断增长的电力需求比建造一座新的化石燃料发电厂(更加便宜)……在成本基础上,风能和太阳能是存在稳定发电资源且需求不断增长的市场中的最佳经济选择。”
拉扎德咨询公司:https ://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020
All these studies show similar trends and that is rapid decrease in renewables cost due to their better implementation and that isn't likely to stop. It's still worth it to let nuclear reactors run their course unless security or other concerns would change that. But building new ones isn't worth it from either security or financial point of view. From national security POV, nuclear is, for most countries, dependent on imports from somewhere else. For the EU, 20% of their uranium comes from Russia which should demonstrate the possible problems which can happen.
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
"The fundamental driver of this change is that renewable energy technologies follow learning curves, which means that with each doubling of the cumulative installed capacity their price declines by the same fraction. The price of electricity from fossil fuel sources however does not follow learning curves so that we should expect that the price difference between expensive fossil fuels and cheap renewables will become even larger in the future."
所有这些研究都显示出类似的趋势,那就是可再生能源成本由于其更好的进展而迅速下降,而且这种趋势不太可能停止。除非安全局势或其他担忧会改变这一点,否则让(已有的)核反应堆运行仍然是值得的。但是从安全或财务的角度来看,建造新的(核电站)并不值得。从国家安全观点来看,对于大多数国家来说,核能源依赖于从其他地方进口。对于欧盟来说,他们20%的铀燃料来自俄罗斯,这应该证明可能发生的问题。
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
“这种变化的根本驱动力是可再生能源技术遵循学习曲线,这意味着随着累计装机容量每翻一番,它们的价格就会下降相同的比例。然而,化石燃料的电力价格并不遵循学习曲线,因此我们应该预计,未来更昂贵的化石燃料和更廉价的可再生能源之间的价格差异将变得更大。”
Shubh2004
If the cost of halting the Russian gas was really 12% of the German GDP, Germany wouldn't even be THINKING about cutting Russian gas
It's that simple
如果停止使用俄罗斯天然气的成本真的会达到德国 GDP 的 12%,德国甚至根本不会考虑削减俄罗斯天然气
就是这么简单
flyjum
Hence why they are not actually thinking of doing it. They can say all they want about wanting to do it but its not going to happen. If it does happen it will be russias decision not the Germans. Europe is fully reliant on Russian oil/gas and they will be for 5+ years.
因此,为什么他们实际上并没有考虑这样做。他们可以说出他们想要做的一切,但它不会发生。如果真的发生了,那将是俄罗斯的决定,而不是德国人的决定。欧洲完全依赖俄罗斯的石油以及天然气,而且将持续 5 年以上。
BenjaminHamnett
Russia can’t do it either
This is the codependency Germany wanted
俄罗斯也做不到
这就是德国想要的相互依赖
TooDenseForXray
If the cost of halting the Russian gas was really 12% of the German GDP, Germany wouldn't even be THINKING about cutting Russian gas
that seem to be the case, Germany blocked all EU decision going this way
“如果停止使用俄罗斯天然气的成本真的是德国 GDP 的 12%,德国甚至根本不会考虑削减购买俄罗斯天然气。”
似乎确实是这样,德国阻止了所有欧盟的(制裁)决定
german_european
Unfortunately it's not just German GDP. German products are used all over Europe and the world for a lot of advanced stuff. It's kind of the hightech source of Europe. If Germany stops production of all that then EU countries and many others will be impacted. You don't win a war by destroying your economy.
不幸的是,这不仅仅是影响德国的 GDP。德国产品在欧洲和世界各地用于许多先进的东西。它是欧洲的高科技来源。如果德国停止生产所有这些产品,那么欧盟国家和许多其他国家将受到影响。你不能通过摧毁自己的经济来赢得一场战争。
TheBlack2007
An economic downturn of 12% is almost as bad as it is projected for Russia. Worse than what hit the country during the Great Depression in 1929 which saw entire families starving in the streets.
12%的经济下滑几乎和俄罗斯的预期一样糟糕。比 1929 年大萧条期间袭击该国的情况更糟糕,当时整个家庭都在街头挨饿。
davesmith001
Great depression had a gdp drop of 30%+ in US. In Germany at that time they were going through weimar hyperinflation, thats the reason they were starving, they couldnt afford food due to price increases... Pussies will always find some excuse to wiggle out of their obligations to act.
大萧条使美国的 GDP 下降了 30% 以上。当时在德国,他们正经历着魏玛的恶性通货膨胀,这就是他们挨饿的原因,他们因为物价上涨而买不起食物……娘娘腔们们总是会找一些借口来逃避他们的行动义务。
原文地址:https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/um3hl2/study_puts_cost_of_halting_russian_gas_supply_at/
The expanding war is going to blow up the gas infrastructure anyway. It's a state of total war between ukraine and russia. It's only a matter of time before Russian gas infrastructure is either sabotaged, or targeted.
无论如何,不断扩大的战争将炸毁天然气基础设施。这是乌克兰和俄罗斯之间的全面战争状态。俄罗斯天然气基础设施遭到破坏或成为攻击目标只是时间问题。
AlesseoReo
That’s the biggest proof to me that this war could be ended with a turn of the switch if anyone was willing to risk it. It has been 70 days of war and yet the infrastructure was carefully avoided by all participants. If any of the sides wished if they could stop the supply immediately but gas is more important apparently.
这对我来说是最大的证明,如果有人愿意冒险,这场战争可能会随着(天然气管道)开关的转动而结束。战争已经持续了 70 天,但所有战争参与者都小心翼翼地避开了基础设施。如果任何一方希望,他们可以立即停止供应,但天然气显然更重要。
Fenris_uy
Ukraine knows that they aren't going to win the good will of the western population if they caused brownouts in Germany by attacking the gasoducts.
乌克兰知道,如果他们通过攻击天然气管道导致德国停电,他们不会赢得西方民众的好感。
audigex
Yeah Ukraine aren’t stupid enough to annoy the people sending them weapons
And Russia just can’t afford to stop the cash rolling in
It isn’t really in anybody’s interest to stop the flow of gas
是的,乌克兰没有愚蠢到惹恼那些给他们送武器的人
而俄罗斯就是无法阻止现金滚滚而来
阻止天然气的流动并不符合任何人的利益
Old-Fisherman-7
Germany's decision to close its Nuclear energy must be one of the most ridiculous economic decisions I've come across. Most of the renewable energy gains just came at the expense of Nuclear energy (which is also clean and low variable cost), and increased their reliance on fossil fuels.
All because of the overreaction from Fukushima.
德国关闭其核电站的决定一定是我遇到过的最荒谬的经济决定之一。大多数可再生能源能产生收益只是以核能(也是清洁且可变成本更低)为代价的,并增加了它们对化石燃料的依赖。
都是因为对福岛事故的过度反应。
TheDovahofSkyrim
Well, from what I understand, their reactors were getting old as well, and rather than pay for the maintenance/upgrades they would require, they opted instead to funnel a lot of the money towards renewables.
Nuclear is fantastic, but it also isn’t exactly cheap. Still, the best solution would probably be about 2/5 nuclear, 2/5 renewable, and 1/5th flex with various energies depending on the situation/location.
好吧,据我了解,他们的反应堆也在老化,他们不打算支付为此需要的维护和升级费用,而是选择将大量资金用于可再生能源。
核能很棒,但也不便宜。尽管如此,最好的解决方案可能是大约 2/5 的核能、2/5 的可再生能源和 1/5 的其他能源,具体取决于情况/位置。
10133960
It's a misnomer to say nuclear is expensive. It's true in the current regulatory frxwork. However, that's only true because nuclear is held to far higher standards than any other industry. This is obviously a result of the irrational fear people hold of all things nuclear. If other industries were treated the same way they would be ridiculously expensive too. This is where newer industries like wind and solar benefit. Government regulations build up over time like plaque in your arteries, slowly killing an industry. Newer industries aren't as encumbered by regulatory burden and are therefore able to be more dynamic.
说核能很贵是用词不当。在当前的监管框架中确实如此。然而,这是正确的,因为核能比任何其他行业都遵循更高的标准。这显然是人们对所有涉及核的事物都抱有非理性恐惧的结果。如果以同样的方式对待其他行业,它们的价格也会高得离谱。这就是风能和太阳能等新兴行业因此而受益的地方。随着时间的推移,政府法规的建立就像动脉中的斑块一样,慢慢地扼杀一个行业。
Puzzled-Bite-8467
Nuclear is expensive because of insurance and low production numbers. If we produced nuclear at scale, say build 3 gen3+ reactors from big manufacturer take the best one and build hundreds of them then nuclear would be cheap.
由于保险措施和较低的产能,核电的价格昂贵。如果我们大规模投产核电站,比如说从大型生产商那里建造3种第三代+的核反应堆,选择其中最好的一种并建造数百座,那么核发电就会很便宜。
Old-Fisherman-7
It has a high initial cost to build, but after that its of course much less expensive than fossil fuels. Renewables out compete it in ideal circumstances, but US energy data clearly shows that wind and solar rarely reach max energy output.
I wouldn't say we should go all nuclear of course, but it is by far the most reliable energy source and its not even close.
I also have come across a lot of misleading data for renewable energy capability. Even leaving out the fact that energy like solar only averages 25% of its max (which puts it below Nuclear in price per kwh), nuclear is also cheaper in terms of space and construction.
核电站的初始建造成本很高,但建成后它当然比化石燃料发电便宜得多。可再生能源在理想情况下会与之竞争,但美国能源部的数据清楚地表明,风能和太阳能很少达到最大能源输出。
我不会说我们当然应该全部使用核能,但它是迄今为止最可靠的能源,甚至还没有(其他能源与其)接近。
我还发现了很多关于可再生能源能力的误导性数据。即使忽略像太阳能这样的平均发电率仅为其最大功率值的 25%(这使其每千瓦时的价格低于核能)这一事实,核能在占地和建造等方面也更便宜。
FifaPointsMan
Renewables can never replace nuclear power. They should have build new nuclear power but the average german person is extremely anti nuclear power. Now they are paying for it (and the rest of Europe).
可再生能源永远无法取代核能。他们应该建立新的核电站,但普通德国人非常反核电。现在他们(以及欧洲其他地区)正在为此付出代价。
Sir_George
Make life easier and make it 3/5 nuclear. The costs will be worth it in the long-term.
让生活更轻松,(在能源结构中)接受 3/5的核电。从长远来看,这些成本是值得的。
smarty86
A lot of the gas reliance is independent from electricity production and used for various other production processes, so that huge part has nothing to do with nuclear energy.
Also I am very happy to not have anymore nuclear reactors in our country and I am an electrical engineer and have done a whole lot of research which led me (and obviously our government) to the conclusion that nuclear is not the future. Of course we also need to reduce reliance on other fossil fuels asap, but I am ready to pay that price if it means we will be 99% renewables asap. That is ultimately the only available energy source in the future, it's just a question of when fossil fuels run out not if. Additionally our next 100 future generation don't have to pay for waste disposal and collateral damage of nuclear waste.
So no, this decision is not one of the most ridiculous decisions, incl economically.
许多天然气依赖独立于电力生产并用于各种其他生产过程,因此很大一部分与核能无关。
我也很高兴我们国家不再有核反应堆,我是一名电气工程师,做了很多研究,这让我(当然还有我们的政府)得出结论,核能不是未来。当然,我们还需要尽快减少对其他化石燃料的依赖,但如果这意味着我们将尽快实现 99% 的可再生能源,我愿意付出这个代价。最终这将是未来唯一可用的能源,这只是化石燃料何时用完的问题,而不是是否会用完的问题。此外,我们的下一代 以至今后所有后代不必再为核废料处理和附带损害付出代价。
所以不,这个决定不是最荒谬的决定之一,即使从经济角度上也不是。
fec2455
The German government caved to the reactionary views of their voters, it wasn't a rational move. Removing existing nuclear generation and replacing it with coal and NG due to overblown concerns about disposal costs is absurd. Future generations are much more impacted by the increased reliance on coal than they are by a very manageable waste disposal issue.
德国政府屈服于选民的反智观点,这不是一个理性的举动。由于对处置成本的过度担忧,取消现有的核能发电并用煤炭和天然气取而代之是荒谬的。与非常易于管理的核废物处理问题相比,对煤炭的依赖增加对后代的影响要大得多。
TheBlack2007
Guess where Europe gets its nuclear fuel from? That’s right: ROSATOM in Russia…
猜猜欧洲从哪里获得核燃料?没错:俄罗斯国有的国家原子能公司……
MightyH20
There's simply no way renewables compete against Nuclear energy economically over a 100 year time span.
Every economic equation will teach you one thing. That is that fuel dependency is always worse in terms of economical viability compared to non- fuel dependency.
The matter of fact is namely that nuclear energy (with traditional technology) is dependent on the fuel uranium. That requires mining, refining, transportation, (...). As opposed to unlimited wind, solar, geothermal energy.
Not to mention other factors such as geopolitical dependencies, that in terms of energy, can be exploited resulting in negative political landscapes and inequality.
“在 100 年的时间跨度内,可再生能源根本无法在经济上与核能竞争。 ”
每个经济方程式都会教给你一件事。 也就是说,与非燃料依赖相比,燃料依赖在经济可行性方面总是更差。 事实上,核能(采用传统技术)依赖于燃料铀。 这需要采矿、提炼、运输等等等等,与无限的风能、太阳能、地热能相反。 更不用说地缘政治依赖等其他因素,就能源而言,这些因素可以被利用,导致负面和不对等的政治格局。
percybucket
Trouble is that nuclear has a huge upfront cost with returns far in the future, hence isn't very attractive to private investors. Economists had been assuring us the market knows best, so massive state projects were ditched outside France and Scandinavia. Without socialization of risk, nuclear isn't viable in Europe. The carbon credits system allowed governments to pretend climate change could be handled by market forces and also made renewables more attractive to investors.
Economists had also been telling us to follow the Law of Comparative Advantage and forget about self-sufficiency as trade would bring us all together. Again, the flaws in economic theory when it meets the real world are being exposed.
麻烦的是,核能的前期成本很高,而且回报在很远的将来,因此对私人投资者的吸引力不大。经济学家一直向我们保证,市场最了解情况,因此欧盟除了在法国和斯堪的纳维亚半岛之外的国家都放弃了大规模的核电项目。没有风险社会化,核能在欧洲是行不通的。碳信用体系允许政府假装气候变化可以由市场力量来处理,也使可再生能源对投资者更具吸引力。
经济学家也一直在告诉我们要遵循比较优势法则,忘记自给自足,因为贸易会让我们走到一起。再一次,当经济理论遇到现实世界时,它的缺陷就暴露无疑了。
a1b2c3d4e5_1
Over reaction?
You do know the Fukushima is still an ongoing disaster with NO end in sight and no limit on the amount of money needed?
The Japanese will still be paying for Fukushima for several generations before it is even possible to be truly decommissioned.
Meanwhile they are so desperate and out of money they are discharging nuclear waste water into the sea.
Over reaction? Or is it more like underestimating the risks and costs?
“反应过度?”
你应该知道福岛仍然是一场持续的灾难,看不到尽头,需要的钱也没有限制吗?
在福岛真正退役之前,日本仍需要几代人为福岛买单。
与此同时,他们非常绝望,没有钱,他们正在将核废水排放到海中。
反应过度?还是更像是对风险和成本的低估?
Old-Fisherman-7
Nuclear has produced 20% of America's energy for the last several decades with almost no major issues. It has been proven to be the most reliable energy source by a mile, and with all the variable costs associated with other energy sources over the decades, it has also likely been the cheapest.
20% of the worlds most energy consuming country, for decades. I think you are underestimating how big of a deal that is. Even IF something like Fukushima happened in America, the investment in Nuclear would still be worth it.
在过去的几十年里,核电站生产了美国 20% 的能源,几乎没有出现重大问题。它已被证明是最可靠的能源,而且几十年来与其他能源相关的所有可变成本,它也可能是最便宜的。
几十年来,世界上能源消耗最多的国家 20%(的电力来自核能)。我认为你低估了这笔交易的重要性。即使像福岛这样的事情发生在美国,对核能的投资仍然是值得的。
a1b2c3d4e5_1
The real cost of nuclear risk, waste disposal and decommissioning had not been priced in correctly.
And the carbon costs for fossils were not priced in correctly as well.
Leading to under investment in renewables research and manufacturing and the situation we have today.
A single Fukushima wiped out all benefits and cost savings for Japan. And that goes for any country as well.
We will probably not see the true decommissioning of Fukushima in our lifetimes, if at all while the costs continue to accrue for future generations.
核风险、废物处理和退役的实际成本没有正确定价。
化石的碳成本也没有正确定价。
导致对可再生能源研究和制造的投资不足以及我们今天的情况。
一次福岛核事故就抹去了日本的所有利益和成本节约。这也适用于任何国家。
我们有生之年可能不会看到福岛核电站真正的退役,即使在未来几代人的成本继续增加的情况下。
Old-Fisherman-7
Economically it is a ridiculous decision. There's simply no way renewables compete against Nuclear energy economically over a 100 year time span. Despite all the billions thrown towards trying to make renewable energy economically advantageous, and nuclear energy getting virtually no investment, it is still superior.
And I'm not even factoring in the fact that Nuclear energy is way, way, way more reliable than renewable energy.
I dont know how much research you've actually done. People talking about nuclear waste often don't seem to be people who know a lot about the subject, no offense.
从经济上讲,这是一个荒谬的决定。在 100 年的时间跨度内,可再生能源根本无法在经济上与核能竞争。尽管投入了数十亿美元来试图使可再生能源在经济上具有优势,而核能几乎没有得到任何投资,但它仍然比其他能源优越。
而且我甚至还没有考虑到核能比可再生能源更可靠的事实。
我不知道你实际上做了多少研究。谈论核废料的人往往似乎不是很了解这个主题的人,并不想冒犯人。
AlesseoReo
What are you on about, nuclear is already more expensive than most renewables and that trend won’t get better unless there’s purely scientific breakthrough in nuclear that would probably require new reactors or a massive rehaul anyway. But price nuclear is in no way cheaper even without calculating the risk potentials.
你在说什么,核能已经比大多数可再生能源更昂贵,除非核能出现纯粹的科学突破,或者可能需要新的反应堆或大规模的改造,否则这种趋势不会好转。但即使不计算潜在风险,核电的价格也绝不便宜。
Old-Fisherman-7
What are you on about, nuclear is already more expensive than most renewables and that trend won’t get better
Source? Provide papers please.
“你在说什么,核能已经比大多数可再生能源更贵,而且这种趋势不会好转”
你的说法有来源吗?请提供证明。
AlesseoReo
Sure.
Nuclear Energy Agency:
https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_51126/low-carbon-generation-is-becoming-cost-competitive-nea-and-iea-say-in-new-report
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf
BloombergNEF: https://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/BNEF-2021-Executive-Factbook.pdf
"renewables are the cheapest power option for 71% of global GDP and 85% of global power generation. It is now cheaper to build a new solar or wind farm to meet rising electricity demand or replace a retiring generator, than it is to build a new fossil fuel-fired power plant. ... On a cost basis, wind and solar is the best economic choice in markets where firm generation resources exist and demand is growing."
Lazard: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020
当然没问题。
这是来自“经合组织核能源署”的:
https ://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_51126/low-carbon-generation-is-becoming-cost-competitive-nea-and-iea-say-in-new-report
这是来自“政府间气候变化专门委员会”的:
https ://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_annex-iii.pdf
彭博新能源财经:
https ://assets.bbhub.io/professional/sites/24/BNEF-2021-Executive-Factbook.pdf
“对于全球 GDP的71%和全球发电量的85%而言,可再生能源是最便宜的电力选择。现在建造一个新的太阳能或风电场以满足不断增长的电力需求比建造一座新的化石燃料发电厂(更加便宜)……在成本基础上,风能和太阳能是存在稳定发电资源且需求不断增长的市场中的最佳经济选择。”
拉扎德咨询公司:https ://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020
All these studies show similar trends and that is rapid decrease in renewables cost due to their better implementation and that isn't likely to stop. It's still worth it to let nuclear reactors run their course unless security or other concerns would change that. But building new ones isn't worth it from either security or financial point of view. From national security POV, nuclear is, for most countries, dependent on imports from somewhere else. For the EU, 20% of their uranium comes from Russia which should demonstrate the possible problems which can happen.
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
"The fundamental driver of this change is that renewable energy technologies follow learning curves, which means that with each doubling of the cumulative installed capacity their price declines by the same fraction. The price of electricity from fossil fuel sources however does not follow learning curves so that we should expect that the price difference between expensive fossil fuels and cheap renewables will become even larger in the future."
所有这些研究都显示出类似的趋势,那就是可再生能源成本由于其更好的进展而迅速下降,而且这种趋势不太可能停止。除非安全局势或其他担忧会改变这一点,否则让(已有的)核反应堆运行仍然是值得的。但是从安全或财务的角度来看,建造新的(核电站)并不值得。从国家安全观点来看,对于大多数国家来说,核能源依赖于从其他地方进口。对于欧盟来说,他们20%的铀燃料来自俄罗斯,这应该证明可能发生的问题。
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
“这种变化的根本驱动力是可再生能源技术遵循学习曲线,这意味着随着累计装机容量每翻一番,它们的价格就会下降相同的比例。然而,化石燃料的电力价格并不遵循学习曲线,因此我们应该预计,未来更昂贵的化石燃料和更廉价的可再生能源之间的价格差异将变得更大。”
Shubh2004
If the cost of halting the Russian gas was really 12% of the German GDP, Germany wouldn't even be THINKING about cutting Russian gas
It's that simple
如果停止使用俄罗斯天然气的成本真的会达到德国 GDP 的 12%,德国甚至根本不会考虑削减俄罗斯天然气
就是这么简单
flyjum
Hence why they are not actually thinking of doing it. They can say all they want about wanting to do it but its not going to happen. If it does happen it will be russias decision not the Germans. Europe is fully reliant on Russian oil/gas and they will be for 5+ years.
因此,为什么他们实际上并没有考虑这样做。他们可以说出他们想要做的一切,但它不会发生。如果真的发生了,那将是俄罗斯的决定,而不是德国人的决定。欧洲完全依赖俄罗斯的石油以及天然气,而且将持续 5 年以上。
BenjaminHamnett
Russia can’t do it either
This is the codependency Germany wanted
俄罗斯也做不到
这就是德国想要的相互依赖
TooDenseForXray
If the cost of halting the Russian gas was really 12% of the German GDP, Germany wouldn't even be THINKING about cutting Russian gas
that seem to be the case, Germany blocked all EU decision going this way
“如果停止使用俄罗斯天然气的成本真的是德国 GDP 的 12%,德国甚至根本不会考虑削减购买俄罗斯天然气。”
似乎确实是这样,德国阻止了所有欧盟的(制裁)决定
german_european
Unfortunately it's not just German GDP. German products are used all over Europe and the world for a lot of advanced stuff. It's kind of the hightech source of Europe. If Germany stops production of all that then EU countries and many others will be impacted. You don't win a war by destroying your economy.
不幸的是,这不仅仅是影响德国的 GDP。德国产品在欧洲和世界各地用于许多先进的东西。它是欧洲的高科技来源。如果德国停止生产所有这些产品,那么欧盟国家和许多其他国家将受到影响。你不能通过摧毁自己的经济来赢得一场战争。
TheBlack2007
An economic downturn of 12% is almost as bad as it is projected for Russia. Worse than what hit the country during the Great Depression in 1929 which saw entire families starving in the streets.
12%的经济下滑几乎和俄罗斯的预期一样糟糕。比 1929 年大萧条期间袭击该国的情况更糟糕,当时整个家庭都在街头挨饿。
davesmith001
Great depression had a gdp drop of 30%+ in US. In Germany at that time they were going through weimar hyperinflation, thats the reason they were starving, they couldnt afford food due to price increases... Pussies will always find some excuse to wiggle out of their obligations to act.
大萧条使美国的 GDP 下降了 30% 以上。当时在德国,他们正经历着魏玛的恶性通货膨胀,这就是他们挨饿的原因,他们因为物价上涨而买不起食物……娘娘腔们们总是会找一些借口来逃避他们的行动义务。