Hindsight is a lazy excuse. Securing your energy and making yourself depend by and on a more than questionable regime isn't just stupid. It's beyond that. You don't need a lot of brain cells to understand that that isn't a great idea.
It sounded good: if they trade with us they can't go to war with us without loosing their economy. The EU was build on this idea.
And with trade there also follows prosperity and then people will demand democracy.
You’re right but what then was the USSR and now is Russia et al. has so huge borders and neighbors foreign to th Europe concept that thinking that (and knowing who ruled it) was worse than wishful thinking.
This is not true at least from 2008 when Russia attacked Georgia, 2014 when they annexed Crimea. Everyone said to Germany to not go with Nord Stream 2 because Russia will use it politically but they ignored that because social contract depends on cheap energy from Russia, competitiveness of German economy depends on cheap energy too. Germany plan was to sell gas coming from Russia to the rest of EU with margin, one of the reasons gas is considered "green" source of energy by EU legislation.
The 2008 war in Georgia began when Georgia attacked South Ossetia. For those who don't know, South Ossetia is a de facto independent state that is de jure part of Georgia (much like Taiwan and China).
In the Soviet era, South Ossetia was an autonomous oblast within the Georgian SSR. After Georgia declared independence from the USSR, South Ossetia declared independence from Georgia. They fought a war, and Russia eventually backed South Ossetia and brokered a deal. There have been Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia ever since.
South Ossetia never gained international recognition, and in 2008, the Georgian president made an attempt to recapture it. He thought that if he was fast enough, the Russians wouldn't have time to respond and he could present them with a fait accompli. It appears that the Russians knew what was coming, and they immediately sent troops through the tunnel into South Ossetia after the Georgians moved in. Russian forces drove the Georgians back, all the way into Georgian (pre-war) territory.
The Russians then recognized South Ossetia as an independent state, though pretty much no one else does.
I would not trust Wikipedia for any politically contentious issue - and especially not for anything that pits different nationalities against one another.
There are different political factions (and in particular, nationalist factions) that heavily push their point of view and that will attempt to control articles that they care about. Look at the talk page or edit history of any article related to a contentious historical topic that pits different Eastern European countries against one another, and you'll see what I mean. There's even a long-standing fight over the nationality of Copernicus, a man who lived before the establishment of modern nation-states.
What is clear in the war over South Ossetia is that the Georgian president, Saakashvili, made a decision to retake the territory with a full-scale invasion. Up until that point, there was sporadic fighting over between Georgians and Ossetians, but the EU report on the conflict found that the Georgians were the first to launch a full ground invasion. Saakashvili had long made full reunification of all Georgian territories a major goal, and he had previously brought another region, Adjara, back under the control of the central government.
There’s trade and there is supply. US and China have lots of trade, real conflict limit. Not impossible, but a factor.
German industry is supplied by russian gas. Throwing away nuclear power and making oneself dependent on foreign energy suppliers lets them influence your decisions.
If this were true then the Middle East would be full of peaceful democracies.
But the reality in Europe's oil supplying countries is rather different.
Come on, the whole Energiewende was full of wishful thinking. Nuclear power plants were going to be closed while there was no prospect on another energy source that could fill the gap. So gas was suddenly declared a 'sustainable' energy source, conveniently ignoring the CO2 emissions and the fact that gas is not renewable.
And now Germany is reopening coal power plants. How sustainable is that?
> If this were true then the Middle East would be full of peaceful democracies. But the reality in Europe's oil supplying countries is rather different.
Who said anything about democracies? Or that they are peaceful on the inside? They need to be stable and reliable trading partners and that usually works splendid when they get something out of it. In fact that works rather splendid for the countries that aren't on everyone's shit list. The really ugly truth is how much of the moral standards are conveniently forgotten when trading with authoritarian countries sporting despicable human rights records.
> Come on, the whole Energiewende was full of wishful thinking.
Such is the widely accepted view on the internet. And it is completely unimpeded by facts.
That never sounded good to anybody with good judgement. Russia is largely self sufficient for basic goods (food, energy), meaning that while their economy takes a hit, it’s a financial problem more than an existential crisis. The same can’t be said for Germany, who have systematically destroyed domestic energy production and now are facing an unprecedented economic catastrophe. Not just a financial problem, but a real economic problem of being able to acquire sufficient quantities of the basic inputs to a contemporary first world economy.
Trump famously pointed out the folly of this strategy to a chorus of arrogant snickering from the contingent of German bureaucrats. Not so funny now…
> they can't go to war with us without loosing their economy
Have those people ever looked at how much wars cost? We are talking about creating cities from scratch to support the war effort amounts of cash. Hundreds of thousands of able bodied workers, stuck walking the countryside instead of working impact. We are talking about entire industries repurposed to produce war time supplies. Countries have been willing to fuck over their economies a lot harder to support their war machines than anything the EU could ever hope to do to the Russian economy.
That wasn't the reason, Russia was simply the lowest cost supplier by far. They have an entire network of pipes developed over decades to deliver gas to Europe and Germany.
In fact, If Germany diversified LNG supplies it would make war less likely because Russia would have less leverage. Every geopolitical commentator for a decade has pointed out that Russian gas supplies were a weapon that could be used to deter Europe.
Democracy and long-term thinking don't go well together.
People say this about shareholder owned companies with profit driven quarters but it's far more true for elected politicians who are judged myopically -- or, judged with superstition, as with nuclear energy in Germany -- on things like the current gas price. You see this manifest everywhere in politics. Why do you think federal debts are growing so much? Because voters create incentives for politicians to act myopically and kick the can down the road.
I also suspect part of it is deliberate malevolence. Stealing the upside for ourselves, while our children (federal debt) or foreigners (global warming) pay the downside.
Another part is that liberals have been sleepwalking. We bought into Fukuyama's End of History narrative. Fascism and war was a relic of the 20th century. In reality we were resting in the shade of America's unipolar hegemony. That's an American export that Europe had been free riding off. If America's relative standing weakens further, expect more conflict.
This is still arguing from hindsight and conveniently neglects the dependence of Russia on the EU: The EU was Russia's single largest customer of natural gas and an important purveyor of machines and technology. A valid reasoning at that time was that Putin would not risk this income / trade and furthermore Russia could be pacified or kept in check by ever increasing economic ties to the EU. Unfortunately Putin decided that tanking Russia's economy was totally worth it and/or speculated the EU confronted with the specter of an energy crisis would quickly falter and let him annex Ukraine without much fuss.
Furthermore Russian gas was cheap which made the development of alternatives a rather unpopular proposition. Try to explain to the people and the industry that gas will be more expensive because Russia might pose a problem and alternative sources need to be put in place. In hindsight it was stupid to not address the dependence on Russian energy but that is precisely the clarity hindsight provides. While the actions leading up to the current situations were taken, it wasn't all that clear that the problem could become very real.
We could all have continued living in an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity in Europe, but instead Putin choose a course of action in which everyone is losing big time. What a colossal waste.
It's easy to say it's an excuse without considering the world today. Saudi Arabia could easily grind the entire world's economy to a halt if they so desired. China could do even worse. And Russia is already demonstrating what they can do. And these are just the well known examples. Look to essentially any field (perhaps rare Earth metals, especially those involved in electric components) and it's the same story.
The entire idea of an advanced or post-industrial economy is largely a facade. Absolutely everything we ultimately consume and use is dependent upon the most basic of skills, labor, and resources - the sort that 'advanced' economies strive to outsource as much as possible to 'developing' economies. But of course this doesn't change the fact that said skills/labor/resources are still the true backbone of your economy. Instead you've simply inverted a power relationship and become completely dependent upon those nations with said 'developing' economies.
It shows how immature of a world we live in that ideas become automatically discredited at the highest levels depending on who's saying those ideas out loud.
Putting LNG on ships vs a pipeline is not a real substitute, financially or otherwise. Not for several years and incredibly higher environmental devastation in the process.
It’s an entirely adequate substitute if you don’t base your export dependent economy on cheap Russian gas, and heat your homes with it during winter at the same time, see: East Asia.
Or you could just not join in on a US proxy war whose only objective is to weaken Russia. Pretty rich criticizing Europe for relying on cheap Russian gas when the US economy would collapse overnight if OPEC, or even just the Saudis and a few others boycotted it.
If an independent geopolitical position had been charted at quite literally any point over the past however many decades, that may have been an option, yes.
Mexico alone provides more crude oil to the US than Russia and Saudi Arabia combined, it is 2022, not 2001.
Neither of those countries pose an existential threat to the North American equivalent of Northern & Eastern Europe (who may take issue with a lack of enthusiasm in weakening Russia) either.
It is when the reason for deeming an idea foolish is the fact that a specific person said it. Most evident case of this is the lab leak theory, which became a complete taboo after Trump advocated it (though there obviously were other forces at play as well). https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-...
Think about what you are saying when framed in the most cynical fashion. 'How is basing my opinion of an idea, not on what is said but instead on my opinion of the speaker, a sign of immaturity.' The claim to signal to noise is little more than a high brow ad hominem, rather than an actual rationale. And similarly your choice of adjective of "rational", is little more than begging the question.
Of course this is not taking your words in good faith, but it's also not straw manning you.
Pretty rich coming from a world (especially US) that would be in an even worse energy crisis if the way more corrupt and murderous House of Saud decided to turn off the taps (again).
Please, share your new “data”, by all means! US is only a net energy exporter due to the extremely damaging practice of fracking (thanks, Obama). Try powering our vehicles with that. We’re still a net importer of oil.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
If only many countries including the US had insisted on diversifying gas supplies for a decade+ ...
Similarly, look at the state of the Bundeswehr. All it can muster in terms of SPHs delivered to Ukraine is about 20 PzH2000. Great equipment, but just 20 pieces is very little. Again, if only someone (many someones) pointed out the insufficient spending on military...
On top of all of that Scholz is now suggesting that Germany should have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Like, lol. The SPD should really rebrand to Security Policy Disaster, though it's not just a single party problem.
The single tanker load is a detail German state media conveniently leaves out of their reporting. [0]
Germany also has gas reserves in shale. But fracking is unacceptable to the Green party. The environmental damages have to happen outside of their view.
Didn't German Green Party greenlight (sorry) driving down nuclear energy in favor of coal? Political parties tend to minmax popular support over success of personal ideology, perhaps that's the case here as well.
That is so simplified that it's basically just wrong.
Nuclear power has been very unpopular in Germany since before Chernobyl. Phasing it out was a core goal of the Green party since its founding. They implemented it (on a decades-long timeline) when they first became part of a federal government in 1998. The decision was reversed by the Merkel government, which then reversed the reversal shortly after Fukushima.
And it was never in favor of coal, neither in theory not in practice. Both nuclear and coal have been replaced to a large degree by renewables, and to a lesser degree by gas.
The tweet is about two specific reactors that have long been scheduled to be shut down and where, in light of the current crisis, there was discussion about delaying that. Note that the decision was absolutely not just done by the Green party, and in good part based on statements from the power company that they cannot keep running them.
My comment was about the long-term decision to phase out nuclear power in Germany, originally made 20 years ago.
> Politisch ist das Thema umstritten. Im ARD-Deutschlandtrend vom August zu den energiepolitischen Maßnahmen hielten die Förderung von sogenanntem Fracking-Gas in Deutschland nur 27 Prozent für richtig, 56 Prozent für falsch.
Deepl:
> Politically, the issue is controversial. In the August ARD Deutschlandtrend on energy policy measures, only 27 percent thought the promotion of so-called fracked gas in Germany was right, while 56 percent thought it was wrong.
It probably takes years to get these resources online anyway.
However, Germany also has unused nuclear powerplants that are also kind of taboo, but public opinion is much more in favor of those.
> The environmental damages have to happen outside of their view
Exactly. Until the Ukraine war started, the Green party was perfectly happy with importing loads of gas from Russia.
Is gas mining done in such an environment friendly way in Russia? Well, it is not.
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/russia-europe-gas-pipelin...
>The cargo -- 137,000 cubic meters -- will be delivered by Abu Dhabi National Oil Co. to German utility RWE AG by early 2023. ADNOC also signed a memorandum of understanding to make more deliveries next year.
>After the UAE, Scholz traveled to Qatar, where he and the nation’s emir were expected to discuss long-term plans for shipments of gas and hydrogen. Germany and Qatar have been discussing LNG supplies for several months, with Germany being reluctant to commit to long-term contracts at record prices for LNG.
But that is just one country, one source. There already are other sources, Russia supplied ca. 55% of gas used to Germany, not 100%, and less to other European countries. And in the Middle East UAE is just one of the countries Germany is in talks with, and the UAE is not even a big producer of LNG thus far. According to recent headlines it's actually the US who is supposed the most important source of LNG (German article: https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/usa-wohl-bald-wichtigster-...).
Also, they did not buy gas alone, there also were agreements for thigs like Diesel. Then, the new approach is to have many sources instead of only some large suppliers. So, UAE is just one stop of many.
Those 137,000 m^3 are delivered this year - which is better than expected because thus far we were told we could get zero LNG from the Middle East this year because it's too soon. We are only just building the terminals too! And such things normally take decades in Germany... Great achievement to turn the positive surprise into a negative headline.
Also, German gas storage is over 90% full and still increasing. Yes, that came at great cost, and I think shutdown of some heavy industrial users.
However, given that German cities and industry had been completely bombed to ruins and came back after some disastrous war that also killed millions, not that many decades ago, having less fossil fuels available now - not "zero" as some headlines claim - for a relatively short amount of time of a year or two, so what? This little thing is supposed to be the end of German industry and lead to complete "German deindustrialization"? What a joke.
As a German, this is exactly the kind of shock this country needs to get its energy- and fossil-fuel act together. With continued stable cheap supplies nothing would have happened. And no, it's not the politicians. They just do what the majority of people want.
The goal for the future is to require much less fossil fuels, and this shock helps a lot to finally speed things along, for example, also from this very deal:
> The bilateral deal with the UAE, signed with UAE president Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, also covered other energy agreements, including a deal with Germany’s Steag and Aurubis for the supply of low-carbon ammonia to fuel hydrogen, with the aim of decarbonising industrial sectors. The first cargo arrived in Hamburg this month.
> Masdar, the UAE’s renewables vehicle, will explore offshore wind projects in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea off the German coast in an effort to generate 10GW of renewable energy output by 2030.
> Adnoc also delivered its first diesel delivery to Germany this month as part of an agreement to supply 250,000 tons of diesel a month next year to a German company.
My response aimed at the claim of the headline being clickbait. The things you state may or may not be true but they do not invalidate the Bloomberg headline in any way.
Those 90% is estimated enough use for 2 months+ like from Jan to early March. Winter is coming. Energy consumption from Nov to Jan can double that for normal winter. For bad winters expect triple. If it is not desperate, the head of country Germany contact like beggar asking help. Remember USA suppose to deliver LNG to Germany as well. Now USA strategic reserve dropping to 1984 level and expect to further drop so they can sustain a "cheaper price" for the coming midterm.....all I can say is winter is coming....cue GoT background music.
64 comments
[ 47.4 ms ] story [ 1323 ms ] threadIn the Soviet era, South Ossetia was an autonomous oblast within the Georgian SSR. After Georgia declared independence from the USSR, South Ossetia declared independence from Georgia. They fought a war, and Russia eventually backed South Ossetia and brokered a deal. There have been Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia ever since.
South Ossetia never gained international recognition, and in 2008, the Georgian president made an attempt to recapture it. He thought that if he was fast enough, the Russians wouldn't have time to respond and he could present them with a fait accompli. It appears that the Russians knew what was coming, and they immediately sent troops through the tunnel into South Ossetia after the Georgians moved in. Russian forces drove the Georgians back, all the way into Georgian (pre-war) territory.
The Russians then recognized South Ossetia as an independent state, though pretty much no one else does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War#Prelude
There are different political factions (and in particular, nationalist factions) that heavily push their point of view and that will attempt to control articles that they care about. Look at the talk page or edit history of any article related to a contentious historical topic that pits different Eastern European countries against one another, and you'll see what I mean. There's even a long-standing fight over the nationality of Copernicus, a man who lived before the establishment of modern nation-states.
What is clear in the war over South Ossetia is that the Georgian president, Saakashvili, made a decision to retake the territory with a full-scale invasion. Up until that point, there was sporadic fighting over between Georgians and Ossetians, but the EU report on the conflict found that the Georgians were the first to launch a full ground invasion. Saakashvili had long made full reunification of all Georgian territories a major goal, and he had previously brought another region, Adjara, back under the control of the central government.
German industry is supplied by russian gas. Throwing away nuclear power and making oneself dependent on foreign energy suppliers lets them influence your decisions.
Come on, the whole Energiewende was full of wishful thinking. Nuclear power plants were going to be closed while there was no prospect on another energy source that could fill the gap. So gas was suddenly declared a 'sustainable' energy source, conveniently ignoring the CO2 emissions and the fact that gas is not renewable. And now Germany is reopening coal power plants. How sustainable is that?
Who said anything about democracies? Or that they are peaceful on the inside? They need to be stable and reliable trading partners and that usually works splendid when they get something out of it. In fact that works rather splendid for the countries that aren't on everyone's shit list. The really ugly truth is how much of the moral standards are conveniently forgotten when trading with authoritarian countries sporting despicable human rights records.
> Come on, the whole Energiewende was full of wishful thinking.
Such is the widely accepted view on the internet. And it is completely unimpeded by facts.
https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-energy-c...
Trump famously pointed out the folly of this strategy to a chorus of arrogant snickering from the contingent of German bureaucrats. Not so funny now…
https://youtu.be/FfJv9QYrlwg
Have those people ever looked at how much wars cost? We are talking about creating cities from scratch to support the war effort amounts of cash. Hundreds of thousands of able bodied workers, stuck walking the countryside instead of working impact. We are talking about entire industries repurposed to produce war time supplies. Countries have been willing to fuck over their economies a lot harder to support their war machines than anything the EU could ever hope to do to the Russian economy.
In fact, If Germany diversified LNG supplies it would make war less likely because Russia would have less leverage. Every geopolitical commentator for a decade has pointed out that Russian gas supplies were a weapon that could be used to deter Europe.
People say this about shareholder owned companies with profit driven quarters but it's far more true for elected politicians who are judged myopically -- or, judged with superstition, as with nuclear energy in Germany -- on things like the current gas price. You see this manifest everywhere in politics. Why do you think federal debts are growing so much? Because voters create incentives for politicians to act myopically and kick the can down the road.
I also suspect part of it is deliberate malevolence. Stealing the upside for ourselves, while our children (federal debt) or foreigners (global warming) pay the downside.
Another part is that liberals have been sleepwalking. We bought into Fukuyama's End of History narrative. Fascism and war was a relic of the 20th century. In reality we were resting in the shade of America's unipolar hegemony. That's an American export that Europe had been free riding off. If America's relative standing weakens further, expect more conflict.
Furthermore Russian gas was cheap which made the development of alternatives a rather unpopular proposition. Try to explain to the people and the industry that gas will be more expensive because Russia might pose a problem and alternative sources need to be put in place. In hindsight it was stupid to not address the dependence on Russian energy but that is precisely the clarity hindsight provides. While the actions leading up to the current situations were taken, it wasn't all that clear that the problem could become very real.
We could all have continued living in an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity in Europe, but instead Putin choose a course of action in which everyone is losing big time. What a colossal waste.
The entire idea of an advanced or post-industrial economy is largely a facade. Absolutely everything we ultimately consume and use is dependent upon the most basic of skills, labor, and resources - the sort that 'advanced' economies strive to outsource as much as possible to 'developing' economies. But of course this doesn't change the fact that said skills/labor/resources are still the true backbone of your economy. Instead you've simply inverted a power relationship and become completely dependent upon those nations with said 'developing' economies.
In hindsight he was right, but by accident.
Never commit two crimes at the same time.
Mexico alone provides more crude oil to the US than Russia and Saudi Arabia combined, it is 2022, not 2001.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-produc...
Neither of those countries pose an existential threat to the North American equivalent of Northern & Eastern Europe (who may take issue with a lack of enthusiasm in weakening Russia) either.
Of course this is not taking your words in good faith, but it's also not straw manning you.
Similarly, look at the state of the Bundeswehr. All it can muster in terms of SPHs delivered to Ukraine is about 20 PzH2000. Great equipment, but just 20 pieces is very little. Again, if only someone (many someones) pointed out the insufficient spending on military...
On top of all of that Scholz is now suggesting that Germany should have a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Like, lol. The SPD should really rebrand to Security Policy Disaster, though it's not just a single party problem.
Germany also has gas reserves in shale. But fracking is unacceptable to the Green party. The environmental damages have to happen outside of their view.
[0]: https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/asien/scholz-vae-fluessigg...
Nuclear power has been very unpopular in Germany since before Chernobyl. Phasing it out was a core goal of the Green party since its founding. They implemented it (on a decades-long timeline) when they first became part of a federal government in 1998. The decision was reversed by the Merkel government, which then reversed the reversal shortly after Fukushima.
And it was never in favor of coal, neither in theory not in practice. Both nuclear and coal have been replaced to a large degree by renewables, and to a lesser degree by gas.
At least that source seems to claim exactly what I referred above.
The tweet is about two specific reactors that have long been scheduled to be shut down and where, in light of the current crisis, there was discussion about delaying that. Note that the decision was absolutely not just done by the Green party, and in good part based on statements from the power company that they cannot keep running them.
My comment was about the long-term decision to phase out nuclear power in Germany, originally made 20 years ago.
https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/fracking-verbot-london-...
> Politisch ist das Thema umstritten. Im ARD-Deutschlandtrend vom August zu den energiepolitischen Maßnahmen hielten die Förderung von sogenanntem Fracking-Gas in Deutschland nur 27 Prozent für richtig, 56 Prozent für falsch.
Deepl: > Politically, the issue is controversial. In the August ARD Deutschlandtrend on energy policy measures, only 27 percent thought the promotion of so-called fracked gas in Germany was right, while 56 percent thought it was wrong.
It probably takes years to get these resources online anyway.
However, Germany also has unused nuclear powerplants that are also kind of taboo, but public opinion is much more in favor of those.
Something has to give.
Exactly. Until the Ukraine war started, the Green party was perfectly happy with importing loads of gas from Russia. Is gas mining done in such an environment friendly way in Russia? Well, it is not. https://www.bloomberg.com/features/russia-europe-gas-pipelin...
>After the UAE, Scholz traveled to Qatar, where he and the nation’s emir were expected to discuss long-term plans for shipments of gas and hydrogen. Germany and Qatar have been discussing LNG supplies for several months, with Germany being reluctant to commit to long-term contracts at record prices for LNG.
Clickbait title.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/21/how-reliant-is...
Also, they did not buy gas alone, there also were agreements for thigs like Diesel. Then, the new approach is to have many sources instead of only some large suppliers. So, UAE is just one stop of many.
Those 137,000 m^3 are delivered this year - which is better than expected because thus far we were told we could get zero LNG from the Middle East this year because it's too soon. We are only just building the terminals too! And such things normally take decades in Germany... Great achievement to turn the positive surprise into a negative headline.
Also, German gas storage is over 90% full and still increasing. Yes, that came at great cost, and I think shutdown of some heavy industrial users.
However, given that German cities and industry had been completely bombed to ruins and came back after some disastrous war that also killed millions, not that many decades ago, having less fossil fuels available now - not "zero" as some headlines claim - for a relatively short amount of time of a year or two, so what? This little thing is supposed to be the end of German industry and lead to complete "German deindustrialization"? What a joke.
As a German, this is exactly the kind of shock this country needs to get its energy- and fossil-fuel act together. With continued stable cheap supplies nothing would have happened. And no, it's not the politicians. They just do what the majority of people want.
The goal for the future is to require much less fossil fuels, and this shock helps a lot to finally speed things along, for example, also from this very deal:
> The bilateral deal with the UAE, signed with UAE president Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, also covered other energy agreements, including a deal with Germany’s Steag and Aurubis for the supply of low-carbon ammonia to fuel hydrogen, with the aim of decarbonising industrial sectors. The first cargo arrived in Hamburg this month.
> Masdar, the UAE’s renewables vehicle, will explore offshore wind projects in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea off the German coast in an effort to generate 10GW of renewable energy output by 2030.
> Adnoc also delivered its first diesel delivery to Germany this month as part of an agreement to supply 250,000 tons of diesel a month next year to a German company.
https://www.ft.com/content/0065dfcc-4519-41b6-9883-92e7ff137...