Russia attacks Ukraine

DarkCorp said:
You seem to ignore consistently or at least do not bring up, that Europe's need for cheap energy is a big reason why Putin thought Europe would do nothing against the invasion. TBH, when looking at Europe's actions in the past, especially Schroeder and Merkel getting cozy with Putin, it isn't really that hard to believe that Putin would think the way he does
Click to expand...
For years I've been supporting the idea that Europe should reach a lot more independency from foreign energy sources, particularly fossil fuels. I also believe that Europe should not just sell their "values" so easily for access to cheap resources. Like trough a Supply Chain Law which I quote "represents the responsibility of German companies to respect human rights in global supply chains", as they could be sued and fined if they don't.

So we are not that far appart here I believe. And yes a lot of people pushed needlessly for Nord Stream 2. Including conservatives and social democrats/leftists. The amount of failure which has happend over the last 20 years by almost all parties is staggering. To say the least.

DarkCorp said:
throw your hands up and say what can we do against Russian and Chinese aggression
Click to expand...
There is a hell of a lot that we could do. What ever if we will do it is a completely different story. There are still a lot of people which are very keen on that sweet Chinese and Russian money they throw into our politics. Much more dangerous than any direct military confrontation which most likely will not happen because they are not suicidal.

DarkCorp said:
If anything I was surprised you Europeans actually decided to stick with NATO instead of continue to ignore Russian aggression, all the while talking smack about the USA as an bad guy.
Click to expand...
That is because, as much as I hate to say it, a geographical reason. Ukraine is simply closer to the EU than Georgia or the other nations the Russians invaded. Kiev is from Berlin almost as far away as Rome. The distance is comparable. So this does play a huge role. Not to mention that Ukraine has been a topic in our media since Putin decided to take Crimea. So there is that.
 
Crni

You guys had NUCLEAR which isn't a fossil fuel yet for some odd reason you shut many if that down in a trade for Russian gas So your source of cleaner energy is there. As to completely environment friendly, you know that won't be happening for a while. We do not have the science and technology to create enough energy for consumption while making it clean.

And to direct military confrontation, we don't really know that. NATO said that any radiation or spillover from wmds would be treated as a direct attack in the alliance. And we also know Putin really wants a win. I would say both are equally dangerous and need to be tackled at the same time.

And lastly every country should count and that was my point. Moldova and Georgia and Syria, we did very little and all those little mis steps led to our current situation. May e we should have sanctioned the hell out of the Russia from the start
 
We had nuclear, but we also have some of the strongest anti-nuclear movements in the world, and nuclear isn't coming back. The solution is deindustrialisation.
 
Sn1p3r187 said:
Cold fission/fusion will happen sooner than antimatter powered reactors.
Click to expand...
Cold fission simply isn't a thing, it doesn't even make sense. Cold fusion, well, it's a pipe dream. At most we could see electrostatic confinement reactors on the Polywell principle, but even there I think the Bremsstrahlung losses will always overwhelm actual fusion gains.
Antimatter isn't an energy source, it's a form of energy storage. A very shitty one at that.
Realistically we'll see Gen IV and beyond fission reactors that are highly efficient, safe, and able to recycle existing waste, and fusion reactors based on advanced magnetic or inertial confinement (fast ignition) in the longer term.
Well, realistically the rest of the world is gonna get that, Germany is gonna refuse any of that.
 
Hassknecht said:
Cold fission simply isn't a thing, it doesn't even make sense. Cold fusion, well, it's a pipe dream. At most we could see electrostatic confinement reactors on the Polywell principle, but even there I think the Bremsstrahlung losses will always overwhelm actual fusion gains.
Antimatter isn't an energy source, it's a form of energy storage. A very shitty one at that.
Realistically we'll see Gen IV and beyond fission reactors that are highly efficient, safe, and able to recycle existing waste, and fusion reactors based on advanced magnetic or inertial confinement (fast ignition) in the longer term.
Well, realistically the rest of the world is gonna get that, Germany is gonna refuse any of that.
Click to expand...
So what would Germany use in it's place in the case of keeping up with the world 100 years down the line?
 
Yeah, because being completely depending on fossil fuels is really a great strategy right now and will never ever come to bite us in the ass. volker quaschning, the Scientists for Future and many other scientists, engineers and even economists say the transition to a sustainable economy is not only necessary it is in fact possible. And if we would have started doing that 30-40 years ago, it would be finished today. But just like with loosing weight and doing sport, the wrong time to do it is always "now" and the best time somewhere around "tomorrow". There is always a reason not to do it.

DarkCorp said:
Crni
You guys had NUCLEAR which isn't a fossil fuel yet for some odd reason you shut many if that down in a trade for Russian gas
Click to expand...

It's far more complicated than that I am afraid. I do not know why people always talk about nuclear like it is some kind of silver bullet or like it would be a solution in the current situation even if Germany decided in the past to keep it and even expand on their nuclear power. Nuclear power is only concerning the question of electricity. Even during the hight of nuclear power in Germany it made up about 17% of electricity. So even without any anti-nuclear movement it would hardly solve any issue now regarding our dependency on Russian imports which also contains a lot of minerals and metals like palladium, nickel, coper and other resources. Electricy is not the main issue here. It's actually one of the easier areas to manage, if we really have to. Similar with Oil. If we really wanted to, we could just start burning coal again - not a good idea, but it could be done relatively fast. There are alternatives here that can be used, expensive ones in many cases, but it is doable. The gas we receive from Russia can not be replaced so easily however. Because if we can not utilize the electricity to actually replace Gas, then what is it good for to have more electricity?

The majority of the gas in Germany is used to heat homes and as process heat in the industry, like every production which requires heat is quite often depending on gas. Something that isn't so easily replaced. Not in the near future. Like I already said. If we started the transition 30 years ago with the right technologies, as how it was proposed, things might look different. Instead of gas to generate heat in homes some suggested to use thermal heat pumps. Electric cars instead of combustion engines, an improved infrastructure with more public transport, a modern electricity grid, power to gas systems, higher standards in energy management to lower consumption and so on and so forth. A hell of a lot of stuff has been simply neglected, blocked or outright rejected - quite often by people that still call renewables "unicorns farts". Well. So much for that. Experts predicted the issues regardaing the use of fossil fuels already during the late 1990s. That being so dependable on "questionable" suppliers will be a serious concern in matters of national security.

But even if we had a situation in Germany that's let us say comparable to France where they get like 70% of their electricity by nuclear power we would be still looking at a very serious number of issues. France regularly buys electricity from Germany during summer months because they have to shut down a substantial number of their aging reactors. In fact Germany is a net exporter of electricity including France.

img01.jpg

Germany is a net exporter of electricity | Renewable Energy Institute (renewable-ei.org)

Not to mention that they will have to replace a large number of their reactors in the near future as well since quite a lot of them are pretty old. And planing and building new reactors can take decades. Which makes it quite expensive as well.

Nuclear power is also heavily subsidized in France. Otherwise it would be economically completely unprofitable. They made them self quite dependable on it as well. People often forget that Russia is also a exporter of nuclear fuel. I quote

Compared to other mined commodities such as cobalt, world uranium resources are spread reasonably widely. Kazakhstan produces more than 40% of the global supply, followed by Canada (12.6%), Australia (12.1%) and Namibia (10%). Russia is a minor player, producing around 5%, while the U.S. and Europe produce less than 1%.

However, much of the milled uranium from Kazakhstan travels through Russia before it is exported to global markets.

If we really want to be more independend from Russia and other ... questionable distributors, then it is really time to think different about the way we manufacture, consume and treat our ecnomies. Or we will be runing always in to the same issues over and over again.

Hassknecht said:
The solution is deindustrialisation.
Click to expand...
You say this like it's such a bad thing. No one says we have to return back to the caves and turn down all machines. However what is wrong in actually thinking about ways how a sustainable economy could work which ALSO(!) provides a decent standard of living?
It's not only a concern regarding the environment. It's also a public health concern. For example the kind of work environment we have today makes people actually sick. Psychological issues are among the highest factors in unemployability. The infrastructure we have in place is in many cases outdated and inefficent, the overconsumption and reliancen on certain resources not only is a damage to the environment it also creates a lot of pressure on the national economy.
If there ever was a time where we should think about some serious changes, than it is now.
 
Last edited:
Quaschning is a retarded shill and their plans for 100% renewables are beyond utopian. 27 GWh installed battery storage for Berlin alone, claiming that the 700 MW of geothermal potential for the entire region is somehow gonna be a relevant and important for the whole shebang.
We shouldn't rely on fossil fules quite obviously, the entire point is that we're shunning a method of energy production out of nothing but ideology.
 
But even if we would have decided to keep nuclear power around getting new reactors would have taken decades till they are operational. I am all for diversifying energy supplies though. But it would still beg the question from where the nuclear fuel should come and where the nuclear waste should be stored safely which make a large part of the costs. No one wants a second Asse II. But then again, electricity alone is not helpfull if there isn't also the technology used to utilize it, like in heating or syngas, hydrogen and so on.
 
Spent fuel storage is an issue that needs to be solved anyway, it is not influenced by continuing to use nuclear power or not. Canada and Australia are, after Kazachstan, the biggest uranium producers in the world.
Ideally we'd go for small modular reactors that can be build fast and close to cities so they can provide flexible power and also district heating. Gen IV reactors should also provide the ability to use spent fuel, so long term storage won't be an issue.
But we missed the window of opportunity for that. The entire world stopped proper development of the technology way too early, with now potentially suitable technologies like the pebble bed reactor/high temperature reactor being hindered in development. Not to mention the early development stops for thorium technology.
 
We have to see what will happen now and what decisions will be made. I guess what's done is done, regardless if we're talking about the potential for nuclear power, renewables or use of electric power instead of gas/fuel. Lets hope a few transitions will be made now so at least we're going in the direction of energy indepence.
 
As hassknecht has pointed out, we had a cheap energy alternative but people shunned it cause 3 mile Island or Fukushima. Stupid. Nice job in pointing out that there are other suppliers if nuclear fuel than Russia. If Russia offered a cheaper price then it wasn't for altruism. TBH, if it were up to me to decide whether to trust a despot that wants to bring back imperial Russia or Canadians, I know what my choice would be Wise man says, the most expensive gifts are the ones that are cheapest or free.

All those renewables you speak of Crni are insanely expensive and would not produce enough benefit for the cost. Electric cars have only recently begun entering the market in any appreciable way and most that can satisfy folks with performance and energy savings are still hybrids. Electric back then was not powerful enough with it being more expensive as well. The fact is Merkel and Schroeder before her decided to 'trust', Putin instead of treating him like a snake that he is. Lastly your argument of government saving the day can and is often applied to nuclear power so why force renewables when they simply aren't ready to do the heavy lifting yet.

Even solar now is still quite pointless.for the average consumer. Most houses would require a 30k investment in solar panels alone, not to mention all the extra cost of making sure your roof can handle the panels. Even if you were to go all out and say that solar gives you a one hundred percent monthly savings, we are still talking about an average electric bill of a couple hundred dollars a month. That's 2400 dollars worth of savings per year. You would need to run solar FIFTEEN years to recoup your costs, an absolutely asinine proposition except for insanely rich folks who have nothing better to spend their money on.
 
Last edited:
I don't think nuclear power is as cheap when you consider all costs. Like I said, nuclear power is heavily subsidized in France, the UK and Germany. The costs of nuclear waste are often not completely paid by the energy companies either. They take decades in planing and building and there is extensive safety and care required during operation. Retrofitting aging plants is also an issue. Some issues are common with all energy sources of course. But nuclear is not cheap. No energy source is. They all have advantages and disadvantages.

All those renewables you speak of Crni are insanely expensive
Click to expand...

Not true. It always depends what infrastructure you're comparing. Renewables have steadily droped in cost over the last 30-40 decades and they are already in some instances cheaper than coal and new fossil fuel findings. Particularly when you consider the immense costs with renaturation of former coal deposits or ecological desasters which cost billions but are often not carried by the companies but society. As many issues renewables might have, at least you don't have to clean a shore after some oil tanker crashed or a massive oil spill happend. When you consider those costs as well next to the immense amount of resources which are required to get fossil fuel and nuclear actually running, then you get a much clearer picture.

Nuclear power and fossil fuel infrastructures have been in place for almost 70 years in some instances. Of course they are "relatively" cheap. If you make such a direct comparisions. Because building the infrastructure for solar, wind, hydro and geothermal energy sources is obviously expensive compared to the use of already existing infrastructures. But once those are running the cost goes down. As with any infrastructure. And in many areas renewables are reaching that tipping point. Or crossed it already.

The question that matters is what issue we're looking at and what a good solution to it is. We have to get away from fossil fuel and nuclear power - in the long run - anyway. And if we neglect it now than it will cost us a lot more in the future. Just as how it does now with the war in Ukraine and the huge dependency on fossil resources from Russia. Or in other words. We will always pay a high price. Another big advantage of renewables is that the fact that revenues actually stay within the domestic market. It creates jobs where the renewables are installed. Instead of getting oil or uranium from Kasachstan you can create revenues for communities at home. It can be good plan for some rural areas in the United States for example which suffered from severe outsoursing of industries over the decades.

In many areas renewables as far as electricity goes do already beat fossil fuels and nuclear power. The largest issue right now is availability. To offer a steady output will require a much better electricity grid and intelligent infrastructure so areas with a surplus can distribute the electricity in areas that see drops.

Even solar now is still quite pointless.for the average consumer. Most houses would require a 30k investment in solar panels alone, not to mention all the extra cost of making sure your roof can handle the panels.
Click to expand...
This is of course an issue. But one way to solve something like this could be to use the substantial subsidies for fossil fuel and redirect them in renewables. Homeowners could be supported in various ways so the cost of investments become more managable. Also 30k is quite a lot, is it really that expensive in the US? It's much cheaper here in Germany. We're still looking between 10.000 to 20.000 Euros. But it depends heavily on the house and area. A large roof might be typically 15-18.000 Euro for a solar installation. Smaller roofs can be already done with 9000 Euro. Still a lot of course. But as said there are solutions for it.

For example why couldn't it be treated like any other crucial infrastructure? You don't see people complaining about the costs of constructing roads, bridges, waste disposal and the like. Because they are usually paid for by the community trough taxes. If we saw investments in solar panels and even wind farms as something that benefits the whole community I am sure there could be ways found to finance it. Just as we do with other important infrastructures. The costs could be lowered substantially that way and home owners would only pay a fraction of it. That is what societies do. We come together and build infrastructures that benefit us all.
 
Last edited:
Hassknecht said:
Spent fuel storage is an issue that needs to be solved anyway, it is not influenced by continuing to use nuclear power or not. Canada and Australia are, after Kazachstan, the biggest uranium producers in the world.
Ideally we'd go for small modular reactors that can be build fast and close to cities so they can provide flexible power and also district heating. Gen IV reactors should also provide the ability to use spent fuel, so long term storage won't be an issue.
But we missed the window of opportunity for that. The entire world stopped proper development of the technology way too early, with now potentially suitable technologies like the pebble bed reactor/high temperature reactor being hindered in development. Not to mention the early development stops for thorium technology.
Click to expand...
If I was a terrorist I would try to blow up one of those reactors or something. Nah lets blow up an airplane.

https://www.businessinsider.com/eli...s-ambushed-russian-forces-the-guardian-2022-4

BIG IF TRUE.
 
Maybe a bit on the tinfoil here but I personally think world is going to turn to hydrogen, but not to produce hydrogen as a fuel source, cause water vapour is even worse climate gas than co2 and methane..
I think our future leys in hydrogen membrane cells that produce electricity from hydrogen, and on top of that a cooler is run to cool the water vapour and catch it, liquify it and store it for service sort of gas station to take it out. and cars would run on electric engine from the electricity produced by hydrogen membranes ( i mean electrical cars are not bad because of the engine but because the damn Lithium battery is 40x less energy dense than fossi fuels are).

I mean oil barons are already investing in solar panel for electrolysis of water, the whole saudi arabia is beeing talked into this. The delay is because they need to prepare the infrastructure for this, it's not like they allow the world to moove on without them having play the key role in making money out of this buisness..

the whole lithium battery electric cars to hydrogen electric cars is like first generation of energy saving lightbulbs before diode based energy saving lightbulbs became the standard. First generation was extremely expesive and not that quite energy efficient, and neither long lasting (i'm talking ofcourse of the arc llight rods 2.0 so called first generation energy efficient lightbulbs). the same goes to Lithium baterry electric cars they are not efficient expensive and the baterry retains capacity up to four years or ~2000 charge cycles. it's going to be replaced with electrical cars based on fuel cell something that produces electricity on demand from fuel. sort of like hybrids do but without the damn diesel based electric power generator inside.

The problem Oil barons have is that Hydrogen potentially could be produced in mass quantities by electrolysis by using series LC resonance and using liquid capacitors with water as dielectric in them.. it could be exploited further by sort of homemade lifehackers, with out the need to pay $$$ for the hydrogen.. Hass Probably would know more on LC series resonance and could tell you the power output inside the capacitors and in the coils could be immense despite the actual power output beeing not very high due to opposite direction nature of the voltages in this occourence..

this technology isn't something new I've known about it for at least 14 years now, and for the last 10 I'm building my own prototype ( it takes so long due to low funds and just mee just beeing lazy and willing to play fallout in my free time instead of getting my ass to build it). and the guy that made the initial device, that shitload of ppl copied him after patented his thing in 1988, and was then acused of patent fraud, so probably there was someone even b4 him to invent this stuff).. Stan A. Meyer was trying to seal the deal with petrol company Stan A. Meyer died after sealing the deal with pertol company who took his patent. Meyer died that evening after he ran out of the restaurant screaming he was poisoned (cause of death: heart attack) but yeah the oil barons worldwide keep their mouth shut, and tell us fossil fuels are the way to go.. and now that the world can sustain itself with fossil fuel contamination no longer, they say.. hey folks we're going hydrogen.. some nerve they've got

The same technology could go into grand scale and power plants could run on hydrogen ( guess what even more $$$ for the oil barons that invested into hydrogen production).

The technology to store vast amount of hydrogen in stabile form is already developed. it's going to be sored in the bigesst killer of the '80 and '90 synthetic butter like substitutes called margarine ( simlar but not exactly the same), theese hold vast amouts of hydrogen in a physically stable form and in solid state of grease like paste. it can be later converted back to hydrogen via chemical process. so regular tankers can be used to transport this, no need for new transport ships..
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top