"All of Vlad's forces and all of Vlad's men, are out to put Humpty together again." (5 Viewers)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Why provoke a nuclear war? The stakes are too high. We have no business putting US troops on Russia's border. Nor risking US troops on countries that were not part of the initial group of treaty nations.

Mmmmmmmm.

Thinking .....................................

Aaaahhhh. I understand now.

You want to tear up all the international agreements the US has signed in the last 30+ years.

You sound like one of those shameless types that signs up to join the military for the girls and uniforms etc but who go AWOL as soon as the shooting starts.

Are you a politician by any chance?
 
According to one Aus news site Russia has cut electricity off to Finland because Finland is asking to join NATO but I have not seen this elsewhere. So - true or false?

Here's the article I read on it the other day:

HELSINKI, May 13 (Reuters) - Russian state-owned utility Inter RAO (IRAO.MM) will stop exporting electricity to Finland from Saturday because it has not been paid, the company's Finnish subsidiary said on Friday.

Inter RAO has not received payments for electricity sold via pan-European power exchange Nord Pool since May 6, the subsidiary said, without giving any reason.

"This situation is exceptional and happened for the first time in over twenty years of our trading history," RAO Nordic, said in a statement.

Power imports to Finland will be halted from 1 a.m. local time on Saturday (2200 GMT on Friday) "for the time being," Finnish grid operator Fingrid said in a separate statement, citing RAO Nordic.

Fingrid added there was no threat to Finnish supplies and that power from Russia accounted for some 10% of Finland's total consumption.

"Missing imports can be replaced in the electricity market by importing more electricity from Sweden and also by domestic production," it said.

[...]

Asked whether payments had been required to be made in roubles, the spokesperson told Reuters: "We have never had settlements in roubles, only in euros, Norwegian crowns, Swedish crowns and Danish crowns, in line with our standard procedures."



So although it doesn't look like direct fallout from Finland's decision to join NATO, it does look like fallout from Russia's decision to demand payment in rubles. The Finns don't seem to be bothered either way.
 
I understand it all completely, I just believe that the situation of paying both combatants in a war is lunacy that is a direct result of Europe's misguided energy policy and the habit of appeasing Putin, which has become ingrained in government policy over the past 15 or so years.

Part of that energy disaster comes from green politicians who demand that all non-polluting nuclear power plants are closed and replaced by green energy having high manufacturing pollution. They also forgot that means using Russian gas until the green generators can provide the 24/7 load, and any time that green energy cannot fill the load on its own. If my memory is correct Germany likes to pat itself on the back about how little coal and nuce power they produce but forget to say much (most?) of their power is imported from other countries.

The greens also totally ignore the massive noise pollution from wind power as well as the massive environmental damage the mines and manufacturing cause to make solar panels that need to last at least 11 years to pay back the environment for their manufacturing costs alone. I don't know how long a battery storage unit must last to be damage neutral but given the number in the news that have caught fire I suspect that is another environmental disaster.

Look also at the rush to get rid of CFCs and replace them with compounds that we now know are worse for the environment than CFCs were and the unleaded fuel that gives millions leukemia and other cancers and diseases.
 
Finland is now putting it's latest nuclear power station online which will replace the power they get from Russia anyway.

Much is made of Swedens use of hydro electric power as it supplies 45% of their needs but their nuclear power plants supply
40%.

Germany is shutting down it's nuclear plants which has increased their greenhouse gas output even with the large building
projects for wind and solar. This is because coal plants have to take up the slack due to wind and solar being unreliable
sources. They are paying the price for shutting their own hard coal mining operations as they now have to import about 45%
of their coal supply from Russia.

Italy is heavily reliant on Russian supplies and needs some help with alternative sources.

Alternatives for coal and oil are there and will take over but gas is more difficult.

The strange opposition to later generation nuclear facilities (no meltdowns and way better efficiency) has been a major cause
of the current reliance problems which MiTasol has pointed out.
 
Part of that energy disaster comes from green politicians who demand that all non-polluting nuclear power plants are closed and replaced by green energy having high manufacturing pollution. They also forgot that means using Russian gas until the green generators can provide the 24/7 load, and any time that green energy cannot fill the load on its own. If my memory is correct Germany likes to pat itself on the back about how little coal and nuce power they produce but forget to say much (most?) of their power is imported from other countries.

The greens also totally ignore the massive noise pollution from wind power as well as the massive environmental damage the mines and manufacturing cause to make solar panels that need to last at least 11 years to pay back the environment for their manufacturing costs alone. I don't know how long a battery storage unit must last to be damage neutral but given the number in the news that have caught fire I suspect that is another environmental disaster.

Look also at the rush to get rid of CFCs and replace them with compounds that we now know are worse for the environment than CFCs were and the unleaded fuel that gives millions leukemia and other cancers and diseases.
Not to mention the virtue signalling from the EV owners, who look down on gasoline powered vehicles, while missing the fact that the Cobalt and Lithium needed for their vehicles mostly come from mines in Africa, where children and adults work in deplorable conditions in an environmentally ruinous setting for starvation wages.
Add to that, no economical way to recycle those spent batteries, which end up in landfills at end-of-life (like wind generator blades).
 
Not to mention the virtue signalling from the EV owners, who look down on gasoline powered vehicles, while missing the fact that the Cobalt and Lithium needed for their vehicles mostly come from mines in Africa, where children and adults work in deplorable conditions in an environmentally ruinous setting for starvation wages.
Add to that, no economical way to recycle those spent batteries, which end up in landfills at end-of-life (like wind generator blades).

There is a battery recycle plant in Aus - maybe more than one - but the process is long and complex and no-one will say what the cost of that recycling is. I suspect much of their operating costs are funded by the taxpayers. None of the press releases I have seen show the financial value of the output - or even the volume of reusable product.
 
Last edited:
Part of that energy disaster comes from green politicians who demand that all non-polluting nuclear power plants are closed and replaced by green energy having high manufacturing pollution.
That's ZERO nuclear plants qualifying to continue operating. No such thing as a non-polluting nuke plant.
I'll settle any day for a technology that has only one manufacturing and one recycling pollution in its lifetime vs one that continuously cranks out perpetually lethal waste that we still haven't figured out how to safely dispose of. Until fusion technology deploys on a commercial scale, nuclear energy is just not an acceptable solution.
 
Last edited:
The greens also totally ignore the massive noise pollution from wind power as well as the massive environmental damage the mines and manufacturing cause to make solar panels that need to last at least 11 years to pay back the environment for their manufacturing costs alone. I don't know how long a battery storage unit must last to be damage neutral but given the number in the news that have caught fire I suspect that is another environmental disaster.

Look also at the rush to get rid of CFCs and replace them with compounds that we now know are worse for the environment than CFCs were and the unleaded fuel that gives millions leukemia and other cancers and diseases.
There is little noise pollution from wind turbines. If your very close and they are going full tilt then yes there is some noise, but you have to be very close and they don't often go full tilt. The UK is littered with wind turbines and I go past some every day and the noise pollution is greatly, greatly exaggerated.

We have in Hull one of the biggest wind turbine manufacturers in Europe and certainly in the UK

Siemens to double size of Hull offshore wind turbine blade factory | ITV News

It is also cost effective and this cost benefit is growing all the time as the technology develops and this applies to Solar Panels as well. The cost of production is falling all the time.

Currently in the UK there are some days where none of the Gas or Coal stations are used at all. Right now the biggest problem coming up is by 2030 the UK will be producing more power from nuclear and renewables than it uses for 50% of the year. The problem being where and how to store it.

Edit - Re Jaguar I Pace electric car batteries a project is underway for these to be used as a home store electric power system when their life as a car battery is over. They can be recharged via Solar Panels and then used to power the house
 
Although we are straying further off topic . . .

Obviously it depends where you live as to whether the particular power generation system is suitable, but the soon to be available systems are kind of amazing.

"Why the first big U.S. ocean wind farm is a big deal"

The newest windfarms (in the US) like the one in the link above are potentially very effective. And the older ones are being upgraded in a systematic manor to gain in competitiveness.

Also, the newest (available) solar cells are a significant leap up in efficiency (jumping from under 20% to over 40%) - to the point where they should be directly competitive in cost/watt in comparison to fossil fuel power generations systems.

"Solar cell efficiency - Wikipedia."

The latest nuclear power plants are also much safer and efficient than the last generation(s), although scale of use is still the primary defining factor. The main problems (if you do not count politics) facing new nuclear power plants are the initial cost of construction and long lead times.

All of the power generation systems have serious effects on the environment (whether pollution or footprint or both) but the idea is to find the combination that least impacts the environment in a manner that is irredeemable (ie the least likely to lead to global warming and/or mass die offs due to direct pollution) and/or cause serious health effects in the human population (such as has occurred with pollution from coal fired power plants and IC engines using leaded gasoline).
 
But a nuke plant can also be a big dirty bomb when attacked. Let alone nature itself with tsunamis earthquaks etc. And then there is the waist.
 
True as to the dirty bomb if attacked.

But the latest nuclear plant designs (some of which are online already in smaller scales) are basically earthquake and Tsunami proof in terms of melt-downs and containment failures.

And although the waste is a problem, it is containable.
 
Interesting bit that I missed at the time:

"Russia's top diplomat said his country is not presenting the US with any "ultimatums", but will not accept "endless" talks either on its demands for legally binding pledges that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation will halt further expansion and withdraw forces to the positions it held in 1997."

From a 28 December 2021 Bloomberg article:
"No ultimatums, Russia promises on pre-Nato meeting parly with US"

So I went back and looked at some stuff from the time (pre-1997) and ran across this speech by the NATO Secretary General in 1996:
"NATO Address by Secretary General of NATO - 4 Nov. 1996"

Kind of paints an interesting contrast to today's views/statements of the various parties.

Link to the Wiki article on continuing enlargement of NATO:

"Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia"
 
True as to the dirty bomb if attacked.

But the latest nuclear plant designs (some of which are online already in smaller scales) are basically earthquake and Tsunami proof in terms of melt-downs and containment failures.

And although the waste is a problem, it is containable.
Yes the Titanic was unsinkable and Fukushima was ... you get my drift. Whenever i am told something potentially is build beyond disaster i get worried. It is not a bread toaster. Mind you i am not against nuke plants just carefull.
 
Why provoke a nuclear war? The stakes are too high. We have no business putting US troops on Russia's border. Nor risking US troops on countries that were not part of the initial group of treaty nations.
By using the pronoun we I understand you are a US citizen. Here is a gentle reminder for my fellow Americans. ;)
022522InvasionR.jpg
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back