• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Anyone who knows anything about spent fuel assemblies in cooling ponds will appreciate the extreme danger that now exists as the Chernobyl site is without electricity. I think this is more terror tactic from Putin the Pig, if he even gives a shit about other human lives or ever has.

Chernobyl without Power
The Mirror?! Let’s drop the drama llama a notch. Not a good development but not quite critical yet.

 
It is looking like there will be little left to the Russian economy. We may be dropping sanctions on Venezuelan oil, publicy in exchange for releasing two Americans.

Even China is supplying humanitarian aid to Ukraine, albeit a token amount less than 1 million.

Considering its resources it would seem post Soviet Russia should have developed as well as China did post Maoism.


Russia (Russian: Россия, tr. Rossiya, pronounced [rɐˈsʲijə]), or the Russian Federation,[c] is a transcontinental country spanning Eastern Europe and Northern Asia. It is the largest country in the world by area, covering over 17,125,191 square kilometres (6,612,073 sq mi), and encompassing one-eighth of Earth's inhabitable landmass. Russia extends across eleven time zones and borders sixteen sovereign nations, the most of any country in the world.[d] It is the ninth-most populous country and the most populous country in Europe, with a population of 145.5 million. Moscow, the capital, is the largest city entirely within Europe, while Saint Petersburg is the country's second-largest city and cultural centre. Other major urban areas include Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, Nizhny Novgorod and Kazan.

The East Slavs emerged as a recognisable group in Europe between the 3rd and 8th centuries AD. The medieval state of Kievan Rus' arose in the 9th century. In 988, it adopted Orthodox Christianity from the Byzantine Empire. Rus' ultimately disintegrated, and among its principalities, the Grand Duchy of Moscow rose. By the early 18th century, Russia had vastly expanded through conquest, annexation, and exploration to evolve into the Russian Empire, the third-largest empire in history. Following the Russian Revolution, the Russian SFSR became the largest and the principal constituent of the Soviet Union, the world's first constitutionally socialist state. The Soviet Union played a decisive role in the Allied victory in World War II and emerged as a superpower and rival to the United States during the Cold War. The Soviet era saw some of the most significant technological achievements of the 20th century, including the world's first human-made satellite and the launching of the first human into space.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the newly independent Russian SFSR renamed itself the Russian Federation. In the aftermath of the constitutional crisis of 1993, a new constitution was adopted, and Russia has since been governed as a federal semi-presidential republic. Since his election in 2000, Vladimir Putin has dominated Russia's political system and Russia has experienced democratic backsliding, shifting into an authoritarian state.

Russia is a great power and a potential superpower. It is ranked 52nd on the Human Development Index, with a universal healthcare system and free university education. Russia's economy is the world's eleventh-largest by nominal GDP and the sixth-largest by GDP (PPP). It is a recognized nuclear-weapons state, possessing the world's largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, with the second-most powerful military[13] and the fourth-highest military expenditure. Russia's extensive mineral and energy resources are the world's largest, and it is among the leading producers of oil and natural gas globally. It is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a member of the G20, the SCO, the Council of Europe,[e] BRICS, the APEC, the OSCE, the IIB and the WTO, as well as the leading member of the CIS, the CSTO, and the EAEU. Russia is also home to 30 UNESCO World Heritage Sites.
 
All the growth is going to come from wind and solar.
Nope. They only grow if you grow whatever your backup is.
The backup can also be energy storage or a better grid.

As you say, it can't be hydro; So it's either gas (counterproductive if greenhouse gas reduction is your objective), or nuclear.

But nuclear makes wind or solar pointless. If you've built enough to cover the gaps in the wind and solar supply, then you've built enough to not need that wind and solar supply at all. So why bother building it? It's not as though wind or solar are better in any way than nuclear.
In context of this crisis, the backup also can't be gas because the whole point is to get rid of dependence to Russian gas. Regardless of CO2.

I agree, that going nuclear would be the way to go. Unfortunately some countries like Germany or Austria have made a political decision not to do it. Some other countries might not have nuclear power available due to being too small. There are real concerns about where to put the waste. Nuclear plants also take time to build due to safety concerns and small number of suppliers. Also the supply of nuclear fuel in the future is risky; right now I think a huge part of uranium comes from Kazakhstan which isn't exactly free of Russian influence either.

Lastly it's good to diversify in order to reduce risks of any particular type of energy.
 
My only problem with nuclear is that I believe the next energy transformation needs to feature de-centralization.
 
All the growth is going to come from wind and solar.
Nope. They only grow if you grow whatever your backup is.
The backup can also be energy storage or a better grid.

As you say, it can't be hydro; So it's either gas (counterproductive if greenhouse gas reduction is your objective), or nuclear.

But nuclear makes wind or solar pointless. If you've built enough to cover the gaps in the wind and solar supply, then you've built enough to not need that wind and solar supply at all. So why bother building it? It's not as though wind or solar are better in any way than nuclear.
In context of this crisis, the backup also can't be gas because the whole point is to get rid of dependence to Russian gas. Regardless of CO2.

I agree, that going nuclear would be the way to go. Unfortunately some countries like Germany or Austria have made a political decision not to do it. Some other countries might not have nuclear power available due to being too small. There are real concerns about where to put the waste. Nuclear plants also take time to build due to safety concerns and small number of suppliers. Also the supply of nuclear fuel in the future is risky; right now I think a huge part of uranium comes from Kazakhstan which isn't exactly free of Russian influence either.

Lastly it's good to diversify in order to reduce risks of any particular type of energy.
Nuclear power is about being carbon free. Access to fuel will always be an issue, regardless of the fuel. I think solar went full bore in Germany and the hope was the investment would discover the next best thing in solar, but that never really happened. Solar is still pretty limited.
 
All the growth is going to come from wind and solar.
Nope. They only grow if you grow whatever your backup is.
The backup can also be energy storage or a better grid.

As you say, it can't be hydro; So it's either gas (counterproductive if greenhouse gas reduction is your objective), or nuclear.

But nuclear makes wind or solar pointless. If you've built enough to cover the gaps in the wind and solar supply, then you've built enough to not need that wind and solar supply at all. So why bother building it? It's not as though wind or solar are better in any way than nuclear.
In context of this crisis, the backup also can't be gas because the whole point is to get rid of dependence to Russian gas. Regardless of CO2.

I agree, that going nuclear would be the way to go. Unfortunately some countries like Germany or Austria have made a political decision not to do it. Some other countries might not have nuclear power available due to being too small. There are real concerns about where to put the waste. Nuclear plants also take time to build due to safety concerns and small number of suppliers. Also the supply of nuclear fuel in the future is risky; right now I think a huge part of uranium comes from Kazakhstan which isn't exactly free of Russian influence either.

Lastly it's good to diversify in order to reduce risks of any particular type of energy.
Many countries could produce it but don't.
Nuclear Fuel Report Summary
 
Great news! Stocks up 800 pts on Wall Street as oil prices tumble 10% to still well over $100 a barrel.

Also, no progress in Ukraine so umm.... not certain why this is happening other than Markets gonna market.
 
That's pretty much what I'd expect to hear from inside Putinstan. Opinion is all over the place and people are afraid to speak their minds. I found the older gentleman's reaction particularly telling. Of course it's understandable. I could be anyone of those people given their circumstances. And that's the real tragedy.
 

Amid this escalation, experts can spin out an infinite number of branching scenarios on how this might end. But scores of war games conducted for the US and allied governments and my own experience as the US national intelligence officer for Europe suggest that if we boil it down, there are really only two paths toward ending the war: one, continued escalation, potentially across the nuclear threshold; the other, a bitter peace imposed on a defeated Ukraine that will be extremely hard for the United States and many European allies to swallow.
 
Diesel generators are the most simple and reliable critical backup for a facility.
 
Anyone who knows anything about spent fuel assemblies in cooling ponds will appreciate the extreme danger that now exists as the Chernobyl site is without electricity. I think this is more terror tactic from Putin the Pig, if he even gives a shit about other human lives or ever has.

Chernobyl without Power
I know a lot more than something, and I can assure you that this is a non-issue.

The last time any of that fuel was in a reactor was over twenty years ago; It needs active cooling for no more than five years, and water cooling for no more than another two. If you let all the water out of those cooling ponds today, nothing would happen. Unless someone is dumb enough to wander within a few metres of the assemblies without any shielding.

If you are at the Chernobyl site, you have a lot of deadly things to worry about, but radioactive materials isn't particularly high on the list of those things. It's a battlefield. Twenty two year old spent fuel assemblies don't snipe at you, or bombard you with artillery shells. They are adequately cooled by the ambient air, so they won't melt or deform. They're not flammable, so they won't catch fire. Stay back a few metres, and they will do no harm whatsoever.

Shit, if you hit them with an HE shell, the area you need to not wander into just gets a bit larger (and is now marked by a crater).

The risk to people on site is small. The risk to anyone not on site is zero.
 
Anyone who knows anything about spent fuel assemblies in cooling ponds will appreciate the extreme danger that now exists as the Chernobyl site is without electricity. I think this is more terror tactic from Putin the Pig, if he even gives a shit about other human lives or ever has.

Chernobyl without Power
Wow, potentially a huge huge issue above. I just don't know what to say about Putin. He's not as evil as Hitler. But he's the greatest threat to world peace that we've seen since Hitler. Does anyone think that I'm exaggerating?
I am 100% certain that the Mirror is exaggerating. Fear sell papers; The truth is rather boring, and nobody's going to pay to hear it.
 
Anyone who knows anything about spent fuel assemblies in cooling ponds will appreciate the extreme danger that now exists as the Chernobyl site is without electricity. I think this is more terror tactic from Putin the Pig, if he even gives a shit about other human lives or ever has.

Chernobyl without Power
The Mirror?! Let’s drop the drama llama a notch. Not a good development but not quite critical yet.

If those diesels run out, then it will become slightly more difficult to finish the task of transferring the spent fuel into dry casks. It's not a big deal; It's a minor annoyance for the workforce (and their workplace just became a battlefield, so they have a lot more to worry about than a few mostly harmless old fuel assemblies).
 
There are real concerns about where to put the waste.
No, there are completely unreasonable concerns. Nuclear waste is the only 100% managed waste stream in the history of human industry; Every industry has a waste problem, and ONLY the nuclear power industry has solved that problem.
 
Also the supply of nuclear fuel in the future is risky
Nope. It's extractable from seawater in limitless quantities for only a small increase in cost over current mining. And fuel cost is a trivial fraction of the cost of power generation, so the effect on electricity prices of chaning to that more expensive fuel would be utterly negligible.
 
That's pretty much what I'd expect to hear from inside Putinstan. Opinion is all over the place and people are afraid to speak their minds. I found the older gentleman's reaction particularly telling. Of course it's understandable. I could be anyone of those people given their circumstances. And that's the real tragedy.
This is what makes opinion surveys particularly difficult in Russia. Without a strong tradition of democracy behind them, people aren't comfortable with offering their true opinions openly to strangers, especially if they know that they are being recorded. It's safer just to say that they back the government line or don't really know what is going on. Hostility towards official policy is now much more dangerous than it was even as recently as a month ago. They went from being a near anarchy in the 1990s to what is quickly becoming a fascist dictatorship. For the older generation, it slips back on like an old shoe.
 
Lastly it's good to diversify in order to reduce risks of any particular type of energy.
Not really. There's an optimum solution; Diversity merely implies deliberately accepting a partly sub-optimal solution.

There are no risks worth mitigating that cannot be mitigated by having a large number of smaller reactor sites, rather than a small number of large ones.
 
My only problem with nuclear is that I believe the next energy transformation needs to feature de-centralization.
That sounds like a completely unsupported ideological desire, rather than a reason that anyone should take seriously.

Is there a reason why your personal preference should override good engineering and sensible application of resources?

Centralisation is what's saving the planet from humanity. I would expound further, but I don't want to derail this derail to the thread...
 
Back
Top Bottom