Russia again uses Oil as an Economic Weapon in the dead of Winter
Russia has cut off Oil to western European countries, including a NATO member.
Link to BBCnews Headline: Russia oil row hits Europe supply
Quote:
Russia has cut oil supplies to Poland, Germany and Ukraine amid a trade row with its neighbour Belarus.
End quote.
As US policy has been at a stand still for how many decades? Since the 1970's ?
Why has the US not been building safe efficient modern Nuclear reactors as a bridge to keep the Grid powered and reduce dependence on oil?
France has a long history of operating plants safely. China is ordering new plants as fast as possible. Obviously while these folks have solved their own versions of waste handling, ours still sit in barrels on the shores of Lake Michigan (last I knew).
The US is and has been playing ostrich. Is it because the NIMBY crowd and Environmental Lobby influence are stronger voices than an economic and national defense voice of reason?
Were our decisions based on artificially low oil prices which falsely skewed the cost benefit equations to the point where on the one hand our grid is on the verge of collapse, our existing plant base (both fossil fuel and nuclear) are significantly aged, and the lag time to bring new plant resources on line is burdensome?
The last time Russia used oil as an economic weapon was in the dead of winter, during a Cold Snap. At least this time the temps are milder.
Primer on Oil Reserves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
It's interesting to note that Russia is not factored prominently in the overview, while they have reserves that rival the major OPEC players.
How long before Iran decides to follow thru with threats to make like its ally and trading partner Russia?
Perhaps we're 30 years late on coherent productive planning.
There's an old saying in the construction business:
"Failure to properly plan on your part, does not necessarily make it an emergency on my part"
Unfortunately, we're all in this together. If one wants to really study the issues RE the Grid, environmental lobby and NIMBY influence on politics, our collective ship may well be one leak short of sunk.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
Climate Change | CO2 | Economics | Kyoto | Oil
Pro Nuclear AND Renewable
Submitted by SteamGeek on 8 January 2007 - 6:02pm.
From an economic standpoint, fossil fuels are at once the foundation of how Western society achieved success, and an impediment to moving forward.
From a climate / CO2 discussion, nuclear solves the fossil fuel issues.
From a Grid perspective nothing currently on the table provides enough megawatts to keep the street lights on in NYC (safety), the AC powered in the South / Southwest, West, or North in the summer (health and life safety), or the heat on in winter (life safety).
From a defense standpoint, if we all aren't fighting over oil, wars over resources are no longer an issue, or at least they will shift to water (we can de-salinate were it not for energy issues).
From a renewable energy view, all these are viable to varying degree of energy quantity and logistic circumstance, none of them solve any of our macro problems, now, 10 years out, maybe further.
This is a 30 years old developed problem (or older), the last 6 years of Executive office didn't cause it, and continuing to try and look short sighted only magnifies the problem.
I'm careful to use the term "bridge" for these reasons, in the future we will have many differecnt options, right now we very few.
are you pro-nuclear or are
are you pro-nuclear or are you just presenting this as an idea to be discussed? (as you mentioned you sometimes do throw things out for debate.)
seems like building new nuclear power plants is as much of a waste as our dependence on oil. i don't understand how our lack of these power plants hurts us defensively. can we not blow the hell of just about anybody? or are you more concerned about the alliances being formed?
and if there are other viable energy resources, should we not examine those more fully to see if they save us money and benefit the environment before we start building plants to counteract a threat that may not exist?