Europe under extreme duress

[sevenhelmet]

I often detest The Atlantic for their tendency to promote liberal guilt, but this article actually provides a fairly succinct explanation for why our refineries aren’t set up to refine our oils anymore, and tacitly makes a case as to why they should be. It also defines terms like “light/heavy” and “sweet/sour”, which are often reported on, but rarely explained.

 

[villanelle]

Raise your hand if you want a nuclear power plant built within 50 miles of your home. Now raise your hand if you think at least 50% of your neighbors would be even remotely okay with that. Huh. Not very many hands in the air.

It's just not gonna happen. Solar, tidal, hydro, dogs-on-treadmills... sure. You can get a fair amount of people on board with that. But once the word "nuclear" is tossed out there, the NIMBYs will come out in full, vehement, voting force, and probably some of the BANANAs, too. I think we probably need to accept that getting a new nuclear power plant anywhere in the US is mostly a non-starter. Most people probably like the idea, as long as it is at least 500 miles from their home.

I think we can add some other alternative power sources, but we also need to focus on ways to use less energy, which means encouraging and subsidizing new technologies--both their development and their adoption.

 

[taxi1]

True. And the opposing party would make noise. But if a real leader had a long term energy policy and made the argument that refitting refineries as well as the other costs of an investment plan like nuke, solar, tidal, etc had strategic pay back with more stable moderate prices in the future, it could be politically survivable.

What normally happens is the entrenched interests (oil & gas in this case) use their influence to slow roll the move to new tech. Meanwhile, smart people are preparing for the next big thing, and when the crisis hits the dinosaurs go away and new companies rise to fill the void.

It's fascinating to look back at the change in companies on the Dow, for example. Continual creative destruction.

 

[GroundPounder]

Raise your hand if you want a nuclear power plant built within 50 miles of your home. Now raise your hand if you think at least 50% of your neighbors would be even remotely okay with that. Huh. Not very many hands in the air.

It's just not gonna happen. Solar, tidal, hydro, dogs-on-treadmills... sure. You can get a fair amount of people on board with that. But once the word "nuclear" is tossed out there, the NIMBYs will come out in full, vehement, voting force, and probably some of the BANANAs, too. I think we probably need to accept that getting a new nuclear power plant anywhere in the US is mostly a non-starter. Most people probably like the idea, as long as it is at least 500 miles from their home.

I think we can add some other alternative power sources, but we also need to focus on ways to use less energy, which means encouraging and subsidizing new technologies--both their development and their adoption.

They are building two within 50 miles of my home, to go with the two reactors there already. Little to no issues, from anyone. I understand your point, but maybe folks are as resistant to nuclear as there were in the past. The main issue that we have is learning to say the word nuclear, vs the more common nukalure.

 

[Ozarky]

Raise your hand if you want a nuclear power plant built within 50 miles of your home. Now raise your hand if you think at least 50% of your neighbors would be even remotely okay with that. Huh. Not very many hands in the air.

Huh? I’ve grown up in the shadow of a nuclear plant in Arkansas, and everyone here loves it. In addition to the fact that it provides power to a tremendous number of people, it also is a huge provider of jobs in the region. It’s hardly controversial there; realistically it’s a fixture of the community.

 

[jmcquate]

I grew up with one with in 50ish miles near Sandusky, OH.

 

[Hotdogs]

Raise your hand if you want a nuclear power plant built within 50 miles of your home. Now raise your hand if you think at least 50% of your neighbors would be even remotely okay with that. Huh. Not very many hands in the air.

It's just not gonna happen.

Interestingly enough - We have dozens of nuclear powered ships and submarines parked mere miles from major metropolitan areas through out the U.S. I don’t think you’re assessment of the hesitation of America with regards to nuclear power is entirely accurate.

 

[wink]

Interestingly enough - We have dozens of nuclear powered ships and submarines parked mere miles from major metropolitan areas through out the U.S. I don’t think you’re assessment of the hesitation of America with regards to nuclear power is entirely accurate.

AND, the nucs on AW feel free to clarify, all those nuke Navy plants are essentially manual. They don't have the same automatic safety controls a civilian plant does. Obviously not huge concrete containment buildings.

 

[Mos]

I don't follow Task & Purpose but have found that a handful of videos this guy has released recently to be an interesting perspective. I don't know much about ground warfare, so I couldn't speak to the validity of his points.

 

[Griz882]

Raise your hand if you want a nuclear power plant built within 50 miles of your home. Now raise your hand if you think at least 50% of your neighbors would be even remotely okay with that. Huh. Not very many hands in the air.

Here on the east coast you won’t get people raising their hands for wind turbines, solar fields, or hydroelectric either. Energy consumption is expected…energy production is something “dirty” that is done elsewhere. I think around here (DC area) you have to go all the way to West Virginia to see a wind turbine.

 

[Griz882]

I don't follow Task & Purpose but have found that a handful of videos this guy has released recently to be an interesting perspective. I don't know much about ground warfare, so I couldn't speak to the validity of his points.

Many of his points are valid and it is obvious that Russia is a making advances despite their structural failures. Overall the video tends to slip by the notion of scale (giant Russia vs little Ukraine). It is also worth noting that Putin’s army is primarily a conscript army and we have yet to see if Russia has (a) the capability to quickly but effectively train new soldiers and (b) easily regenerate forces in the field. The same applies to Russia’s ability to supply the war with the right equipment…I am not getting the feeling that they can cast enough armor to keep up. Also, what Russia can’t do is create an officer corps that can fight above regimental level. Their staff work is horrible so all they rely on is mass and the simple truth is a thousand high school kids with guns can eventually beat the twenty best highly trained snake-eating special ops types.

Assuming it lasts more than another month it strikes me that this will soon be little more than a modernish (think high velocity weapons) version of a late-19th Century, infantry focused, ground war because that is all either side can sustain.

 

[villanelle]

Huh? I’ve grown up in the shadow of a nuclear plant in Arkansas, and everyone here loves it. In addition to the fact that it provides power to a tremendous number of people, it also is a huge provider of jobs in the region. It’s hardly controversial there; realistically it’s a fixture of the community.

One that exists already is entirely different than building a new one.

As for nuke subs, I guess you have more faith in the understanding and intellectual consistency and vigor of the average American than I do. Also, no one really asks them about the subs or gives them much of a chance to weigh in on the matter, but they get to be heard and probably vote on a nuke plant being built in their towns. A quick google showed me multiple proposed sites, most of which are either inactive or have been delayed or canceled entirely. People want energy, and even more they want cleaner, cheaper energy. They just want someone else to bear the risks of that (and are also probably not great at evaluating what that risk actually is).

 

[wink]

They just want someone else to bear the risks of that (and are also probably not great at evaluating what that risk actually is).

Unfortunately, that is human nature. But as has been mentioned, it isn't unique to nuke plants. Refineries, chemical plants, paper mills, landfills, airports, solar arrays, prisons all usually rejected by locals. But people still move to and houses still sell in Homestead FL in the shadow of Turkey Point nuke plant, and even Texas City, TX. People may not vote for a nuclear plant 50 miles from their home, but necessity and other desirables get a vote in any household decision. Plenty of folks have no problem living near these undesirable places for dozens of reasons.

 

[villanelle]

Unfortunately, that is human nature. But as has been mentioned, it isn't unique to nuke plants. Refineries, chemical plants, paper mills, landfills, airports, solar arrays, prisons all usually rejected by locals. But people still move to and houses still sell in Homestead FL in the shadow of Turkey Point nuke plant, and even Texas City, TX. People may not vote for a nuclear plant 50 miles from their home, but necessity and other desirables get a vote in any household decision. Plenty of folks have no problem living near these undesirable places for dozens of reasons.

Don't disagree at all. Again, I think existing plants are a very different situation than building new ones.

 

[Flash]

Read an article with a pretty sobering statistic, the Russians are estimated to have had ~7000 KIA so far in the war which by comparison is more than we lost in Iraq and Afghanistan in the last 20 years of war and roughly the same number of Marines and sailors were killed in the Battle of Iwo Jima.

A good buddy in EUCOM who knows far better than me said the other day that he thinks the Ukrainians are doing even better in many cases than what is in the news. With the flood of material that is flowing to the Ukrainian military and more coming I think they will continue to put up a very tough fight.

One lesson I have taken away from seeing what has happened in the air war is just how valuable the training we get throughout our aviation careers and why we do workups and exercises at places like Fallon and Red Flag, where we also have considerable expertise in how we do business. All that training that is second nature to us and our allies but you often forget it is not universal. I am being reminded daily of the saying that "life is hard, it's even harder if you are stupid" (not John Wayne by the way).

Things are going to start getting worse for Russia and its people on the home front as well, with the effects from the severe sanctions only building as time goes on. While they might try and mitigate some of them, like the seizure of leased airliners, they are only going to delay the inevitable pain. With the airlines they can limp along for a bit cannibalizing planes they will only be able to do so much before they can't even fly at all. The airliner mess is representative of much their economy which will start to suffer under the weight of the sanctions, even extending to their defense industry that has relied on western components for years now. But hey, they will at least have their own version of McDowell's in Uncle Vanya's!

That said, the Russians are indeed doubling down on blowing more stuff up in order to win and it may be starting to work for them to a degree. Even if the Ukrainians still keep up the fight I think the best they might be able to hope now for is an agreement like the one Finland struck at the end of the Winter War in 1940, where they ceded about 10% of their territory that is still controlled by Russia.