Alternatives to Russian Energy Reserves

WolfBear

Well-known member
Where are these alternative pipelines going to come from? Syria was about that and they failed to overthrow the regime despite the horrific damage it caused. Sweden and Finland in NATO isn't really going to change that much, though it remains to be seen if either will pull that trigger, especially Finland.
NATO bases in Poland or the Baltics? LOL! Fuck no, no one is going to spend that kind of money. Germany will spend more to prop up their economy, but that's about it. The US cannot afford it and Germany is not going to build up enough to deploy forces east of their own country. France and Britain might make a show of things, but aren't going to build bases. Face it the west is impotent.


:rolleyes:


Muslim guerrillas are willing to sacrifice, reports are now that people in Ukrainian cities are bitching that the power is turned off. The arming of civilians is not going well either. Turns out you need a population capable of massive sacrifice and the skills to succeed to actually pull that off, which only the neo-Nazis in Ukraine actually had, but they are caught up in the east of the country.

FWIW, I have previously read about Algeria as an alternative natural gas source for Europe. Algeria should be willing to play ball here since it would mean less Western pressure in regards to things like democracy, the Hirak movement, et cetera.

I'll have to read up on power in Ukrainian cities being cut off. Of course, there is always the Molotov cocktail option.
 

sillygoose

Well-known member
FWIW, I have previously read about Algeria as an alternative natural gas source for Europe. Algeria should be willing to play ball here since it would mean less Western pressure in regards to things like democracy, the Hirak movement, et cetera.

I'll have to read up on power in Ukrainian cities being cut off. Of course, there is always the Molotov cocktail option.
If Algeria were an option, why didn't the west already take advantage?
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
If Algeria were an option, why didn't the west already take advantage?

It's only been several days. Give them some extra time. But I got the idea from here:


 

sillygoose

Well-known member
It's only been several days. Give them some extra time. But I got the idea from here:


No I meant in previous years to ensure Putin wasn't their major foreign supplier. If they were willing to rape Libya for oil why not develop Algeria too if it were an option?

Reading the article they provide about 11% of needs and could increase that by about 5% more. So 16% total. Not really going to make up for the 40% that Putin supplies.
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
No I meant in previous years to ensure Putin wasn't their major foreign supplier. If they were willing to rape Libya for oil why not develop Algeria too if it were an option?

Short-sightedness and/or laziness, perhaps?

And AFAIK, the Libya intervention was more for humanitarian reasons than for oil. NATO also previously intervened in Kosovo in 1999 for similar reasons, and there was no oil there.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
No I meant in previous years to ensure Putin wasn't their major foreign supplier. If they were willing to rape Libya for oil why not develop Algeria too if it were an option?

Reading the article they provide about 11% of needs and could increase that by about 5% more. So 16% total. Not really going to make up for the 40% that Putin supplies.

Algeria's foreign relations with the West have warmed up a lot (and Algeria's relationships in general) over the past two decades under their new strongman. I remember a good number of years ago reading about US Special Forces joint training with Algerian Special Forces. And then awhile later Algerian Special Forces launched that rescue mission of a bunch of oil workers including foreigners from the clutches of Islamist insurgents and apparently... used a lot of firepower to rescue the shit out of them!

Plus I mean it was Libya that was collapsing into Civil War and ripe for intervention. Algeria was pretty stable through the whole Arab Spring stuff. Plus Egypt was getting annoyed with the Libyan sitation on their border as well for more added impetus.

Asking why the West intervened in Kosovo (and Bosnia earlier etc) is probably due mostly because of the fact it happened in Europe. Though Bill Clinton (and others in his circle) state he was really troubled by the lack of intervention in regards to the Rwandan Genocide (which wasn't intervened in partly because of the debacle in Somalia the prior year) and didn't want another mega genocide happening during his Presidency.

🤔

What was the question again? :p
 

WolfBear

Well-known member
They freaked out due to Russia sticking their nose into Cuba and Venezeula.

I personally wouldn't care just so long as they didn't place any kind of missiles there, either nuclear or otherwise. And IMHO, the Monroe Doctrine might have been a mistake other than to the extent that it served as an excuse for further US territorial expansion (Puerto Rico, Danish West Indies, et cetera).

Algeria was pretty stable through the whole Arab Spring stuff.

'Coz memories of their extremely brutal and bloody 1990s civil war were still fresh back then. But then things blew over in 2019 for them with the Hirak.
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
I have previously read about Algeria as an alternative natural gas source for Europe. Algeria should be willing to play ball here since it would mean less Western pressure in regards to things like democracy, the Hirak movement, et cetera.
Algerian NG production is already near max output, with much of it sales to France, so how is Algeria supposed to increase the output to cover for potential shortfall from Russia sanctions?
 

ATP

Well-known member
Worst comes to Worst, the USA can expand drilling in the Gulf of Mexico/Alaska/Various national parks and expand fracking, and they can always threaten MBS with democracy promotion.

But Europe, Europe is the place that is really fucked.

I understand how some US posters, like Zwhatshisname can want that, but the Poles, Balts, UK and Eurocracy fucked us all!

No,germans fucked us when they made Europe abadonn coal and take green energy - which mean kgbstan gas in reality.
We do not need kgbstan,only start using coal again.Well,atomic energy,too.

Back to war - it is obviouis,that russian could win quickly,but choosen not to.No matter what Putin wanted,result would be ukrainian nation hating russian guts for next 100 years.
Well,considering that Putin arleady doomed Russia by turning it into second Venezuella and future chineese colony,i am not suprised.He do not care what happen after his death,as long as he remain leader.

Of course,they would win miitary now - but after months of hard fighting.
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
I know, but we are making such a profit selling nuclear electricity to germans that I can’t help but feel reluctant. :(
It is not just about that, it takes days and weeks to start/stop a nuclear powerplant properly, it covers the baseload, but what about spikes?
Coal, oil and natural gas are more flexible and account for those.
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
Yeah well Germany has never done flexibility, and the only spikes they like are the ones on their helmets.
Don't remind me, working with Krauts in managerial positions and Kraut beancounters should be considered psychological trauma and give more retirement points/extra mental hazard pay.
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
It is not just about that, it takes days and weeks to start/stop a nuclear powerplant properly, it covers the baseload, but what about spikes?
Coal, oil and natural gas are more flexible and account for those.
I thought coal was also basically a base load fuel, or if you try to use it dynamically it incurs horrendous inefficiencies. Not so?
 

Val the Moofia Boss

Well-known member
Goodbye EU economy, next time don't listen to Greta who has zero knowledge of industrial processes or the fact that solar and wind farms do more environmental destruction than simply burning coal.

Oh? This is the first time I've heard of it. I'm not one of those climate change/global warming freaks who thinks oil/electricity/car smog is going to bring about the doom of mankind, but you're telling me that this destroys the environment?

juEwjKI.jpg


LzGIjQ7.jpg
 

Chiron

Well-known member
Oh? This is the first time I've heard of it. I'm not one of those climate change/global warming freaks who thinks oil/electricity/car smog is going to bring about the doom of mankind, but you're telling me that this destroys the environment?

juEwjKI.jpg


LzGIjQ7.jpg

Yep when you factor in all externalities, you wind up using more fossil fuels to make these products while producing more toxic waste that has to go somewhere, and kill more birds and other animals in the process. And all for far less power.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Yep when you factor in all externalities, you wind up using more fossil fuels to make these products while producing more toxic waste that has to go somewhere, and kill more birds and other animals in the process. And all for far less power.

Dunno about that,but those windmills are made from plastic - which practically never dissolve.Bad thing for enviromement.
 

Bacle

When the effort is no longer profitable...
Founder
Oh? This is the first time I've heard of it. I'm not one of those climate change/global warming freaks who thinks oil/electricity/car smog is going to bring about the doom of mankind, but you're telling me that this destroys the environment?

juEwjKI.jpg


LzGIjQ7.jpg
Yep when you factor in all externalities, you wind up using more fossil fuels to make these products while producing more toxic waste that has to go somewhere, and kill more birds and other animals in the process. And all for far less power.
Yep, factoring in the externalities related to manufacture/disposal of most renewable energy sources, they are not really better than coal, oil, or natgas.

Tons of toxic and expensive heavy metals go into solar panels, while most solar panels may last 7 years, and if good, will hit 25% effeceincy. 30% effeceincy is the real goal of most solar panel makers these days.

Wind obviously has the bird killing issue, as well as blades that are not recyclable and end up in landfills, while also being some of the more hit and miss sorts of power and requiring a fairly intensive maintainance schedule.

Hydro power is pretty environmentally benign, as long as you accept disruptions to fish and aquatic life migration patterns, or build ways for fish to go around the dam.

Though I'll admit it's nice to see someone actually talk about the fact externalities exist at all, for anything. Tooany on the right seem to want to deny externalities are even a thing.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top