Russian revanchism and energy | World Politics Forum

Russian revanchism and energy Mar 26, 2014 5:56:09 GMT

Quote

Post by pjohns1873 on Mar 26, 2014 5:56:09 GMT

There is an excellent article by William Tucker in The American Spectator on the subject of Russian revanchism.

Here is a little of it:

So why is Putin feeling so resurgent that he feels ready to hit the “reset” button back to 1989? The answer is simple. Practically everything that led to the downfall of Soviet Communism has now been reversed. ...

The West’s unilateral disarmament over energy is reminiscent of nothing so much as the fatuous behavior of Western Europe during the interval between World Wars I and II. While Neville Chamberlain was excusing his people from entering “a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing,” France was disintegrating under Leon Blum’s Popular Front where under that odd combination of proletariat obstinacy and aristocratic insouciance the country dithered over redistribution of income and inconsequential social issues until it was a shell of the nation that had resisted the Germans for four years in 1914. When Hitler invaded in 1940, it lasted less than six weeks.

Now Europe is repeating the pattern. By backing away from nuclear and refusing to frack, it leaves itself with no other choice than Russian gas. Japan, Korea, and Taiwan are also spooked on nuclear and are increasing their reliance on imports. Granted the United States — at least the middle part of the country — is in the midst of an energy renaissance. But sharing this bounty with our allies may be a different story. The Department of Energy is approving exports terminals at a glacial pace and there is opposition from Congressional Democrats who still haven’t absorbed David Ricardo’s 1817 Principals of Political Economy and Taxation — not to mention environmentalists, who, with their usual upside-down logic, are arguing that the best way to counter Putin in Europe is to keep the gas to ourselves. And of course we haven’t built a new reactor from the ground up in 30 years.

Russia and China, meanwhile, are rapidly pushing ahead with nuclear technology. Russia is mounting small modular reactors on barges to float into remote Siberian villages. China has 20 reactors under construction and is about to explore thorium — a nuclear fuel that most engineers believe to be superior to uranium. Within a short time, Russia and China could be building reactors all over the world — as Russia is currently doing in Iran. Ironically, this will leave the two countries leading the world in the best technology for reducing carbon emissions, nuclear energy. The energy gap is only likely to widen. ...

Things could get worse. The pipeline that feeds southern Europe runs right through Ukrainian territory. What if Ukrainian nationalists or uncontrollable guerrilla factions start sabotaging it? Will that give the Russians an excuse to invade the entire country? And what are we going to do about that?

The Crimean crisis is revealing what history has proven over and over again — a country that develops a powerful economy on a firm foundation of energy resources can push its weight around on the world stage, and a country that lets its economy languish can believe itself much more powerful than it really is.

Here is the link: The Roots of Russia?s Revanchism ? Energy | The American Spectator

Russian revanchism and energy Mar 26, 2014 12:41:24 GMT

Quote

Post by ShivaTD on Mar 26, 2014 12:41:24 GMT

I've reread this several times and the dots don't seem to connect on much of what is stated. It doesn't seem to trying to present facts so much as push an agenda. Let me address some of the specifics.

Fracking - There isn't anything especially wrong with fracking from an environmental standpoint except some of the very highly toxic chemicals that are being used. Overwhelmingly water is used in the fracking process but there is a small amount of very toxic chemicals also being included in the fracking fluid and that is problematic. The oil is below the ground water reserves and fracking toxic chemicals can, and will, eventually enter the water supply (the pipes going to leak at some point) and that will render much of the ground water supply unuseable at some point. We already have spills of the fracking fluid at the surface and it will someday contaminate vast amounts of ground water that has accumulated over millions of years.

The solution is simple. Eliminate the toxic chemicals from the fracking fluid and use pure water. Pure water might not work quite as well but it will still work and won't represent an environmental threat.

Nuclear Power Plants - There are environmentalists that are still thinking about nuclear energy and the dangers based upon 1970's nuclear energy technology. All of the nuclear power plants where disasters have occurred were based upon 1970's nuclear power plant construction with "band-aid" fixes based upon new nuclear technology. Yes, we can build relatively safe nuclear power plants today and they're certianly better than the coal fired power plants we have. The toxic and even nuclear waste from burning coal is far worse than what nuclear power would represent. There is a valid argument for replacing coal fired power plants with nuclear power plants to reduce radioactive and toxic waste. There is an pro-environmental argument for replacing coal power plants with nuclear power plants. No one is proposing this though.

Unfortunately the politicans on both side want to interject their political agendas into the issue.

One thing is certain and that is in 20 years we're not going to need or want nuclear fission reactors as nuclear fusion is just around the corner. We need to invest more in nuclear fusion but gettng the "right" to agree to government spending on scientific research related to nuclear fusion is like pulling teeth. What we don't want to do is to over build nuclear fission power plants in a rush to create more electical energy. Remember that ever gram of high energy nuclear waste is going to exist for thousands of years into the future so we want to limit how much we actually create.

There is a rational nuclear energy policy based upon knowledge of today's nuclear fission technology and future nuclear fusion techology but I'm not seeing that being address by anyone really. We have two extremes that refuse to to leave their extremism at the door when they walk in to discuss it. It has created a stalemate because no one seems willing to compromise.

Of course Russian and China may soon regret the nuclear power plant construction they're involved in because they aren't listening to the concerns of environmentalists at all and environmental concerns really do have a place at the table.

US Export of Energy - Yes, we can export some of our natual gas because we have in in abundance but the problem is that our "export terminal" issue is unrelated to natural gas. Those terminals are being built, albeit at a snails pace, to export our oil to the international markets so that low cost US produced oil can be re-imported from the international market at higher prices so that the oil traders can reap huge profits. They profit from the sale of less expensive domestic oil to the international market and then profit again by re-importing it to the United States. It's money scam where wealthy people are reaping huge profits at the expense of the American people that pay their commissions on sales at the pump.

In fact the Keystone Pipeline is about increasing US oil exports from the US and based upon increased imports of Canadian oil. Oil out from the Gulf replaced by oil imported from the North. It's a scam being sold as making the US energy independent so that the oil traders can make more money.

There is a possible solution though. Prohibit the export of US produced oil. Of course those profiting from these transactions will scream bloody murder. Limit the "export terminals" to natural gas that can only go to limited countries and not be sold on the international markets. I don't know if that's a perfect solution and I don't even know if I actually support it but I do oppose the oil traders raping the US people by their under-handed trading practices to profit twice from the same oil being exported and then re-imported at inflated international prices.

Soviet Union Break-up - Of course the break-up of the USSR in 1989 wasn't because of energy (the USSR had ample energry) so I don't why this is even being brought up by William Tucker. He's pulling this out of his rectal cavity. Whether European nations want to purchase Russian oil is up to them, not to us, and their energy problems are their energy problems and not our. Let them figure it out.

BTW It appears that President Obama has been bitch-smacking the wealthy Russians (Putin's buddies) that are exploiting their own people with sanctions (e.g. shutting down transactions one of their major banks).