Ukraine invasion

Rabulias

the Incomparably Shrewd and Clever
Meanwhile, those abstaining at this point are generally doing so because Russia gives them something that they want/need, that they stand to lose if they cheese Russia off. You want them to make symbolic gestures that won't change the situation, except for their being left in the lurch for something they need?
Good points all, but I will echo this. As I mentioned upthread, as Russia's economic outlook gets tighter, those abstaining today will see that handouts from Russia will shrink/dry up in the future as Russia continues this course of action. They should see their best interest lies with Russia ending their behavior as soon as possible and acting like a 21st century nation. Unfortunately, it may take a long time for this to become evident, and even once their client states recognize it and begin to vote against Russia, it may take a long time for Russia's behavior to change (if ever). Umbran has the right of it, sadly; UN intervention action requires the Security Council (not the UN General Assembly) approval, and as long as Russia has a veto, it will never pass.

This slow pace and building pressure is one of the most frustrating aspects of economic sanctions in the face of brutality. :(
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Good points all, but I will echo this. As I mentioned upthread, as Russia's economic outlook gets tighter, those abstaining today will see that handouts from Russia will shrink/dry up in the future as Russia continues this course of action.

I question this. The war in Ukraine is all of a month old. Those nations are (if they are smart) thinking on the orders of years and decades. They are interested in maintaining good relations with Russia long term. A couple of months here or there isn't the issue.
 
Last edited:

billd91

Hobbit on Quest (he/him)
Good points all, but I will echo this. As I mentioned upthread, as Russia's economic outlook gets tighter, those abstaining today will see that handouts from Russia will shrink/dry up in the future as Russia continues this course of action. They should see their best interest lies with Russia ending their behavior as soon as possible and acting like a 21st century nation. Unfortunately, it may take a long time for this to become evident, and even once their client states recognize it and begin to vote against Russia, it may take a long time for Russia's behavior to change (if ever).
It may also be about more than just economic interests with Russia. We may also be witnessing a resurgence of the Non-Aligned Movement to accompany the resurgence of the Cold War.
 


Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Maybe this will mark the return of positive thinking about nuclear energy in EU(except France ofc).

We need 100+ new nuclear reactors in EU

I am not sure that helps matters, in that you still need fuel for those reactors. Not a single country in the EU is in the top 10 list of known Uranium reserves, so with nuclear power, they still have a fuel import problem.

True, Australia and Canada are on that list, so they have options for better energy trading partners, but still - broadly speaking, moving to nuclear may change the players the the geopolitics of energy, but doesn't remove the issue.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Nuclear power isn't that viable anyway the reactors cost to much to build and no one wants the waste located anywhere near them.

This crisis one way or they other will be over long before the could start building a reactor let alone finish one.

Turns out there's consequences for making your economy reliant on crappy regimes.
 
Last edited:

NotAYakk

Legend
I am not sure that helps matters, in that you still need fuel for those reactors. Not a single country in the EU is in the top 10 list of known Uranium reserves, so with nuclear power, they still have a fuel import problem.

True, Australia and Canada are on that list, so they have options for better energy trading partners, but still - broadly speaking, moving to nuclear may change the players the the geopolitics of energy, but doesn't remove the issue.
Importing fossil fuels is an industrial pipeline (or similar) problem requiring massive infrastructure.

Importing nuclear fuel could be done by post, if it wasn't so expensive. "Fresh" fuel isn't very dangerous even (mainly heavy metals).

Mining nuclear fuel is dirty, but 1000x cleaner than hydrocarbons just due to lower volume.
 

NotAYakk

Legend
Nuclear power isn't that viable anyway the reactors cost to much to build and no one wants the waste located anywhere near them.

This crisis one way or they other will be over long before the could start building a reactor let alone finish one.

Turns out there's consequences for making your economy reliant on crappy regimes.
Nuclear fuel waste is so small of a problem that reactors keep it on site for decades. Literally decades.

The waste from other industrial processes mostly is dumped all over the place, because it is HUUGE in volume.

There is plenty of angst about nuclear fuel disposal. But the joke is 10 year old nuclear fuel waste is less radioactive than the crap coal plants just dump up a smokestack. Just insanely more concentrated.

We could dilute it and dump it and cause less cancer than the equivalent coal plant does. Now that would be stupid, because we can.do insanely better; we can power the entire world for decades, and fit all of the waste in a single mine, and seal it up. Or make breeder reactors and convert the waste into more fuel.

Of course, solar/wind is (or is becoming) cheaper per Joule. It just can't provide power when people want to use it.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
Nuclear fuel waste is so small of a problem that reactors keep it on site for decades. Literally decades.

The waste from other industrial processes mostly is dumped all over the place, because it is HUUGE in volume.

There is plenty of angst about nuclear fuel disposal. But the joke is 10 year old nuclear fuel waste is less radioactive than the crap coal plants just dump up a smokestack. Just insanely more concentrated.

We could dilute it and dump it and cause less cancer than the equivalent coal plant does. Now that would be stupid, because we can.do insanely better; we can power the entire world for decades, and fit all of the waste in a single mine, and seal it up. Or make breeder reactors and convert the waste into more fuel.

Of course, solar/wind is (or is becoming) cheaper per Joule. It just can't provide power when people want to use it.

Still doesn't change the cost or time requirements and consent process.

If they started tomorrow threw enough money at it the first new reactor might be online by 2032 at the earliest. Realistically more like 2042.

And even if they did that the reactor would still cost more than every other option.

There's a good chance Putin dies of old age before any reactor comes online.
 

Rabulias

the Incomparably Shrewd and Clever
I question this. The war in Ukraine is all of a month old. Those nations are (if they are smart) thinking on the orders of years and decades. They are interested in maintaining good relations with Russia long term. A couple of months here or there isn't the issue.
It does depend on the timeframe involved. I hope this ends sooner than later, but it could well drag on for years, and that is the timeframe I point to. The USSR spent 9 years in Afghanistan. Ukraine is a little smaller than Afghanistan, and the terrain is very different, but the population count is about the same and seems to be just as willing to fight back.
 
Last edited:

Rabulias

the Incomparably Shrewd and Clever
Huh. Just noticed that December will mark the 100th anniversary of the official establishment of the USSR. I wonder if this is providing any impetus for Putin's actions?
 

South by Southwest

Incorrigible Daydreamer
My flummoxing has become so flummoxed over the past month that I no longer think I'm capable of any reliable predictions about what's going to happen in eastern Europe. We are so off-book from all the standard, accepted norms by now--it's nuts. If Mars attacks tomorrow, I'll feel a bit like I should've seen it coming even though I didn't.
 

NotAYakk

Legend
There is a youtuber called Adam Somthing who almost a year ago prognosticated Russia would invade Ukraine when oil hit 100$ a barrel and would have to settle for a Crimena a land bridge.

The invasion happened at 95$ a barrel.
 

Ryujin

Legend
There is a youtuber called Adam Somthing who almost a year ago prognosticated Russia would invade Ukraine when oil hit 100$ a barrel and would have to settle for a Crimena a land bridge.

The invasion happened at 95$ a barrel.
Thing about predictions is that no one remembers the gajillion that were wrong. Oil has been over $100/barrel before and will be again.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Nuclear fuel waste is so small of a problem that reactors keep it on site for decades. Literally decades.

With respect, you are using technical correctness to gloss over real issues.
Yes, they store spent fuel on site. For one thing, it is loaded with stuff that has half-lives of ten thousand years and more - a decade or two here or there doesn't touch the long-term problem. Plus, while the site is in use, it is perfect for securing radioactive materials. And, after it ceases producing power, it will take about 60 years to fully decommission the site. You have a long time before that spent fuel has to find another home.

And, perfectly honestly, if we wanted to, we could recycle the fuel. We don't for legal reasons that have nothing to do with power generation. We could change the law, recycle fuel and the end product of that chain is much less problematic than what we have now.

What you're really glossing over in focusing on the fuel is the real problem of disposing of the reactor building. It has been there, being bombarded with stray neutrons and alpha particles for decades as the generator operates - the building itself becomes radioactive, and has to be taken apart and disposed of.

While by some measures each pound of it isn't "very" radioactive, what you lose in intensity you make up for with there being thousands of tons of the stuff. Modern nuclear reactors have something like 40 metric tons of steel and 190 cubic meters of concrete per megawatt of average capacity. And a typical reactor produces a gigawatt - a thousand megawatts. So, there's a lot of material to deal with. You can't just jackhammer it apart and pile it up without contaminating the countryside with radioactive dust - so, there's decades of decontamination and cleanup.

And... dump nuclear waste in the ocean? Because, what, the ocean is infinite and our power needs are and will forever remain minimal, so the ocean will never notice? We used to think that about the atmosphere, too. See how well that turned out?


Of course, solar/wind is (or is becoming) cheaper per Joule. It just can't provide power when people want to use it.

Oh, come on. There's loads of ways to store that power for when people want to use it, with very little loss of efficiency. For example - use the extra power generated in low demand times to pump water uphill into a reservoir. Use the reservoir to drive hydroelectric turbines when you need power later. Use gravity as your battery.

The thing that our reliance on fossil fuels has taught us is that we cannot rely on single sources of power. You can't just use nuclear power. You can't just use wind. Or just use solar. If you go all-in on only one source of power, the issues and impacts of that source become unmanageable. When you break up power generation over as many different sources as possible, the impact of each is minimized.

I don't intend to enter into discussion about all that in this thread, because it is honestly far enough off topic that I almost passed on commenting at all. But it was hard to just ignore the oversimplifications.
 

palikhov

Ukrainian
I question this. The war in Ukraine is all of a month old. Those nations are (if they are smart) thinking on the orders of years and decades. They are interested in maintaining good relations with Russia long term. A couple of months here or there isn't the issue.
It is very simple. if Russia will left alive. Then she again will attack Ukraine.
And this time - not making mistake.
 

palikhov

Ukrainian
I am not sure that helps matters, in that you still need fuel for those reactors. Not a single country in the EU is in the top 10 list of known Uranium reserves, so with nuclear power, they still have a fuel import problem.

True, Australia and Canada are on that list, so they have options for better energy trading partners, but still - broadly speaking, moving to nuclear may change the players the the geopolitics of energy, but doesn't remove the issue.
Ukraine has Yellow waters (Жовті води).
I not know what is now. but 30 years ago there are lot miners
 

palikhov

Ukrainian
Just had a meeting with one of my Ukrainian colleagues in Odessa. Apparently they've destroyed another Russian warship. He says a lot of the Russians soldiers being sent to fight are just young boys who barely know how to drive a vehicle or fire a weapon, let alone hit a target. He seems optimistic about Ukraine's war efforts, with several areas of Kiev being back in Ukrainian hands. But even he realises this won't end any time soon. I cautioned him that this will get worse before it gets better. Chemical weapons might be next I fear.
"Kyiv"
 

palikhov

Ukrainian
Again, to what end? "United against the bully" doesn't really mean anything unless it changes the bully's actions.

Meanwhile, those abstaining at this point are generally doing so because Russia gives them something that they want/need, that they stand to lose if they cheese Russia off. You want them to make symbolic gestures that won't change the situation, except for their being left in the lurch for something they need?

I'm all for making some sacrifices for a cause, but only if those sacrifices are apt to be effective.



The UN is not going to engage in direct violent action against Russian forces, because expanding the conflict is a good way to get WWIII, a thing the UN was nominally created to prevent.

not fear)
 

Smackpixi

Adventurer
Nuclear fuel waste is so small of a problem that reactors keep it on site for decades. Literally decades.
They keep it on site because there is literally nothing else they can do with it. Don’t know about other countries, but in the US they have to keep it on site because there are no other options, no place to send it and no permitted way to send it. Reactors are near rivers and other water sources because they need large amounts of water to run the facility. And next to water is a terrible place to store nuclear waste. I’m pro-nuclear in the abstract, the waste issue is solvable, but in the real world it’s turning out to be insolvable not because of technical reasons, but because of social and political reasons. Most people may be wrong, but until most people accept reasonable solutions, nuclear sucks and is going nowhere.
 

Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top