Ukraine invasion

[Rabulias]

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.

 

[Umbran]

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.

 

[billd91]

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.

 

[Horwath]

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

 

[Umbran]

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]

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.

 

[NotAYakk]

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]

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]

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]

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.