Putin pushes gas prices. France vows to build new nuclear reactors to meet climate goals. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15197728
France has vowed to build more nuclear reactors in order to be carbon neutral by 2050.


President Emmanuel Macron, making the announcement in a nationwide address on Tuesday, said it would also help the country achieve "energy independence".


Unlike many of its European neighbours, which are moving away from nuclear, France will build its first new reactors in decades.


https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/10/fra ... mate-goals
Putin pushes gas prices.

https://www-svd-se.translate.goog/putin ... tr_pto=nui


Great News for our Liberal order , the terrible news for oriental despots ! Will USA Follow France Lead ?
#15197766
Rancid wrote:I would love for the US to build new nuclear power plants. Unfortunately, the oil lobby along with the environmental lobby put a stop to that. The stigma is too great.


i think you are wrong here, putin helped us to understand the fact that nuclear power plants are the best and most reliable, renewable source of energy

Announcement of Romania's Intent to Build First-of-a-Kind US ...
https://ro.usembassy.gov › News & Events
2 Nov 2021 — Announcement of Romania's Intent to Build First-of-a-Kind U.S. Small Modular Reactor to Address the Climate Crisis.

https://www.afr.com/world/europe/us-war ... 112-p598a4

#15197767
late wrote:Image

on the one hand its Europe's own fault. 30 years of terrible radical - left energy policy, on the other hand despotic Moscow horde will always challenge us as long as it exists , my qestion is what we have to this winter , how we ´d handle Putin´s imperialist plans ?

Putin wants to press the European Union to rewrite some of the rules of its gas market after years of ignoring Moscow’s concerns, to tilt them away from spot-pricing toward long-term contracts favored by Moscow’s state run Gazprom, according to two people with knowledge of the matter. Moscow’s also seeking rapid certification of the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline to Germany to boost gas deliveries
#15197787
litwin wrote:
i think you are wrong here, putin helped us to understand the fact that nuclear power plants are the best and most reliable, renewable source of energy

Announcement of Romania's Intent to Build First-of-a-Kind US ...
https://ro.usembassy.gov › News & Events
2 Nov 2021 — Announcement of Romania's Intent to Build First-of-a-Kind U.S. Small Modular Reactor to Address the Climate Crisis.

https://www.afr.com/world/europe/us-war ... 112-p598a4



I am not wrong. It is very well documented that the anti-nuclear power campaign in the US was funded by big oil.
#15197790
At the moment, Finland is building a nuclear power plant (and another is planned) by a France owned company.. that company went bust a couple years ago as the Finland nuclear project is way over budget, with its divisions split off (into different, mostly owned by France, companies). I wonder how much of this is climate/Moskow concern and how much is actually an attempt to reinvigorate France's nuclear production.
#15197809
Rancid wrote:I am not wrong. It is very well documented that the anti-nuclear power campaign in the US was funded by big oil.

i AM not qestion this part , what said that nothing can stop return of nuclear power in USA and EU, which is great news for all of us , and the terrible one for moscow horde
#15197811
Thunderhawk wrote:At the moment, Finland is building a nuclear power plant (and another is planned) by a France owned company.. that company went bust a couple years ago as the Finland nuclear project is way over budget, with its divisions split off (into different, mostly owned by France, companies). I wonder how much of this is climate/Moskow concern and how much is actually an attempt to reinvigorate France's nuclear production.

is it ready to use already ?
#15197850
Rugoz wrote:Nuclear power is too expensive.

France simply needs to susidize its nuclear industry somehow (i.e. the military part of it).

a bunch of extreme- left myths

numbers:
#15198558
The real "problem" with Gazprom is that they deliver gas according to the contracts.

I.e. below market prices, but only a certain amount.

The press describes is as "they deliver less *THAN THEY CAN*". Sure, thats correct. But not less than previously agreed upon.

What the energy companies and thus the press (aka luegenpresse) want from Gazprom is that they deliver all the wonderful cheap russian gas at once so that the energy companies can drive up the gas prices - and thus their profits - even more during the coming winter.

THAT is the problem with Gazprom. Not that they would drive prices up. They are the only player who actually does their best to keep prices down.

The rest is, as so often, propaganda. Luegenpresse at its best.


P.s.: My link that shows that Gazprom is delivering exactly what they promised is unfortunately in german: https://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/inha ... 73cbc.html
#15198560
Negotiator wrote:The real "problem" with Gazprom is that they deliver gas according to the contracts.

I.e. below market prices, but only a certain amount.

The press describes is as "they deliver less *THAN THEY CAN*". Sure, thats correct. But not less than previously agreed upon.

What the energy companies and thus the press (aka luegenpresse) want from Gazprom is that they deliver all the wonderful cheap russian gas at once so that the energy companies can drive up the gas prices - and thus their profits - even more during the coming winter.

THAT is the problem with Gazprom. Not that they would drive prices up. They are the only player who actually does their best to keep prices down.

The rest is, as so often, propaganda. Luegenpresse at its best.


Gazprom is not delivering gas on purpose in order to drive prices up and force the factually illegal Nord Stream 2 to go through.

Gazprom delivered only the absolutely minimum quantities for the past several months and will not deliver any fuel come December.

Russia and her apologists can only play this price squeeze game once.

Telegraph wrote:Nord Stream dilemma is the result of a disastrous German mistake
German energy policy provides a salutary reminder of what happens when zealotry trumps pragmatism

The German novel Fall-Out is not exactly a laugh a minute. Published in 1987, the year after the Chernobyl disaster, it tells the story of a similar incident occurring on German soil through the eyes of a 14-year-old girl called Janna-Berta.

She tries to escape the accident with her brother but he is run over and killed. Then her hair falls out. She makes friends with a girl called Ayse who promptly dies of radiation poisoning. She eventually finds an aunt amid the chaos of mass evacuations who tells Janna-Berta her parents and younger brother have also died. It’s somewhat light on light relief.

Gudrun Pausewang’s novel, which became a set text in many German schools, is as much a product of the anti-nuclear public opinion in the country as it is a cause. But having scared several generations of school kids stiff, it is one of the reasons why such strong feelings persist to this day. And that sentiment has undoubtedly resulted in one of the biggest policy mistakes in the western world in recent years.

Advertisement



By the end of 2022, Germany will have shut down the last of its nuclear power plants. But it needs to get its energy from somewhere and unfortunately renewables are not yet up to the job on their own.


Boris Johnson took what appeared to be a thinly veiled swipe at Germany in his Mansion House speech on Monday night, saying that European nations must choose between “mainlining” Russian gas and defending peace in Ukraine.

Then on Tuesday Germany "temporarily" suspended the certification process for the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline designed to bring Russian gas into the country under the Baltic sea.

It looks like this is the result of a technical issue caused by Gazprom, the pipeline’s Russian owner, failing to properly establish an operating subsidiary under German law. Nevertheless, European gas prices soared on the news. In reality, Germany doesn't have much choice about mainlining Russian gas.

A lot of the blame for that lies with the country’s Green party, which is about to form a “traffic light” coalition government with the SDP and FDP. Its uncompromising anti-nuclear stance has resulted in Germany having some of the highest energy costs in the western world, actually burning more coal and being fatally compromised in its dealings with Russia, which is amassing troops on the border of Ukraine.

Germany's anti-nuclear movement was born in the 1970s on the back of entirely understandable if ultimately misplaced fears. With the Iron Curtain draped across the country, Germany was on the frontline of the Cold War and panic about the bomb. A broad coalition of students, academics, peaceniks and nimbys organised mass marches to protest against the building of new nuclear power plants.

In the late 1970s, they joined forces with environmental campaigners to form the Green party, which won its first seats in the federal parliament in 1983. The Chernobyl disaster three years later, and concerns about a radioactive cloud heading east from Ukraine, hardened sentiment yet further.

In 1998, Gerhard Schröder won power when his SPD party formed a coalition with the Greens. This led to a “nuclear consensus” to shut down all German nuclear power plants by 2022.

When Angela Merkel became Chancellor, the pragmatic former quantum chemist saw the error of this policy and decided to phase out the phase out. But following the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan, Merkel realised even she couldn't keep fighting public opinion and u-turned on the u-turn.

In 2000, nuclear power stations generated 29.5pc of Germany’s energy. By this time next year that figure will be zero. Hence the need for Russian gas to keep the lights on when the wind doesn't blow.

Nord Stream II faces strong opposition from the US Congress and many other EU countries. Crucially the pipeline allows Russia to transport gas to Europe while circumventing routes through Ukraine. Experts fear this could increase the risk of Moscow making further interventions in the region, having already annexed Crimea and sparked a war in the east of the country.


There are hints that German public opinion about nuclear power is beginning to shift, especially if extending the life of existing power plants could shield households from the kind of sharp energy price spikes they’ve experienced so far this year. But policy is very unlikely to change as long the Greens are in power.

The open question is whether Germany will oppose plans by the European Commission's scientific body, the Joint Research Centre, to brand nuclear as a safe, low-carbon energy source and give it a green investment label, which could result in more private investment. If so, a national mistake will become a regional one.

As the UK maps out its own route to net zero, German energy policy provides a salutary reminder of what happens when zealotry trumps pragmatism and perfection becomes the enemy of the good enough.

It is usually climate-change denialists who are accused of being anti-science. But the anti-nuclear environmentalists are not blameless in this regard.

Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima loom large in our collective consciences. However, for every terawatt hour of electricity produced, nuclear energy is ten to 100 times safer than coal or gas, according to Robert Gale, the US oncologist and radiation expert.

Yes, it would be fantastic if every nation could be run purely by renewables. But that’s currently not possible. Nuclear is the best and safest means of producing reliable baseload power.

The UK has made important steps in recent weeks to decide the financing mechanism of new plants and help fund a consortium to develop small modular reactors. Similar initiatives in the past have petered out. That can’t be allowed to happen this time.

There are big problems with nuclear power - not least the massive upfront costs of building plants and then dealing with the waste they produce. But if phasing out nuclear power means you burn more coal and slip a little deeper into Putin’s pocket, you have to ask whether the fall out from the alternative is not both more costly and far more dangerous.
#15198593
There's been a very nasty but every effect de-facto alliance between anti nuclear Liberals and ultra Zionists to destroy the reputation of nuclear power. Israel has quite significant gas reserves, so doesn't really need nuclear energy for itself, so they have sought to undermine nuclear energy and spread lies about it in order to undermine any justification Iran and possible other regional states have for having nuclear programmes.
#15198605
Rich wrote:
There's been a very nasty but every effect de-facto alliance between anti nuclear Liberals and ultra Zionists to destroy the reputation of nuclear power. Israel has quite significant gas reserves, so doesn't really need nuclear energy for itself, so they have sought to undermine nuclear energy and spread lies about it in order to undermine any justification Iran and possible other regional states have for having nuclear programmes.



That's mostly Big Oil, which is mostly the Kochtopus.

Most of the lobbying for, and by, Israel is narrowly focused, and not on nuclear power. Where the hell did you get that gem?

Did George Washington rely on the judges to sup[…]

Biden Just Lit the Spark

Looks like, at least as those people think, that F[…]

Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals ht[…]

The Japanese govermen's hackking reveals a woldwi[…]