Europe gas market -how it started how its going

[Andrew Neopalimy + 14]

"Peaceful" (civilian) kilowatt reactor on earth? 
In Space, in the Armed Forces, this is understandable.
1. How much will it cost to defend against a terrorist threat, including from a neighbor? )))
2. For such power ranges, the cost per kilowatt will go off scale - it is cheaper to burn diesel fuel.

Or are you in a hurry to burn all the printed green papers in the MMP firebox and alternative / green energy units?

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/small-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

RR + BAE are busy busy busy with Astute and Dreadnought nuclear subs amongst other projects.

 

May well be building parts for Australia's fledgling nuclear fleet. 

[Starschy + 211]

The only working SMR is the russia Akademik Lomonosov the floating Nuclear Reactor with 35 MW. (started 2019) All other projects are miles away meaning not before 2027.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

36 minutes ago, Starschy said:

The only working SMR is the russia Akademik Lomonosov the floating Nuclear Reactor with 35 MW. (started 2019) All other projects are miles away meaning not before 2027.

That's definitely a unique case, and one not likely to be replicated too many times.  That said, for the people of Pevek, it's invaluable, and for the companies involved in it's construction it's priceless as a demonstration of their technological expertise.  Can't argue with a fully functional on production power station.

[Tomasz + 1,608]

I would like to remind you that as far as I remember the European Union seems to have imposed sanctions on the Russian oil and gas production sector.

If so, the sanctions work both ways and the sanctions is responded with counter-sanctions that are imposed when it is the most painful for the other party.

Edited January 10, 2022 by Tomasz

[Tomasz + 1,608]

If I were in the EU, I would write down the date 2030 in my notebook, i.e. the year of opening of the second gas pipeline to China, also using the Yamal fields.

The Chinese are so determined to get this gas instead of US and Australian LNG that their Chinese companies can build this gas pipeline much faster and especially cheaper than their Russian counterparts.

So better please hurry up to sign long-term contracts for Russian gas as it may not be enoughf NG for everyone interested.

The one with greater payment capacity and also better relationship with Russia will get spot volumes.

So tell me please is it currently the European Union or China?

Edited January 10, 2022 by Tomasz

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

12 hours ago, Eric Gagen said:

That's definitely a unique case, and one not likely to be replicated too many times.  That said, for the people of Pevek, it's invaluable, and for the companies involved in it's construction it's priceless as a demonstration of their technological expertise.  Can't argue with a fully functional on production power station.

They say they are building more, albeit based on a new icebreaker reactor RITM-200 instead. Dunno if this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KLT-40_reactor

counts as an SMR? It is also an icebraker-derivative reactor with extra low enrichment fuel. Not really a new project.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Andrei Moutchkine

[Boat + 1,323]

15 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Well, not fast enough to replace fossil fuels and nuclear. The people are suffering high prices and going cold through the winter. That is partially due to a lack of wind. Over promising is bad news. 

European reporting wrong? Isn’t 87% of nat gas from Russia on contract? The higher cost is for the 17% the Russians won’t sell anymore. Job one is to end immigration and deport any illegal and make social hero’s out of families with one child. Are your lights LED? Are they on at night when not needed like in the US? Low hanging solutions are just that. A mental adjustment to ending waste.

[Boat + 1,323]

7 hours ago, Tomasz said:

I would like to remind you that as far as I remember the European Union seems to have imposed sanctions on the Russian oil and gas production sector.

If so, the sanctions work both ways and the sanctions is responded with counter-sanctions that are imposed when it is the most painful for the other party.

Ain’t it great. Any decoupling of the US with China and Russia is good for the world. Bring on the sanctions. Drop in and say hi from time to time. You can tell the story of the black prez Obama started the world down the path of defunding Russia. Then Musk says, I can clean up the world faster with a few cars, a little solar and a few batteries. For those of you disillusioned by the rapid change, we have a chip for your brain. Lol

[Starschy + 211]

7 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

They say they are building more, albeit based on a new icebreaker reactor RITM-200 instead. Dunno if this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KLT-40_reactor

counts as an SMR? It is also an icebraker-derivative reactor with extra low enrichment fuel. Not really a new project.

That project is unique worldwide. it is more flexible as static SMR.As long as no Static SMR can prove the reliability in at least a 3-5 year test run.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

23 minutes ago, Starschy said:

That project is unique worldwide. it is more flexible as static SMR.As long as no Static SMR can prove the reliability in at least a 3-5 year test run.

What is a "static" SMR? There is very little novelty in using the icebreaker reactors in a barge without propulsion. The Taymir series reactors (KLT-40s) have always been fully electrically converted, which is what I presume they used them for. So, Lomonosov is nothing but a Taymir-class icebreaker in a cheaper housing. What is there to test? There is already a 50-year flawless operational history behind those.

Anyhow, consecutive SMRs they are going to deploy are going to be based on a different reactor, the new

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RITM-200

shared with the new "Arktika" class icebreakers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_22220_icebreaker

of which one is fully operational (new "Arktika") and two undergoing sea trials ("Sibir" and "Ural") The next installation is already scheduled and is going to be on dry land, but also somewhere in Yakutia neck of the woods.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

6 hours ago, Boat said:

Ain’t it great. Any decoupling of the US with China and Russia is good for the world. Bring on the sanctions. Drop in and say hi from time to time. You can tell the story of the black prez Obama started the world down the path of defunding Russia. Then Musk says, I can clean up the world faster with a few cars, a little solar and a few batteries. For those of you disillusioned by the rapid change, we have a chip for your brain. Lol

1. US is speaking with a twisted tongue, being a major purchaser of Russian oil and other raw materials itself. Somehow it is always for sanctions that hurt Europeans first. That's very opposite of "decoupling" On the contrary, US has never been doing so much business with Russia ever before.

2. Arguably, Obama did the opposite, empowering the Russian "import substitution"  According to EU's own estimate, the damages to European firms just through them being shut out of Russian government purchasing amount to some EUR 260 bln

https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=2321

They actually had the audacity to sue Russia in WTO court for what amounts to part of Russian counter-sanctions. The biggest damage is conceptual though. Obama effectively killed the previously very influential laissez-faire capitalism faction within the Russian government, which advocated specializing on extracting raw resources and buying everything else in the West. Now, anything goes as long as national security is at stake.

3. Tesla has no proposition for most of the world. Only the richest faction of the 1st world. I, for example, would not be able to use a fully electrical car even if I wanted to, because I pretty much need my own driveway to be able to charge one where I live now. The efficiency / applicability of solar panels depends very much on the climate you are in. Within Europe, there is something like 1:4 spread between north and south in the amount of electricity you get out of the same solar panel.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

9 hours ago, Boat said:

European reporting wrong? Isn’t 87% of nat gas from Russia on contract? The higher cost is for the 17% the Russians won’t sell anymore. Job one is to end immigration and deport any illegal and make social hero’s out of families with one child. Are your lights LED? Are they on at night when not needed like in the US? Low hanging solutions are just that. A mental adjustment to ending waste.

It is the same gas. Those with a long term contract have been speculating, reselling to those without. The Russians are simply non-participating in speculative spot markets themselves anymore. Anybody is welcome to sign a long-term contract of their own, preferably through the newer pipelines. How difficult is that?

What is heroic about having just one child? It is an invitation for having your population age, which is a problem already, anyway, anywhere in the "developed" world.

Is your fridge on at night? It is a device drawing a few hundreds of watts. LED lights draw single digit watts, not much to eke out there.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

17 hours ago, Tomasz said:

If I were in the EU, I would write down the date 2030 in my notebook, i.e. the year of opening of the second gas pipeline to China, also using the Yamal fields.

The Chinese are so determined to get this gas instead of US and Australian LNG that their Chinese companies can build this gas pipeline much faster and especially cheaper than their Russian counterparts.

So better please hurry up to sign long-term contracts for Russian gas as it may not be enoughf NG for everyone interested.

The one with greater payment capacity and also better relationship with Russia will get spot volumes.

So tell me please is it currently the European Union or China?

Hm.

the bulk of the capex is to happen before 2025 though

https://www.offshore-technology.com/marketdata/power-of-siberia-2-gas-pipeline-russia/

Also note that the apparent capacity of the new 56-inch piping is up to 80 bcm

https://www.gem.wiki/Power_of_Siberia_2_Gas_Pipeline

(It's been specified as 61 bcm for original Power of Siberia, of which only 38 go to China) This is more like it. The * Stream series of pipelines use 42-inch piping.

Interesting discovery. The EUGAL feeder pipeline connecting to NS2 is also a 56-inch

https://www.pipeline-journal.net/news/eugal-pipeline-292-km-project-awarded-bonatti-and-max-streicher

meaning they are planning to pick up the slack from NS1 created by Polish legal activity. Meanwhile, EU is planning to ban long-term contracts beyond 2049

https://www.worldoil.com/news/2021/12/14/europe-plans-to-end-long-term-gas-import-contracts-as-prices-soar

I think they are intent at playing hardball at small taxpayer's expense. Now tell me how I can vote to remove those morons and elect some new ones? Whatever happened to the whole democracy story?

[Eric Gagen + 713]

3 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

1. US is speaking with a twisted tongue, being a major purchaser of Russian oil and other raw materials itself. Somehow it is always for sanctions that hurt Europeans first. That's very opposite of "decoupling" On the contrary, US has never been doing so much business with Russia ever before.

2. Arguably, Obama did the opposite, empowering the Russian "import substitution"  According to EU's own estimate, the damages to European firms just through them being shut out of Russian government purchasing amount to some EUR 260 bln

https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=2321

They actually had the audacity to sue Russia in WTO court for what amounts to part of Russian counter-sanctions. The biggest damage is conceptual though. Obama effectively killed the previously very influential laissez-faire capitalism faction within the Russian government, which advocated specializing on extracting raw resources and buying everything else in the West. Now, anything goes as long as national security is at stake.

3. Tesla has no proposition for most of the world. Only the richest faction of the 1st world. I, for example, would not be able to use a fully electrical car even if I wanted to, because I pretty much need my own driveway to be able to charge one where I live now. The efficiency / applicability of solar panels depends very much on the climate you are in. Within Europe, there is something like 1:4 spread between north and south in the amount of electricity you get out of the same solar panel.

 

THE US is being hypocritical but maybe not in the way you think.  

On 1 & 2,  if you remember that while the US and EU are security partners, but commercial rivals, this makes perfect sense as a way to make the European economies less competitive. Of course the US generally exempts, or provides smaller penalties/fines for the commercial activities which it wants to be involved in with respect to Russia

By contrast the US and Russia are security/great power rivals, but usually are commercial partners and have been for a long time - for example during most of the era of the USSR there was major trade between the two, roughly broken up into agricultural products (from USSR) for industrial products (from USA) early, and then raw materials (from USSR) for agricultural products (from USA) later on.  

With respect to item 3, you are right - Tesla isn't trying to sell cars to everyone, and probably never will.  However there are/will be some other EV's that will probably be more practical for your situation,  and the public infrastructure situation will change eventually too - exactly how I am not sure,  but I expect that within 10 - 20 years the difficulty of having no place to charge at home won't be one any longer.

[specinho + 467]

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

1 hour ago, Eric Gagen said:

 

THE US is being hypocritical but maybe not in the way you think.  

On 1 & 2,  if you remember that while the US and EU are security partners, but commercial rivals, this makes perfect sense as a way to make the European economies less competitive. Of course the US generally exempts, or provides smaller penalties/fines for the commercial activities which it wants to be involved in with respect to Russia

By contrast the US and Russia are security/great power rivals, but usually are commercial partners and have been for a long time - for example during most of the era of the USSR there was major trade between the two, roughly broken up into agricultural products (from USSR) for industrial products (from USA) early, and then raw materials (from USSR) for agricultural products (from USA) later on.  

With respect to item 3, you are right - Tesla isn't trying to sell cars to everyone, and probably never will.  However there are/will be some other EV's that will probably be more practical for your situation,  and the public infrastructure situation will change eventually too - exactly how I am not sure,  but I expect that within 10 - 20 years the difficulty of having no place to charge at home won't be one any longer.

Of course, it is blatantly obvious what US is up to with respect to "European energy security" It is just annoying to see the spineless worms in EU serving the US interests rather than their own population's so blatantly. They are severely undermining European industrial competitiveness across the board. They cannot just substitute fossil fuels with electricity. At the very least, they will need a lot more of it and it will be more expensive than base heat. Glasshouse produce? (pretty much all of Netherlands agricultural exports) Baking your daily bread or a piece of pizza? Nitro fertilizers? Where are the snazzy Tesla tractors and agricultural combines?

The size of the trade between US and Russia is fairly small, but surprisingly high tech. For example, US military is actually buying rocket engines from severely sanctioned elements of the Russian military industrial complex

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2021/05/space-force-only-6-more-launches-russian-rocket-engines/174336/

(This press release recurs periodically since 2014. Accursed Musk won't simply sell them the engine. He sells an expensive "launch service" instead and makes them participate in idiotic dog and pony show like rocket landing on its own exhaust. Very impressive for the idiots, but wasteful of the fuel and landing pad. Could've simply used a parachute instead)

The idiots in US Congress who recently floated a suggestion to sanction iPhone sales to Russia would soon find their own iPhones deprived of the very small, but powerful lens made from synthethic sapphire (corundum) by this Russian firm

https://www.monocrystal.com/

Supposedly, they also make most of the sapphire substrate used by the most powerful LEDs, including laser ones used in telecom. AFAIK, US best attempts to make arbitrary glassware out of the stuff produced milky-colored bricks, which they use in some classified tank armor.

The EV situation will stabilize when the subsidies are gone. Because you cannot subsidize everything, indefinitely. The primary proposition of Tesla right now is selling carbon credits to other car manufacturers. I don't think I am that comfortable with something that's a full EV, not a hybrid. For as long as they take a while to recharge. I also find a proposition where I buy not a car that I own, but everything-included works service contract which puts continuous obligations on me as principally dishonest. It's like buying an Apple instead of a regular PC it is, anyway. Why do people pay more for having less options, I don't understand.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 hour ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Of course, it is blatantly obvious what US is up to with respect to "European energy security" It is just annoying to see the spineless worms in EU serving the US interests rather than their own population's so blatantly. They are severely undermining European industrial competitiveness across the board. They cannot just substitute fossil fuels with electricity. At the very least, they will need a lot more of it and it will be more expensive than base heat. Glasshouse produce? (pretty much all of Netherlands agricultural exports) Baking your daily bread or a piece of pizza? Nitro fertilizers? Where are the snazzy Tesla tractors and agricultural combines?

The size of the trade between US and Russia is fairly small, but surprisingly high tech. For example, US military is actually buying rocket engines from severely sanctioned elements of the Russian military industrial complex

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2021/05/space-force-only-6-more-launches-russian-rocket-engines/174336/

(This press release recurs periodically since 2014. Accursed Musk won't simply sell them the engine. He sells an expensive "launch service" instead and makes them participate in idiotic dog and pony show like rocket landing on its own exhaust. Very impressive for the idiots, but wasteful of the fuel and landing pad. Could've simply used a parachute instead)

The idiots in US Congress who recently floated a suggestion to sanction iPhone sales to Russia would soon find their own iPhones deprived of the very small, but powerful lens made from synthethic sapphire (corundum) by this Russian firm

https://www.monocrystal.com/

Supposedly, they also make most of the sapphire substrate used by the most powerful LEDs, including laser ones used in telecom. AFAIK, US best attempts to make arbitrary glassware out of the stuff produced milky-colored bricks, which they use in some classified tank armor.

The EV situation will stabilize when the subsidies are gone. Because you cannot subsidize everything, indefinitely. The primary proposition of Tesla right now is selling carbon credits to other car manufacturers. I don't think I am that comfortable with something that's a full EV, not a hybrid. For as long as they take a while to recharge. I also find a proposition where I buy not a car that I own, but everything-included works service contract which puts continuous obligations on me as principally dishonest. It's like buying an Apple instead of a regular PC it is, anyway. Why do people pay more for having less options, I don't understand.

True - there is some high tech also.  I work in the oil and gas industry, and there are certain high performance synthetic polymers (think very strong rubber that can expand a large amount without cracking, then return to it's original shape and size) as well as high performance aluminum alloys that we get ONLY from Russia - nobody else can match the quality.  In return, they buy a lot of equipment from the US, and some of the big equipment manufacturing companies in Russia are partners/part owned by US companies.  There is also a healthy exchange of engineers and other technical personnel.  

Europe is/has been in a constant state of relative power decline compared to the rest of the world for a solid 80 years or so.  It has been in 'fit's and starts' but it's still taking place, and shows no sign of stopping.  That doesn't mean it will stop being a nice place to live or anything, just that it will be a less critical component of 'power calculations' for everyone else. 

From the US perspective this is an aggravating complication - most of those places are still 'our allies' but their relative importance is dropping, and the importance of other sorts of allies, especially on the Pacific Rim, India and the Middle East is rising.  Everyone knows it, especially the Europeans. So what do you do from a policy perspective?  You don't want to, and can't just 'drop them (after all they are less powerful, not powerless) You can't spend a fortune 'taking care of them' because that defeats the purpose, so what do you do? And from the perspective of one of those European countries, what do you do to make the relative decline as painless as possible, while using what power you do have wisely?  

Edited January 11, 2022 by Eric Gagen

[Boat + 1,323]

6 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

1. US is speaking with a twisted tongue, being a major purchaser of Russian oil and other raw materials itself. Somehow it is always for sanctions that hurt Europeans first. That's very opposite of "decoupling" On the contrary, US has never been doing so much business with Russia ever before.

2. Arguably, Obama did the opposite, empowering the Russian "import substitution"  According to EU's own estimate, the damages to European firms just through them being shut out of Russian government purchasing amount to some EUR 260 bln

https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=2321

They actually had the audacity to sue Russia in WTO court for what amounts to part of Russian counter-sanctions. The biggest damage is conceptual though. Obama effectively killed the previously very influential laissez-faire capitalism faction within the Russian government, which advocated specializing on extracting raw resources and buying everything else in the West. Now, anything goes as long as national security is at stake.

3. Tesla has no proposition for most of the world. Only the richest faction of the 1st world. I, for example, would not be able to use a fully electrical car even if I wanted to, because I pretty much need my own driveway to be able to charge one where I live now. The efficiency / applicability of solar panels depends very much on the climate you are in. Within Europe, there is something like 1:4 spread between north and south in the amount of electricity you get out of the same solar panel.

The importance of Russian oil to the US is minuscule. 20,000 bpd, up from 10,000 bpd.

https://www.eia.gov/global/scripts/jquery/highcharts/exporting-server/index.php

This is where you look those numbers up. You need to learn to talk in numbers.

 

As stated before the US and Russia have a long history. As Russia supported Iran, Syria and other countries in the Middle East the US and NATO tightened the noose around Russia with missiles, troops etc during the Obama administration. Your country called him weak like they do Biden. Lol Yet you cry, please don’t weak me. Your weakness is so unfair. Don’t you dare let the Ukraine join those weak countries. Kind of getting why the weak laugh at your antics. Your propaganda sounds like China and N Korea. Always so preoccupied with the US weakness. 
Lastly anyone woke knows renewables are growing where it works. That will hurt oil demand over the next couple decades, hurt badly. You will survive. It’s only jobs and money. I saw a Russian Gardner on YouTube saying Russia is prepared for anything because they can raise their own food. I think that’s great. Quit messing with FF and politics and do what you do best. Garden.

[Boat + 1,323]

47 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

True - there is some high tech also.  I work in the oil and gas industry, and there are certain high performance synthetic polymers (think very strong rubber that can expand a large amount without cracking, then return to it's original shape and size) as well as high performance aluminum alloys that we get ONLY from Russia - nobody else can match the quality.  In return, they buy a lot of equipment from the US, and some of the big equipment manufacturing companies in Russia are partners/part owned by US companies.  There is also a healthy exchange of engineers and other technical personnel.  

Europe is/has been in a constant state of relative power decline compared to the rest of the world for a solid 80 years or so.  It has been in 'fit's and starts' but it's still taking place, and shows no sign of stopping.  That doesn't mean it will stop being a nice place to live or anything, just that it will be a less critical component of 'power calculations' for everyone else. 

From the US perspective this is an aggravating complication - most of those places are still 'our allies' but their relative importance is dropping, and the importance of other sorts of allies, especially on the Pacific Rim, India and the Middle East is rising.  Everyone knows it, especially the Europeans. So what do you do from a policy perspective?  You don't want to, and can't just 'drop them (after all they are less powerful, not powerless) You can't spend a fortune 'taking care of them' because that defeats the purpose, so what do you do? And from the perspective of one of those European countries, what do you do to make the relative decline as painless as possible, while using what power you do have wisely?  

I disagree, the average European and in fact most of the world is doing much better since WWII. This happened during exponential growth in populations. Trade blew up as well led by stable in comparison politics. The billionaire population is growing rapidly around world so wealth and power are more spread. It’s not like countries are weaker. They are stronger. But their competition is growing stronger. 
Europe is much stronger than at the end of WWII. EH? And much less military to boot. China who was maybe the weakest per person has done great since WWII. They took over 600 million out of poverty and now no longer starve by the millions every few years. If the world can just tame a few idiots that think power is military we can finally focus on world sustainability and common sense. Think clean water and air for starters. Oh, yea, less people, oh yea, for the idiots, voluntarily not having kids. Less kids, less consumption. Less consumption, less problems.

Edited January 11, 2022 by Boat

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

8 minutes ago, Boat said:

The importance of Russian oil to the US is minuscule. 20,000 bpd, up from 10,000 bpd.

https://www.eia.gov/global/scripts/jquery/highcharts/exporting-server/index.php

This is where you look those numbers up. You need to learn to talk in numbers.

 

As stated before the US and Russia have a long history. As Russia supported Iran, Syria and other countries in the Middle East the US and NATO tightened the noose around Russia with missiles, troops etc during the Obama administration. Your country called him weak like they do Biden. Lol Yet you cry, please don’t weak me. Your weakness is so unfair. Don’t you dare let the Ukraine join those weak countries. Kind of getting why the weak laugh at your antics. Your propaganda sounds like China and N Korea. Always so preoccupied with the US weakness. 
Lastly anyone woke knows renewables are growing where it works. That will hurt oil demand over the next couple decades, hurt badly. You will survive. It’s only jobs and money. I saw a Russian Gardner on YouTube saying Russia is prepared for anything because they can raise their own food. I think that’s great. Quit messing with FF and politics and do what you do best. Garden.

Au contraire. It is absolutely critical. The Russian crude you buy is the heavy variety which you need to replace Venezuelan crude you used before. US domestic fracking produces extra light and sweet crude,which also fetches a premium price. You need heavier crude to make diesel for heavy machinery and (to lesser extent) aviation kerosene. So, you sanctioned yourself into a corner yet again.

Russia supported Syria. It did not support Iran, or at least not unequivocally so. We have a history of mutual distrust going way way back to since before there was US. So, Mr. Numerical, can you actually back up your claim of Obama increasing actual troop presence? Trump sorta did, but not really, by having a lot of spare hardware like tanks park in Poland. How do you know what the Russians call you? From CNN or MSNBC? Up until a couple of weeks ago, were all Russian official sources always following the diplomatic protocols to the letter. (Something you could well learn, BTW) Putin still does. He always refers to his opponents as "our esteemed Western/American partners" It is safe to say that you are fighting a Russian strawman created by your media rather than real Russia. Same is likely true for China and North Korea.  Do you need an leads to proper Russian propaganda or you can help yourself?

Having to fight the Ukrainians would be very unfortunate, as it would effectively mean fighting our own. The rest of European decoys of yours fool no-one.. The bulk of NATO's military power (or lack thereof) is provided by US. The rest are mostly there because they think they are going to win. Actually, take a look at military history of Romania or Bulgaria. They have quite a history of picking the wrong side for that very reason.

So far, is oil demand only growing, while the supply is dwindling due to being past peak. Are you suggesting that the age of plastics is over? Or the age of synthetic fertilizer? Any and all heating appliance is to become electrically powered by renewable electricity?

Even if you stop burning oil for transportation fuel altogether, you will only save a fraction thereof

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/transportation.php

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/use-of-oil.php

You tell me what that means, but probably nobody is as wasteful as the US. I don't see an electric replacement for aircraft or shipping anytime soon. US haven't even bothered with electrifying its railroads yet. That is, you depend on diesel locomotives for bulk of your coast-to-coast freight.

Who is a Russian Gardner? What is FF we are supposedly messing with? USA ain't too shabby at gardening either. For most of its history, Russia wasn't. Too crappy a climate.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

21 minutes ago, Boat said:

I disagree, the average European and in fact most of the world is doing much better since WWII. This happened during exponential growth in populations. Trade blew up as well led by stable in comparison politics. The billionaire population is growing rapidly around world so wealth and power are more spread. It’s not like countries are weaker. They are stronger. But their competition is growing stronger. 
Europe is much stronger than at the end of WWII. EH? And much less military to boot. China who was maybe the weakest per person has done great since WWII. They took over 600 million out of poverty and now no longer starve by the millions every few years. If the world can just tame a few idiots that think power is military we can finally focus on world sustainability and common sense. Think clean water and air for starters. Oh, yea, less people, oh yea, for the idiots, voluntarily not having kids. Less kids, less consumption. Less consumption, less problems.

Oh, my. And this is the guy who accuses me of not knowing my math? There is no exponential growth. It may look like the exponential function 2^(x), but it isn't because you are counting many of the same people several times. A much better estimate is to say that there is about as many people living on the planet at any given date as have lived here before, throughout all history.

More formally, it is a

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(probability_theory)

so named after

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)

of which the way your PC computer represents binary numbers is an example. That is, any given round power of 2^n equals to the sum of all the smaller powers of 2 up to n-1, plus 1

Analogously, in a gambling martingale can one always ensure not ever losing/winning the minimal possible stake like one unit coin by doubling the stakes every time you lose a round.

also see

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_paradox

So, it is not an open process. Something like 6-8 generations into the future but also the past is everybody relative of everybody else at least once. Or something like that.

I suggest you internalize this well before spreading any more neo-Malthysian BS.

[Eric Gagen + 713]

36 minutes ago, Boat said:

I disagree, the average European and in fact most of the world is doing much better since WWII. This happened during exponential growth in populations. Trade blew up as well led by stable in comparison politics. The billionaire population is growing rapidly around world so wealth and power are more spread. It’s not like countries are weaker. They are stronger. But their competition is growing stronger. 
Europe is much stronger than at the end of WWII. EH? And much less military to boot. China who was maybe the weakest per person has done great since WWII. They took over 600 million out of poverty and now no longer starve by the millions every few years. If the world can just tame a few idiots that think power is military we can finally focus on world sustainability and common sense. Think clean water and air for starters. Oh, yea, less people, oh yea, for the idiots, voluntarily not having kids. Less kids, less consumption. Less consumption, less problems.

I specifically said relative power. Everything you are measuring is about absolute economic development, and standards of living as measured against zero, or a standard minimum.  There is no cap on those things, but there is a hard cap on relative power, because it's all relative to other places.  Even if there are only 2 people left in the world and they have 1 rock between them, the amount of relative power differential that can exist between them is precisely identical to the entire modern day panoply of nations and peoples.  

Edited January 11, 2022 by Eric Gagen

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

4 minutes ago, Eric Gagen said:

I specifically said relative power. Everything you are measuring is about absolute economic development, and standards of living as measured against zero, or a standard minimum.  There is no cap on those things, but there is a hard cap on relative power, because it's all relative to other places.  Even if there are only 2 people left in the world and they have 1 rock between them, the amount of relative power differential that can exist between them is precisely identical to the entire modern day panoply of nations and peoples.  

The psycho geeks supposedly measured the wish to keep up with the Joneses as being in the top-15th percentile or whereabouts, regardless of what it actually is in terms of the absolutes. This also means that 85% of the people are predisposed to be unhappy about where they are

You obviously also need at least 100 people for percentile metric to make any sense. This is why they are not too good about using stats to predict the behavior of the Presidents of the US. Too few of them yet to generate a statistically valid dataset Much better luck with US Senators or Congressman (with the later being predictable almost 100% of the time)

[Eric Gagen + 713]

1 minute ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

The psycho geeks supposedly measured the wish to keep up with the Joneses as being in the top-15th percentile or whereabouts, regardless of what it actually is in terms of the absolutes. This also means that 85% of the people are predisposed to be unhappy about where they are

You obviously also need at least 100 people for percentile metric to make any sense. This is why they are not too good about using stats to predict the behavior of the Presidents of the US. Too few of them yet to generate a statistically valid dataset Much better luck with US Senators or Congressman (with the later being predictable almost 100% of the time)

I was trying to make a point about the sort of information I was trying to compare.  

Agreed about the 'keeping up' mentality.  It's crippling for people as individuals.  It's useful and necessary for countries and other big organizations though.

Presidents and other highly powerful figures are unpredictable, because their motivations are so hard to figure out.  Once someone has made it 'to the top' in their field what exactly is motivating them?  For everyone else, their objectives are usually clear, but for someone with no possible  further personal objectives it becomes a much higher risk game to understand what might motivate them.  This goes for the wildly rich also.  What could motivate someone with $50 billion?  It clearly isn't going to be money.  What motivates someone with a powerful armed forces and their finger on the red button?  Clearly not power.  They are already at the peak of fame and status, and have probably achieved most of the other 'normal' life goals already, so what's left?  What is left is a bunch of odd and confusing to predict objectives: national glory - a legacy - making history - stuff like that.