Is Europe heading for winter of discontent with extensive gas shortages?

[RichieRich216 + 454]

On 7/26/2022 at 5:51 PM, TailingsPond said:

Please explain this "history" of yours.  Members of the EU started the major wars, they certainly were not against war aggression.

Russia was on our side!

The USSR was an allied force because it needed to be, The United State’s Shouldered the financial backing, and the USSR supplied death to untold millions of men and women army.
 

Everyone knew that near the end of the war, the USSR compelled The Allied Forces divided up the Continent!
 

Patton was right; we had everything needed over there to take on and put an end to the start of Communism.

[RichieRich216 + 454]

WINTER OF DISCONTENT, The title of this should have been Winter of HELL, without the heat.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

8 hours ago, Wombat One said:

All bullies play the victim when they realise their game is up. You cannot threaten the world with nukes whilst invading a sovereign country for the second time on one hand, and claim to be the victim on the other. Is Russia killing Ukranian civilians? YES. Is Ukraine killing Russian civilians? NO. Did Russia threaten to nuke NATO if NATO protected an independent state? YES. Did NATO threaten to nuke Russia for any reason? NO. Could the Russia/Ukraine war have been prevented? YES. Do 2 wrongs make a right? NO. I think you really should be grateful that US aggression towards Russia is not as savage as it could be. They only "contain" those countries that seek to threaten the global peace. Those with expanionist and revisionist ideology. And isn't it strange that those countries are always led by dictators? I don't think US foreign policy is guided by angels, but in comparison to the alternative, it does get close.

Ukraine is killing Russian civilians in Donbass. Has been doing so for the last eight years, in most underhanded ways.

US/NATO planned a nuclear first strike not only on USSR, but on all the Communist countries at once, genociding everyone. In turn, USSR did not plan any such thing. To this day, is nuclear first strike a part of US/NATO doctrine only, but not Russian or Chinese.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

6 hours ago, RichieRich216 said:

The USSR was an allied force because it needed to be, The United State’s Shouldered the financial backing, and the USSR supplied death to untold millions of men and women army.
 

Everyone knew that near the end of the war, the USSR compelled The Allied Forces divided up the Continent!
 

Patton was right; we had everything needed over there to take on and put an end to the start of Communism.

You would have gotten your asses kicked. At this point, USSR had 8 million men at arms, with some of the best military equipment of the time coming up, like the IS-3 heavy tanks.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

9 hours ago, Wombat One said:

Actually, I pity half the Russian "soldiers" you have sent to their deaths un-necessarily. If I had my way, we would use non-lethal weapons and simply capture all of your mercenaries and re-educate them. But you are the one who likes to make love to your ICBM's each night. Do you kiss your Satan rocket and sit and rotate upon the tip or do you just stroke it?

I prefer the latest Sarmat, of course.

Edited August 10, 2022 by Andrei Moutchkine

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

9 hours ago, Wombat One said:

I would rather be upside down than inside out. What makes you think our weapons cannot reach Moscow? They reached Iraq and Afghanistan just fine. But you must be thinking solely in terms of ICBM's, which we may or may not possess. We also may or may not have nuclear weapons in our subs, which you certainly would not like to know for sure.  Your false sense of security is your whole problem my Z for Zombie friend. 

Your weapons reached Afghanistan using An-124 cargo planes rented from Russian Volga-Don company and/or staging in Russian Ulyanovsk. Since you didn't have such luxuries on your way back, you left them all to the Taliban.

You are not getting any actually nuclear subs before 2030 at the earliest. Hope it was worth it, shooting yourself in the foot with respect to relations with your largest trade partner. China.

That Z most likely stands for Zapad, meaning West.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 8/5/2022 at 3:48 PM, NickW said:

Just ordered another 2.7Kw of solar. Thats going on the extension roof in September (East-west faces) 

Thats another 2200kwh of leccy permanently off European demand / 4000ish kwh of gas (russian gas ultimately)

 

I see that you prefer to do business with Chinese associates of ours? I suggest you switch to collecting twigs, as the one truly democratic choice.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 7/28/2022 at 12:38 PM, Wombat One said:

Indeed. 3 or 4 times as much. I expect Russian GDP to collapse by a further 36-48% over the next year. And inflation in Russia will run at triple the pace than in the West. China made a huge mistake in starting a trade war with Australia, and Russia made an even bigger mistake in starting one with Europe and the USA. Don't they realise that the USA, Australia, Canada, and also Qatar have far greater natural gas reserves than Russia and Iran? The world is at an inflection point, difficult choices need to be made, such as "who will be the future eaters"? The "co-operative approach" has clearly failed? By all means, support the energy transition as I do, but let's not pretend there is enough food, water, energy, and minerals to suffice? Let alone trees? Something has to give? False optimism is no match for "greenflation"? Time to tell the truth Jay?

Meanwhile, the Russian economy actually starts growing and inflation turns negative. The ruble is trading at its highest in years. You have done Russia a great service by disconnecting it from the printing press printing candy wrappers and stopping the capital flight shut. You do not have greater natural gas reserves than Russia and Iran. Qatar, which is hardly an ally of yours, is at #3. Together, those three countries control over 60% of the global reserves.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

1 hour ago, Wombat One said:

Do you REALLY believe that? Fucken hell. No wonder you all paranoid and think you have a point to prove? You actually believe the propoganda of your govt? Now I know for sure that you are on the wrong meds. I mean like really Andrei, really? What on Earth can anyone gain from a first strike when everyone has the capacity of a second strike? What the hell have they been teaching you in the FSB? First strike was a doctrine of the Goddam 50's??????????? What rock have you been living under? Nuclear winter is all about the effect on the troposphere? First strike or second strike, it makes no difference you dope? Even a first strike is suicide, regardless of whether or not there is a second strike. Why do you think the US policymakers are talking about reducing their nuclear arsenal unilaterally if necessary? They want to modernise their delivery systems but get their total number of warheads below 2000 as soon as possible but Putin won't reciprocate. I thought you were a physicist like me that just had to study computer science in order to handle the instruments? Damn. Am glad you cleared that up. I never could understand the Russian paranoia until now. You simply are not even informed. Not on Physics, not on Economics, not on History? Sometimes I forget that even the best educated Russians have little education at all. You are so intelligent, yet so ill-informed. That is a tragedy. Do you even know what the mini black holes that CERN produce actually consist of? And why they want to produce them?

No paranoia, hard facts. Planned to genocide my family and friends in cold blood, for the sake of imaginary propaganda induced "communism bad" psychosis. Those be real documents procured under FOI Act.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault/2018-08-15/us-nuclear-war-plan-option-sought-destruction-china-soviet-union-viable-societies

The Western civilization deserves to burn in hell just for that. The first strike policy is still very much up-to-date.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use#United_States

US/NATO has also an annoying habit of prioritizing major population centers over military significant targets.

Note that Russia upgraded its policy from Soviet "never first" to a suitable retaliation to sufficiently debilitating conventional strike. There is no evidence in any of the Soviet declassified plans that they ever secretly planned anything else. So, I updated my personal policy even further. If it were up to me, I would do anything in my power to destroy you first. Because it is either us or you, as should be clear by now. You are nothing but sweet-talking monsters in human skin, while planning to stab you in the back. Unfortunately, a lot of Russians do not understand that there cannot be any more negotiations with you. Our grandfathers left the job unfinished. Every Westerner is a born Nazi. You simply have an unwavering belief in being better than us and having a God-given right to do however you please. Which you will rationalize later, regardless of what you did.

Edited August 10, 2022 by Andrei Moutchkine

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

51 minutes ago, Wombat One said:

Australia has just posted another record trade surplus. It is the CCP who shot themselves in the foot, and now Russia has done the same. The price of oil has fallen from $137 after you invaded again the Ukraine, to just $90 today, the same as before you invaded Ukraine. You are giving your pipeline gas to China for free, at a quarter the cost you obtained from Europe. They are fucking Russia up the rear, not Australia. And we used our C-17's to get to and from Iraq and Afghanistan, not Antonov's. Our super-hornets were refuelled by our KC-130 tankers, same as our F-35's will be if they ever need to pay you a visit. But that is not the plan. While you suck on the tailpipe of your Samarat, we have no interest in invading Russia. You have nothing of interest, except a few sturgeon fish perhaps? Are there any left? Anyways, we are quite happy to bifurcate the world and leave you to your own "devices". We really don't care if you sit atop a Satan or a Samarat, we will just leave you in the "naughty corner" to think about your actions until you cry to be let back into the real world. Then we will open the doors again and say "Come In Spinner"!

 

Your windfall is temporary. Ultimately, are you less competitive in LNG, due to great remoteness from many markets. Russia's also got an all-time record surplus, sanctions non-withstanding. For the time being, accounted in your candy wrappers, for which Russia has no real need for anymore.

As the price war of 2020 has shown, Russia's got the most profitable oil industry, which still makes money at $40/brl. Saudis lost that tussle, and US shale sorta came 2nd, rather surprisingly.

We cannot give that much pipeline gas to China yet due to limited capacity, so it is getting flared. Got a problem with that? Either way, the Eurofags just removed themselves from the list of advanced industrialized economies.

Well, you as in Western coalition, roughly speaking. I suppose, it is possible for just Australia to deploy using its own C-17s, but the only European NATO country that got them is the UK. Everybody else only got turboprops. The Americans also always used the rental Antonovs to deploy over the air. Their C-5s got a comparable capacity, but they don't ever actually use them to deploy, so they must be real expensive to run?  You tell me...

Tankers? Excellent. They are going down second, right after AWACS. Seen the number 400 in S-400? 400km happens to be the distance to an aircraft in 12km altitude when it is just raising over the horizon as seen from the ground. Here are the formulas:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Distance_to_the_horizon

(add ~10% for decimeter-wave radio, which none of your aircraft but AWACS got) Stealth very obviously does jack if you have to use your own radar in active mode? Without any hypothetical advantage of stealth, the F35 is not a very impressive aircraft.

Yes, the sturgeon are way tasty. You missed out on a lot by buying only the caviar. Wasteful as ever. They can be grown in aquaculture and caviar can be milked without killing the fish.

You just don't get it. It is the rest of the world which is progressively kicking the collective West into the "naughty corner" and into dustbin of history.

 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

15 hours ago, Wombat One said:

Indeed Richie, but not via renewables. She wanted Nord Stream 2 but failed to build a single LNG import terminal that could have purchased at least SOME of the surplus LNG from the USA. That is despite having a massive trade surplus versus the USA. So Germany is now paying the price for their greed. On the other hand, they should only experience the one "winter of discontent" because they are building a couple of import terminals right now as well as a pipeline to Rotterdam to take advantage of the Dutch facilities. One of the biggest problems the Euro zone is facing right now is their drought, which has slashed their hydro production in a big way. Also, the explosion at one of America's LNG facilities cut US exports by a whopping 20% at the worst possible time. At the end of the day, both you and Jay are correct. You are correct that most greens fail to understand the importance of fossil fuels, and Jay is correct that the situation would be even worse without renewable energy. There is a global shortage of ALL forms of energy Richie. Global demand for energy has risen 5-FOLD since the 70's! The graph is fucken exponential. Throughout modern history, there has been the burning of wood, which eventually failed to keep up with demand so we started burning coal as well. Then we also needed oil and gas. Then we also needed nuclear. Then we also needed renewables. See what I am saying? If you understand the second law of thermodynamics and you also understand that the world's resources are finite, then you should love renewable energy whether you believe in climate change or not? Just because the average greenie is thick as a brick, does not mean you have to be as well? Production from the Permian is set to peak in just 5 years time. WTF you gonna do after that if you don't have a shitload of renewables and electric vehicles? Think about it?

This in a nutshell is absolutely spot on

Wombat you have 100% nailed it!

This isnt about FF versus Renewables but about how we can best use all forms of energy as economically and as environmentally friendly as possible with current technology.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

13 hours ago, specinho said:

woowwwwww................. This elder was sharp...... How things might have not changed much over time......... 'o'    >.<

Thats because man's greed doesnt change over time

[RichieRich216 + 454]

11 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

You would have gotten your asses kicked. At this point, USSR had 8 million men at arms, with some of the best military equipment of the time coming up, like the IS-3 heavy tanks.

They didn't have the A- Bomb, stupid!

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

15 minutes ago, RichieRich216 said:

They didn't have the A- Bomb, stupid!

Neither did you, really. There was no practical way to put what you had into "series production", but let's suppose you did. Were you going to nuke Western Europe, genius?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

31 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Neither did you, really. There was no practical way to put what you had into "series production", but let's suppose you did. Were you going to nuke Western Europe, genius?

The place to nuke with our one bomb at the end of the war would have been Baku. That would have taken out Soviet oil production.

[NickW + 2,714]

On 8/8/2022 at 6:57 PM, Starschy said:

Those solar panel won't help you in the winter.

They'll produce a couple of kwh a day in the depths of winter. 

Thats enough to charge some batteries for lighting, run the solar water heating, boiler if need be, IPADS, phones. 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

21 hours ago, RichieRich216 said:

WINTER OF DISCONTENT, The title of this should have been Winter of HELL, without the heat.

Last December we went to Tenerife for a week in December. 

I turned the heating off as I drained down the water so nothing to freeze up. 

After 7 days the internal temperature was 12 Deg C without any heat or coincidental input (body heat & appliances) 

Cool but not freeze to death territory.

Moral of that story  - insulate, insulate, insulate.

 

[RichieRich216 + 454]

7 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Neither did you, really. There was no practical way to put what you had into "series production", but let's suppose you did. Were you going to nuke Western Europe, genius?

The Atomic bomb was used stupidl: They had more than Two; yes, we could have lit up the USSR just like the Two cities in Japan.

Learn more history asshole!

 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

7 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The place to nuke with our one bomb at the end of the war would have been Baku. That would have taken out Soviet oil production.

Great minds think alike, eh?

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

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/operation-pike-how-crazy-plan-bomb-russia-almost-lost-world-14402

Would've cost the Brits the war right there. The Urals/West Siberian oil was already discovered, but held hush-hush.

Actually, you've already got the most utility out of your nuke. As a scarecrow weapon rather than real one. Truman got the Soviets to retreat from Iran within 24 hours under the treat of nuking.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,490]

8 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Great minds think alike, eh?

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

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/operation-pike-how-crazy-plan-bomb-russia-almost-lost-world-14402

Would've cost the Brits the war right there. The Urals/West Siberian oil was already discovered, but held hush-hush.

Actually, you've already got the most utility out of your nuke. As a scarecrow weapon rather than real one. Truman got the Soviets to retreat from Iran within 24 hours under the treat of nuking.

The Urals oil may have been discovered but U.S.S.R was in no position to develop the fields if US attacked in 1945.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

10 minutes ago, RichieRich216 said:

The Atomic bomb was used stupidl: They had more than Two; yes, we could have lit up the USSR just like the Two cities in Japan.

Learn more history asshole!

 

Your atomic bomb had a shelf life of some 48 hours after being assembled

Why No One Will Ever Build Another Nagasaki Type Bomb (armscontrolwonk.com)

Hiroshima one was even worse. It was largely a dud or a dirty bomb and only had a devastating effect on a town build out of cardboard, Japanese-style. Core USSR territory was also not immediately reachable by bombers.

The Soviets didn't really know all that, though, so the most utility you got from the bomb was as a scarecrow. Truman got the Soviets to leave Iran within 24 hours under the treat of nuking.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

18 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The Urals oil may have been discovered but U.S.S.R was in no position to develop the fields if US attacked in 1945.

Thus, spooking the Soviets from Iran, where there were obviously more developed oil fields. You are such a little Truman, Jay. Uncle Adi also assumed a lot about what the Soviets cannot conceivably develop in a greenfield. He turned out to be wrong.

Edited August 10, 2022 by Andrei Moutchkine

[RichieRich216 + 454]

50 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Your atomic bomb had a shelf life of some 48 hours after being assembled

Why No One Will Ever Build Another Nagasaki Type Bomb (armscontrolwonk.com)

Hiroshima one was even worse. It was largely a dud or a dirty bomb and only had a devastating effect on a town build out of cardboard, Japanese-style. Core USSR territory was also not immediately reachable by bombers.

The Soviets didn't really know all that, though, so the most utility you got from the bomb was as a scarecrow. Truman got the Soviets to leave Iran within 24 hours under the treat of nuking.

No shit, it was taken to Bomber by the Indianapolis, Do you think with control of Europe we couldn't bring within bomber range of any USSR city right of Germany surrender in 1945, if not in the United States learn your history, from the U.S. Get money back from school! Your stupidity on the subject is fucking amazing....

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

5 minutes ago, RichieRich216 said:

No shit, it was taken to Bomber by the Indianapolis, Do you think with control of Europe we couldn't bring within bomber range of any USSR city right of Germany surrender in 1945, if not in the United States learn your history, from the U.S. Get money back from school! Your stupidity on the subject is fucking amazing....

All of it would be over contested airspace, so no, I don't think you could. Look up some of US' own assessments on the number of bombers that would take. I went to a Soviet high school, which didn't cost me a cent (or kopeck)

[RichieRich216 + 454]

1 hour ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

All of it would be over contested airspace, so no, I don't think you could. Look up some of US' own assessments on the number of bombers that would take. I went to a Soviet high school, which didn't cost me a cent (or kopeck)

So your opinion is jaded by the fact you are from a Communist country!
 

If we could take it from the United States to outside Of Japan, we could have done it in Europe.