What's the Endgame Here?

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

13 hours ago, James Gautreau said:

Let me speculate. What if peak conventional oil and peak shale oil are happening now, specifically November 2018 as the peak for world conventional oil and the peak of shale oil is occurring now. The next couple of months will show this, and then the terminal decline will begin.The two best states to have are Iraq and Iran. They both have over 100 billion barrels of reserves. The last of the cheap easy oil. Trump sanctioned them like we sanctioned Iraq all those years ago. They were are little oil piggy bank. Ditto Iran today. Everyone thinks American LTO will last forever. Why? Because they told us so. When I was a kid they told me America had such abundant resources we didn't have to worry for 100 years. I lived through the 1970's. Led Zeppelin ruled lakefront parking lots. And all anybody could talk about was how expensive gas had gotten. Remember the last time people were talking about peak oil we invaded Iraq. Peak oil didn't go away, it just was delayed. And time's up. 

Following that logic it would more sense to invade Venezuela from a cost / benefit perspective and the moral justification is certainly there. 

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

12 hours ago, Marcin said:

I agree with you, apart from this fuel cell and battery staff. Both technologies (no matter what money is spent) are not substitutes for ICE. And you also have natural gas electricity generation, how you will cope with this ?

People are too stupid to not be afraid of nuclear and coal is dirty.

I agree with today's technology, however there are dozens of different alternatives in a race to develop this technology. So it depends on the timescale you are looking at I guess.

https://www.pocket-lint.com/gadgets/news/130380-future-batteries-coming-soon-charge-in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air

Regarding nuclear, If the boffins around the globe can get fusion to work that is a global game changer right there for ICE vehicles and the oil + gas industry. If you research fusion companies and projects you will see this is akin to a "space race" to get this to work. It is totally safe nuclear technology and will make  climate activists very happy! Even Greta!

https://cen.acs.org/energy/nuclear-power/Fusion-start-ups-hope-revolutionize/96/i32

[Marcin + 519]

26 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

I agree with today's technology, however there are dozens of different alternatives in a race to develop this technology. So it depends on the timescale you are looking at I guess.

https://www.pocket-lint.com/gadgets/news/130380-future-batteries-coming-soon-charge-in-seconds-last-months-and-power-over-the-air

Regarding nuclear, If the boffins around the globe can get fusion to work that is a global game changer right there for ICE vehicles and the oil + gas industry. If you research fusion companies and projects you will see this is akin to a "space race" to get this to work. It is totally safe nuclear technology and will make  climate activists very happy! Even Greta!

https://cen.acs.org/energy/nuclear-power/Fusion-start-ups-hope-revolutionize/96/i32

I got this idea of clustering lets say 30 nuclear reactors in uninhabitated land, 100 miles from nearest city, workers commuting every day by dedicated High speed rail 35 minutes, UHV DC lines to transport electricity. This solves problem of human fear of Radiation, radioactive pollution. Safe zone with radius 80 miles. You can have such super plant located anywhere in non seismic region. Water is not a problem, at this scale you pump water from nearest major lake or river to artificial pool at the plant site.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Marcin
Typo

[Marcin + 519]

This is  solution for only a few large and populous countries like China, US, Russia, 

india is too small.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Marcin
Typo

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

17 minutes ago, Marcin said:

I got this idea of clustering lets say 30 nuclear reactors in uninhabitated land, 100 miles from nearest city, workers commuting every day by dedicated High speed rail 35 minutes, UHV DC lines to transport electricity. This solves problem of human fear of Radiation, radioactive pollution. Safe zone with radius 80 miles. You can have such super plant located anywhere in non seismic region. Water is not a problem, at this scale you pump water from nearest major lake or river to artificial pool at the plant site.

Marcin if there was a Chernobyl / Fukushima type disaster the radiation could spread way further than 100 miles especially if wind speeds at the time were high. "Safe zone of 80 miles" in nowhere near large enough!

Regarding Chernobyl "Officials in Sweden 683 miles away were alerted of radiation levels within their atmosphere within 48 hours of the explosion." 

Also all nukes need to be next to a large water supply to enable cooling, this is essential. The location has to be by a huge water source not being pumped into an artificial lake.

Fission is one of the cleanest and one of the cheapest forms of power currently out there. However safe it certainly isn't as history shows us, and even when it is there is a hell of a lot of waste that has to be disposed of which is very expensive.

Your suggestion does not work in the real world.

Nice idea but no cigar.

 

[NickW + 2,714]

59 minutes ago, Marcin said:

I got this idea of clustering lets say 30 nuclear reactors in uninhabitated land, 100 miles from nearest city, workers commuting every day by dedicated High speed rail 35 minutes, UHV DC lines to transport electricity. This solves problem of human fear of Radiation, radioactive pollution. Safe zone with radius 80 miles. You can have such super plant located anywhere in non seismic region. Water is not a problem, at this scale you pump water from nearest major lake or river to artificial pool at the plant site.

You appear to be confusing the acute affects of a nuclear warhead going off in the atmosphere and the chronic effects of a Nuclear power station disgorging its entire reactor and spent waste into the atmosphere (Chern / Fukishima) in which case you would need a lot more than 80 miles. 

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, Marcin said:

This is  solution for only a few large and populous countries like China, US, Russia, 

india is too small.

@Marcin: what part of "@DayTrader does comedy" do you not understand?

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Heh heh

CNNi Becky Anderson -vs- State Dept. Spox Morgan Ortagus

CNNi  (CNN international) via Becky Anderson, based out of Abu Dhabi, attempts to push a false propaganda narrative against State Dept Spokesperson Morgan Ortagus.   Things didn’t work out as planned.  The pontificating Anderson was left speechless.  Funny.

Ms. Anderson intentionally ignored the E-3 Statement of support from earlier today and attempted to push a narrative of the U.S. being isolated within the international community.  Mrs. Morgan Ortagus shredded the CNNi narrative engineer.  WATCH:

 

 

[remake it + 288]

For the man who Captains America the Endgame  is Marvellous: "how come nobody else worked it out?"

Edited January 7, 2020 by remake it
Trump: from comical hero to historical zero.

[Marcin + 519]

3 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

Marcin if there was a Chernobyl / Fukushima type disaster the radiation could spread way further than 100 miles especially if wind speeds at the time were high. "Safe zone of 80 miles" in nowhere near large enough!

Regarding Chernobyl "Officials in Sweden 683 miles away were alerted of radiation levels within their atmosphere within 48 hours of the explosion." 

Also all nukes need to be next to a large water supply to enable cooling, this is essential. The location has to be by a huge water source not being pumped into an artificial lake.

Fission is one of the cleanest and one of the cheapest forms of power currently out there. However safe it certainly isn't as history shows us, and even when it is there is a hell of a lot of waste that has to be disposed of which is very expensive.

Your suggestion does not work in the real world.

Nice idea but no cigar.

 

Both disasters had 30 km radius exclusion zones estsblished. In Chernobyl only about 1 km2 out of 2,600 km2 of exclusion zone has radiation level that is harmful to humans.

After Chernobyl and Fukushima you could "be alerted" by higher radiation levels ANYWHERE in the world, yet they were no harmful at all, apart from exclusion zones, we just have good instruments.

With 100 mile radius safe area assured by location of power plant, chernobyl and Fukushima are no problem out of the exclusion area.

In 100 mile radius from Fukushima: 4 million people live for 8 years, in 100 mile radius from chernobyl : 4 million people live (including capital of Ukraine Kijev) for 33 years. In both locations no statistically significant rise of radiation related deaths.

Artificial lake or 2, each having 0.1 km3 of water would be more than enough

I really like that I posted this comment and observed your and @NickW reactions.

Nuclear power is doomed  (or you are from USA and there is still hope) if even at this forum people react like this.

[Bob D + 562]

14 hours ago, Enthalpic said:

Imagine if they assassinated a US general, how would that go over?

Interesting question Enthalpic.

In which country is this fictional US General plotting and executing a terrorist assault on the Iranian Embassy??

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

22 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Forest ...

Trees ...

< * eye roll * >

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carry on ...

 

Sometime ya just got to ‘break a few eggs’ to get your point across...

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

3 minutes ago, Marcin said:

I really like that I posted this comment and observed your and @NickW reactions.

I'm glad you did!

However I think Remake It's reaction was the best by a mile! (or 80)

You must be crazy if you think 80 miles is far enough away and people would be happy to live that close to a "super nuclear facility" that you portray.

I wonder if you and your family would be happy to do so?

I live in the UK and actually supply into all of the nuclear power stations, so I'm pro nuclear in that respect and yes all of these are less than 80 miles away from the populous, however that doesn't make the populous safe in a core meltdown situation. The only reason people dont kick up more of a fuss in the UK (and they used to) is because you can go to a facility as a guest and see exactly how they are run and all of the safety measures, also they are a major employer in the local area.

Nuclear power isn't doomed at all!

Hinkley point C is being built by EDF as we speak at a cost of an estimated £22bn, making it the most expensive man made construction on the planet!

Also how do you think most submarines are powered for example?

[SERWIN + 749]

So maybe, just maybe, this was a hint to Iran about what is, has been going on. Does anyone remember Reagan "pinging" Soviet ships in the 80's? That just let the Soviets know that we knew what they were doing, where they were, and that we had been watching them without them even realizing it. Maybe the attack on a major figure head from Iran was a signal to the Iranian cook heads that we know where they are, and part of the 52 targets will be them, the ones pulling the strings. I doubt they will be smart enough to realize the ramifications though, they are hell bent on revenge. I do believe we will be destroying some of those targets fairly soon. Attacking an Embassy of another country is an act of aggression that shouldn't be ignored, hence the disdain for Helliary being in office. She obviously doesn't care as long as her "charity" is still getting money. Iran should be taking this very seriously right now, they should believe that we do know where they are at any given moment and an attack to kill them off would be successful. And I also wonder, would the religious targets be a blow to their religious fervor or would it just drive them to blatant stupidity? I do believe that Iran has been warring by proxy as was suggested earlier in this forum... But hey, it is driving the oil prices up for now.

[Rob Plant + 2,756]

21 minutes ago, SERWIN said:

And I also wonder, would the religious targets be a blow to their religious fervor or would it just drive them to blatant stupidity? I do believe that Iran has been warring by proxy as was suggested earlier in this forum... But hey, it is driving the oil prices up for now.

Unfortunately Serwin I think the "drive them to blatant stupidity" part of your post will apply.

The strength of feeling is not just with the leaders, it is with the people of Iran as they (rightly or wrongly) believe the US has once again attacked them.

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Because the US has attacked them.  

Edited January 7, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[Bob D + 562]

2 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Because the US has attacked them.  

Yes   As a response to the Iranian attack on the US Embassy in Iraq.

The shredded General would be alive today if he didn't plan and execute an attack on the US embassy in Iraq.   

 

[Zhong Lu + 845]

And now they're launching more attacks on said embassy because they see that as an act of war.  So, who is Trump going to bomb now? 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[SERWIN + 749]

4 minutes ago, Zhong Lu said:

Because the US has attacked them.  

No sir, the US protected the Embassy that they were attacking, and in the process killed off their revered leader. Any Embassy in the world could expect the same response to be enacted if they are being attacked. Fortunately that does not happen in the civilized world...

[Zhong Lu + 845]

America bombed an Iranian general.  If Iran bombed an American general because said general was "developing plans to attack Iran", would you consider that to be an act of war? 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[SERWIN + 749]

Just now, Zhong Lu said:

And now they're launching more attacks on said embassy because they see that as an act of war.  So, who is Trump going to bomb now? 

52 targets, and I would bet one of them will be.... Slay not the entire dragon, slay the head and the rest will follow death.... And to be fair, we haven't nuked them yet, but American sentiment is swaying to the side of getting this over quickly, so a couple of million collateral deaths won't mean a whole lot. Unfortunately so

[Zhong Lu + 845]

So how much money are you willing to pony up to war with Iran? And by "you" I mean "people who want war with Iran."

'Cuz I'm not ponying up a single cent.  

Edited January 7, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[SERWIN + 749]

Just now, Zhong Lu said:

America bombed an Iranian general.  If Iran bombed an American general because said general was "developing plans to attack Iran", would you consider that to be an act of war? 

A general that has been running a proxy war in Iraq for how long now. He has been running this proxy war for years now so no great loss

[Zhong Lu + 845]

Again, how much money are you willing to pony up for this war? What are YOU willing to sacrifice for this new Middle East adventure? 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Zhong Lu

[SERWIN + 749]

He is now dead so it's old news anyway