• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

Oh dear: The 'cold' war starts up again

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Oh dear: The 'cold' war starts up again

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4572712.stm

    "Russia has begun cutting gas supplies to Ukraine in an energy price dispute which has become a major political row.

    Ukraine has rejected Russia's proposed fourfold price rise, saying it is politically motivated."

    #2
    KGB shows its face - when they are nice to you its only temporary and they will come back after you with vengeance to avenge their "humiliation" of having being forced to be nice.

    Big mistake by the West not to demand similar process over Soviet Communist party and KGB for crimes against humanity just like the one that was over the Nazi Party and the SS.

    Comment


      #3
      Economics

      Does this move and possibly more have any parallels with the 70's oil crisis?

      It does highlight the fiasco that is the UK's energy policy now that we are dependent on imported energy and gordon 'fat b@ stard' brown has done all he can to discourage UK energy companies from getting creative by doubling north sea oil taxes.

      I wonder when the anti-Nuke brigade were indulging in self flagellation in the 70's & 80's about how bad nuclear energy was if they realised that they were forcing us down the fossil-fuels route and that their 'views' would have serious knock-on effects for carbon emmissions and global warming? Cheers guys, nice one, got any more brain waves? Will the phrase "the road to ruin is paved with good intentions" finally have some meaning for these people?

      The worrying issue is that the same self-styled moral guardians (albeit a bit older) that got the N-bomb wrong and Nuclear energy wrong are about to force us all down quite possibly another blind alley. Will they be able to control themselves and deliver a rational solution to the UK's energy needs or will they wear their bleeding hearts with pride and demonise anyone that doesn't think that millions of wind turbines are a good thing or worse still just sit back taking cheap shots at other pragmatic solutions because there green credentials aren't good enough. They may as well just start tossing pensioners on the fire now because as gas prices increase so will the pensioner death rate.

      Comment


        #4
        I'd rather have problem of global warning rather than nuclear fallout - the size of this country is so small that a single serious accident will force everyone either to migrate elsewhere or mutate.

        What should be done is the same as was done in old times in this country - make high priority to find effective ways to get out of fossil fuel depedency - I believe one of the English Queens made some research goals a high priority with very high reward something that lead to invention of better navigation in the high seas (See movie called Longtitude).

        Comment


          #5
          I'd rather have problem of global warning rather than nuclear fallout - the size of this country is so small that a single serious accident will force everyone either to migrate elsewhere or mutate




          Not sure that this is really true, sure the anti-nuke brigade will tell you it's so but I'm not convinced (bearing in mind the same sources delivered us global warming and are therefore poor standard bearers for whats right). If it were so dangerous why have other countries made nuclear a big part of their energy strategy for so long and why are others actively building new stations.

          As for nuclear waste, aren't BNFL a dumping ground for much of the worlds nuclear waste already? So we get the bad bit without the benefits of the energy produced?

          If we were to add up all the deaths as a result of a nuclear event (power station meltdown or bomb) then compare that to the deaths over the same time period attributed to 'the cold' and other energy related deaths I think that the nuclear would come a poor second.

          We need an energy solution now, not some airy-fairy 'green' possibilities sometime in the future.

          If green solutions work then lets use them now but we can't because they remain aspirational expressions of bleeding hearts.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by vista
            If it were so dangerous why have other countries made nuclear a big part of their energy strategy for so long and why are others actively building new stations.
            They take their chances - they also have different geographical configuration, with the only exception of being Japan, but their culture is different from the UKs - they build sky-scrapers in country with regular earthquakes, so going nuclear probably does not increase risks big time anyway.

            The solution is to invest money - and lots of it - into non-nuclear/non-fossil fuels, put huge grants out - all those ridiculous taxes that are being robbed from motorists in this country should go into R&D for new fuels.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by AtW
              The solution is to invest money - and lots of it - into non-nuclear/non-fossil fuels, put huge grants out - all those ridiculous taxes that are being robbed from motorists in this country should go into R&D for new fuels.
              Nope, that was the solution 10-20 years ago and that boat has well and truly sailed and we missed it. Not to say that we shouldn't do it now but its not an immedate solution to our current energy needs.

              It's all good and well to want green solutions but the price of gas is only going one way and many older people will die because they cannot afford to heat their homes - we are in the midst of a crisis and solutions need to be quick or more will die needlessly.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by vista
                Nope, that was the solution 10-20 years ago and that boat has well and truly sailed and we missed it.
                Why missed? There is enough oil for at least next 30-50 years, given the advances in IT over the last 20 years I'd say chances to develop something now are better than before - there is no option really because nuclear power won't be of any use in cars for a long time.

                I'd say a good start would be to ban petrol engines with gradual phaseout within 10 years - very low volume sports car makers can be exempt, but everyone else will have to switch to diesel. This alone would cut down fuel used by cars by good 35% while maintaining mobility. This will reduce CO2 big time too - a no brainer really, but a death penalty to Gordon Browns of this world who would lose huge chunk of revenue they get from motorists.

                Comment


                  #9
                  All the required technical solutions are there - all thats needed is a governing regime - that is not obsessed with tax, red tape, and sending whatever is left over abroad.
                  Vieze Oude Man

                  Comment


                    #10
                    It's "funny" that this is happening before a Ukraine election...

                    Looks like the Rooskies want their boy to win this time.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X