Russia Invades Ukraine 2022

[Ken]

Not true. Europe already has 28 large-scale LNG terminals and they are building new ones as fast as possible in all the major ports to accommodate increased natural gas imports from North America and the middle east.

... are you saying that the U.S. has enough energy to be a net energy exporter?

Yes I am saying that. Because it is true. The US is now the world's largest exporter of LNG and the export capacity continues to grow each month as new export terminals come online: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=53159

The United States became the world’s largest liquefied natural gas (LNG) exporter during the first half of 2022, according to data from CEDIGAZ. Compared with the second half of 2021, U.S. LNG exports increased by 12% in the first half of 2022, averaging 11.2 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d). U.S. LNG exports continued to grow for three reasons—increased LNG export capacity, increased international natural gas and LNG prices, and increased global demand, particularly in Europe.

According to our estimates, installed U.S. LNG export capacity has expanded by 1.9 Bcf/d nominal (2.1 Bcf/d peak) since November 2021. The capacity additions included a sixth train at the Sabine Pass LNG, 18 new mid-scale liquefaction trains at the Calcasieu Pass LNG, and increased LNG production capacity at Sabine Pass and Corpus Christi LNG facilities. As of July 2022, we estimate that U.S. LNG liquefaction capacity averaged 11.4 Bcf/d, with a shorter-term peak capacity of 13.9 Bcf/d.

International natural gas and LNG prices hit record highs in the last quarter of 2021 and first half of 2022. Prices at the Title Transfer Facility (TTF) in the Netherlands have been trading at record highs since October 2021. TTF averaged $30.94 per million British thermal units (MMBtu) during the first half of 2022. LNG spot prices in Asia have also been high, averaging $29.50/MMBtu during the same period.

Since the end of last year, countries in Europe have increasingly imported more LNG to compensate for lower pipeline imports from Russia and to fill historically low natural gas storage inventories. LNG imports in the EU and UK increased by 63% during the first half of 2022 to average 14.8 Bcf/d.

Most U.S. LNG exports went to the EU and the UK during the first five months of this year, accounting for 64%, or 7.3 Bcf/d, of the total U.S. LNG exports. Similar to 2021, the United States sent the most LNG to the EU and UK during the first half of the year, providing 47% of the 14.8 Bcf/d of Europe's total LNG imports, followed by Qatar at 15%, Russia at 14%, and four African countries combined at 17%.

[Josh]

Claiming pipeline gas can be replaced with LNG is basically laughable. If it worked so well, people in Ireland wouldn’t be getting 10,000 Euro electric bills.

[Bootstrap]

The only other sources available to them are domestic coal, nuclear power, or imported oil

Not to mention wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and hamsters.

[Josh]

In all seriousness, we really do need to find some other reliable, sustainable sources of energy. Currently California is under threat of blackouts with high temperatures inland (temps of 100 F are normal there, but right now it's going up to 110 F). In the old days people built buildings to be habitable without A/C but we don't do that anymore. Citizens are being asked to turn off A/C or turn it up to 78 F and not use appliances in the afternoon. Solar isn't helping because the sun goes down in the evening, right when people get home and start using more electricity or plugging in their electric cars.

This means things like electric cars can't charge up either.

Long term, either we must spend a great deal of money and shore up our expertise on complex systems like nuclear - which pose their own problems about things like disposing of nuclear waste - or else "deindustrialise", that is, start consuming far less of things like electricity and other products of modern society. Perhaps this is a good thing, but it will be a very uncomfortable adjustment.

There are pipe dreams about things like wind or solar that just don't end up making much of a difference - it takes huge amounts of energy to build up wind and solar in the first place, it takes technical expertise to keep it working, and eventually it has to be replaced. More importantly, despite huge investments in that, blackouts are much more common in America than they used to be.

[Valerie]

In all seriousness, we really do need to find some other reliable, sustainable sources of energy. Currently California is under threat of blackouts with high temperatures inland (temps of 100 F are normal there, but right now it's going up to 110 F). In the old days people built buildings to be habitable without A/C but we don't do that anymore. Citizens are being asked to turn off A/C or turn it up to 78 F and not use appliances in the afternoon. Solar isn't helping because the sun goes down in the evening, right when people get home and start using more electricity or plugging in their electric cars.

This means things like electric cars can't charge up either.

Long term, either we must spend a great deal of money and shore up our expertise on complex systems like nuclear - which pose their own problems about things like disposing of nuclear waste - or else "deindustrialise", that is, start consuming far less of things like electricity and other products of modern society. Perhaps this is a good thing, but it will be a very uncomfortable adjustment.

There are pipe dreams about things like wind or solar that just don't end up making much of a difference - it takes huge amounts of energy to build up wind and solar in the first place, it takes technical expertise to keep it working, and eventually it has to be replaced. More importantly, despite huge investments in that, blackouts are much more common in America than they used to be.

Well I was talking to my daughter last night who lives in San Diego County, CA, she received an alert on her phone saying they are not to use power as much as possible appliances etc and Warned that there could be a power outage. Crazy!

[nett]

Well I was talking to my daughter last night who lives in San Diego County, CA, she received an alert on her phone saying they are not to use power as much as possible appliances etc and Warned that there could be a power outage. Crazy!

This is what I'm talking about in the other thread. Everyone can't be charging their electric cars under these conditions.

[temporal1]

Putin versus NATO (and the West)

REDACTED / “Putin has a DEVASTATING message for NATO and he's not bluffing” | Redacted with Clayton Morris / -34min

Description:
Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed his nation today and announced a “partial military mobilization.”
In civilian speak, this means that he is ramping up his country’s efforts in Ukraine.
He says that the West has thwarted peace talks and if Russian borders are threatening, he is ready to escalate.
And he's not bluffing.

In the video, C Morris describes how most in the West do not hear Putin. Well, no, we don’t.
In the U.S., mainstream media doesn’t freely air U.S. presidents! - Not any longer.
Only in bits they choose to allow, when the mic isn’t pulled, when not interpreting or walking back.

Why would we expect to hear anything from Putin?! - or any other leader?

[Ken]

Actually in contrast to the above video, Putin is almost certainly bluffing.

The fact is that any first use of nuclear weapons by a nuclear state against a non-nuclear state will instantly obliterate the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which virtually every country in the world has signed other than Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Sudan.

In very simple terms, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is a promise between nuclear and non-nuclear nations in that the non-nuclear nations agree not to seek and build nuclear weapons and the nuclear nations agree not to use them against non-nuclear states. In other words, if you promise not to build your own nuclear weapons, the nuclear states agree not to use their weapons against you.

But the US and USSR were primary signatories as was China.

No nuclear state wants to see nuclear proliferation. It makes the world much less stable. This especially applies to Russia which has longer and more hostile borders than any other country in the world. Russia has no interest in seeing nations it borders like Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and even Ukraine gain nuclear weapons. And the surest way to guarantee all of those states build and arm themselves with nuclear weapons is to use them against a non-nuclear state.

That in a nutshell is why Russia is almost certainly bluffing. It would be exceedingly stupid and counterproductive for them to use nukes in Ukraine because it would lead to a proliferation of nuclear weapons across all of Russia's borders. They aren't that irrational.

[temporal1]

In that case, it's just politics. I don't think in those terms, so I have no reply.

I just now saw this in the news:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62912892

During their last meeting in February - when Mr Putin travelled to Beijing for the Winter Olympics at Mr Xi's invitation - the two sought to demonstrate their close ties, famously declaring they shared a friendship with "no limits".

A poor translation? Perhaps.

i rely on you when it comes to language, for sure.
in this case, my guess is, the words are as intended. for various political reasons.
politically, i would “consider the sources” and interpret their words to be thoroughly political - and subject to change according to political/economic/military expediency.

(i would) automatically replace their words, “friendship” and “no limits” with “alliance” and “conditional.”
i don’t take everyone at their word. “accept” and, “time will tell.”

Pearl Harbor and 9-11-01 took most by surprise.

at the moment, reports are that Russia has experienced some setbacks in Ukraine.
a wounded wild animal is a dangerous animal.

i read very little as tho it’s anything more than an opinion;
to say “biased opinion” would probably be redundant.

In this era of sitting elected U.S. presidents being (edited, censored, explained-away, etc) - but most everyone else finding a public speaking arena, i try not to “bite.” I read. I think. I watch. I try to remember, esp past lies, patterns of lies, past errors, in attempt to maintain balance.

Wounded wild animals are dangerous. That’s just a fact of life. “Pride goeth before a fall” is another fact.
“Nothing to see here,” is often an insultng lie.

“Don’t turn your back on him,” is reasonable advice, in most situations.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[Soloist]

Actually in contrast to the above video, Putin is almost certainly bluffing.

The fact is that any first use of nuclear weapons by a nuclear state against a non-nuclear state will instantly obliterate the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which virtually every country in the world has signed other than Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Sudan.

In very simple terms, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is a promise between nuclear and non-nuclear nations in that the non-nuclear nations agree not to seek and build nuclear weapons and the nuclear nations agree not to use them against non-nuclear states. In other words, if you promise not to build your own nuclear weapons, the nuclear states agree not to use their weapons against you.

But the US and USSR were primary signatories as was China.

No nuclear state wants to see nuclear proliferation. It makes the world much less stable. This especially applies to Russia which has longer and more hostile borders than any other country in the world. Russia has no interest in seeing nations it borders like Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and even Ukraine gain nuclear weapons. And the surest way to guarantee all of those states build and arm themselves with nuclear weapons is to use them against a non-nuclear state.

That in a nutshell is why Russia is almost certainly bluffing. It would be exceedingly stupid and counterproductive for them to use nukes in Ukraine because it would lead to a proliferation of nuclear weapons across all of Russia's borders. They aren't that irrational.

Maybe, but the they might be too busy looking at short term gain to look at long term cost. They may estimate that a nuke in "defense" will not result in more cost then this war has already cost them in terms of political tension and wager that USA isn't willing to actually put boots on the ground.