Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

European natural gas imports and storage reserves

bruegel.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 296 posts

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#101

Post by The_Colonel »

blub wrote: post #100
The_Colonel wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We should all be lobbying for a large neutral buffer zone between US-aligned Europe and Russia, not expanding the alliance designed to destroy Russia towards Moscow. Ukraine was neutral before 2014, somehow it didn't help. It didn't get invaded because they were about to join NATO, but because they started to orient themselves to the EU. What you actually argue for, and what Putin is after, is to let Russia re-buil…

AFAIK the reason why Ukraine wasn’t invited to join back then were objections from France and Germany. The US were courting them and lobbying for them to join. This is a classic escalation spiral, where flirtations between Ukraine and NATO triggered Russian aggression which in turn intensified the collaboration of NATO and Ukraine. And so on and so forth.

Nothing NATO related happened in 2013/2014 which would trigger the invasion. People keep ignoring the fact that from the Russian side this is not (just) about security/NATO, but about the larger goal of keeping CEE (and specifically Ukraine) within its sphere of control.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#102

Post by js8 »

nradov wrote: post #85
js8 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you show that such action would lead to fewer deaths and less suffering?

That isn't a relevant question. The goal is to contain Russian expansionism, not to minimize deaths.

Well, our values seem to differ, then. I don't mind Russian expansion unless there are dead people in its wake. I think saving the lives should always trump the national pride.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#103

Post by soco »

blub wrote: post #92
modo_mario wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Verbal face to face agreements that go against the explicit wish of the countries involved which you give no agency? Should a finger be pointed at the agreement regarding Ukraine giving up the USSR nukes?

Such agreements are based on trust and if that’s gone both parties stand to lose a lot. The kind of global challenges we will meet can only be tackled by having the US, Russia, China, India, the EU work together. Pointing out that it was a verbal agreement is correct, but is missing the bigger point. This is not just a technical gotcha, the future of humanity is at stake. Those countries which wanted to join have age…

Turkey apparently didn't get this rubber-stamping message, and used their vote for own gains. To me this still looks pretty much like a state deciding for themselves.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#104

Post by stoltzmann »

js8 wrote: post #102
nradov wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't a relevant question. The goal is to contain Russian expansionism, not to minimize deaths.

Well, our values seem to differ, then. I don't mind Russian expansion unless there are dead people in its wake. I think saving the lives should always trump the national pride.

Russian expansion does indeed mean dead people. It means constant suffering, political oppression (including killing opponents or forcibly relocating them), destruction of economy and the death of culture.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#105

Post by distances »

pydry wrote: post #95
distances wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ask your Congressman about pulling out of Guam and closing all overseas military bases. I'm from a small country by the Russian northern border, so I don't have anything to do with Guam but of course do have pretty strong opinions about who should be able to dictate our future.

This probably means that your country (maybe reluctantly, maybe not) lent its support to the Iraqi occupation under pressure from the US government. That was due to those competing spheres of influence. When you join a criminal gang for protection youve gotta prove your loyalty to the top dog and respect his power. The dynamics arent all that different to when a 15 year old kid joins a gang in south central - sometim…

It's Finland, so not that much to do with Iraq either. Instead, Finland has a lot of experience about being in the USSR sphere of influence (see Finlandization), and thus I wholeheartedly support Ukraine's right to choose their own alignment.

> When you join a criminal gang for protection

I think we agree that in this context you choose to join a gang, and the opposing gang doesn't get to prevent you from leaving them. Nobody has promised NATO membership to Ukraine. However, they are free to align with Western values and apply for any membership they wish, be it EU or NATO. And when they join, yes that membership comes with certain obligations too.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#106

Post by KptMarchewa »

js8 wrote: post #102
nradov wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't a relevant question. The goal is to contain Russian expansionism, not to minimize deaths.

Well, our values seem to differ, then. I don't mind Russian expansion unless there are dead people in its wake. I think saving the lives should always trump the national pride.

Do you not mind Russia transferring Ukrainian children to brainwash them? Admit it, Ukrainians face genocide.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#107

Post by iSnow »

dnh44 wrote: post #65
iSnow wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia has no say over Eastern Europ and ex-USSR countries. If they want to join NATO, there is nothing Russia can do. Justifying a war based on this is just very wrong.

I remember when I learned about the Cuban missile crisis as a kid (in America) my initial thought was to ask what moral right the US had in nearly starting a war in order to stop the Soviets from moving their missiles to Cuba when both the USSR and Cuba wanted that. Thankfully for the world saner minds prevailed and a settlement was reached. The soviets turned their ships around and the US removed their missiles from…

And yet, the USA did not invade Cuba or press a regime change after the CMC. There was a negotiated settlement where the USA withdrew their missiles from Turkey, left Castro alone and that settled the issue.

NATO never deployed nukes in any of the ex-USSR countries, did not build extensive permanent bases, signed the Russia/NATO founding act and in general tried to accommodate Moscow.

There's a world of difference between deploying offensive nukes in a neighboring country and allowing countries to join a defensive alliance. That's not to say I am a huge fan of US politics of the 1960's, but the comparison is simply lopsided.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#108

Post by iSnow »

gdy wrote: post #60
iSnow wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia has no say over Eastern Europ and ex-USSR countries. If they want to join NATO, there is nothing Russia can do. Justifying a war based on this is just very wrong.

Just like Cuba wanted to host Soviet missiles in 1962. Oddly, the US didn't think 'there is nothing we can do' and was about to start WW3 over it.

So, uhm, which country in central/eastern Europe hosts NATO nuclear missiles again?

That's just whataboutism.

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#109

Post by kennend3 »

phicoh wrote: post #57
kennend3 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France claims two things: - Reactors are seasonally idle and will ramp back up for winter - During this normally idle time, they do maintenance https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/minister-fren... Perhaps this idea that "half of France's reactors are idle" is partly true, partly scare tactics from the "anti-nuke" group? Nuclear reactors require vast amounts of cooling water so timing your "down time" to co…

This summer, France has been importing significant amounts of electricity from countries that burn gas or coal. You don't do that if you have plenty of nuclear power available.

Re-read what i wrote.. if you know that water levels will be low and you purposely idle your reactors annually.. then you do import power.

It looks like this is NOT a new problem (from 2016) https://www.economist.com/business/2016/12/01/frances-nuclea...

Re: European natural gas imports and storage reserves

#110

Post by kennend3 »

phicoh wrote: post #53
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had no idea outputs are hindered by weather. Do you know if this applies to newer reactors as well, or just older ones France is operating?

This can in theory happen to any steam-based power plant. Using steam to generate electricity is about 30% efficient. So you still need to get rid of the other 70% of heat that is generated, but not converted to electricity. So it would also happen to power plants that burn coal.

This! People think this is a "nuclear" problem. .it is a cooling water problem regardless of where the heat came from.
Post reply on HN