Thoughts On Three Issues - Putin On Europe's Gas Crisis, Iran Talks, Lebanon Shooting
Natural gas prices in Europe exploded last week after reports of too low inventory of natural gas for the upcoming winter. Claims were made that Russia had caused the price increase. But even the BBC finds that this is not the case:
Russia's own gas storage is also down.Adeline Van Houtte, a Europe analyst at the Economist's Intelligence Unit, says: "Currently, the Russian domestic gas market remains tight, with output already near its peak and winter is looming... limiting gas export capacity."
There are several other factors affecting the situation in Europe, such as:
- cold weather at the start of 2021 depleting stocks
- rising prices in spring and summer put traders off buying to sell later in the year
- limited supply from Norway because of maintenance issues
- reduction in other energy sources such as wind power
- growing demand for gas elsewhere in the world
The 'liberalization' of European gas markets by the EU has also led to more speculation. It was one of the many mistakes made in European energy policy.
Yesterday Russia's president Vladimir Putin held a remarkable speech about energy supply to Europe and pointed out some of its weaknesses:
Over the past 10 years, the share of renewable energy sources in the European energy balance has skyrocketed, which, on the face of it, appears to be a good thing – and they are now playing a significant and noticeable part. What can you say? It is a good thing any way you look at it.However, this sector is notorious for erratic power generation. It requires large reserve capacities. In the event of major generation failures, primarily due to bad weather, this reserve is simply not large enough to cover the demand.
This is exactly what happened this year, when, due to a decrease in wind farm generation, there was a shortage of electricity on the European market. Prices soared, which triggered a spike in natural gas prices on the spot market.
Importantly, gas consumption is seasonal. Its reserves are traditionally replenished in the summer to meet the winter demand. However, this year, even after a cold winter in Europe, many countries chose not to do so, relying on spot gas supplies and the “invisible hand” of the market, but a spike in demand has sent prices even higher.
To reiterate, the rise in natural gas prices in Europe stemmed from shortages of electricity, not the other way around. There is no need to lay the blame on other people, which is what some of our partners are trying to do. Occasionally, you get stunned by what is being said on this account, as if these people do not know the numbers – I will say more about this later – as if they do not see the reality and are just covering up their own mistakes. Systemic flaws have been gradually introduced in European energy over the past decade, which led to a major market crisis in Europe.
As a reminder, when nuclear and natural gas-based generation were the leading energy sources, there were no such crises, and there were no grounds for them.
Europe, especially as it wants to change its road traffic from hydrocarbon to electric driven, will need more basic electric generation capacity. The only 'green' way to achieve that in sufficient size is by nuclear energy.
---
The Biden administrations finally recognizes that its 'Iran policy is failing.
Blinken says US is prepared to turn to 'other options' if nuclear diplomacy with Iran fails
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that if diplomatic talks with Iran fail, the United States "is prepared to turn to other options" to prevent the country from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
Iran does not want to obtain nuclear weapons.
The diplomatic talks with Iran will fail only if the Biden administration fails to return to the nuclear deal and does not lift the sanctions imposed on Iran by the Trump administration. The sole problem is that Biden wants more concessions from Iran than it had given under the JCPOA agreement.
It is funny then to hear Blinken talk of 'other options' when everyone knows that the U.S. does not have any. Any U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear installations will invite a strong military response. A war with Iran would destroy Israel and whatever is left of the U.S. position in the Middle East. Obama had recognized that. Trump had recognized that. It is high time for Biden to recognize that too and to act accordingly.
---
This morning followers of Hizbullah and Amal in Lebanon protested against a judge who is tasked with investigating last years enormous explosion in Beirut's harbor. The judge seems to steer the investigation against Hizbullah even as other groups were responsible for the ammonium nitrate storage that has caused the disaster.
During this mornings demonstration snipers from the fascist Lebanese Forces militia opened fire on the protesters. Six were killed and several were wounded. All of them were Shia followers of Amal and Hizbullah. But reading 'western' media, here the Guardian, you would not learn that this was a very one-sided affair:
Five people have died in armed clashes that broke out in Beirut during a protest demanding an end to a judicial investigation into last year’s massive blast in the city’s port.The Lebanese interior ministry confirmed the deaths, and gunfire reportedly wounded more than a dozen other people. The deployment of soldiers failed to stem the violence, which took on a sectarian tone. The fighting happened near a civil war-era frontline in which militias from Maronite Christian and Shia Muslim blocs have previously clashed.
The assault on the protesters happen just as U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland is visiting Lebanon. Given her direct involvement in the 2014 Maidan coup which also saw sniper fire against protesters it seems unlikely that this is just a coincidence.
Posted by b on October 14, 2021 at 16:10 UTC | Permalink
next page »These snipers actors remind me of some similar events in Abidjan years ago. The french marines where holding a position with the towers of the hotel Ivoire in their back. A crowd of angry locals were facing them. Then shots were fired at the protesters, seemingly coming from the direction of the french forces. It escalated beautifully. Only a few understood where the firing was coming from. The rooftop of the hotel. The sniper is an old grunt by now.
Posted by: Stéphane | Oct 14 2021 16:35 utc | 2
Bottomline- Hezbollah has discipline, weapons, soldiers, and strong allies and cannot be taken out of the Lebanese scene... efforts towards this end (protests in Lebanon, militias in Lebanon, ISIS in Lebanon, Syrian civil war, squeezing Iran, creating ISIS, etc) all made Hezbollah stronger and stronger....this too will make Hezbollah stronger because LF is not something that anyone inside Lebanon can rely upon or benefit from.
Posted by: nme | Oct 14 2021 16:50 utc | 3
I do hope someone has explained to Victoria Nuland that Hezbollah is nothing like the Party of Regions and that it's militia is among the most capable and experienced infantry in the world
Posted by: Ghost Ship | Oct 14 2021 16:51 utc | 4
"The only 'green' way to achieve that in sufficient size is by nuclear energy."
So there is no solution at all? The expansion of nuclear energy is hyper-expensive and snail-slow. Flamanville: 14 years of construction and not yet completed at 19.1 billion € costs. (And finally, waste disposal - billions again.) Similar things can be reported from other nuclear power plant construction sites.
Of course, it can be done differently and faster - massively accelerate the expansion of photovoltaics, expand reserve capacities in many ways. Geothermal energy is also an interesting regenerative option that even supplies base-load energy.
The easiest way, of course, is to get serious about saving energy. There is still a lot of room for improvement.
Posted by: pnyx | Oct 14 2021 17:07 utc | 5
Putin is right and is saying now what many people (including myself) have been saying for years: renewable electricity generation via solar PV and wind is not capable of sustaining base loads.
It isn't just Europe - California also has had severe problems with electricity supply after installing massive solar PV and significant wind.
Essentially - until (and very much if) we have affordable and large scale electricity storage, solar PV and wind is not capable of providing more than 25% to 30% of electricity supply base load. Any more than that - brownouts and blackouts *will* regularly occur. Even at 25% of base load, there are still going to be extended periods - i.e. weeks and even months - where the renewables will not perform to need.
As for nuclear: A lot of the expense and issues with nuclear are due to massive lobbying and lawsuits by those opposed to it.
Yet nuclear reactors can clearly be operated for long periods safely. France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear and started operating its first nuclear plant in 1962. We're not talking about 1 or 2, we're talking about 56 reactors - the second most in the world behind the United States (which has 93). France's population is about 1/5th of the US, so France has something like 2.5 times as much nuclear support per unit of population vs. the US.
Japan had 54 reactors operating prior to Fukushima.
Posted by: c1ue | Oct 14 2021 17:23 utc | 6
re: nuclear - yes, but much more expensive than wind and solar on a capacity basis. However, the system must be built so that the backups can supply 100% of demand.
Thus to realize CO2 reduction that are planned, overall capacity utilization in the whole system must necessarily be low, like 20-30%. The problem of how to distribute the cost of idling the system still hasn't been solved. IMO it requires either central planning or subsidies for all generators, which amounts to the same thing.
re: natural gas - One other point is that US and Qatar are also not giving EU the cheap gas that's needed. The naugas futures are currently super high price for about 6 months, and moderately high price after that. There will be temptation to hold off on locking in supply for 2022-2023 at these prices. This will eventually lead to overproduction and collapse of prices, but with a time delay and not clear when. Lots of industrial and agricultural customers of gas will have big deficits to make up next year.
Still, EU likely to refuse Russia's ask for long term contracts, on the hope that prices will decrease sooner rather than later. The consequences is that Siberia II pipeline from Yamal to China via Mongolia goes ahead (6-8 year project typically).
Other sideshows, regardless of EU may include long deferred Iran Pakistan pipeline. High food prices because of NG -> fertilizer will cause really bad impacts too. It's going to be a rocky 6-18 months...
Posted by: ptb | Oct 14 2021 17:33 utc | 7
On the nuclear front it seems to me that there has been a massive negative learning curve in the West as France could build out 56 nuclear reactors over 15 years from 1985 through the Messmer plan, but now can't even build one over a nearly a decade? Same problems in the US, and the UK nuclear industry is pretty much gone.
I wonder if China will do for nuclear what they did for high-speed trains - suddenly leap onto the world stage building massive amounts of capacity very rapidly. In 2005 people laughed at Chinese high speed trains, by 2015 China was the one laughing. Perhaps the Russians will be laughing as well. Both nations have the type of government that can get things done and shut the opposition up.
Batteries won't be where they have to be to balance wind and solar at scale until at least the mid 2030's.
Posted by: Roger | Oct 14 2021 17:37 utc | 8
Interesting parallel - or the reverse - w/r/t Putin's comments on the situation in Europe and Russia.
However, this sector is notorious for erratic power generation. It requires large reserve capacities. In the event of major generation failures, primarily due to bad weather, this reserve is simply not large enough to cover the demand.This is exactly what happened this year, when, due to a decrease in wind farm generation, there was a shortage of electricity on the European market. Prices soared, which triggered a spike in natural gas prices on the spot market.
Importantly, gas consumption is seasonal. Its reserves are traditionally replenished in the summer to meet the winter demand. However, this year, even after a cold winter in Europe, many countries chose not to do so, relying on spot gas supplies and the “invisible hand” of the market, but a spike in demand has sent prices even higher.
In Texas this past February, my family and virtually all of our friends, save one group, lost electricity for up to 7 days. Our power was out during the coldest weather on recent record for 5 days and it reached 33 degrees indoors, with the fireplace burning wood that I'd chopped (illegally) from a hillside behind our condo before we finally fled to one of the aforementioned households that had electricity due to their proximity to a new 9-11 (emergency services hotline in the US) command center.
Initially the push in the corporate media and right-wing social media/politics was to blame the "failures" of wind and solar generation. However, what it really amounted to was what similar to what VP refers to in that in Texas, the market is "liberalized" or rather, deregulated for all intents and purposes. Hence, the gas fired power plants refused to winterize despite numerous previous winters in which something similar happened. The far east and far west portions of the state were not affected because they are part of the Eastern and Western Interconnects respectively and those are regulated at the federal level.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-storm/
Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Oct 14 2021 17:43 utc | 9
So "B", are you trying to tell us that Nudleman-Khagan has herself a Personal Sniper Team as part of her Entourage?
Posted by: IronForge | Oct 14 2021 17:49 utc | 10
Both nations have the type of government that can get things done and shut the opposition up.Batteries won't be where they have to be to balance wind and solar at scale until at least the mid 2030's.
Posted by: Roger | Oct 14 2021 17:37 utc | 8
Fair points. And in the USA, the "opposition" consists almost fully of the fossil fuel industry inclusive of their army of lobbyists, massive campaign contributions to elected officials (much of it hidden due to dark money allowances), and their having purchased most engineering departments at state and private universities - much as corporate America has co-opted the legal and business schools starting in the 1970s. In China - and Russia albeit to a lesser extent - the government maintains primacy and keeps "industry" and the banks in check. In the USA not so much, hence we have fewer miles of high speed rail in a country of 330 million people than Uzbekistan does.
Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Oct 14 2021 17:54 utc | 11
Thorium reactors as possible alterative to nuclear reactors (which are wee bit dangerous).
https://www.livescience.com/china-creates-new-thorium-reactor.html
Posted by: Joe | Oct 14 2021 17:55 utc | 12
Lebanese News and Updates
@LebUpdate
·
1h
The Lebanese army just arrested an armed cell of Lebanese Forces party members in Mount Lebanon. <-- for the sniping
visit to Twitter through b's link was blocked, but I found this re-twit
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 14 2021 17:55 utc | 13
@ptb #7
Russia also has other markets it can serve now: China and Turkey.
What has not been talked about as much is that China is also having power issues; China and Japan have been buying LNG like mad. Putin's reference to lower supplies from the US is certainly partly due to this as well as the domestic doubling of natural gas prices in the past year.
The massive downturn in oil fracking in the US is a significant factor; something like 40% of the natural gas over-saturating the US market for many years is because of this. But the downturn in drilling due to the downturn in financing is going to affect US natural gas supplies dramatically. EIA data show negative monthly natural gas production in the US, every month, since November 2020.
Posted by: c1ue | Oct 14 2021 17:57 utc | 14
@Tom_Q_Collins #9
The Texas freeze failure was certainly not due to the (lack of) production of solar PV and wind; neither were expected to produce anything in February to speak of.
However, Texas utilies had spent many tens of billions installing an unprecedented number of windmills - along with all of the grid extensions to connect them - in the few years prior to this year. In addition, something like 1/3 rated capacity of the wind install - but in fossil fuel powered electricity generators - was taken offline in the same period.
So it seems highly likely that both degraded base load capacity and skimped grid/power plant maintenance - very possibly due to the overfocus on wind installs - bears blame.
Posted by: c1ue | Oct 14 2021 18:00 utc | 15
Posted by: c1ue | Oct 14 2021 18:00 utc | 15
Do you have a cite for this:
In addition, something like 1/3 rated capacity of the wind install - but in fossil fuel powered electricity generators - was taken offline in the same period.
I can't find anything of the sort. Make no mistake, the winter outages were due to failures in the NG production/generation/distribution system because they failed to winterize and grossly underestimated the load demands for this particular storm - just as they did in 2011 and in the mid-90s, leading to massive blackouts. El Paso in the far west and several counties in the far north (panhandle) and east only experienced minor brownouts which are expected during such storms.
I have never seen any validated claims that LNG plants were taken offline in order to accommodate renewables like wind. In fact, and this is also anecdotal, I remember reading that an off-shore wind turbine plant ended up saving thousands of households in the Houston region from experiencing blackouts because they continued to operate during the storm.
Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Oct 14 2021 18:05 utc | 16
Hence, the gas fired power plants refused to winterize despite numerous previous winters in which something similar happened. The far east and far west portions of the state were not affected because they are part of the Eastern and Western Interconnects respectively and those are regulated at the federal level.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-storm/
Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Oct 14 2021 17:43 utc | 9
----------
"Hence" is a bit cryptic here. But in general, if you have a large part of electricity from wind and/or solar, you must maintain spare capacity when they do not work. Or some other plan for an occasion that happens every 10 years or so. Winterizing makes no economic sense for the utility if it is used for one week out of 500, so it is up to regulators to assure it without bankrupting the companies that would pay for it.
Texas has a commission that consists almost entirely of out-of-state experts in charge of that. Some of those experts hail from states where winter occurs every years...
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 14 2021 18:07 utc | 17
@ Posted by: c1ue | Oct 14 2021 17:57 utc | 14
Correct:
Russian pipeline gas exports to China nearly triple in 2021
In China, the CPC has already ordered all of its power plants "to guarantee energy supply whatever the costs".
Also, the tendency of the USA to export its LNG to Asia wasn't seriously shaken. Europe simply cannot compete anymore, it's that simple:
Asian buyers outbid Europe for spot supplies of US natural gas
Posted by: c1ue | Oct 14 2021 18:00 utc | 15
I think I may have been talking past your point without realizing it. Even if an equivalent of 1/3 of the capacity of wind generation capability was taken off-line that would amount to a tiny fraction of the overall power needs of the state. I understand that tiny fractions can make a big difference in somewhat of a butterfly effect, but my point is that without meaningful regulations on energy production/distribution and an over-reliance on just-in-time delivery models, things like what happened last February will continue to happen in Texas because it is governed strictly by the profit motive. It's also worth noting that while Texas is one of the primary producers of fossil fuels in the country, our electricity prices are among the highest.
Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Oct 14 2021 18:09 utc | 19
There are nuclear technologies that appear to have the potential to obviate a lot of the conventional concerns. One of interest is the Integral Fast Reactor. It essentially reprocesses the waste and reuses it.
Had a high school classmate that got a PhD in nuclear engineering, worked on the IFR until it was closed down under the Clinton administration. Because it was a breeder reactor--creates potential bomb fuel. I guess a country US) with 7000 (I don't really know the number) bombs simply cannot abide the thought of 7001.
Nuclear power can be safe, clean and reliable. But, we have to get our heads out from where the sun doesn't shine. Fat chance.
This isn't the only technology. There is a good documentary on thorium reactors. Stillborn for political reasons.
I am not technically competent to judge the pros and cons--my PhD is in EE. But, it seems that there are promising solutions, stillborn for political reasons.
Posted by: Cabystander | Oct 14 2021 18:10 utc | 20
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 14 2021 18:07 utc | 17
How is "hence" cryptic at all in the context of the article I posted? There was no profit motive to winterize the NG systems due to lack of regulation hence they didn't winterize. It's pretty straight forward. I'm not addressing renewables at all except to point out that the RW Republican politicians and corporate media initially blamed failures of solar and wind for the blackouts when it was about 97% failures of the natural gas systems.
Yes, Texas' electricity grids in the majority of the state are managed by the ironically named Electricity Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), which at the time did in fact have numerous members of the board/management from out of state where the feds force them to winterize, unlike in most of Texas. Heads rolled after the storm and most of the out of state people were forced out.
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/23/ercot-members-resign-texas/
Posted by: Tom_Q_Collins | Oct 14 2021 18:15 utc | 21
Re: nuclear - yes, but much more expensive than wind and solar on a capacity basis. However, the system must be built so that the backups can supply 100% of demand.
I have seen Chinese data on "capacity" (TW of installed power) and "generation" (Two) broken into coal, gas, wind, solar, hydro, nuclear.
Wind has three times worse ratio of capacity to generation than nuclear, and solar, ten times. Thus with 1$/W of nominal capacity for solar and 3$/W for nuclear (Russian costs, American would be double, or worse) is more like 10$/W vs 3$/W (or 9 if build in USA). Thus in terms of energy costs, solar and nuclear are either equal (USA) or solar is few times more expensive (in Belarus, Turkey or another customer of RosAtom), with a difference that weather does not impact the nuclear power.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 14 2021 18:16 utc | 22
@Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 14 2021 18:16 utc | 22
Thankyou for such sanity and actual facts, I get so tried of seeing people compare nuclear (and coal and gas) to solar and wind using capacity rather than actual output. Also, no account made for variability and the possibility of days worth of low/no wind and solar. China must be really bad at solar, as it usually at 20-25% of capacity - not 10% or less.
Germany was utterly idiotic in closing down some of the best run nuclear plants in the world, it could have shut down its coal and anthracite usage instead.
Posted by: Roger | Oct 14 2021 18:22 utc | 23
@c1ue 14
>> Russia also has other markets it can serve now: China and Turkey.
Yep, that's where it is likely to go, I think. On a longer timescale, though, as long as the world continues to use oil, I think the price of the gas (at the production site) will still generally get pushed to a very low level -- because as the world's practically accessible oil reserves get lighter, they typically have more associated gas. So the gas price is about transport capacity, and the investment needed to build it.
>> massive downturn in oil fracking in the US
It can pick up fast too, compared to conventional oil. 6 month timescale. They're living off drilled-but-uncompleted wells now, the graph in the link below shows that around 40% of that buffer was consumed in the past year.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-US-Shale-Industry-Desperately-Needs-To-Drill.html
note: ignore the nonsense title and conclusion of the article, there is no crisis here IMO.
On a related note, the return of $70+ oil prices will accelerate unconventional oil elsewhere in the world. Argentina and China in particular.
Posted by: ptb | Oct 14 2021 18:23 utc | 24
The various reasons that President Putin listed form the background to the gas shortages and gas price rises; in particular, the willful failure to replenish gas reserves. Gas reserves in the EU in September were far lower than normal for the time of year. Perhaps that was extreme incompetence, but far more likely it was a deliberate conspiracy to cause shortages, which cause the price to increase. Reserves in Ukraine were at the same time almost full - was that showing typical Ukrainian far-sightedness in preparation for the winter? Hardly! Most probably that gas in the Ukrainian reserve storage belonged not to Ukraine but to EU traders, who were hoarding it there in anticipation of price increases caused by their own manipulation of availability in the EU. Even as shortages arose and prices started to go very high, still the traders did not release gas from Ukraine to fullfil demand - causing prices to skyrocket. Having bought the gas currently stored in Ukraine cheap, those traders can now sell at a massive profit. If they were to buy extra gas from Russia now, they would have to buy very expensively and sell at a small profit margin; probably they will not do so. Instead they will try to keep the shortages as severe as possible for as long as possible, so that they can make far more profits by releasing their stored gas onto the market as slowly as possible. Then again, if the traders are German they will benefit from the relatively fixed long term contract prices agreed in advance between Germay and Russia - around €220 per 1000m3 in September according to Putin (the implication was that some variables still affect the price, probably some kind of average world price over some period of time, so even that contract price will probably increase, but far less than the spot market price).
Thus the primary cause of the crisis is the EU traders' initial manipulation of availability - low reserves in the EU in September, probably deliberate. Even that would not be so severe if the traders had promptly released onto the market the gas they had in storage in Ukraine. That they did not do so massively compounded the crisis and massively increased prices.
Putin of course was too polite, as always. He almost never calls a spade a spade. But he knows what the traders are doing.
If my analysis is correct, every single one of those traders should go to jail, with 100% of their assets confiscated. Will that happen? I doubt it (in China, of course, they would be executed). I wonder, is there any connection with the "Great Reset"? Maybe it is part of the plot, planned and gamed years in advance just like the plandemic.
Posted by: BM | Oct 14 2021 18:28 utc | 25
@Posted by: vk | Oct 14 2021 18:07 utc | 18
I remember during the peak oil days of discussions that China etc. would price out the Western world from the marginal barrel of oil as the value add of their usage of that oil would be higher than in the richer nations - the latter having already moved on to less value added uses. i.e. demand destruction would occur in the West until the benefit of the marginal barrel would equal that in China.
Perhaps the same is happening with natural gas, the Chinese can simply pay more given the value add and the West need to destroy the demand for all the much more wasteful and less value added uses in their nations. Having a profiteering and deregulated privatized energy sector in the West just makes this worse. Russia will also give the priority to its domestic market, its own citizens, and are being shown that they should also give priority to China over Europe. The sheer idiocy of the elites of the latter seems to be following the US path with not much lag.
Posted by: Roger | Oct 14 2021 18:28 utc | 26
Posted by: Roger | Oct 14 2021 18:22 utc | 23
The advantage of coal is that the cost of stockpiling is low: just make a heap, oil is harder to store, natural gas even harder. So it is not that hard to create strategic reserve that would allow to survive a bad year. On the negative side, natural gas has double the amount of energy per CO2 produced compared to coal.
Of course, closing nuclear plants before they have to retire is utterly idiotic. Comparatively, not stockpiling fuel in time when it is cheap is not clever either. Of course, the total cost requires that old coal plants are not closed but actually maintained or even modernized.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 14 2021 18:30 utc | 27
Posted by: BM | Oct 14 2021 18:28 utc | 25
Another dimension related to the above is that by forcing prices way up, US LNG becomes highly profitable, where normally it is way overpriced for Europe. Therefore US involvement in the manipulation is a given.
Posted by: BM | Oct 14 2021 18:33 utc | 28
@ Posted by: Roger | Oct 14 2021 18:28 utc | 26
The main problem in this situation is that Europe is not the USA: if it is out-competed, it is out-competed, there's nothing "outside the box" it can do.
When the USA is involved things get more complicated for Russia and China, because the Americans have the USD Standard and its military power capable of projecting to their respective spheres of influence (see Ukraine, Taiwan, Hong Kong, SCS).
@22 Piotr Berman
Yep, you got it. The question, to me, is what happens when you have a system with excess wind/solar and also nuclear? Who gets idled when the sun/wind comes out? Who eats the cost?
Looking at it that way, a combination of (wind + solar + nuclear) costs more than both (wind + solar + natural gas) and (natural gas + nuclear).
Still, last I looked, actual Chinese domestic construction is in fact going hard into (wind + solar + nuclear) ... with +300GW of wind and +150GW solar in the current 5 year plan, already 100GW of that amount in progress in some form. In contrast, the pace of Chinese nuclear construction is something like +5 or +6 GW per year.
http://www.ecns.cn/news/politics/2021-10-12/detail-iharvwpk8244108.shtml
Posted by: ptb | Oct 14 2021 18:40 utc | 30
Re: Electricity
I agree with the prior comment that if nuclear energy is the solution, then there is no solution. Nuclear generation has been shown to be ridiculously expensive, and the environmental impacts are forever. If the presidents of the electric companies would take the spent fuel home and store it in their basements, I might approve of it. Otherwise, forget it!
The only practical solution is to use less electricity and use it more effficiently, which is hard to do. Energy from whateve source is what makes modern civillization go - industry, agriculture, domestic, transportation, what we are reading now. The liberalization of energy markets has not worked out as most people thought (some people may have anticipated the results - think Enron). Energy should probably be treated as an essential public good and controled/regulated as such.
Several years ago I saw an interesting flow chart that purported to show generalized electrical energy inputs and outputs. What struck me was that approximately 40% was lost in transmission through the network. For domestic use small local networks (solar and wind where feasible) might make sense. In the old days many cities had their own electric utilities. The big users might still stay tied to the web, or make their own. Load balancing agreements would be neccessary. Reducing transmission loss via smaller networks and/or more efficient transmission lines seems to be neccessary. As always, lack of any kind of centralized planning and coordination (in the name of FREEDOM) of course is the problem
Posted by: c | Oct 14 2021 18:47 utc | 31
I have heard that Iran and Venezuela have a lot of oil and gas and might be willing to sell some, but they cannot because they are under sanctions.
Posted by: Bemildred | Oct 14 2021 19:08 utc | 32
@ptb #30
You left out coal: China plans to build 73.5 GW of new coal plants
Given the actual production factors of solar and wind, the above coal plants may well produce more usable electricity than the new solar and wind...
Posted by: c1ue | Oct 14 2021 19:22 utc | 33
@Tom_Q_Collins #16, 19
Texas electricity prices are nothing compared to California - note a very large portion of CA electricity comes from 4 decade plus old hydro. Prices now are higher than when I lived there, but then again, Texas has installed more wind generation than any US state, period. Every single state, government or any other entity that has installed large amounts of renewable energy has seen their electricity prices increase far faster than those who have not: Germany, Denmark, UK, California, etc etc.
Some data to consider:
1) Texas spent $80B over 15 years to install wind power. In the last 5 years alone, 20GW of net new wind generation capacity was installed.
2) Over the same period, a net 4GW of coal and natural gas fueled electricity generation capacity was taken down.
If we say wind cap factor in Texas is 25% vs. 65% coal/natural gas - the new install wind generation actual production is still nearly double the amount taken offline. Or in other words, the Texas grid had not only reduced base load capacity from fossil fuel means but had counted on wind to provide electricity for all new demand growth.
Or put another way: even if none of the NG or coal plants went down, there still would have been blackouts. Just not as bad.
Posted by: c1ue | Oct 14 2021 19:37 utc | 34
NYT finally runs a decent story on bat virus discoveries in Laos.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/14/science/bat-coronaviruses-lab-leak.html
This, after the Washington Post Wuhan libel of a few days back, suggests a division in the US power bloc -- that between the New Cold Warriors and more liberal elements, which believe in some rapprochement and cooperation with China.
Biden seems to be balancing these wings -- saying he doesn't intend a new Cold War, rejecting the Wuhan lab lie, and holding talks on trade, but also building military alliances of containment, etc.
Posted by: Prof | Oct 14 2021 19:40 utc | 35
@BM #28 @ptb #24
It is far from clear to me that the NG industry in the US is highly profitable - given numerous high profile failures both on the NG fracking and the oil fracking side.
The fracking industry can scale up, but not without a return of the limitless easy credit that fueled the initial shale boom. Note that banks own a significant fraction of shale production companies these days. Do you see banksters willing to fork out additional huge sums to take chances exploring and drilling?
I sure don't. I see them sitting and squeezing on what's left to get their money back and maybe even make a profit.
Posted by: c1ue | Oct 14 2021 19:42 utc | 36
@c #31
40% might seem like a lot to you, but electricity transmission is inherently lossy.
For "high efficiency" transmission lines such as between states, the loss is 2.5% per 1000 km. However, utilities are not transmitting to consumers via these types of lines. Residential power transmission is far, far less efficient hence the 40% number. That seems a bit high, but then again, depends on the specific setup.
A good overview on the electrical system from generation through transmission
Note the above says 30% is inefficient due to power thieves - but they also may not understand just how sad US infrastructure is...
Posted by: c1ue | Oct 14 2021 19:47 utc | 37
@36 c1ue
Do you see banksters willing to fork out additional huge sums to take chances exploring and drilling?
At current prices, yes.
The economics of dry-gas and associated-gas are different.
Dry gas in the Marcellus is easily profitable at $4-5 US prices, which is where the US futures are now.
Associated gas in the Permian is, roughly speaking, independent of the natural gas price. It is a function of how much oil production is happening. Oil production went down in the past year because of Covid, thus less gas was produced (with a time lag in the feedback, that's what makes the oscillation in this system so common).
Now with oil also being expensive, the fracking output will ramp up. So how the analysts figure this for dry gas production, I have no idea. But if customers are willing to lock a price in the high $3.xx/Mcf range (US based), it will happen. If customers want the pricing that existed the last few years, no.
Posted by: ptb | Oct 14 2021 19:54 utc | 38
another report of the Lebanon situation.
According to presstv, armed groups shot from rooftops at Hezbollah supporters, who had gathered to protest against the judge investigating last year's catastrophic port explosion.
Lebanon's al-Mayadeen television said the gunfire at Tayyoune neighborhood on Thursday targeted hundreds of people, who had gathered in the vicinity of Beirut's Justice Palace.
In a statement, Hezbollah and its ally Amal said armed groups affiliated with the Lebanese Forces party led by Samir Geagea fired at the protesters from rooftops, aiming at their heads in an attempt to drag Lebanon into a new sectarian strife.https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2021/10/14/668503/Six-killed,-dozens-wounded-in-Lebanon-violence-blamed-on-US-embassy
Posted by: snake | Oct 14 2021 19:55 utc | 39
@Posted by: c1ue | Oct 14 2021 19:22 utc | 33
Those new Chinese coal plants tend to be ultra high efficiency ones, which may actually emit significantly less GHGs than natural gas when fugitive methane emissions are taken into account. The Chinese also seem to be pretty serious about CCS, if anyone can make it work it will be the Chinese:
Decarbonizing the Coal-Fired Power Sector in China via Carbon Capture, Geological Utilization, and Storage Technology
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.1c01144
"Analysis indicates that, based on 2017 costs and assumptions, The key results are summarized as follows: (1) more than 75% of the pulverized coal power plants satisfy the retrofitting criteria; (2) results indicate that more than 70% of the total installed coal power capacity (or more than 99% selected coal plants) retrofitted with the net CO2 removal efficiency of 50% appears cost-competitive compared with the current grid price of natural gas; (3) scenario analysis indicate that retrofitting CCUS to the 508 existing selected coal plants can annually store 893 and 1801 Million ton of CO2 at LACOEs of less than 60 USD/MWh as the LCOEs are increased by an average of 24.1 and 37.2 USD/MWh(53% to 81% of average grid price) for the entire fleet with 50% and 85% net mitigation rates, respectively. (4) There are 22–58% of coal power plants in this study would be cost-competitive with onshore wind generation if a grid price policy similar to that of renewables and natural gas power is applied."
Coal production, which meets 90%+ of domestic needs, is critical to Chinese energy security - so they have a lot of incentive to maintain their coal usage. After a lot of years of failure, they have also managed to start to significantly increase their domestic gas production. That, plus the new Russian pipeline will probably mean that they don't need Qatar/Australian gas at all late this decade.
A Review of Recent Trends in China’s Gas Sector and a Glimpse into the 14th Five-Year Plan
https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/cornot_china_gas_sector_2020.pdf
"Gas production has continued its significant growth and is likely to reach close to 190 bcm in 2020, driven by a surge in shale gas production"
Sinopec Proves China's First 100-Billion-Cubic-Meter Natural Gas Reserve in Sichuan Basin
https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/sinopec-proves-china-s-first-100-billion-cubic-meter-natural-gas-reserve-in-sichuan-basin-844991140.html
Posted by: Roger | Oct 14 2021 20:12 utc | 40
There is actually a way to build 100% reliable base load solar generating capacity, but it requires some massive up front investment. It also requires an equally massive army of engineers. This means the only entity capable today of realizing this approach is China. Fortunately, the CPC is actively looking into this approach. Unfortunately we will not be seeing much visible movement towards production facilities for about a decade.
Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 14 2021 20:41 utc | 41
BM #25
Thus the primary cause of the crisis is the EU traders' initial manipulation of availability - low reserves in the EU in September, probably deliberate. Even that would not be so severe if the traders had promptly released onto the market the gas they had in storage in Ukraine. That they did not do so massively compounded the crisis and massively increased prices.Putin of course was too polite, as always. He almost never calls a spade a spade. But he knows what the traders are doing.
If my analysis is correct, every single one of those traders should go to jail, with 100% of their assets confiscated. Will that happen? I doubt it (in China, of course, they would be executed). I wonder, is there any connection with the "Great Reset"? Maybe it is part of the plot, planned and gamed years in advance just like the plandemic.
Thank you and I fully appreciate your assessment. IMO energy should be a public enterprise and smart arse economists that like to do day trading for cheap thrills at the publics risk should be in gaol and confiscation of all assets. Europe is ridiculous for getting into this disaster. From what b reports Russia is not far behind with its gas storage shortfall but may have more scope to raise storage more rapidly at less expense.
Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 14 2021 20:42 utc | 42
The Spanish government has decreed a law to reduce power companies' excess profit. The result has been that power companies disconnected wind and solar to avoid losing money.
Posted by: Passerby | Oct 14 2021 21:05 utc | 43
Whenever anyone in US power loop says "all other options" it is code for "we don't know what to do next".
Posted by: Big Al | Oct 14 2021 21:18 utc | 44
@Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 14 2021 20:41 utc | 40
Please explain to me how you get through the night with 100% baseload solar energy with anywhere near current battery technology? Or a couple of very cloudy days when there is no wind (it happens). Take China's TW's per hour needs and you will see what I mean.
Posted by: Roger | Oct 14 2021 21:37 utc | 45
The anti-Empire crowd would like to believe that it is impossible to stop NS2, defeat Hezbollah, or stop a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. And that may actually be true (I can't say it isn't!) but that doesn't mean that the Empire will fall. No one should be complacent. The Empire is working on strategies to overcome its adversaries in multiple 'battle spaces'.
I think the most obvious of these stategems is to turn these negatives into advantages:
- NS2 is completed but rejected by Europe due to anti-competitive practices;
- Hezbollah is not defeated but worn down and distracted by a Civil War;
- An invasion of Taiwan is used to rally anti-China sentiment in countries around the world.
Cold Wars are long term affairs. Stock up on popcorn.
!!
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 14 2021 21:42 utc | 46
“The biggest leveraged buyout ever has become one of the largest bankruptcies, as a Texas power company succumbed to a lousy bet on natural-gas prices and more than $40 billion in debt."...4/29/2014....https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304163604579531283352498074...2007 Texas power company buyout by Goldman Sachs et al. was based on bet that natural-gas prices would rise. Instead, they plunged.
4/29/2014, “Energy Future Holdings Files for Bankruptcy,” Wall St. Journal, Spector, Glazer, and Smith
“Chapter 11 Filing by Texas Power Firm, Formerly TXU, Is Among the Biggest”
“The biggest leveraged buyout ever has become one of the largest bankruptcies, as a Texas power company succumbed to a lousy bet on natural-gas prices and more than $40 billion in debt.
Energy Future Holdings Corp., the former TXU Corp., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Tuesday to rework debt that became unsustainable amid hefty losses….
The reorganization won’t be as bright for the buyout firms that banded together to take TXU private in 2007 for $32 billion plus about $13 billion in assumed debt. KKR & Co., TPG and Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s GS private-equity arm company have written down nearly all of the $8 billion they originally invested….
The takeover was built on a bet that natural-gas prices would rise. Electricity rates in Texas were pegged to gas prices, but since TXU generated most of its electricity with less-expensive coal and uranium, for nuclear plants, it stood to profit. Instead, natural-gas prices plunged as hydraulic fracturing of shale rock unleashed a glut, pushing down electricity rates.
The company had to keep prices as high as regulators would allow to service its heavy debt load, said Steven Wolens, who helped write the state’s 1999 deregulation law while serving in the Texas legislature. “Texans didn’t do well” by the TXU buyout, said Mr. Wolens, now a lawyer at McKool Smith in Dallas….
The seeds of the deal were planted in the fall of 2006, when TPG executives received a call from KKR energy partner Marc Lipschultz pitching a wholesale takeover of the utility, a person familiar with the matter said. The firms were interested in different parts of TXU at that point....
To build momentum for the TXU takeover, the buyers employed an army of advisers to placate regulators, legislators and environmental groups. Among them: James Baker, a veteran Texas politician,...[Sec. of State for Bush #1 from 1989-1992, White House chief of staff and Treasury Sec. for Reagan, and Commerce Sec. for Gerald Ford].
Henry Kravis, one of KKR’s founders, TPG’s Mr. [David] Bonderman and other representatives from the buyout firms met over several months with Texas Gov. Rick Perry, state lawmakers and state regulators to garner support for the deal.
The firms agreed to drop plans to build a bevy of coal plants, which won support for the deal from the Environmental Defense Fund and the National Resources Defense Council. The buyers also promised to explore renewable energy sources and lower prices for consumers."...
Posted by: susan mullen | Oct 14 2021 21:44 utc | 47
The judge seems to steer the investigation against Hezbollah even as other groups were responsible for the ammonium nitrate storage that has caused the disaster.
"Seems to steer"? You are being kind b.
- AFAIK the port was run by people not friendly to Hezbollah.
- The ammonia nitrate was recognized as a hazard long before a government with Hezbollah ties was in office.
- The explosion happened just long enough into the term of office of a Hezbollah-associated government to make it somewhat credible to blame Hezbollah-linked officials and Hezbollah itself.
- Israel has long sought a way to counter Hezbollah and that desire has only grown over time - especially as it conducts a secret war against Iran. It's logical that it would enlist its friends in the West in such an effort - especially given the Empire's desire to counter the "recividist" nations of Russia, China, and Iran who refuse to go along with the NWO / rules-based order.
These facts suggest that the explosion was sabotage (not an accident) and that Hezbollah was always the target.
And developments since the explosion seem aimed at starting a Civil War that would likely pit Hezbollah against a Lebanese Army that is funded, equipped, trained by Western powers aligned with Israel and Saudi Arabia. We can guess that they will also provide intelligence and special forces to interdict any Iranian support that is sent to Hezbollah.
!!
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 14 2021 21:50 utc | 48
there is another reason to price rises in general, not just gas, electricity and oil prices in particular.
and that has been the scale of money printing over the past 18 months.
fed balance sheet 18 march 2020 4668212
now 13 oct 2021 8480942
so about 50% of all dollars ever created have been created over the past 18 months
(and there is more to come......it should be called QE to infinity)
there is more of this come...basically US needs inflation to continue unabated for the
next 10 or more years (to reduce its debt to GDP burden from present levels
say 130% of gdp to something more manageable say 70%
or at least thats the theory behind it all.
as the US have been saying for the past 50+ years
it's our currency, but its your problem
Posted by: chris m | Oct 14 2021 21:55 utc | 49
Roger @44:
China's annual power consumption in 2020 was 7510 Twh. A Tesla battery has an energy density of 250 Wh/kg, 720 Wh/l.
So a battery to store one hours' worth of electricity for China would weigh 3500000 ton, and be a cube 1km in size?
Posted by: Passerby | Oct 14 2021 22:04 utc | 50
Scientists studied microbes feeding on Antarctica’s first methane leak – here’s what they found
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/08/antarctica-methane-leak-microorganisms/
Limits to Growth
https://www.clubofrome.org/publication/the-limits-to-growth/
LaboratoryLeak.com
https://www.laboratoryleak.com/
Posted by: Anon | Oct 14 2021 22:09 utc | 51
Ban Anon @50 for posting Wuhan lab leak stupidity.
Also, Limits to Growth is widely understood to have been wrong. It's Malthusian projections didn't pan out.
Posted by: Prof | Oct 14 2021 22:17 utc | 52
The snipers shouting people from above is classic recipe for civil war and a war against the government, they did it initially in the Syrian war to get the people uprising against the government, they did it in Iraq and they will do it any time want to stir a trouble and war .
Usually done by CIA , MI 6 and their agents as well as Mossad agents .
Posted by: Bobby | Oct 14 2021 22:39 utc | 53
@ prof... a person has to work hard to get banned around here...
@ 47 jackrabbit... i tend to see this much the same as you.. thanks for articulating all that..
Posted by: james | Oct 14 2021 22:41 utc | 54
One point on nuclear power that tells you all you need to know: no insurance company anywhere in the world has ever been willing to write a policy for a nuclear reactor owing to the risk.
A few other points might help to back up the fact the nuclear power is a dead end.
The mining and milling of uranium is colossally energy consumptive.
It takes up to 300 kilos of uranium ore to produce a kilo of reactor-grade uranium. The rest, left behind, is called "tailings" and this "waste" is radioactive. So, for every kilo of uranium, one gets up to 300 kilos of radioactive waste, for which there is no solution, for it should have been left deep in the ground.
There is also no solution for the reactor waste, for uranium has a half life of 4.5 billion years (estimated to be the age of the solar system), and there is no place on earth that can be guaranteed stable of even a fraction of that time.
The "safety" norms for ionizing radiation are bogus. The World Health Organization is still steadfastly insisting that only 51 people died because of Chernobyl, whereas the Ukrainian and Russian governments (all keen to minimize the problem) put the figure at at least a couple of million. There was a major conference held at the medical school of the University of Berne several years ago, all devoted to the people who put out the fire at Chernobyl and built the initial sarcaphogus -- almost a million men, ALL either sick or dying. But since they weren't hit on the first day, the WHO doesn't count them...
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/24005-the-world-health-organization-in-thrall-to-the-nuclearists
Posted by: RJPJR | Oct 14 2021 22:44 utc | 55
I again provide this link to China's 2020 White Paper, "Energy in China's New Era" for those interested in China's plans in the area.
Roger @44--
This is how solar power avoids cloudy/rainy days, "China’s super heavy rocket to construct space-based solar power station". Do note the article is only 4 months old, although the concept goes back to 1968. One thing I've noted about China is when they say they're going to do something they do it. The initial testing of microwave electricity transmission was scheduled to begin in 2022. Here's another article about the project, and many more can be found.
A couple of more pointsabout nuclear power.
After Fukushima, the president of Switzerland, Evelyn Widmer-Schlumpf order a thorough review of Switzerland's four nuclear power stations, and they were ALL found to be totally unsafe by today's safety standards. So, Müleberg, the oldest in the world still running, was shut down, and the shutdown of the others is coming soon, for nobody could figure out where to find the scores of billions needed to bring them up to standard. So, now Switzerland is positioning itself as the world's leader in nuclear reactor decommissioning...
NO nuclear reactor in the U.S. has ever passed a proper safety inspection. The Nuclear Regulatory Agency has had to rig them all over the decades in order to allow them to keep running. This is something that the anti-nuclearists have been trying to inform the public about since the 1970s, but the corporate media will never mention it.
Admiral Rickover, "the father of the nuclear navy", was entrusted by President Carter with investigating what happened at Three Mile Island. Before he died, he told his son-in-law that, if the U.S. public knew what Three Mile Island was all about, the outcry would be such that within weeks every reactor would be shut down.
The French reactors are in no better a position than those in the U.S.
Posted by: RJPJR | Oct 14 2021 22:57 utc | 57
Victoria Nuland in Feb. 2014 said "Yats is the guy," Yats being Ukraine politician Arseniy Yatseniuk, whom US had selected to be next Ukraine Prime Minister. Of course, "Yats" made things even worse in Ukraine than they were before Maidan. He immediately called in all the oligarchs and handed them governorships and the like. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957
Posted by: susan mullen | Oct 14 2021 23:02 utc | 58
@Passerby (42) "The Spanish government has decreed a law to reduce power companies' excess profit. The result has been that power companies disconnected wind and solar to avoid losing money."
That's about as strong an argument as one could make for nationalizing all power utility companies. Energy and the environment are too important to be left to the whims of the private sector. Actually, they aren't whims; they are an insatiable thirst for profits without any concern for external costs, even catastrophic ones.
Posted by: Rob | Oct 14 2021 23:04 utc | 59
Nuclear power is going strong in Russia and China now that the fuel cycle's been closed and other types of reactors, fuels and coolants are being utilized. Power generation and transmission ought to be considered a Natural Monopoly and thus owned by the public as is our local company, and that would solve the insurance issue as in Russia and China. ROSATOM is very transparent as I've shown by linking to many of its articles related to nuclear technologies. Indeed, when it comes to cutting edge engineering of any sort, it's likely to be found in either Russia, China or Germany--not within the Outlaw US Empire or its NATO vassals given their control by Neoliberal Parasites.
As for Lebanon, I posted this link yesterday on the open thread about what's happening there, but it generated zero discussion. Currently, TheCradle has four articles about Lebanese events.
Nuclear power costs a fortune in the US. And so does high speed rails and seawater desalination. Divide US costs by about 5 to find the cost of a similar facility in Russia, China or the Middle East. Regarding wind and solar, power production versus installed capacity is approximately 20% (and can be much less as Europe is finding out). in addition to an abysmal capacity factor, power production is random, ranging from too much not not nearly enough. Wind and solar may be fine for remote locations or to supply no more than 20-25% of the total power demand (still not much for a balanced grid but if politicians want it...). Western Europe and especially Germany are perfect examples of the dead end represented by a high reliance on wind and solar. Despite high subsidies, Germany has the highest electric rates in the world - higher than islands that depend on imported diesel fuel. If Germany can not make it work despite a total committment, likely no country can or should even try. Russia is making the correct decision - using gas fired power plants as they transition to a grid energized by closed fuel cycle nuclear and hydropower.
Posted by: Pawnfish | Oct 14 2021 23:08 utc | 61
Posted by: chris m | Oct 14 2021 21:55 utc | 48
fed balance sheet 18 march 2020 4668212
now 13 oct 2021 8480942
so about 50% of all dollars ever created have been created over the past 18 months
________________________________________________________________
How did you arrive at the conclusion that the Fed's balance sheet is a measure of the quantity of "all dollars"???
The Fed's balance sheet grows larger due to the fact that the Fed buys US govt debt. The govt debt/securities that the Fed buys are "dollars" ( at least the US govt says that they are dollars and the holders of those debts agree with the US govt that they are dollars) and the fact that the Fed is converting those "dollars" (by buying them) into bank deposits which are also "dollars" does not change the total amount of "dollars" that exist. In other words, an increase in the Fed's balance sheet does not represent an increase in the total amount of "dollars" Or if you still can't understand, every increase in the Fed's balance sheet represents a 0% increase in "all dollars".
Posted by: jinn | Oct 14 2021 23:14 utc | 62
It is funny then to hear Blinken talk of 'other options' when everyone knows that the U.S. does not have any. Any U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear installations will invite a strong military response. A war with Iran would destroy Israel and whatever is left of the U.S. position in the Middle East. Obama had recognized that. Trump had recognized that. It is high time for Biden to recognize that too and to act accordingly.
I wish people stop pretending that Biden is in charge. The bastard doesn't even know what planet he's on. IMO, the talk of "other options" means covert military actions (i.e. 4th-5th gen warfare) and it appears it have started. I doubt there would be any direct military actions as that would hurt the Democrats chances in the coming midterm elections and Biden's "approval" ratings.
Posted by: Ian2 | Oct 14 2021 23:46 utc | 63
God I feel like such a hillbilly when I read all these comments on nuclear... First question-- what about the waste? How do you make sure future people (and other beings) don't get poisoned by the waste? We're talking 200,000 years, right? or drop a couple of zeroes... 2,000 years. That's a long time. My brother-in-law retired after 35 years at a nuke plant. He sounded like you all 30 years ago. Not any more. 35 years of stories about leaks, workers asleep, buy-outs, reg. changes...
bottom line... stop using so much electricity AND gas. walk. forage. dig a root cellar and fill it up.
Posted by: migueljose | Oct 14 2021 23:51 utc | 64
Towards the end of the Energy Week Plenary Session that featured a Q&A with Putin, this question was asked:
"Ronald Reagan said that freedom stems from prosperity. Do you think about this in relation to modern democracy in Russia?"
I'm not interested in Putin's answer to this attempt to corner him, which he handled well as usual. Rather, I'm interested in how citizens of the Outlaw US Empire would answer given the economic and political realities we now face, for we are going in the opposite direction of prosperity--austerity--and our political space and associated freedoms are clearly being constrained as we circle around the toilet bowl. I haven't reported anything from Shadowstats in awhile:
"September 2021 Finished Goods Producer Price Inflation Hit a 41-Year High of 11.8%, with the Final-Demand Producer Price Index (FD-PPI Series Created in 2009) at a Record 8.6% • With the Monthly CPI Somewhat Stronger than Expected, the 2022 Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment Was Set at a 39-Year High of 5.9%, while the Shadows Alternate-CPI Measure Suggests a 13.9% COLA Would Be More Realistic ... How Can the U.S. Economy Be Minimally Recovered, With September 2021 Payroll Employment Still 3.3% (-3.3%) Shy of Recovering Its Pre-Pandemic/ Pre-Recession Peak, Otherwise Weaker Than at the Troughs of the Last Seven Recessions Back to 1957, the 2007 Great Recession Excepted?" [My Emphasis]
Here're the General Headlines:
"-- Key Economic Series Show Not Only That the Pandemic-Driven Economic Collapse Has Been Worse Than Headlined, But Also That the Still-Unfolding Recovery Has Been Much Weaker Than Indicated
-- Severe Systemic Structural Damage from the Shutdown Is Forestalling Meaningful Economic Rebound into 2023 or Beyond, Irrespective of the Advances in Coronavirus Vaccinations
-- Panicked, Unlimited Federal Reserve Money Creation and Federal Government Deficit Spending Continue and Likely Will Expand, Fueling Accelerating, Major Domestic Inflation." [My Emphasis]
Shadowstats unemployment remains at 25%. I'll bet Putin's questioner Ms. Gamble would call the current state of the Outlaw US Economy prosperity because she believes the official lies hiding the truth.
@Posted by: Passerby | Oct 14 2021 22:04 utc | 49
"China's annual power consumption in 2020 was 7510 Twh. A Tesla battery has an energy density of 250 Wh/kg, 720 Wh/l.
So a battery to store one hours' worth of electricity for China would weigh 3500000 ton, and be a cube 1km in size?"
Exactly, the kind of basic facts missing from most discussions about solar and wind. And thats just for 1-hour and just think about the scale of raw material usage and transportation to the site! And lets assume that space-borne solar generating plants will take until well into the 2030s to be a variable on any meaningful scale.
Posted by: Roger | Oct 15 2021 0:00 utc | 66
migueljose @63--
Yes, you're right to be concerned about waste from reactors without a closed fuel cycle--closed means the waste is all burned as fuel. In Russia, what waste that exists is being turned into MOX fuel so it can be burned. Here's an article on the topic. Using coolants other than water capable of tolerating core-level temperatures greatly reduce if not eliminate the risk of a coolant-related problem, lead and sodium being the two leading elements. Eventually, engineers will figure out how to generate primary energy from the planet that's beyond geothermal, hydro, and wind--my favorite is oceanic waves. The key for the future is for developing nations to be able to bypass the use of coal and oil for energy usage so they can progress without further damaging our planet's climate and ecosystem.
Posted by: Stéphane @ 2 These snipers actors remind me of some similar events in Abidjan years ago. The French marines where holding a position with the towers of the hotel Ivoire in their back. A crowd of angry locals were facing them. Then shots were fired at the protesters, seemingly coming from the direction of the French forces. It escalated beautifully. Only a few understood where the firing was coming from. The rooftop of the hotel. The sniper is an old grunt by now.
<= tracking source of Beirut violence
Posted by: nme | 3
Bottomline- Hezbollah .. cannot be taken out of the Lebanese scene...<= link has quite a bit of information.
Posted by: snake | Oct 15 2021 0:30 utc | 68
Roger @44: "...how you get through the night with 100% baseload solar energy..."
Easy. Just put solar collectors somewhere that the sun doesn't set.
Trust me on this one. The Chinese have a plan but it requires thinking outside the capitalist box, which few people, even here, are capable of. That plan is a long term solution so it is going to take a few years, but they are serious about it.
Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 15 2021 0:34 utc | 69
No energy source available nowadays is self-sufficient. Every nation will use the most sources possible, no source will be abandoned (although coal seems to be going to be the first).
It is irrelevant to discuss which source of energy this or that country should use. Every source is going to be used, one in addition to the other. The European case is an anomaly.
As Vladimir Putin hints at in his speech, the EU and other European nations relying on Russia for natural gas supplies appear not to understand how supply and demand act in affecting gas prices (and thus electricity prices for their publics) in markets where demand for gas can become highly inelastic during the peak winter season, and especially in deregulated energy markets where traders can manipulate prices in such ways as to maximise their own profits even if this means electricity blackouts and brownouts affecting huge numbers of people.
Do people not remember the rolling electricity blackouts that took place in California over 2000 - 2001 after the electricity market was partly deregulated in 1996? Corporations selling electricity to retail suppliers began manipulating the supply of electricity to force up and game prices on the spot market.
In the current situation Gazprom is fulfilling its contracts but it seems European politicians were persuaded by Washington (which promised among other things to ship LNG to Europe) to prefer buying natural gas at spot market prices over long-term contracts stipulating the prices or a range of prices for natural gas supply. So here Washington was acting like Enron and other wholesalers were doing 20 years ago in parallel circumstances, along with browbeating Europeans not to enter into any deals with the Russians that might (horror of horrors!) make them dependent on Russian energy and susceptible to being good neighbours with the Land of Mordor.
EU politicians are learning the hard way how neoliberal economics works.
Posted by: Jen | Oct 15 2021 1:58 utc | 71
Roger #65
Space based power is obsolete as the atmosphere allows solar energy to arrive at surface based cells in reasonable levels. As these cells/storage systems develop they are reasonably expected to be adequate imo.
Posted by: uncle tungsten | Oct 15 2021 2:21 utc | 72
@RJPJR #54
If the half-life of the tailings is 4.5 BILLION years, that necessarily means they're putting out almost ZERO ionizing radiation. It is the short half-life stuff that fries you. A banana peel (K-40) probably moves the Geiger needle more than anything with a half-life of 4.5 billion years.
If you want to scare me away from nuke power you gotta do better than that...
Posted by: Adriatic Hillbilly | Oct 15 2021 2:27 utc | 73
Just a drive-by note about storing energy. Electricity is today extremely hard to store, but other energy can be easier. Heat is much easier to store, as is water energy. Electricity can be turned into both in hours/days of abundance, for release in hours/days of scarcity.
Storing electricity as electricity almost seems a perversely difficult way to go about things, given that electricity seems at its best when working, rather than when at rest.
Not to say I have any plans to build such things, but there are solutions possible outside the box to balance the grid (given the investment).
That said, I'm very encouraged by China's idea of cutting out all the intermediate storage requirements of energy (including as hydrocarbon to be drilled from beneath the ground), and getting energy directly from the sun.
Posted by: Grieved | Oct 15 2021 2:45 utc | 74
I am not convinced that the economics of space-based solar power is remotely feasible. The efficiency is necessarily quite low, just the conversion to microwaves, whether by massive vacuum tubes or by semiconductors and back to electricity on the ground via rectennas and inverters is quite lossy. Space solar cells are amazingly efficient, but that's because they cost a bloody fortune and are made from very expensive materials. As far as the transmission goes, nobody, as far as I know, has built a terrestrial power transmission system with anything like that kind of power, and there are a few situations where it would actually be useful. I have met a number of the folks involved in pushing the space-based solar power, and my impression is that they are primarily interested in reasons to keep going to space and any justification is secondary to that goal.
As an aside, consider the propaganda value to the US of having China building giant microwave-emitting "death stars" that could (in their imagination) be used to fry entire cities. (In actual fact, the energy density would be low enough that birds and such like in the path of the microwaves would not be unduly harmed). Similarly, if China was flooding LEO with tens of thousands of cheap "Starlink" type satellites and practically giving away enormously power-hungry ground stations that route worldwide internet through their network you can be sure there would be bleating like you've never heard.
Small modular reactors (SMRs), on the other hand, seem like they might be a solution for the next 50, 100 years until we figure out practical fusion, but I am much less knowledgeable about the details there. I'm less suspicious of the engineers involved in those ventures- though with any start-up type situation there is potential for charlatans.
Posted by: Billb | Oct 15 2021 3:12 utc | 75
The Amerikastani so called ambassador to Lebanon acts openly like a colonial viceroy, issuing orders to the Vichy section of the government.
Posted by: Biswapriya Purkayast | Oct 15 2021 3:14 utc | 76
@William Gruff #40
If you are referring to battery storage - battery storage is beyond “considerable” up front investment.
All of the battery capacity is the United States is good for a couple minutes of full demand load. What is required is days or weeks.
Batteries are not affordable enough to offset multi day variability is solar and /or PV - not in our lifetimes and very possibly never. This is a physics issue concerning real and large quantities, not information which is infinitely scalable.
Posted by: c1ue | Oct 15 2021 3:44 utc | 77
And off she goes to Lebanon to hand out sandwiches and snipers.
Posted by: Jezabeel | Oct 15 2021 5:16 utc | 78
not mentioned thus far is that china developed high voltage transmission cables that drastically reduced the energy loss from transmitting electricity from the faraway western regions such as Xinjiang to the core provinces. once connected this way to the grid, there is also less need for storage.
it's a big deal because it both addressed the problem of long distances and the temporal disjunct between peak energy and peak usage. it's just as important than the production of electricity. I don't know the technical details but im sure some barfly can explain lay it out better than I can.
Posted by: mastameta | Oct 15 2021 5:20 utc | 79
As far as Space Solar Power (SSP) goes surely launch costs are the determining factor? These stations would not be in low earth orbit (LEO) like the ISS, but in geostationary orbit (GEO) like traditional comsats. Far more energy is required to reach this orbit, similar to what is required for translunar or interplanetary trajectories. The new Chinese superheavy would be well suited to this mission, as it has a high energy hydrogen/oxygen upper stage ideal for reaching GEO. Musk's Starship on the other hand is optimised for LEO and would need to be refueled numerous times (up to 10) by tanker Starships in LEO to reach GEO. And if one of these bellyflops onto its launchpad while landing it won't be going anywhere.
Both solutions are not ideal, with Starship requiring a ridiculous number of launches and the Chinese superheavy needing far fewer launches but requiring a new rocket for each mission (or at least a new high energy upper stage if they decide to reuse the first stage). The Chinese could improve their system by replacing the high energy upper stage with a nuclear-electric space tug that picks up the solar panels in LEO and slowly spirals up to GEO using its ion engines. A single tug could potentially do this hundreds of times before needing refueling, and the Russians just happen to have one already in the prototype stage!
But what we really need is a Space Elevator, with one of those all you need is electricity generated by solar power to lift as must as you want to GEO, no messy rockets or nukes required.
Posted by: S.P. Korolev | Oct 15 2021 6:58 utc | 82
@ karlof1 | 55
This is how solar power avoids cloudy/rainy days, "China’s super heavy rocket to construct space-based solar power station". Do note the article is only 4 months old, although the concept goes back to 1968. One thing I've noted about China is when they say they're going to do something they do it. The initial testing of microwave electricity transmission was scheduled to begin in 2022. Here's another article about the project, and many more can be found.
The project would aim to establish a large collecting area receiving solar energy near constantly, without the atmosphere or seasonal changes affecting energy levels. Converted energy would be then transmitted to Earth via microwaves or lasers. The project would provide large-scale renewable energy and help tackle energy resource scarcity.
Looks like a clear case of risky dual use: power ray OR space weapon. Might get sponsored by dumbed-down Californians or Germans.
It is true that most renewables are unreliables.
Posted by: Antonym | Oct 15 2021 8:11 utc | 83
Agree with B on Putin regarding Western Europe's home made energy mess.
Renewables are unreliables.
Next chapter: Nordstream 2 is ready but German / EU regulators are not: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germanys-nord-stream-2-gatekeeper-long-road-until-gas-flows-2021-10-15/
Posted by: Antonym | Oct 15 2021 9:36 utc | 84
i am a little surprised the failure my post on this Lebanon thing.
4 different posts not one made it to the published comments?
unusual screening by B's bar.
Posted by: snake | Oct 15 2021 9:38 utc | 85
Jen | Oct 15 2021 1:58 utc | 69
Nail on the head there re spot pricing.
Last year several EU countries insisted on Gazprom changing the pricing in their contracts from long term to spot, a good deal at the time. Last winter was colder and longer than normal so even with NordStream 1 pumping at 110% of capacity at times stored supplies were still heavily depleted. This combination delayed the normal start date for refilling storage and held spot prices at winter levels for longer than normal.
As a consequence spot prices stayed high and those now buying at spot took the gambol that the price would fall as normal over the summer, it didn't and by the time they realised it was too late. That is why storage volumes are historically so low. They entered the gas casino and lost their shirts, or rather their customer's shirts.
Meanwhile, much to the EU's horror, those clever folks in Hungary saw what was coming and did a deal with Gazprom in September for a new 15 year contract at pretty much the normal long term price. It kicked into action on the 1st October amid howls from Brussels. As an added kicker, rather than their normal route via Ukraine, their NG is coming via TurkStream.
The EU have been trying to hide their pricing incompetence behind the reduced flows in the Yamal pipeline through Poland, strangely omitting to point out that the reductions were due to EU countries not ordering gas (see comment above) rather than Russia deciding to lower supplies. This has caused Putin, at every opportunity he has had, to point out that they have pumped everything ordered and are happy to pump more, plus they don't like spot on their contracts as they want long term pricing certainty even if it costs them money.
The shouting may have died down but the problem has not gone away, spot is still 3-4X contract, storage is depleted and winter is nearly here. Either the EU eats craw and effectively admits its error or many Europeans, both business and domestic, are going to suffer this winter. Or it could rapidly authorise NS2 (they must be so relieved that it is ready to pump)and hope that the increased flow will take the heat out of the market, pun intended. I think we all here know which option they are likely to take but it may not work unless more countries abandon spot pricing. If they do, we will certainly not see Russian gloating, they operate differently to the US, who probably would in the circumstances.
Meanwhile the clock marches on the midnight on the 31st December 2024 when Ukrainian transit will, to all intents, cease. This time EU pressure will not work as Putin has just confirmed two facts, first that NS2 is more environmentally friendly than other pipelines as it will be run at higher pressure and secondly, the Ukrainian pipeline system is starting to fall apart due to lack of maintenance. Russia will be arguing, as it did with NS2, that any decision will be commercial/technical and not political.
Posted by: JohninMK | Oct 15 2021 10:13 utc | 86
Posted by: karlof1 | Oct 14 2021 23:05 utc | 59
There's not a lot to discuss.
Hezbollah should have started purging americans and their stooges already, and without issuing any warnings
Everybody else should follow the example, what I don't get is why they're not raiding the US embassy or whatever already.
Posted by: Misotheist | Oct 15 2021 10:39 utc | 87
The gas market narrative is so ridiculous (and Europe so powerless, no pun intended) that even the EU itself is debunking its politicians' propaganda:
This reinforces my first hypothesis that the Europeans simply didn't see it coming and were caught by surprise with this sudden gas price hike.
S.P. Korolev @80: "As far as Space Solar Power (SSP) goes surely launch costs are the determining factor?"
To a degree, but the outside-the-box thinking has to go much further than that to grasp what China's long term plans are here.
First, Elon Musk's targeted launch costs with Starship/Super Heavy are a $million for 100 tons to TLI (translunar). I am a little skeptical that SpaceX can achieve that, but it is just an engineering issue so I don't doubt the Chinese can accomplish it.
But even that is not enough for Space Solar Power (SSP) and more outside-the-box thinking is required. After all, individual SSP satellites will be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of tons each. Even at Musk's targeted launch costs this would require many $billions just to get the necessary parts into orbit.
But when you get down to it, photovoltaic panels and girders to mount them on are not terribly complex devices requiring super-high precision manufacturing with constant human quality assurance monitoring. If you can source them from someplace "closer" (in orbital mechanics terms) to geosynchronous orbit then you don't necessarily need the most bleeding-edge high efficiency super-light panels to build your SSP satellites with. Overly heavy and crude panels with only ten or fifteen percent efficiency that are cranked out by an unmanned automated fabricator sitting on the Moon would be perfectly adequate for our SSP satellites, and freight costs from the Moon to GEO would be dramatically lower than $million/100 tons, once the transport infrastructure is in place.
For the doubters, I ask what are the Chinese and Russians planning on a Moon base for? That is more expensive than an orbital base, and other than studying the Moon itself you can do more science with an orbital facility, so why a base on the Moon? The only real advantage of a Moon base is to get experience with and develop procedures for lunar construction, manufacturing, and resource usage. I'd say they were planning on doing some industry on the Moon, and one that would justify the effort would be developing the ability to mass produce SSP satellites using lunar resources from the Moon's very shallow gravity well.
Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 15 2021 12:03 utc | 89
King Lear @Oct15 6:15 #78
Your comment is off-topic here. I answered you on the Open Thread.
!!
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 15 2021 12:28 utc | 90
The petrodollar is on life support and will soon just be history. That will be replaced with the solarruble/solarrenminbi. Not so long from now if you want cheap electricity you will build a receiving station and lease a beam from the SSP constellation in GEO that is run by the Chinese and the Russians. There will be a "string of pearls" in the night sky over the Earth's equator, and that might cause intestinal upset among astronomers, but then for a small fee they can have their telescopes mounted to the back side of one of those pearls, so all is not lost.
China and Russia will be the new OPEC, only with electricity instead of petroleum.
Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 15 2021 12:59 utc | 91
Essentially - until (and very much if) we have affordable and large scale electricity storage, solar PV and wind is not capable of providing more than 25% to 30% of electricity supply base load. Posted by: c1ue | Oct 14 2021 17:23 utc | 6
The bottom line is more cruel: the plans like "carbon neutrality by 2050" are totally unrealistic, and if you plan to do more than you can, you get much less. One story is that this year, winds on the notoriously stormy North Sea were unusually mild. Entire season of lower wind speeds. What type of "large scale electricity storage" can compensate for that? Unless we talk about fantastic expenditures, stockpile fuels is feasible and comparatively cheap, except you have to pay for the reserve (the simplicity of storage is coal, crude oil/heavy fuel oil, natural gas, in that order). But! It requires to have thermal power plants, and we want to be carbon neutral!
Thus ideologically, the problem is ignored.
The second issue is that the reserve thermal capability needs to be maintained, even modernized, while being switched off without mercy when the weather is good. That is not a problem if there is a single national owner of power stations, or an equivalent regulation -- power generators are licensed and paid on cost+markup basis or something like that. But that would stifle the creative powers of free market, and the fuel that is ideologically most cherished is not biomass, wind or solar, but precisely this mystical creative power.
In the past, specialized priests were praying for rain, offering war captives or maidens, that was perhaps more rational.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 15 2021 13:12 utc | 93
RE: Posted by: Piotr Berman | Oct 15 2021 13:12 utc | 91
“In the past, specialized priests were praying for rain “
Some still are prone to the mystical, but not restricted to rain, whilst others have been developing lateral strategies from the Politburo's illusions of detente on the bases of spheres of influence, and emphases on BAM onwards, preparations including but not restricted to directing the focus of some of the “new intake” onto such matters without the exclusion of related matters.
" offering war captives or maidens, that was perhaps more rational."
Not all agree and prefer the mystical since "offering war captives or maidens" was/is deemed to be a sign of weakness posing existential threats.
Posted by: MagdaTam | Oct 15 2021 13:41 utc | 94
Regarding Putin and the US/NATO sanction economy more generally, this interview linked to by xymphora is very informative. Hard to disagree with Putin here. (Although I think his appeal to the US debt is just trolling the Wall Street/Washington elite, as Putin, like most world leaders, is well aware of the de facto truth about MMT for sovereign issuers of currency.)
https://xymphora.blogspot.com/
Posted by: WJ | Oct 15 2021 14:08 utc | 95
Oops, our plan A of leaving an international accord didn’t work out so well. Time for plan B. The apartheid said so, so it shall be so.
More, more, more, said the baby. More vitriol, more sanctions, more ill will. Every POTUS since Carter has had an “Iran problem.” Never looking in the mirror as to why those “problems” exist, specially when the empire’s foreign policy in the ME is outsourced to the pipsqueak that wants cover for it’s atrocities in the occupied land.
Posted by: Sakineh Bagoom | Oct 15 2021 14:16 utc | 96
Reference: Nuclear Energy.
Other commenters have noted that changing the form of transportation energy to electricity will require orders of magnitude more generating capacity. Coal is out. Natural gas, maybe, but only for the next twenty years. Nukes are the natural choice, obvious now but still have an absolute requirement for robust safety systems. But what system to use?
There is no doubt that uranium pressurized water reactors (PWRs) are expensive and have long construction times. They are also vulnerable to attack and risk catastrophic failure.
A better choice is the thorium-fuelled molten salt reactor. MSRs were developed at Oak Ridge, and research shut down in the 1970s. Who has them under construction now? Why, the Chinese.
A few advantages: thorium (Th) is not radioactive until it is in the reactor, very few long-lived residues, superior safety profile, these reactors are cheaper and faster to build compared to PWR (roughly 3 yr versus 15 yr). Th is plentiful, four times more common in the earth's crust than U, and does not require isotopic separation to run in the reactor. The US has large reserves of Th.
Interested folks should view the You Tube video "LFTR In 16 Minutes."
Posted by: JP Straley | Oct 15 2021 14:53 utc | 97
@ Posted by: JP Straley | Oct 15 2021 14:53 utc | 95
The only real solution would be nuclear fusion - which would solve the problem of nuclear waste (the waste would be vapor). Obviously, we're not even close to nuclear fusion, otherwise we wouldn't have this debate.
Thank you, JohninMK @ 88 for extending the spot vs. longterm explanations and reminding us that Putin had also remarked in answers after the speech on the environmental and physical aspects of the two pipeline systems.
Very interesting discussion, and thanks b for providing the link to the Putin speech. What caught my attention was Putin's claim that as far as addressing climate excess CO2, in Russia natural ecosystems have higher effectiveness than renewable energy investments in Europe. I liked his emphasis that the climate agenda must not be "weaponized", and that it was critically important with respect to climate to use technologically neutral principles.
As far as nuclear or other technologies, it seems the US and other western countries will have to take a back seat to Russia and China. For one thing we don't have the streamlined educational facilities to produce scientists of a high caliber, having just as much lost that fundamental capacity as we have lost basic industrial skills.
So, I would propose that we take up the climate agenda Putin describes full force, become agriculturally oriented and environmentally supercharged. It costs less to plant trees and restore wetlands and prairies than it does to build nuclear plants and if we only would respond to the call for cooperation, these activities on a planetary scale could correspond to Putin's claim of planetary scale energy production. Technologically neutral! That's the concept we need, a new Civilian Conservation Corp! I realize that falls on deaf ears, but what else are we good at right now?
Posted by: juliania | Oct 15 2021 15:17 utc | 99
William Gruff | Oct 15 2021 12:03 utc | 87
One possible alternative would be to mine 3He. Helium 3. This could give (nuclear) power to any base set up on the moon, or for use in an Ion drive deep space exploration ship.
It is not a "concensus" as others have called the concept "moonshine".
Posted by: Stonebird | Oct 15 2021 15:18 utc | 100
The comments to this entry are closed.
thanks b.. fascinating comments from putin on all this.. i wonder if europe or the world is ready for nuclear energy? if we don't stop consuming, i am not sure how it gets worked out..
about blinkens other options.... it is essentially a threat - all the usa's obsession with iran seems capable of at this point... definitely they aren't agreement capable..
lebannon - who is paying the judge?? funny coincidence of nuland visiting... it seems the usa's sole purpose in iran and lebannon is to serve israel.. it doesn't seem to be working out so well.. meanwhile the usa continues to do down the tubes...
Posted by: james | Oct 14 2021 16:27 utc | 1