Gas pipeline economics are that you have a big supply of gas at one end and a big demand at the other. Suppliers push as much gas as possible into the pipeline and can offer a relatively good price per MMBtu because they are interested in the total revenue. The customer has little interest in sourcing gas elsewhere because that becomes an additional cost.
The only real alternatives to Russian sourced gas for Europe in terms of quantity and price is gas piped in from the shared Iran/Qatar gas field, Azerbaijan or Algeria. The first has to be piped via Iran and Turkey and the second via Turkey if it's to avoid Russia, which wants to stymie all alternatives to its supply. Azerbaijan, Algeria and to some extent Turkey and Iran are unreliable partners.
If we want to isolate Russia we need to pick our enemies as that means doing a deal with Iran. It also means a marriage of interests with a very autocratic Turkey. Signing up both Algeria and Iran as alternatives to Russian gas does make strategic sense.
Competition between two terrible parties is almost always superior than being beholden to one.
Though we should be taking the French approach to nuclear and getting energy independence from all of them.
@BBCLBicker: And so begins another Friday in Washington.. twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/974626367185870849
Will all the growns up be gone by Monday?
We are doomed if Kelly is going.
thank god for those slave owning racist blokes from the old days....
At least if Trump decides to say invade North Korea on a whim, the Army will have less reason to do as he asks.
A military which refuses to do what its civilian commander-in-chief orders is one step from a military which proactively takes decisions without the authorisation of its civilian overseers and commanders.
Gas pipeline economics are that you have a big supply of gas at one end and a big demand at the other. Suppliers push as much gas as possible into the pipeline and can offer a relatively good price per MMBtu because they are interested in the total revenue. The customer has little interest in sourcing gas elsewhere because that becomes an additional cost.
The only real alternatives to Russian sourced gas for Europe in terms of quantity and price is gas piped in from the shared Iran/Qatar gas field, Azerbaijan or Algeria. The first has to be piped via Iran and Turkey and the second via Turkey if it's to avoid Russia, which wants to stymie all alternatives to its supply. Azerbaijan, Algeria and to some extent Turkey and Iran are unreliable partners.
If we want to isolate Russia we need to pick our enemies as that means doing a deal with Iran. It also means a marriage of interests with a very autocratic Turkey. Signing up both Algeria and Iran as alternatives to Russian gas does make strategic sense.
The problem with signing up with Iran is that it's probably not possible without easing off on Iran's nuclear ambitions, which apart from being a bad thing in its own right, could well provoke Saudi into developing its own nuclear weapons and also push it away from the Western sphere and towards Russia.
"That whole thing with the uniforms" is comedy gold.
Someone noted this morning the only thing separating Trump from a tinpot dictator is the uniform and chest full of medal ribbons
...and the American constitution. Thank God.
Actually, it's more the American people.
A genuinely popular would-be dictator could get around the constitution relatively simply.
1. Establish a political party with dictatorial powers for the leader. 2. Win the White House and Congress (this would inevitably take at least 2-3 years). 3. Pass an Act more than doubling the size of the Supreme Court. 4. Appoint patsy justices. 5. Pass an Enabling Act; have it ratified in the Supreme Court.
Amending the constitution isn't quite as big a barrier as is sometimes thought either. Were such a party to capture power, then ir'd need two-thirds of state legislatures in its grasp (quite a big total, granted, but not necessarily insurmountable, particularly if the norms of democratic elections aren't assured - for example, if Congress, as in the 1860s, debarred certain states from exercising their usual rights - which again could be signed off by a client Court). With that, it could invoke a national convention and wholly re-write the constitution. Obviously, nothing would be protected at that point.
We could significantly reduce our demand for natural gas if we stopped using so much of it for power generation.
While we do need dispatchable fossil plants to fill the gap between nuclear and renewables, this could be in the form of a new generation of coal-fired plants fitted with carbon capture and storage. The coal is still there, under our feet. Or can be imported from friendly suppliers.
Or we posture to Putin, but still buy several £billion of his gas.
"That whole thing with the uniforms" is comedy gold.
Someone noted this morning the only thing separating Trump from a tinpot dictator is the uniform and chest full of medal ribbons
...and the American constitution. Thank God.
Actually, it's more the American people.
A genuinely popular would-be dictator could get around the constitution relatively simply.
1. Establish a political party with dictatorial powers for the leader. 2. Win the White House and Congress (this would inevitably take at least 2-3 years). 3. Pass an Act more than doubling the size of the Supreme Court. 4. Appoint patsy justices. 5. Pass an Enabling Act; have it ratified in the Supreme Court.
Amending the constitution isn't quite as big a barrier as is sometimes thought either. Were such a party to capture power, then ir'd need two-thirds of state legislatures in its grasp (quite a big total, granted, but not necessarily insurmountable, particularly if the norms of democratic elections aren't assured - for example, if Congress, as in the 1860s, debarred certain states from exercising their usual rights - which again could be signed off by a client Court). With that, it could invoke a national convention and wholly re-write the constitution. Obviously, nothing would be protected at that point.
And thousands living in remote compounds in the Montanan wilderness would lock, load and head to Washington.
We could significantly reduce our demand for natural gas if we stopped using so much of it for power generation.
While we do need dispatchable fossil plants to fill the gap between nuclear and renewables, this could be in the form of a new generation of coal-fired plants fitted with carbon capture and storage. The coal is still there, under our feet. Or can be imported from friendly suppliers.
Or we posture to Putin, but still buy several £billion of his gas.
We could significantly reduce our demand for natural gas if we stopped using so much of it for power generation.
While we do need dispatchable fossil plants to fill the gap between nuclear and renewables, this could be in the form of a new generation of coal-fired plants fitted with carbon capture and storage. The coal is still there, under our feet. Or can be imported from friendly suppliers.
Or we posture to Putin, but still buy several £billion of his gas.
Tempting to tell him to frack off
Remind him that 40% of his government revenues are fuel exports???
"That whole thing with the uniforms" is comedy gold.
Someone noted this morning the only thing separating Trump from a tinpot dictator is the uniform and chest full of medal ribbons
...and the American constitution. Thank God.
Actually, it's more the American people.
A genuinely popular would-be dictator could get around the constitution relatively simply.
1. Establish a political party with dictatorial powers for the leader. 2. Win the White House and Congress (this would inevitably take at least 2-3 years). 3. Pass an Act more than doubling the size of the Supreme Court. 4. Appoint patsy justices. 5. Pass an Enabling Act; have it ratified in the Supreme Court.
Amending the constitution isn't quite as big a barrier as is sometimes thought either. Were such a party to capture power, then ir'd need two-thirds of state legislatures in its grasp (quite a big total, granted, but not necessarily insurmountable, particularly if the norms of democratic elections aren't assured - for example, if Congress, as in the 1860s, debarred certain states from exercising their usual rights - which again could be signed off by a client Court). With that, it could invoke a national convention and wholly re-write the constitution. Obviously, nothing would be protected at that point.
And thousands living in remote compounds in the Montanan wilderness would lock, load and head to Washington.
It would not be pretty.
Except the dictator would be especially popular with those guys.
We could significantly reduce our demand for natural gas if we stopped using so much of it for power generation.
While we do need dispatchable fossil plants to fill the gap between nuclear and renewables, this could be in the form of a new generation of coal-fired plants fitted with carbon capture and storage. The coal is still there, under our feet. Or can be imported from friendly suppliers.
Or we posture to Putin, but still buy several £billion of his gas.
"That whole thing with the uniforms" is comedy gold.
Someone noted this morning the only thing separating Trump from a tinpot dictator is the uniform and chest full of medal ribbons
...and the American constitution. Thank God.
Actually, it's more the American people.
A genuinely popular would-be dictator could get around the constitution relatively simply.
1. Establish a political party with dictatorial powers for the leader. 2. Win the White House and Congress (this would inevitably take at least 2-3 years). 3. Pass an Act more than doubling the size of the Supreme Court. 4. Appoint patsy justices. 5. Pass an Enabling Act; have it ratified in the Supreme Court.
Amending the constitution isn't quite as big a barrier as is sometimes thought either. Were such a party to capture power, then ir'd need two-thirds of state legislatures in its grasp (quite a big total, granted, but not necessarily insurmountable, particularly if the norms of democratic elections aren't assured - for example, if Congress, as in the 1860s, debarred certain states from exercising their usual rights - which again could be signed off by a client Court). With that, it could invoke a national convention and wholly re-write the constitution. Obviously, nothing would be protected at that point.
And thousands living in remote compounds in the Montanan wilderness would lock, load and head to Washington.
It would not be pretty.
Except the dictator would be especially popular with those guys.
Not if they felt he was acting to denigrate the constitution, revered above all things other than racial segregation.
We could significantly reduce our demand for natural gas if we stopped using so much of it for power generation.
While we do need dispatchable fossil plants to fill the gap between nuclear and renewables, this could be in the form of a new generation of coal-fired plants fitted with carbon capture and storage. The coal is still there, under our feet. Or can be imported from friendly suppliers.
Or we posture to Putin, but still buy several £billion of his gas.
Tempting to tell him to frack off
Remind him that 40% of his government revenues are fuel exports???
Europe shifting energy policy to reduce that percentage would cause more damage to Putin's regime than any sanctions you care to mention.
It would cost too much though, sadly.
[As an aside, I think that someone inventing cheap clean energy - a cold fusion that actually works, say - would be so destabilising it would probably lead to another world war]
We could significantly reduce our demand for natural gas if we stopped using so much of it for power generation.
While we do need dispatchable fossil plants to fill the gap between nuclear and renewables, this could be in the form of a new generation of coal-fired plants fitted with carbon capture and storage. The coal is still there, under our feet. Or can be imported from friendly suppliers.
Or we posture to Putin, but still buy several £billion of his gas.
We could significantly reduce our demand for natural gas if we stopped using so much of it for power generation.
While we do need dispatchable fossil plants to fill the gap between nuclear and renewables, this could be in the form of a new generation of coal-fired plants fitted with carbon capture and storage. The coal is still there, under our feet. Or can be imported from friendly suppliers.
Or we posture to Putin, but still buy several £billion of his gas.
Mr. Anorak, entirely possible. Sparta was, ironically, destroyed by winning the Peloponnesian War. Their Lycurgan constitution couldn't handle being rich.
We could significantly reduce our demand for natural gas if we stopped using so much of it for power generation.
While we do need dispatchable fossil plants to fill the gap between nuclear and renewables, this could be in the form of a new generation of coal-fired plants fitted with carbon capture and storage. The coal is still there, under our feet. Or can be imported from friendly suppliers.
Or we posture to Putin, but still buy several £billion of his gas.
Gas pipeline economics are that you have a big supply of gas at one end and a big demand at the other. Suppliers push as much gas as possible into the pipeline and can offer a relatively good price per MMBtu because they are interested in the total revenue. The customer has little interest in sourcing gas elsewhere because that becomes an additional cost.
The only real alternatives to Russian sourced gas for Europe in terms of quantity and price is gas piped in from the shared Iran/Qatar gas field, Azerbaijan or Algeria. The first has to be piped via Iran and Turkey and the second via Turkey if it's to avoid Russia, which wants to stymie all alternatives to its supply. Azerbaijan, Algeria and to some extent Turkey and Iran are unreliable partners.
If we want to isolate Russia we need to pick our enemies as that means doing a deal with Iran. It also means a marriage of interests with a very autocratic Turkey. Signing up both Algeria and Iran as alternatives to Russian gas does make strategic sense.
Competition between two terrible parties is almost always superior than being beholden to one.
Though we should be taking the French approach to nuclear and getting energy independence from all of them.
For three-quarters of the cost of nuclear, you can have a series of tidal lagoons. The Swnasea and Cardiff lagoons alone would power all the houses in Wales.
"That whole thing with the uniforms" is comedy gold.
Someone noted this morning the only thing separating Trump from a tinpot dictator is the uniform and chest full of medal ribbons
...and the American constitution. Thank God.
Actually, it's more the American people.
A genuinely popular would-be dictator could get around the constitution relatively simply.
1. Establish a political party with dictatorial powers for the leader. 2. Win the White House and Congress (this would inevitably take at least 2-3 years). 3. Pass an Act more than doubling the size of the Supreme Court. 4. Appoint patsy justices. 5. Pass an Enabling Act; have it ratified in the Supreme Court.
Amending the constitution isn't quite as big a barrier as is sometimes thought either. Were such a party to capture power, then ir'd need two-thirds of state legislatures in its grasp (quite a big total, granted, but not necessarily insurmountable, particularly if the norms of democratic elections aren't assured - for example, if Congress, as in the 1860s, debarred certain states from exercising their usual rights - which again could be signed off by a client Court). With that, it could invoke a national convention and wholly re-write the constitution. Obviously, nothing would be protected at that point.
And thousands living in remote compounds in the Montanan wilderness would lock, load and head to Washington.
It would not be pretty.
Except the dictator would be especially popular with those guys.
Not if they felt he was acting to denigrate the constitution, revered above all things other than racial segregation.
It wouldn't really matter. A popular Franco type in full control of the US military wouldn't have any difficulty sorting out an amateur militia which the media would be describing as unAmerican and traitors.
Mr. Mark, I'm re-reading Thomas Asbridge's biography of William Marshal. Currently, Richard the Lionheart is knocking seven bells out of Philip Augustus. Alas, I know what's coming down the tracks... however bad our politics now, it was much worse when John was king.
[As an aside, I think that someone inventing cheap clean energy - a cold fusion that actually works, say - would be so destabilising it would probably lead to another world war]
On the other hand, it would stop water wars, being as you could have very cheap desalination plants...
Yes, there's a comfortable theory among veteran types (like me) that nobody could possibly challenge us unless it's some pesky insurgent group. In reality there comes a point when people want a change...
Gas pipeline economics are that you have a big supply of gas at one end and a big demand at the other. Suppliers push as much gas as possible into the pipeline and can offer a relatively good price per MMBtu because they are interested in the total revenue. The customer has little interest in sourcing gas elsewhere because that becomes an additional cost.
The only real alternatives to Russian sourced gas for Europe in terms of quantity and price is gas piped in from the shared Iran/Qatar gas field, Azerbaijan or Algeria. The first has to be piped via Iran and Turkey and the second via Turkey if it's to avoid Russia, which wants to stymie all alternatives to its supply. Azerbaijan, Algeria and to some extent Turkey and Iran are unreliable partners.
If we want to isolate Russia we need to pick our enemies as that means doing a deal with Iran. It also means a marriage of interests with a very autocratic Turkey. Signing up both Algeria and Iran as alternatives to Russian gas does make strategic sense.
Competition between two terrible parties is almost always superior than being beholden to one.
Though we should be taking the French approach to nuclear and getting energy independence from all of them.
For three-quarters of the cost of nuclear, you can have a series of tidal lagoons. The Swnasea and Cardiff lagoons alone would power all the houses in Wales.
We could significantly reduce our demand for natural gas if we stopped using so much of it for power generation.
While we do need dispatchable fossil plants to fill the gap between nuclear and renewables, this could be in the form of a new generation of coal-fired plants fitted with carbon capture and storage. The coal is still there, under our feet. Or can be imported from friendly suppliers.
Or we posture to Putin, but still buy several £billion of his gas.
Because CCS is immensely expensive and relatively unproven at large scale. We'd be better off investing in wind and solar than that.
What about dispatchability? Loads of very big batteries? Add that to the cost of the renewables plant and the fossil + CCS option doesn't look so bad.
We can't know if it looks bad or not until we have something working at scale - and AFAIAA we do not, at least the way it'll have to be set up in the UK.
Which is why Europe needs to get fracking. Starting yesterday.
Leaving aside the politics, Russian gas is the cheapest and most consistent supply of gas to Europe. Russia nowadays will undercut any competitive price. The infrastructure was paid for long ago, it's simply the extraction and a minimal transportation cost now. There are alternatives to Russian gas, mainly as LPG, but they are less abundant and more expensive. Doing without Russian gas entirely is difficult for the EU. Nevertheless sanctions force Russia to reduce its prices, so there is a significant cost to those sanctions.
Why not just slap a 100% tax on Russian gas? It'd enable it to keep flowing while encouraging users to source alternative supplies. Of course, Russia might respond by turning the taps off but that would hardly help their reputation for being the reliable supplier that W Europe is looking for.
Instead of relying on Russian gas we can buy more LNG from Qatar. Can't see any problems there.
Fewer problems. Qatar is not destabilising Eastern Europe and has no interest in doing so.
Surely Qatar is merely destabilising the entire kuffar world...
Gas pipeline economics are that you have a big supply of gas at one end and a big demand at the other. Suppliers push as much gas as possible into the pipeline and can offer a relatively good price per MMBtu because they are interested in the total revenue. The customer has little interest in sourcing gas elsewhere because that becomes an additional cost.
The only real alternatives to Russian sourced gas for Europe in terms of quantity and price is gas piped in from the shared Iran/Qatar gas field, Azerbaijan or Algeria. The first has to be piped via Iran and Turkey and the second via Turkey if it's to avoid Russia, which wants to stymie all alternatives to its supply. Azerbaijan, Algeria and to some extent Turkey and Iran are unreliable partners.
If we want to isolate Russia we need to pick our enemies as that means doing a deal with Iran. It also means a marriage of interests with a very autocratic Turkey. Signing up both Algeria and Iran as alternatives to Russian gas does make strategic sense.
Competition between two terrible parties is almost always superior than being beholden to one.
Though we should be taking the French approach to nuclear and getting energy independence from all of them.
For three-quarters of the cost of nuclear, you can have a series of tidal lagoons. The Swnasea and Cardiff lagoons alone would power all the houses in Wales.
I went to a lecture recently where the speaker said that of the 6 best sites in the world for tidal power 5 were in the UK. Not only the Severn estuary but also Strangford Lough and a couple of sites in the Hebrides. Apparently the best site is in Norway.
Comments
Though we should be taking the French approach to nuclear and getting energy independence from all of them.
https://twitter.com/M_McDonough/status/974647502367612928
especially given this:
https://twitter.com/LJKawa/status/974646834315571201
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/974654272934699011
A genuinely popular would-be dictator could get around the constitution relatively simply.
1. Establish a political party with dictatorial powers for the leader.
2. Win the White House and Congress (this would inevitably take at least 2-3 years).
3. Pass an Act more than doubling the size of the Supreme Court.
4. Appoint patsy justices.
5. Pass an Enabling Act; have it ratified in the Supreme Court.
Amending the constitution isn't quite as big a barrier as is sometimes thought either. Were such a party to capture power, then ir'd need two-thirds of state legislatures in its grasp (quite a big total, granted, but not necessarily insurmountable, particularly if the norms of democratic elections aren't assured - for example, if Congress, as in the 1860s, debarred certain states from exercising their usual rights - which again could be signed off by a client Court). With that, it could invoke a national convention and wholly re-write the constitution. Obviously, nothing would be protected at that point.
While we do need dispatchable fossil plants to fill the gap between nuclear and renewables, this could be in the form of a new generation of coal-fired plants fitted with carbon capture and storage. The coal is still there, under our feet. Or can be imported from friendly suppliers.
Or we posture to Putin, but still buy several £billion of his gas.
It would not be pretty.
(I always thought Bannon's face looked like a bad rubber mask...)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-38687835
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/the-charge-sheet-against-tory-britain/
Someone should be running with it.....
It would cost too much though, sadly.
[As an aside, I think that someone inventing cheap clean energy - a cold fusion that actually works, say - would be so destabilising it would probably lead to another world war]
They're now having another go.
Mr. Anorak, entirely possible. Sparta was, ironically, destroyed by winning the Peloponnesian War. Their Lycurgan constitution couldn't handle being rich.
https://twitter.com/LADFLEG/status/974551244067954688
I'm also concerned about the safety of it.