Accuweather's Bastardi: Global Cooling Reason for Putin Shutting off Gas Pipeline

It would also be in Russia’s interest to advance the “global warming” and anti-nuclear agendas in Europe as it would cause politicians that fall for it to shift energy generation from coal and nuclear (as has been done in Germany) to “cleaner” gas.
France seems to be the only European country following their own interests and continuing to develop nuclear power. Germany would be well-served to get their nuclear program back up and running, too. Same with the UK.
If temperatures continue to fall, keep an eye on Russian activity with regards to Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan would be Russia’s next natural power grab if weather starts to turn really bad for a long period in Russia.

“Maybe too paranoid?”
I don’t think so. It is the kind of game Russia excels at playing historically. We sort of did the same to them some years back. We deployed cruise missiles in Europe forcing the old Soviet union to spend billions in “look down” radars. We developed enhanced radiation warheads that could take out mass formations of armored vehicles without laying waste to the countryside for decades. The Russians played a propaganda angle that we developed warheads that could nuke cities killing the population but leave the industry intact when killing civilians is not a military objective. Russia was successful in their agitation through protest groups in Europe to keep us from deploying those weapons until they invaded Afghanistan. When we developed stealth technology we forced them into another research project costing billions and that was apparently the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Russia would absolutely love for Western governments to take the “global warming” fantasy hook, line, and sinker. It would ensure they have greater leverage. It would not surprise me a bit to find Russian money or money from Russian influenced people and organizations flowing into the coffers of “global warming” and other “environmental” groups. When the “reds” lost power, many of them simply donned a “green” shirt and kept on doing what they have always done.
Groups like “Greenpeace” no longer have any basis in science in any of their positions and are simply doing whatever they can to hamstring economic growth and energy development through the run up if legal fees through endless litigation, and “community activism” that misinforms and misleads the average people into making decisions that pile inefficiency upon inefficiency in getting anything done.
Not paranoid. It is pretty much business as usual for Russia in a historical context.

Pamela Gray (21:50:38) :
You have assumed that the kings value their economic interests more than their strategic interests, a common mistake in the west where capitalism has made life easier and made the amassing of money the primary interest. For when war comes, money becomes secondary to security.
“…it is not gold, as is claimed by common opinion, that constitutes the sinews of war, but good soldiers; for gold does not find good soldiers, but good soldiers are quite capable of finding gold.” – Machiavelli

And when Al Gore and Hansen et al, migrating to the USSR, sorry my bad,
R

It’s not paranoid… Not after Russia’s interference in Ukraine’s affairs, not after Georgia…. Putin wants Russia to be a great power…. He wants to be known for making that happen.
It’s not paranoid to understand, that the hand with the most energy cards wins, in any climate… warm or cold….

Vladimir Putin has already previously stated that he needs the oil price at $ 80.00 a bbl to sustain Russia’s economic prosperity.
Ukraine has some history of double dealing with the gas flow through the pipelines transiting their country.
Those countries relying on this pipeline were always going to need to tread a cautious line. Note that the most immediately vulnerable are old iron curtain states – e.g Czech Republic etc.
Putin is playing his game of supply and demand. He will win it in the short term. He needs the $$$$.
Meanwhile, IMHO, coming ice age conspirators are in the same bag as AGW alarmists.
The USSR historically financed western dissent. Just playing tit for tat.

Just as we’re not going to be turned into toast by next Tuesday – –
Neither are we going to be turned into a frosty by next Friday.

The end of global warming may herald a new age of Russian prosperity.
Putin is sitting on a double whammy here in a new game of Russian Roulette with two bullets in the chamber.
First he will make a killing on the carbon credit market with brokers that will make the Lehman Brothers look like the office Christmas fund.
Then he will hike up the price of gas whilst Europe is freezing and bleeding from paying out coal miners their un-employment benefits whilst irate bird watchers and frustrated councils are tearing down windmills along the coast of Scotland.
Good one Vladimir, I am sure that you are hoping you will be sitting next to Barack in Copenhagen this year and it is a warm week.

Kevin and Smokey, both good points.
What we need are combined cycle nuclear plants. These would basically be two conventional power plants and one fast neutron plant along with a fuel re-processing facility all at the same location. Scientific American published an article titled Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste back in December of 2005 that describes how we can reprocess spent fuel rather than bury it, eliminate the need to enrich uranium, and reduce the danger of proliferation of weapons grade material by using isotopes that are useful for fuel but not useful for weaponry.
Using modern plants such as the Westinghouse AP series that greatly reduce the complexity and parts count and have passive safety features that do not require a human to operate in case of an accident. These reactors would burn conventional fuel which would then be reprocessed using the reprocessing facility and the on-site fast neutron reactor and then returned to the conventional plant for further use. What waste there is created decays much faster to background levels of radiation in hundreds of years rather than thousands making storage safeguards much easier.
We have the technology. Carter decided not to recycle fuel. Reagan decided to build a test combined-cycle plant but Clinton killed it. Japan, India, France and Russia recycle fuel. India has this past year decided to build several fast-neutron reactors. Doing all of this on-site greatly reduces the amount of nuclear fuel that needs to move around the country in trucks and trains.
We have the technology right now to power this country for centuries in a much safer and cleaner fashion with less waste. We do not need to pour billions into development of something that might or might not produce cost effective production.
As I watch the goings on in the press and in the coffee shops I am constantly reminded that 50% of the population is below the median intelligence level and it only takes 50% + 1 to win an election.

I was just trying to think like a European for a sec.
I mean, suppose this guy is right, and next winter is colder than this one. So you’re Hanz Franz sitting in his Berlin brownstone, and all of a sudden the heat goes off. It stays off for days. Do you still care about the plight of the polar bears, or does all that non-Russian coal you’re country is sitting on start to look good.
Do you still look up from your morning paper after reading about those plucky Greenpeacers vandalizing coal smokestacks in the UK, and think “Ja iz gut”, or do you hope maybe somebody blows them off of there with a bazooka.
This fantasy works for New York too. No Russians necessary. Methinks interesting times are coming.

During 1989-1991, I was lucky enough to see the unraveling of the Soviet empire first hand as grad student in Poland. This was a great time to be a historian, since the state archives were summarily opened without restrictions. Trust me, even the Hoover Institution or the Eisenhower Library had more restrictions than Polish state archives did c. 1989-1991.
What I am saying here is that I have seen evidence with my own eyes of Russian machinations which would make no sense at all to a Westerner but perfect sense to them. I am intellectually ready to entertain the notion that it is possible that a Russian leader might enter into almost any conceivable clandestine scheme.
However, in this case, Occam’s razor suggests that Putin’s current plans have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. The Russians have a perceived interest in blocking Ukraine’s entry into NATO. They also want to make more money from their product. From their perspective, demonstrating that they can cut off natural gas to Europe in the dead of winter helps them to accomplish both of those goals. It’s cold outside right now. That fact alone explains the timing.

Today a GAZPROM representative made the following statement.
GAZPROM has two different contracts with Ukraine.
1. Contract for the delivery of gas
2. Contract for the distribution of gas
Last year Ukraine owned Gazprom 3 billion dollar in outstanding bills.
A settlement was made by which Ukraine would pay the outstanding bills by December 31 2008.
In the mean time GAZPROM raised the prices to 250 dollar for 1000 cubic meter of gas.
Ukraine responded by canceling further negotiations and refused to pay the higher prices.
In January GAZPROM responded by cutting the delivery of gas to Ukraine.
Now Ukraine has responded by closing the pipelines that deliver the gas to Europe.
This is confirmed by the Austrian Partner that manages the european part of the pipeline.
The Urkrainian Gas company NAFTOGAS however declared that GAZPROM also cut the European deliveries.
It must be clear that political and economical aspects play a major role in the conflict.
The Ukrainian President is struggling to remain in power as his position is undermined by representatives of the former Communist, now Pro Russian political forces.
Although Moscow consequently denies any allegation of power politics it is clear that energy is used as a power tool. Ukrain is not in a position to pay the higher gas prices.
The Ukrainian President is Pro Europe, a potential member of NATO and a potential EU member. Russia wants the former Soviet State to stay under Russian influence especially because Ukraine hosts the Russian Southern Fleet and controls a significant nuclear potential.
In the mean time some European countries depending on Russian gas like Hungry and the Czech Republic are very short on reserves under extremely cold weather conditions up to minus 30 degree Celcius.
Hopefully the announced meeting between Russian and Ukrainian representatives for next Thursday will bring a solution.
Italy in the mean time has announced it will no longer depend on Russian Gas.
Other European countries will follow but short term alternatives are not available.
A third pipeline that is planned for gas delivery via the East Sea to Germany will be in service by 2012.
Shipping of Compressed Natural Gas is in need of infrastructure (ships and CNG harbor installations and the delivery of gas from Algeria lacks pipeline capacity.
It must be clear that Europe will have a close look at the future energy policies.

Voting for WUWT
[another cheating strategy snipped ~ charles the moderator, standing in for Evan the robomod]

The particulars of the current dispute are distractions. Putin is acting in a manner that I expect Machievelli would approve. He’s not enamored of the fashionably chic green agenda; he’s looking at what the climate will really do, not what some silly model is projecting as possible — an object lesson sure to be missed by the incoming administration with its own green agenda. So, when Europeans start freezing their butts off during the coming years, Russia will be bargaining from a position of strength. Maybe, after a couple decades of a colder climate, Europeans will wake up and start using their own coal resources. Maybe.

Bastardi’s assertion that Russia started the Georgia conflict is total nonsense and international UN observers confirm this. That said, Russia did expect the attack as part of the encirclement by the Untited States, via proxies, of Russia e.g. Ukraine, Georgia and Afghanistan. Regardless of whether we enter a cold period or not Europe now knows that we have a major probem with energy supplies now that the continent’s gas and oil production has peaked.

A small solar cycle 24 sunspot popped up today at around 00:00… it was gone by 07:00 though… Check the lastest solar images. Strange because it appears that spaceweather.com has already allocated a number for it… (1010)

FF (23:52:40)
Enough apologia. Fee Fi Fo Fum, I smell the blood of a bad ‘un.
========================================

Sam the Skeptic (03:10:52) :
“Personally I’m not sure what the Russians are up to but history has taught us always to be wary of the Bear.”
I agree with Sam we have to watch Russia but i always believe in picking your fights. Instead of giving unconditional support for Georgia when they started the war in the first place, just because you are small does not make you innocent, maybe we should be a bit more balanced and mediate rather than attack. and with the gas well maybe the Ukraine should actually stop stealing gas and pay their bills and if we put pressure on both sides it might get resolved sooner rather than just fearing the bear. Then perhaps the west could have more influence in Russia and we would be in a better position if the bear tries something stupid. Better to have them inside the tent p***ing out than outside the tent p***ing in. Its not in Russia’s interest to cut supplies, it makes Russian energy less valuable because it becomes less reliable.
Burn Polish coal i say, its cheap secure and in the heart of Europe. If this cold snap has taught us anything its that renewable energy might be great for opinion columns and dinner party conversations but when it gets cold you need to burn stuff. I am in Poland now and it was -18c yesterday evening, a little too cold for my liking.

For someone claiming to know their history, Skeptic Sam misses something.
‘For sure the Reds morphed into the Greens though they were always related anyway ‘ – is palpable nonsense. The UK Greens, for instance, began life as a group of disgruntled Conservatives.
There’s no continuity between Red and Green. It is a myth that conservatives would be well advised to abandon. It gets in the way of understanding the scientific and political claims made by environmentalists.
There are superficial similarities between Green and both the broad categories ‘Left’ and ‘Right’. There is a superficial continuity between the Soviet Union and contemporary Russia. But Cold War language doesn’t help us explain or combat the prominance of environmentalism as much as impede us, and makes us look stuck in the past. The world is very, very different now.

I would like to make a request that Watts-up sticks to climate science and forgoes these forays into energy and geopolitics! It’s not that some of the comments aren’t informative, it is that the majority really show up the prejudices and rather deep ignorance of the European situation held in the USA, and it would be a nightmare to try and engage in corrective action. There’s no blame or judgement intended – I love America – it is a reflection of the national interest and width of the Atlantic. But is is exasperating.
I am a veteran of the European energy policy, risk analysis, green politics, pollution control arena – with over thirty years experience from grass roots, through local councils, regional, national and EU government, commissions, public inquiries and international conventions (on pollution control) – with a long history of publications, interventions and activism. All I can say – is that this prevailing view of Russia as manipulative is extremely naive and driven by some psychological need not to look at the motives and historical policies of the US in relation to world markets and finance – the Russian responses to encirclement and continual attempts at economic destabilisation (which resulted in the Wall) explain a lot – even Marxism can only be understood as a response to Capitalism.
The reforms of the late 80s were driven by Gorbachov and motivated by an incredible maturity and desire to change this pattern – but all the West could do was claim economic victory and gloat, whilst expanding its marketing and military alliances in Eastern Europe and central Asia. That recreated the old Soviet style Putin in response.
But it also liberated an incredibly powerful Russian mafia – remember Russia is now a capitalist country!
Putin has to balance the outside threats, the internal mafia, and the future economy – and energy is all he has going – and with it a huge surplus of dollars!{{ What would the USA do if Mexico brought in a socialist government, allied itself to Russia (or China) but was entirely dependent on the US for energy, and then refused to pay the market price?}}
Against this background, the machinations of green politics in Europe, wind turbines, nuclear power….and all the rest, pale into insignificance. And to speak of Russian money for the green agenda is a nonsense – even if it were on offer (it never was) no green organisation would risk public approbrium by taking it.
Russia is set to receive vast sums in carbon credit trading – more dollars and Euros it can only spend if western economies stay buoyant. That’s why Putin signed Kyoto against the advice of the Academy of Sciences, and why the Academy then changed its tune (Yuri Izrael, Vice Chair of IPCC and Russian Academy placement there, once said that ‘global warming’ was over-hyped nonesense! But he went quiet after receiving contracts from Putin to study cooling the globe by high-level dispersal of sulphur particles!).
But there you go – I couldn’t resist an argument!

Charles,
Russia goaded the Georgians into that attempt. They were waiting for it. Georgia was attempting to regain control of its own territory from separatists supported by the Russians. This was ‘payback’ to the West for Kosovo/Bosnia, in which a Russian client State, Serbia, had much the same thing done to it by NATO.
Putin is testing out his economic weapon, energy supply, to ensure that the EU understands that they have to acquiesce to the expansion of Russian influence in the former Soviet States bordering Russia. Georgia was first and it appears that Ukraine is next. The EU’s response to the Russian invasion of Georgia was tepid at best exactly because they understood that Putin would cut their energy supplies. If Russia decides to invade Ukraine in a similar manner this little exercise is intended to send the message of the consequences of EU opposition.
Sad the the EU countries have allowed themselves to become this vulnerable to Russia.

The Russians failed to pay a registration fee to maintain their participation in the carbon credits scam run by the UN. It was only about 125k-150k. I know that the Russians have a history of thinking things like dues, etc., are optional. But their failure to participate gives you an idea of how serious they are about the IPCC theories of global warming. To them its one more joke to play for a scam.

Well, as I have said all along, climate change, whether colder or warmer, is more about politics than it is about actual climate. Not that I am the only one to hold that belief, however, I might add.
We’re not entering another Cold War. We’re already in it. We have some of the same enemies in the same general places (Russia, Cuba, Latin America, Western Europe). Whoever started what first between Georgia and Russia misses the point entirely. As Bastardi notes, this is a chess match, or to put it in his terminology a wrestling match. These are merely set up moves.
We once had the concept of “spheres of influence.” Well, Russia has carefully built and controlled an energy network which gives it a sphere of influence over the whole of Europe, and with respect to oil over the whole of the world. Putin isn’t stupid. He knows Russia is not a major military power. As Bastardi notes, that action was only intended to serve notice that he merely needs to give the order and troops can seize the pipelines. Meanwhile, he’ll let the international community, via its proxy the UN, haggle and wrangle. He may eventually have to give ground, literally and metaphorically, but by then he’ll have already got what he wanted. Europe has no military to oppose him. The United States is caught up fighting the same muhajadeen that we supported against the Soviets 25 years ago. A fitting irony in his eyes no doubt. And the Chinese are getting friendlier to Russia as a means to advance their own military technology. So, without firing a shot at anybody that really matters, Putin can make great strides for himself and his nation. And the rest of us will be forced to just sit back n watch helplessly.
Think about it. He supports Iran with nuclear technology for its assuredly “peaceful” nuclear program. This keeps the US tied up with its attention on the Middle East. Meanwhile, he knows that even if we had a lot of troops in Europe we would not invade Russia over an issue like this. No, we’ll try diplomacy first, second, third, and last. He can get the Europeans to oppose our wishes without direct confrontation merely by utilizing control of his natural gas and oil supplies. So we can’t even use the excuse that it is the will of the people of Europe. He can also sell the Chinese technology and know how for advanced military platforms, and get them to oppose the US as well when it suits his interests. I mean, he literally is in the catbird seat. He has the intel, the resources, and the will to use them. And he knows that despite any voiced objections, nobody is really going to stop him.
In that view, Russia is literally the most powerful nation on Earth right now.

Peter Taylor:
So run that by me again? Russia is not manipulative, but the United States is? Say what? I understand national interests myself, and I understand entirely why Putin would make such moves as these. Of course he is trying to survive external and internal pressures – that is verily the definition of being a politician. But you expect us to believe that with the willingness and ability to nationalize or mistreat any company he wishes to, that foreign companies are supposed to turn a blind eye to that and invest anyway?
And I’m sorry but the EU is a joke. It is nothing but a bunch of old men and women sitting around talking in their own little bubble. The EU has no real power outside its own borders. It couldn’t even cobble 12 helicopters together to use in rescue missions in the countries neighboring Sudan and affected by refugees for the Darfur conflict. But if the whole of Europe wants to become dependent on Russian gas supplies, and the price they will cost with the coming cold, by all means.
By the way, I need not point out that these things – climate change and energy supply – are connected. Watts is as perfect a blog to bring it up in, being climate oriented, as EUReferendum would be whilst it is politically oriented. So, no, thank you very much, we will not mind our own business on this one. This indeed is our business.
Let the British mind their own house. The lights will soon not be on there much longer the way HM’s Government is running things into the ground. We have been just fine without the British for 200 years, with all due respect to the WW2 era, and we will be just fine without them for another 200 years God willing.

I think crosspatch is right. Russia has been inflating it’s reported temps to help the Western world continue to delude itself into believing in global warming. Then we will be unprepared with our own sources of fossil fuel energy and Russia will rape Europe with gas prices. It’s really obvious when you see the temps reported out of Siberia.

Bill Marsh (05:52:30) :
“Russia goaded the Georgians into that attempt. They were waiting for it. Georgia was attempting to regain control of its own territory from separatists supported by the Russians.”
I am no expert but this is what the people of South Ossetia had to say. Little mention of them in all the east west talk.
“According to the Tskhinvali election authorities, the referendum turned out a majority for independence from Georgia where 99% of South Ossetian voters supported independence and the turnout for the vote was 95%[14]. The referendum was monitored by a team of 34 international observers from Germany, Austria, Poland, Sweden and other countries at 78 polling stations.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia
Georgia might clame South Ossetia but britian once clamed half the world including North America. In the American revolutionary war support for independance was mcuh lower than that.

Freezing Finn, thanks for your posts. Very cool information. I also think that energy and geopolitical topics brings out the worst in our US colored glass view of the world beyond the pond. Maybe that is why your posts are studied by the moderators longer than others regarding this topic. Your views will be controversial and will prompt the kind of response that makes me want to step away and look busy with something else while the poster rages on about the axis of evil and James Bond-ess stories of intrigue. Not that some of it may be true or false, but posts like that are filled with opinion without data. Often times I think some posters believe that every country is an idiot except for ours and no amount of unbiased or opposing information will persuade from that view. For me, I love reading the posts from folks beyond the US. It is one of the best things about belonging to this blog.

I love reading articles like this. Thank you Anthony! You get my vote.
Despite Joe Bastardi being an employee of accuweather, his companies global warming blog would be better served if it stopped giving into its green advertisers. Break through the hype!
Be green everyone! But don’t emit GREENhouse gas. It’s sooo stupid.
And despite all of this ‘dirty’ pollution, the snow is-as white, bright and prestine as ever up here in New Hampshire. Lets face it, how ‘dirty’ could an increase of 0.010% CO2 be?
This trace gas is having absolutely zero (0) toxic effects on human beings. In fact, life expectancy is increasing. So how could this trace gas have such dramatic, toxic like effects on an entire planet?
The science against carbon, is science achieved through carbon. Got that? It is impossible for an increase in CO2 alone to destroy our progression, when our progression has been a result of CO2.
What can I say, we are living in strange times.

Putin is/was KGB, Medvedev is his pawn. AGW is POLITICAL, thus appropriate for WUWT, virtually everything in this world is. I agree with crosspatch , coaldust and bobby lane , good posts. Pamela Grey , generally you are right however coaldust is correct in saying power is # 1 ahead of money in a dictator’s priorities. JMHO. Great discussion! Lot of good civil points.
Brent in Calgary

Those questioning the propriety of raising the issues both stated and implied in the Bastardi article and subsequent comments are counseling that we trust the Russians? We’re to rationalize the Russian invasion of South Ossetia? On that basis, Iran is entitled to invade Detroit!
I suppose we are supposed to just not think about what Putin is doing. Trust him. Don’t believe our eyes.

The gas reserves of Russia are enormous. There is so much they have not even explored. Rather than avoiding such a resource, Europe should find a way to ensure steady supply.
The answer is to put in massive storage facilities. The Russians will need the cash, and much like the old claim that a capitalist will compete to sell the rope by which he is hung, Russia will eventually sell the gas to fill the storage. That would reduce their ability to use the gas as a political tool.

So we don’t build nuclear plants, don’t build hydro power, don’t even attempt to drill for much of the available oil and gas and more just to appease the greenies. Then we in the West blame the Russians for this? Like we were going to trust the Russians? We are being destroted from within not by some minor gas manipulations.
Freezing Finn
You must have never heard of the Red White war in Finland or the Winter war. Wonderful neighbours those Russians.

Nukes cost too much, leaving aside the toxic byproducts that future generations must deal with, and the
” The staggering cost of new nuclear power: A new study puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at from 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour — triple current U.S. electricity rates.”
— and far below most renewable-based power, wind, solar, wave, geothermal.
source:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/study-cost-risks-new-nuclear-power-plants/
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California

Makes me wonder how accurate those soaring Siberian temperatures are, and if they are being modified to promote AGW.
Gore Minimum ha ha I like it.

Interesting article about climate/war correlation.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/49/19214.full

Peter Taylor,
I find your comments either naive or you believe the intended audience is naive.
Of course the Russian government would never directly cut a check to any “green” group. But there are ways if filtering resources to groups that advance your strategic objectives in less obvious ways. Practically every government on the planet does it, political parties do it, even corporations do it. Heck, in the US there is even a group that *specializes* in hiding contributions to various “progressive” causes. It is called The Tides Foundation. You make a contribution to Tides and earmark your contributions to go to certain organizations. Tides then mingles your funds with those of others and makes the contributions to the various organizations according to the earmarked amounts. So the target organization records a donation by Tides, not by the actual provider of the cash. Tides shows a donation by the original donor but only to itself. It is not required to record or report how the funds were requested to be distributed. So in this way an individual or corporate foundation can make donations to specific groups without a paper trail linking them to that group. That is the entire purpose for the existence of the foundation and that is but one example. Why do so many “progressive” causes require their cash sources to remain “secret”?
The same is done using “businesses” that are wholly or partially government owned. Someone gets a “contract” for “consulting”. Collects a fat check, the proceeds from the “consulting fee” is dispersed as instructed and everything appears to be donations from a private individual. It is done all the time. To pretend otherwise is either naivety or deception.
“I am a veteran of the European energy policy, risk analysis, green politics, pollution control arena – with over thirty years experience from grass roots, through local councils, regional, national and EU government, commissions, public inquiries and international conventions (on pollution control) – with a long history of publications, interventions and activism.”
The above would seem to raise suspicion of your objectivity. You would seem to have an interest in “defending” an area in which you have a lot of personal investment.
The simple truth is that things operate in quite cynical ways. A desire to create a better environment is often used as a “hook” to draw in support by people who mean well but in the overall scope of things the impact is to hamstring economic competitors. How much impact to “environmentalist” groups have on projects in Russia, China, or India?

ecarreras (09:42:23)
Yes, Ehrlich wont let go. Like all those with an over inflated ego they have to continue to the death to push their point of view, even though it’s been shown to be totally wrong.

Phil:

what better way to regain world power than to get the West to spend untold trillions on ineffective power alternatives such as wind and solar,

I wonder how many wind turbines have been installed in Russia.
My guess is, at most, not many.
Anyone know?

Roger Sowell:”” The staggering cost of new nuclear power: A new study puts the generation costs for power from new nuclear plants at from 25 to 30 cents per kilowatt-hour — triple current U.S. electricity rates.”
I am going to venture a WAG that a good portion of the staggering cost is due to over the top permitting and “safety” regulations imposed by government at the insistance of anti-nukers, greenies and, yes, the oil, gas & coal companies. A little story about my brother in Connecticut who had researched putting up a windmill on his residential property many years ago. He can across a “safety” regulation that required an additional 50 feet of clearance past the height of the windmill on all sides just in case it fell down. This “safety” regulation effectively prohibiited windmills from being placed on most residential properties. I have no doubt that it was passed into law by power companies to prevent individuals from producing their own supplemental power.

I happened to come across (thank David Icke) this from Peter Taylor on YouTube. I hope Peter you don’t mind me putting this up. It may help people see where you are coming from as to my understanding of both this site and yourself you are not so different in outlook http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLR95w0qBD0 and http://www.changingtimes.org.uk/Lectures/PeterTaylor/PeterTaylor.htm you can get the lecture just down from top right on this page. All the best, Ed.

Putin once half-jokingly said (to paraphrase):
I welcome Global Warming – Russia has a huge territory and much of it is permafrost, a bit of warming is actually good for Russia. Besides, Russians will be spending less money on fur.
As someone who lived in Russia for more then 20 years, I would say that the latest beef that Russia has is with Ukraine, not Europe. Russia’s economy very much depends on the oil and gas exports and I don’t believe Putin and his KGB buddies are stupid enough to severe the umbilical cord that feeds their bank accounts or jeopardize the flow of money.
The difference between the USSR bureaucrats and the Putin’s gang is that they can freely spend their loot now and, boy, do they have a lot of it. And, they don’t want to loose the ability to continue milking the “gas” cow (EU). They doing what they are doing out of the necessity (Ukraine’s debt is about $3B), and not some grand plan to test the economic and political power play (it doesn’t hurt either in the process but it’s not the main reason).

Geomarz,
Yes, I believe there is more to the situation than meets the eye. On one hand Ukraine talks about kicking the Russian Navy out of Sevastopol yet on the other hand wants gas as if it were still a Soviet Republic. I believe an reasonable agreement has been reached today with international monitors watching the gas delivery. I hope all goes well.

What a load of drivel. When oil prices were going up, Russia was getting money hand over fist, and the economic situation was getting remarkably better. People in Russia were looking to a brighter future, and were thus quite happy.
Since the rapid drop in crude oil prices, Russia is hurting for money, and the economic situation has been getting much worse. Russians are getting most unhappy, and getting restless as a result.
Russia therefore needs money. Russia furnishes a good bit of the energy that Europe uses, and energy which Europe can’t do without. Russia can easily control more than twice the amount of energy that Russia furnishes to Europe. The Russians have tanks right next to their borders with Ukraine and Georgia. Thus, Russia is capable of shutting off well more than half of the energy sources which Europe can’t do without.
Russia needs the money . . . and Europe will end up paying, as Europeans have no choice at all to do otherwise.
It is all about money.

Roger Sowell,
Now that China has ordered several of those Westinghouse plants and made them their standard plant for inland nuclear power, I would expect the cost per plant to drop dramatically. There are a dozen plants that I am aware of that have received licenses in the US. China wants to have at least 100 under construction within the next decade or so. That will dramatically reduce per-plant costs.
I read a funny article yesterday about an environmental group that brought a lawsuit that said that delays from lawsuits will increase costs well beyond the plan. Well DUH! We need to stop these idiotic lawsuits. We need a way for government to cut through the frivolous obstruction and get these plants built. There is nothing environmentally friendly about being anti-nuclear. It is political. They obstruct every single energy project, every single infrastructure project, every single development project. It is now cheaper for cities to allow infrastructure to rot in place than to repair it. Waiting for a hurricane, flood, or earthquake to destroy a bridge, and then use emergency authority to replace it is cheaper for cities than to attempt to repair the infrastructure without an emergency because of idiotic regulations that mean well but in practice are costing us billions of dollars in unnecessary funding of six layers of studies, a legal team, and years of litigation for no reason.

King of Cool (02:45:55) :
Voting for WUWT
[another cheating strategy snipped ~ charles the moderator, standing in for Evan the robomod]

Sorry Charles if I gave the wrong impression.
I was merely pointing out that [potential cheating strategy deleted again, even if innocently rephrased ~ charles the moderator]
My impression of this blog is that it is represented by highly professional and moral users and I do not believe that WUWT will have any trouble winning in its own right.

Even France is reported to be affected from gas shortage just now as they shiver under a blanket of snow and icy winds reaching from Belgium over Paris and all the way down to subtropical Marseille.

crosspatch (12:10:33) : re Costs will drop dramatically..
No doubt. As one example, India’s Reliance Industries just built and started a huge refinery costing $3.5 billion. That refinery in the U.S. would cost $10 billion.
China very well may build 1000 MWe nuclear plants at $1 billion each. Those are clever guys — I know, I worked there twice in my engineering capacity. But in the U.S., that is not going to happen IMHO.
And I completely agree with your infrastructure statements. It has been sad to watch California’s infrastructure progress (or lack of same) in the past 25 years.
Now the problem is even worse, as state unemployment zooms, the budget deficit balloons to unpredented levels, employers leave the state, workers leave the state, and the government raises taxes to compensate. The state has a few infrastructure projects in progress, and is shutting them down incomplete due to lack of funds. Re-start costs will be huge.
It reminds me of a sad scene I saw in a harbor in Brazil 20 years ago. A cross-harbor bridge for vehicle traffic was left un-finished, just rusting away. I thought at the time, How sad, but how typical for a struggling third-world country. I never imagined I would see the same 20 years later in the U.S.A.!
And California is not alone. Michigan’s economy is seriously hurting. Minnesota has bridges collapse without warning.
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California

Re nuclear power plants in the U.S.:
A quote from a commenter to the July 21, 2008, Wall Street Journal, Mr. R. L. Hails Sr., P.E.
“Having engineered two score nuclear power plants, I find this article misses the essential fact, as does both Presidential candidates. The professionals who would build Senator McCain’s proposed forty five nuclear power plants do not exist. The engineers who designed the last nukes were the cream of US engineers, typically were in the top ten percent of their graduating class. They are dead. I once surveyed my group, in the 1970’s, some 100 +, and found the average degree level was 2.6. But during the 1980s, 69 engineering schools dropped the coursework which the industry considered vital to this profession. Their graduates could not find work. The US has no Confederate veterans; we have no experienced nuclear power engineers, those who built the world’s most complex technology. The primary source of engineering talent is Japan, China, India, and France. This is just one of a host of non existent capabilities. The US’ capability to fabricate a one foot thick pressure vessel, over 1000 tons, to nuclear standards, is non-existent. Japan may be able to make one per year for us.
If the New York Yankees, indeed the entire league, had not played a game in thirty five years, would any one expect a competent all star game? No. Why would anyone envision that hundreds of thousands of highly skilled professionals will arise from a national secondary school system that ranks almost dead last, globally, in science and math? Any US nuclear power renaissance will face investment difficulties, but the show stopper will be experienced talent. This technology was created by the brightest minds on earth, but they have faded into history. There are engineering books in the library, as there are books explaining how to hit a major league home run. No nation has ever restarted a state of the art profession. There will be delays, disasters, and overruns, which will not be pretty. If some hero tries to fast track the resurgence, he will cause a nuclear train wreck.”
source: http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php?t=3381
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California

One more thing – military spending in 2008:
USA $711 billion + Europe’s $289 billion vs. Russia’s $70 billion.
USA’s slice is 48% of the world’s total.
So, where’s the threat really coming from – East or West?… Geez, a tough one, no?… 😉
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
Reply: The blogmasters want you to stop. You’ve strayed way too far into murky territory with this and your previous post. This goes for all subsequent posters. Please do not dissect Freezing Finn’s points or address them. No back and forth anymore please. ~ charles the moderator

Roger E Sowell
“we have no experienced nuclear power engineers”
Not exactly true. The Navy graduates many out of training every year. Also, in 1940 there were exactly 0 nuclear engineers on the planet by 1960 there were many. And finally, the latest plants are *much* simpler than the plants built in the 1960’s. Compared to plants in current operation:

* 50% fewer safety-related valves
* 80% less safety-related piping
* 85% less control cable
* 35% fewer pumps
* 45% less seismic building volume

And you don’t need to be a “nuclear engineer” to assemble a plant built out of pre-fabricated modules the way the AP1000 is. You need good civic and mechanical engineers.
I keep hearing tired old arguments based on 1960’s technology but nobody seems to recognize how the industry has advanced since then.

Why should The Ukraine pay below market rates for it’s gas? … which it does.
Why shouldn’t Russia want what is the market price for it’s product?
Simple as that.
Happy New Year
– Jon

Thanks P2O2 for the Russian web sites. I bookmarked them. By the way, I love the way you write in English. It sounds so Russian.

new nsidc report is out
http://nsidc.com/arcticseaicenews/
No mention of trend

Roger Sowell (09:52:06) :
“Btw, I believe Ron de Haan (02:15:53) intended to write LNG, not CNG. LNG is liquefied natural gas, and it is indeed shipped and regasified upon arrival”.
You are correct Roger, I meant LNG.

Jeff Alberts — thank you for pointing out my error. It was one bridge in Minnesota, across the Mississippi river on Interstate 35W.
Here is an excerpt on some other U.S. bridge collapses, and an assessment of bridge conditions from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board:
“In 1983, a 100-foot section of the Mianis River Bridge in Connecticut, a part of I-95, plunged 70 feet into the water. The failure of crucial holding pins was blamed for the collapse that caused three deaths.
Perhaps the deadliest bridge collapse occurred in 1967. The Silver Bridge connecting West Virginia and Ohio gave way during rush hour and tumbled into the Ohio River, killing 46 people. The cause was eventually determined to be corrosion.
Steel corrosion on bridges is still a major concern. Infrastructure experts worry that thousands of American bridges are dangerously outdated and overburdened. In 2006, approximately one-fifth of interstate bridges were rated as deficient, either structurally deficient or obsolete.
Overall, one-quarter of all bridges in the U.S. are considered structurally deficient, and 80,000 bridges across the country need some sort of reconstruction or rebuilding.
On April 5, 1987, a bridge on the New York State Thruway near Amsterdam, N.Y., gave way, killing 10 people.”
source:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/02/earlyshow/main3126226.shtml
Other bridge-related incidents, from NTSB, include:
Passenger Vehicle Collision With a Fallen Overhead Bridge Girder, Golden, Colorado, May 15, 2004
Collapse of the Harrison Road Bridge Spans, Miamitown, Ohio, May 26, 1989.
Collapse of the Northbound U.S. Route 51 Bridge Spans over the Hatchie River near Covington, Tennessee April 1, 1989.
Collapse of the S.R 675 Bridge Spans over the Pocomoke River near Pocomoke City, Maryland August 17, 1988.
The collapsing bridge list gets rather long, so will stop here rather than use up more storage space on the blog server.
As was famously said by an astronaut, Houston, We have a Problem.
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California

Peter Taylor (05:20:35) wrote: “I would like to make a request that Watts-up sticks to climate science and forgoes these forays into energy and geopolitics!”
And by your full post you shoot yourself in the foot, Peter. The information and opinion you provide is valuable and appreciated ~ and we would not have had the benefit of it if Anthony had kept WUWT? as tightly focused as you suggest.
I hope you write more here.

Smokey, re Russian carbon credits: Russia has a target of Zero, and EU must reduce to meet their target set by Kyoto. So, anything Russia does to cut GHG can generate a carbon credit for sale to EU.
Here is a Bloomberg article from about a year ago:
Jan 29, 2008: Russia’s government set the rules needed for businesses to start trading carbon credits earned by cutting greenhouse-gas emissions, creating a market that may be worth more than $1.5 billion a year. “The necessary framework is in place as of today,’’ Vsevolod Gavrilov, the deputy head of the Economy Ministry’s natural resources department, told reporters in Moscow on Monday.
So-called Joint Implementation Projects established under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol allow companies to earn tradable credits for reducing emissions at mines and factories. Russia, the largest producer of greenhouse gases after the US and China, is home to thousands of Soviet-era plants that could generate credits through efficiency upgrades. Curbing gas flaring and modernizing heating systems are among the projects that “will improve the efficiency of the national economy and make it greener,’’ Gavrilov said. Russia ratified Kyoto in 2004.
Though many Russian projects are in the pipeline, until today companies had no way of officially submitting them for approval by the Economy Ministry, said Steve Eaton, director of C6 Capital, a Moscow-based investor and developer of projects to reduce greenhouse-gases in Russia and the former Soviet Union.
“Theoretically, the potential for Russia is enormous, but due to the delays in getting the regulations in place some companies have focused on developing projects in other markets’’ such as China and India, Eaton said by phone.
Russia could produce 300 million tons of so-called carbon dioxide equivalent reduction units in the next five years, former deputy economy minister Andrei Sharonov said in June. That tonnage may be worth 5 billion euros ($7.38 billion), Eaton said. The global market was worth 40 billion euros last year, he said.
The power industry accounts for a quarter of Russia’s greenhouse-gas emissions, according to Anatoly Chubais, chief executive officer of OAO Unified Energy System. Russia’s national power utility is seeking to raise $1 billion by selling emission credits for cutting coal use.
Chubais said in June Moscow-based Unified had 40 investment projects that would cut emissions of carbon dioxide by 35 million tons through 2012 and create credits under Kyoto.”
source:
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/russia-sets-rules-for-carbon-credits/266901/
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California

It’s not just the energy. What about food production? I was just watching a video of Robert Taylor who predicted there are going to be huge shortages of food, especially if we continue to use biofuels for energy.
I worry much more about the negative effects of biofuel production than windmill and solar energy production. I can find ways to heat my house. Getting enough to eat may be much harder.

“Perhaps those 413 grads with their BS will do a fine job, I don’t know! Mr. Hails seems to think differently. Also, engineering design is one thing.”
One thing to keep in mind. We have never stopped designing and building reactors. We just aren’t installing them on US soil. Westinghouse Nuclear (now owned by Fujitsu, BTW) has been designing, building, and maintaining reactors globally all along. Just because they haven’t built one inside the borders of the US doesn’t mean the US can’t design and build reactors.
Military reactors are built all the time as are reactors for use in space. The New Horizons spacecraft on its way to Pluto is nuclear powered and built in the US. Solar cells don’t work past Mars.
I think the comments by Mr. Hail are myopic. He apparently isn’t aware of the scope of the nuclear industry inside the US and the fact that we have been building reactors all along.

crosspatch, re nuclear plant construction in the U.S.
You may be right. Hails may be myopic.
All the environmental opponents may fold their tents and fade away.
All the regulatory attorneys may have a stroke of conscience, and refuse to bring the lawsuits even if the enviros maintain their tents.
The U.S. congress could pass laws cutting out all the environmental studies, forbidding all lawsuits, and capping the interest rates on construction loans. They could even set prices for construction materials and labor rates so the as-built price truly is $1 billion per 1000 MWe. Or, they could pass a law that mandates all new power plants be nuclear designs.
A year ago, I would have said all those are impossible. Today, after watching Washington bail out some but allowing others to fail, I am not so sure.
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California

Ron de Haan (17:37:22) :
Thank you for responding but now you have confused me.
A question first; is the price of Euro 0.65/m3 a wholesale price or a domestic one?
I have rechecked my numbers and they seem in order so, if you don’t mind, I will run through them again.
My gas meter reads in cubic feet and I have checked with my gas supplier that it has not been converted into m3. We are billed in units of ft3 which they then convert into pence/KWHr at 3.69 pence. There is approximately 31.6 KW in a ft3 and the conversion factor from ft3 to m3 is 35.315. Putting these together gives:
3.69 x 31.6 x 35.315 = 4117.8pence = £41.17/m3
I just can’t make it any different. Maybe I’ll just have to move to Holland!

Ron de Haan (17:37:22)
Hold everything. It turns out that my meter is in ft3 but the unit 1 is actually 100. Consequently my calculation is 100 times higher than actual.
Sorry to have troubled you, and anybody else that thought of replying. Next time I will do a bit more homework before bothering any one else.
David

Smokey,
re “This UN CO2 scam is nothing but a massive transfer of wealth from responsible Western taxpayers to gross polluters. Or am I missing something?”
I believe the appropriate term here under Kyoto is Verification. There are hundreds of articles written about carbon trading and verification.
It appears some less-than-honest folk have gamed the system, for example, claiming carbon credits (and selling them) for planting a forest — but never planted it. Or improving the efficiency of a carbon-emitting process, like a coal-fired power plant, but never actually doing anything.
There are certified verification companies, but they sometimes get corrupted by bribes, imagine that!
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California

Roger Sowell,
I am not suggesting that all environmental studies be cut. We do need to be responsible in how we use our land and what we spew. But once a plant design has been shown to be acceptable, it should not have to re-prove itself at every single construction site. Unlike plants in the 60’s and early 70’s where every plant was more or less custom, plants like the AP1000 are a standard modular design (designed to keep construction costs down).
Also, in a time of economic hardship, people’s patience for frivolous lawsuits is going to wear thin. We are going to need these infrastructure jobs.
I have a close friend who is a city engineer. Getting approval for replacement of culverts, bridges, even re-paving roads becomes so expensive that the city must waste millions. The environmental impact of a new culvert is going to be about the same as the old culvert was. So what happens is that it becomes cheaper to simply wait until the culvert washes out. One reason infrastructure is in such bad shape is because we can not afford to do the studies and litigation needed to repair it. Cities wait until it is destroyed in a disaster or caves in then use the emergency authority to cut through the tape and get it re-built. It is actually a good thing we have fairly frequent disasters or else much infrastructure wouldn’t get replaced at all until it literally falls apart.

Przemysław Pawełczyk (P2O2)
Mój Polski przyjaciel, dzien dobry! and, regarding the Tale of Two Reactors, that was fascinating reading. Thank you for the link!
(my apologies for my atrocious Polish, I am using an internet-based translator…for the moderators, I am hoping I said “My Polish friend, good morning!)
I hope you had a chance to read the article on the current cost of nuclear power plants, found here:
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf
I especially recommend pages 19 and 20, where construction delays and cost over-runs are discussed.
Best to you,
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California
(where it is warm, and our forecast is for 70 degrees F starting Saturday!)

Roger Carr: Thank you, sir. I also learn from your comments, as well as from the others who share such important information.
crosspatch — another few comments on nuclear projects.
“I think the comments by Mr. Hail are myopic. He apparently isn’t aware of the scope of the nuclear industry inside the US and the fact that we have been building reactors all along.”
The article I provide a link to above addresses all the points I tried to make. The author, Craig Severance, confirms what I have known and written about for a couple of years now, and confirmed what I have suspected but was not really sure about – that Generation III designs are behind schedule and way over budget.
Re cookie-cutter new-design plants, on pg 20 he says “Finland’s effort
to build the world’s first new generation nuclear reactor at Olkiluoto is now over 2 years behind schedule after beginning in 2005, and construction cost estimates have already overrun by at least one billion euro. The recently-released “2008 World Nuclear Industry Status Report – Global Nuclear”(16 Sep 2008) surveyed the current global status of all new nuclear projects, and states “two thirds of the under-construction units have encountered significant construction delays, pushing back officially announced start-up dates.””
Re shortage of qualified operators and engineers, he says on pg 24, “the current generation of nuclear operators is nearing retirement age,
and there are not enough nuclear-trained personnel coming up through nuclear engineering programs to replace current operators, let alone expand the industry. Therefore, staffing a new facility may be a challenge involving extensive recruitment, scholarship, etc. costs.”
Finally, his conclusion is that the total cost that ratepayers must bear is around $0.30 per Kwh, by far the most expensive form of power available. (see pg 28). And, this does not include delays from litigation.
The grim reality is that such a power price will result in many electric users installing their own power generation, whether as cogeneration, windmills, solar, or distributed generation. This leads to a *death spiral*, which I have written about, and he describes on pg. 30. The ones who lose in this scenario are the poor, those on fixed incomes, and those just scraping by paycheck to paycheck. This actually happened in Louisiana in the 1980’s due to the construction of a nuclear power plant there. It will happen again.
To tie this back to AGW and the science issues, I urge everyone to read this article carefully, and give it the same scrutiny for soundness and weakness as for the global warming issues. Replacing fossil-power with nuclear power is one of the keystones of the AGW argument.
The link again is:
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California

Roger Sowell (22:13:01) :
I have been following your comments on nuclear plants and have also briefly looked at the link you gave to Craig Severance. In either case I have not seen any reference to the apparent success of the French nuclear industry. From the little I have read I believe the French energy industry is around 80% nuclear and the KW/hr cost is about 6cents. They are also the largest exporter of electricity in the world.
These numbers seem to be in complete contrast with yours. Perhaps you could comment on these significant differences.

David Porter, Roger Carr, there is a pretty good discussion on the Severance article over at Climate Progress. Severance himself is responding to questions and criticisms. see
http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/05/study-cost-risks-new-nuclear-power-plants/
(full disclosure: CP is on the Sky Is Falling side of the fence — be forewarned…some of the comments are just hilarious.)
I have done many feasibility studies for mega-projects in various countries, including financing options, and I conclude that Severance is very close to getting it right, and his critics are way off.
As to why France has so many nukes, and charges a low power price, it is almost entirely due to policy, government ownership, and lack of accountability. One interesting article stated that France’s power plants have little load-following capability, so they must export power at night rather than reduce power rates.
France is known for having few natural energy resources, no oil, little gas and most of that is exhausted by now, almost no coal, and just a few hydroelectric sites in the mountains. The OPEC embargo of 1973 and price escalation in 79 led to the choice to build nukes rather than pay high prices for fuel oil for oil-fired power plants.
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California

Roger Sowell (00:01:54) “I’m interested in your views on the cost estimates. “
The reality of me, Roger, is that I have no qualifications (formal or otherwise) which would allow me to provide any useful view at all. My interest level is high, but my knowledge level zero, so I but follow the information you and others here provide. Aside from adding to my personal knowledge the only part I can play is to add links from my two blogs as a resource for others to follow as I do myself.
Half a century writing novels and short books for children here and in the USA, plus film, television and some journalism equips me only to endeavour to provide insights to the young from insights I gain from reading and contemplating ~ which is what I am doing here on WUWT? following the trails y’all lay down.
…and I sure could handle a jog along that beach with you.