Ukraine

[Telecaster]

So it's a great strategy that should be encouraged and aided, and unless I see solid reasons to the contrary I will say anyone trying to get Ukraine to stop is a badly incompetent moron on several levels.

Depends on how you look at it, I suppose.  Blocking aid to Ukraine is deeply important to the MAGA wing of the GOP.  Recall, last winter MAGA Republicans stated any aid to Ukraine would be contingent on border security funding, thinking this would make it a poison pill for the Democrats.  However, Democrats agreed to include border funding as part of a Ukraine aid package, but MAGA Republicans blocked it anyway.*

While the US is a net oil exporter, the price of oil is set on the global market.   A disruption anywhere causes prices to spike everywhere.    Russia is one of the largest exporters of refined petroleum in the world and Ukraine's attacks have already caused the price of crude oil to rise.      And our economy is tied to the price of oil.  If the oil goes up, the price of everything goes up.   

So why don't we as Americans take one for the team and accept higher prices?   Most Americans don't care too much about aid to Ukraine, but they deeply care about the price of gas and Americans tend to punish their politicians for high gas prices.   Biden is on shakey ground for reelection already as are a number of House Democrats.   High gas prices will cause election problems for them and if Trump wins and Republicans extend their lead in the House, there will be no more US aid to Ukraine, period.    Conversely, if the economy is going well next summer and fall, Democrats could gain control of the House and Republicans would no longer be able to block aid to Ukraine.   I understand why Ukraine is targeting refineries, but it would be smarter to wait seven months rather than increase the chances of a Trump win.   Because whatever benefits Ukraine is getting, the potential downsides are far, far greater.   

*I'll put this as a footnote because it is a bit off topic for thread...The Republicans reasoning for blocking border funding was that it didn't include as much as they wanted.  This explanation is very childish and so transparently false it is almost painful.   They got most of what they wanted, including addressing the two biggest border needs by far, the asylum process and lack of detention facilities.   Instead of getting most of what they wanted and simply trying to fill in the gaps the next cycle, they are getting nothing.  Which shows how important this issue actually is to them, which is to say not at all.   

[Radagast]

So it's a great strategy that should be encouraged and aided, and unless I see solid reasons to the contrary I will say anyone trying to get Ukraine to stop is a badly incompetent moron on several levels.

Depends on how you look at it, I suppose.  Blocking aid to Ukraine is deeply important to the MAGA wing of the GOP.  Recall, last winter MAGA Republicans stated any aid to Ukraine would be contingent on border security funding, thinking this would make it a poison pill for the Democrats.  However, Democrats agreed to include border funding as part of a Ukraine aid package, but MAGA Republicans blocked it anyway.*

While the US is a net oil exporter, the price of oil is set on the global market.   A disruption anywhere causes prices to spike everywhere.    Russia is one of the largest exporters of refined petroleum in the world and Ukraine's attacks have already caused the price of crude oil to rise.      And our economy is tied to the price of oil.  If the oil goes up, the price of everything goes up.   

So why don't we as Americans take one for the team and accept higher prices?   Most Americans don't care too much about aid to Ukraine, but they deeply care about the price of gas and Americans tend to punish their politicians for high gas prices.   Biden is on shakey ground for reelection already as are a number of House Democrats.   High gas prices will cause election problems for them and if Trump wins and Republicans extend their lead in the House, there will be no more US aid to Ukraine, period.    Conversely, if the economy is going well next summer and fall, Democrats could gain control of the House and Republicans would no longer be able to block aid to Ukraine.   I understand why Ukraine is targeting refineries, but it would be smarter to wait seven months rather than increase the chances of a Trump win.   Because whatever benefits Ukraine is getting, the potential downsides are far, far greater.   

Right but I am differentiating crude versus refined oil products. The US is recently a net oil exporter by a tiny margin, but it's a huge exporter of more expensive refined oil products. Saudi Arabia is the largest crude exporter, the US is the largest refined oil exporter. Similarly Europe imports nearly all crude oil, but it's pretty close to balanced as an importer versus exporter of refined oil. By attacking Russian refineries, the world will have to turn to the US and Europe (among others) for oil. Meanwhile, Ukraine has not been attacking crude, so Russia can still sell that cheap and the US and Europe can still buy it cheap. This strategy is basically a big attack on Russia and a handout for Ukraine's allies in Europe and the US.

I don't see why a Ukrainian strategy of refined oil attacks would result in more than a short blip in crude prices. The article you referenced also notes an Israeli strike against Iran the day before, and I can definitely see why that would spike crude prices.

[zolotiyeruki]

Right but I am differentiating crude versus refined oil products. The US is recently a net oil exporter by a tiny margin, but it's a huge exporter of more expensive refined oil products. Saudi Arabia is the largest crude exporter, the US is the largest refined oil exporter. Similarly Europe imports nearly all crude oil, but it's pretty close to balanced as an importer versus exporter of refined oil. By attacking Russian refineries, the world will have to turn to the US and Europe (among others) for oilrefined petroleum products. Meanwhile, Ukraine has not been attacking crude, so Russia can still sell that cheap and the US and Europe can still buy it cheap. This strategy is basically a big attack on Russia and a handout for Ukraine's allies in Europe and the US.

I don't see why a Ukrainian strategy of refined oil attacks would result in more than a short blip in crude prices. The article you referenced also notes an Israeli strike against Iran the day before, and I can definitely see why that would spike crude prices.

I think you made a slip there, and I fixed it.

While you're right that hitting Russian refineries has a more disparate impact on Russia than the rest of the world, compared to hitting crude production and export, it's also worth noting that refined products are also subject to global demand.  If Russia has to start importing gasoline and diesel, that'll push those prices up globally.  And while the resulting high prices would benefit exporters of refined products (like US oil companies), it would have a negative impact on consumers everywhere.

I suppose, then, that it's doubly logical then for the Biden administration to discourage it--they don't want consumers (voters) to see higher fuel prices, and especially don't want the oil companies to see higher fuel prices!

[pecunia]

Right but I am differentiating crude versus refined oil products. The US is recently a net oil exporter by a tiny margin, but it's a huge exporter of more expensive refined oil products. Saudi Arabia is the largest crude exporter, the US is the largest refined oil exporter. Similarly Europe imports nearly all crude oil, but it's pretty close to balanced as an importer versus exporter of refined oil. By attacking Russian refineries, the world will have to turn to the US and Europe (among others) for oilrefined petroleum products. Meanwhile, Ukraine has not been attacking crude, so Russia can still sell that cheap and the US and Europe can still buy it cheap. This strategy is basically a big attack on Russia and a handout for Ukraine's allies in Europe and the US.

I don't see why a Ukrainian strategy of refined oil attacks would result in more than a short blip in crude prices. The article you referenced also notes an Israeli strike against Iran the day before, and I can definitely see why that would spike crude prices.

I think you made a slip there, and I fixed it.

While you're right that hitting Russian refineries has a more disparate impact on Russia than the rest of the world, compared to hitting crude production and export, it's also worth noting that refined products are also subject to global demand.  If Russia has to start importing gasoline and diesel, that'll push those prices up globally.  And while the resulting high prices would benefit exporters of refined products (like US oil companies), it would have a negative impact on consumers everywhere.

I suppose, then, that it's doubly logical then for the Biden administration to discourage it--they don't want consumers (voters) to see higher fuel prices, and especially don't want the oil companies to see higher fuel prices!

So,....How much oil and gas of the world does Russia consume?  How big of an effect will that be?

These guys say 3.7 percent.

https://www.worldometers.info/oil/oil-consumption-by-country/

It might be more because of their stupid "Special Military Operation."  Even at 5 percent, I think the world can handle it.  Besides most folks are served by specific refineries.  The loss of refiners in Russia may not have that big effect on my local market.

How about the crude thing?  It seems like they are working harder and harder to cut Russian oil off from the world?  Will this have a long term effect?

It seems like they are discovering more oil all over all of the time.  It certainly takes some time to develop it, but wise investors may see a further loss of Russian crude and recognize an opportunity.  Here are some new discoveries.

https://www.rigzone.com/news/topic/discoveries/

Many of these are very recent.

From somewhere in the bowels of the internet:

"Russia is the third-largest producer of oil worldwide, accounting for over 12 percent of global crude oil production. Rich in natural resources, the country concentrates its energy production in the West Siberia and Volga-Ural oil and gas provinces.Dec 21, 2023"

I would guess the world has, at present, enough margin to cover the loss of Russian oil.  I think there would be a blip in prices for a few months, but the market would adjust and prices would come back down.

One must also realize that not all crude oil is the same.  Refineries are set up to handle specific types of crude.  So the supply demand thing is more complicated.

I'm sure some of you folks know even more details and / or can correct my suppositions.

[zolotiyeruki]

I used to work in the industry, and can fill in a few details :)

15-20 years ago, Russia (and OPEC as a whole) really shot themselves in the foot by artificially keeping prices a bit too high for a bit too long.  The high prices enabled/encouraged the development of technology (like fracking) that unlocked a whole lot of previously-unprofitable oil and gas.  Once that genie escaped the bottle, there was no putting it back in.  It takes years to develop (i.e. start production from) an oil field once you make the decision to build it out--drilling takes years, engineering all the facilities takes years, building takes a couple years, commissioning takes a year.  Since not every project happens at the same time, the impact of that technology took a long time to percolate.  But the impact is huge:  the US became a net exporter of petroleum products, then a net exporter of crude oil.  ExxonMobil's Golden Pass LNG terminal, originally slated to import LNG from the middle east (Qatar?), was redesigned to instead export LNG.  And now they're building a second export terminal (CP2).

Aaaaanyway, OPEC has a whole lot less power over the O&G industry than they used to.  They used to have a stranglehold (remember the embargo in the 70's?), but nowadays, everyone kinda shrugs and moves on when they cut production.  For Russia, this will continue to deteriorate.  They have little ability to develop their own oil reserves, and have historically partnered with the big multinational oil companies (ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, etc), splitting the profits.  From now on, however, those companies will be a lot less willing to partner with Russia--the risk calculations are a whole lot worse than they used to be.

One more thing about gas prices:  the demand curve for gasoline in the US seems to be pretty flat--sure, people complain about high gas prices, but you don't see them doing much to curb their consumption.  (Hey, look, we're back on a MMM topic!)

[Radagast]

Right but I am differentiating crude versus refined oil products. The US is recently a net oil exporter by a tiny margin, but it's a huge exporter of more expensive refined oil products. Saudi Arabia is the largest crude exporter, the US is the largest refined oil exporter. Similarly Europe imports nearly all crude oil, but it's pretty close to balanced as an importer versus exporter of refined oil. By attacking Russian refineries, the world will have to turn to the US and Europe (among others) for oilrefined petroleum products. Meanwhile, Ukraine has not been attacking crude, so Russia can still sell that cheap and the US and Europe can still buy it cheap. This strategy is basically a big attack on Russia and a handout for Ukraine's allies in Europe and the US.

I don't see why a Ukrainian strategy of refined oil attacks would result in more than a short blip in crude prices. The article you referenced also notes an Israeli strike against Iran the day before, and I can definitely see why that would spike crude prices.

I think you made a slip there, and I fixed it.

While you're right that hitting Russian refineries has a more disparate impact on Russia than the rest of the world, compared to hitting crude production and export, it's also worth noting that refined products are also subject to global demand.  If Russia has to start importing gasoline and diesel, that'll push those prices up globally.  And while the resulting high prices would benefit exporters of refined products (like US oil companies), it would have a negative impact on consumers everywhere.

I suppose, then, that it's doubly logical then for the Biden administration to discourage it--they don't want consumers (voters) to see higher fuel prices, and especially don't want the oil companies to see higher fuel prices!

Agreed and good correction. If I was scoring it, I'd say Ukraine crushing Russian refining might be:
Russia: -6
Global oil refiners: +3
Global oil consumers: -2
US oil refiners: +2
US oil consumers: -1
US geopolitical position: +2

It's still a substantial benefit (4:1 by my score) for the US, however the benefits either accrue in the abstract world of geopolitics and manifest years later in apparently unrelated ways, or accrue specifically to oil refiners. Meanwhile there would be a small near term downside to US oil consumers. However China for example is a big importer of refined oil. Most of the people Russia exported refined oil to are not friendly to the US. IMO this is easily one of the most effective ways Ukraine has of crippling Russia's economy, harming its allies' foes, while minimizing negative economic effects to its allies.

[Travis]

Even with Mike Johnson's moronically cynical stonewalling of aid to Ukraine, I feel like there's still a whole lot the Biden administration could be doing to help.  We pay tons of money to safely dispose of nearing-expiration munitions, cluster bombs, etc.  Can we not just ship them over? And with the money saved on disposal, we could afford to send more stuff at the same time?  Sell a couple thousand Bradleys to NATO countries that could then donate them to Ukraine?

We can't just ship munitions to a country that we don't have any kind of military trade/alliance with on the President's say-so. That was the whole point of the Presidential Drawdown Authority that Johnson is blocking. It takes Congress allowing the transfers if there isn't already a treaty in place.  I'm not familiar with every clause in those laws, but I imagine there's something in there preventing us from just using a proxy like France to donate weapons and vehicles.

[Travis]

So there's been a lot of movement on Congress' funding for Ukraine the last couple days. For some reason, Johnson decided to move the whole package forward and it, the Israel, and the Taiwan support bills will go up for a vote Saturday. The procedural votes have sailed through, the nutjobs in the HFC tried swamping the docket with amendments that are literally cut and paste from two year old Russian propaganda messages, and despite clear indications that they're going to try to vacate him, Johnson's rhetoric has been "I'm a Reagan Republican...We must be strong...I'm doing this out of principle." Now I don't really believe any of that given that he's sat on this for about six months with thousands of soldiers and civilians dying while we waited, but it seems like it's going to happen. Stay tuned.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/18/biden-johnson-ukraine-aid-00153237

Also, a Russian Tu-22M strategic bomber went down in flames last night on its return trip from firing cruise missiles at Ukraine. Russians are saying "malfunction" while Ukrainians are saying "300km max-range shot with an S200." Most if not all of the crew managed to bail out. This is the first time one of these planes has gone down in this war from mechanical failure or hostile action.

https://vxtwitter.com/Faytuks/status/1781175921740783644

[pecunia]

So there's been a lot of movement on Congress' funding for Ukraine the last couple days. For some reason, Johnson decided to move the whole package forward and it, the Israel, and the Taiwan support bills will go up for a vote Saturday. The procedural votes have sailed through, the nutjobs in the HFC tried swamping the docket with amendments that are literally cut and paste from two year old Russian propaganda messages, and despite clear indications that they're going to try to vacate him, Johnson's rhetoric has been "I'm a Reagan Republican...We must be strong...I'm doing this out of principle." Now I don't really believe any of that given that he's sat on this for about six months with thousands of soldiers and civilians dying while we waited, but it seems like it's going to happen. Stay tuned.

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/18/biden-johnson-ukraine-aid-00153237

Also, a Russian Tu-22M strategic bomber went down in flames last night on its return trip from firing cruise missiles at Ukraine. Russians are saying "malfunction" while Ukrainians are saying "300km max-range shot with an S200." Most if not all of the crew managed to bail out. This is the first time one of these planes has gone down in this war from mechanical failure or hostile action.

https://vxtwitter.com/Faytuks/status/1781175921740783644

Looks like Ukraine aid "finally" passed the House.  Now it's time to see if MAGA and/or others have some tricks up their sleeves in the Senate to cause further delays.

[zolotiyeruki]

I could be wrong, but I believe Ukraine aid has been passed by the Senate multiple times, with Republican support

[dividendman]

I could be wrong, but I believe Ukraine aid has been passed by the Senate multiple times, with Republican support

Yeah, the Senate passed a similar bill 70-29 in Feb. Only a minority (22) of Republicans supported it in the Senate, so there will be some drama and grandstanding.

[Travis]

79-18. Aid package passed the Senate. Goes into effect tomorrow after Biden signs it, and it sounds like massive amounts of weapons and equipment are already staged or on their way.

[LennStar]

79-18. Aid package passed the Senate. Goes into effect tomorrow after Biden signs it, and it sounds like massive amounts of weapons and equipment are already staged or on their way.

And it's funny how different that is seen. From the US I basically hear "That is the BIG THING". And here the reactions are a lot more subdued. To quote one headline from this morning: "It just allows Ukraine to hold the line".

btw. near Avdiivka the Russians penetrated the front line. It's a small hole and a hard to hold position, but if they manage to establish this position, the whole front in this area might break down and move dozens of kilometers.

[maizefolk]

Ukraine holding the line vs collapsing and being entirely occupied by Russia seems like a big thing to me.

If this aid is enough to allow that (not a given, but seems at least possible), that would outstanding, at least from my perspective.

[zolotiyeruki]

79-18. Aid package passed the Senate. Goes into effect tomorrow after Biden signs it, and it sounds like massive amounts of weapons and equipment are already staged or on their way.

This makes me very happy. What's even better is that, now that it's passed once, and with bipartisan support, it'll be a lot easier to pass future aid as well.  I hope.

Russia's been grinding away at the front lines recently.  They've even been able to fly fixed wing air support over Ukrainian positions.  That's a bad sign.  Resupplying and improving Ukraine's anti-air defenses (and everything else) is going to make it a lot harder for Russia to continue pushing.

[pecunia]

79-18. Aid package passed the Senate. Goes into effect tomorrow after Biden signs it, and it sounds like massive amounts of weapons and equipment are already staged or on their way.

This makes me very happy. What's even better is that, now that it's passed once, and with bipartisan support, it'll be a lot easier to pass future aid as well.  I hope.

Russia's been grinding away at the front lines recently.  They've even been able to fly fixed wing air support over Ukrainian positions.  That's a bad sign.  Resupplying and improving Ukraine's anti-air defenses (and everything else) is going to make it a lot harder for Russia to continue pushing.

Some have said that Russia is pushing very hard now because they know that aid is coming.  How much does Russia have left?

24.04.2024

    Tanks — 7242 (+1)
    Armored fighting vehicle — 13928 (+12)
    Artillery systems — 11808 (+43)
    MLRS — 1048 (+2)
    Anti-aircraft warfare — 771 (+2)
    Planes — 348
    Helicopters — 325
    UAV — 9439 (+32)
    Cruise missiles — 2117
    Ships (boats) — 26
    Submarines — 1
    Cars and cisterns — 15892 (+47)
    Special equipment — 1944 (+8)
    Military personnel — aprx. 461940 people (+880)

If these numbers are anywhere near correct, Russian munitions are greatly lessened.  I note only one tank has been taken out.  This source says that 7,000 have been taken out.  Their navy largely now flees Crimea.  Their jets stay away from the battlle and fire the missiles from afar.  Russia has had huge flood problems.  Ukraine wisely attacks Russian oil refineries.  Russian gas sales are way down.  Reports are that Russian oil sales are also way down.  There is a labor shortage in Russia due to the demand from their defense industry.  Their prime interest rate is at 16 percent.  It seems I hear of additional sanctions being applied every other week.  Many of their best professionals have left the country.  They had great infrastructure problems with heat and electricity this past Winter.

Videos are shown of Russian soldiers attacking on Chinese Go Carts and Motorcycles.  These have been easy targets.

One would think the Russians would end this war with imaginary Nazis.  Make peace.  Call it a victory.  Hold parades.  Give the people bread and circuses.

[LennStar]

Putin has himself entangled in his own propaganda. Russia still does not control everything that has "voted" to be part of Russia. Very hard to say you were victorious with that.
Also the jewish Nazi Selensky is still there and NATO still attacking.

I do wonder how the sales of all those "At War With NATO" books have developed in the last years. That would probably give you a more accurate number on the support than any survey.

[zolotiyeruki]

If these numbers are anywhere near correct, Russian munitions are greatly lessened.  I note only one tank has been taken out.  This source says that 7,000 have been taken out.

That "+1" is the daily increase.  Yesterday, 7241 total tanks had been destroyed, today the total is 7242.

It's difficult to get a good view into what Russia still has left to throw at Ukraine.  A year ago, analysts were saying that Russia had lost 50% of its pre-war military capability.  They've incurred 460k casualties, out of the initial 150-200k they sent into Ukraine.  They've only (?) lost about 10% of their air force, but that's because their aircraft usually lob cruise and ballistic missiles from hundreds of miles within their own borders.

How many tanks does Russia have left?  That's a hard question to answer.  The original headline was that Russia had 10,000 tanks, with lots and lots more in various depots that could be refurbished.  They've lost 3/4 of the original number, and satellite photos are showing the depots being stripped pretty quickly.  Sure, Russia continues to produce new tanks and, but at nowhere near replenishment levels.

The question at this point is:  what will halt the current grinding offensive?  Well, from what I've learned, it has to be artillery.  Russia has adapted their tactics, and now often 1) hit with lots of artillery and/or aerial bombardment, 2) deliver a few dozen troops with APCs as fast as possible to the front line, and 3) then pull back the APCs before they all get destroyed.  Ukraine has to interdict those advancing APCs before the troops get to a defensible position, and between the lack of artillery shells, electronic warfare systems, terrain, and lack of air support, they simply haven't been able to do so.  Given sufficient artillery ammunition, Ukraine can be a whole lot more effective not just at stopping those advancements, but also at counterbattery fire.

Russia, without artillery support, simply can't advance.  And if Ukraine has enough shells and HIMARS rockets, they can take out that critical artillery.

The passage of the aid bills has stirred up excited discussions about destroying the Kerch Strait bridge once again, but the immediate need is for stuff right at the front line.

[reeshau]

79-18. Aid package passed the Senate. Goes into effect tomorrow after Biden signs it, and it sounds like massive amounts of weapons and equipment are already staged or on their way.

This makes me very happy. What's even better is that, now that it's passed once, and with bipartisan support, it'll be a lot easier to pass future aid as well.  I hope.

Russia's been grinding away at the front lines recently.  They've even been able to fly fixed wing air support over Ukrainian positions.  That's a bad sign.  Resupplying and improving Ukraine's anti-air defenses (and everything else) is going to make it a lot harder for Russia to continue pushing.

Well, my one staunch conservative senator voted yea, and my dingbat was-extreme-until-Trump-came-along voted nay.

[Travis]

https://vxtwitter.com/Vishun_military/status/1783171550000099590?t=jCBvhKZXFxxx2qNn1rLIXA&s=19

Analysis that came out today about Russia's vehicle fleet. Bottom line: 25-50% of the vehicles remaining in storage have been stripped for parts to restore the others. Could those chop-shopped vehicles also be restored? Yes, but it'll take much longer and be more expensive.

[reeshau]

The first news reports are coming in that the US secretly gave Ukraine long-range ATACMS, and Ukraine has used them on at least two occasions:

"The missiles were used for the first time in the early hours of April 17, launched against a Russian airfield in Crimea that was about 165 km (103 miles) from the Ukrainian front lines, the official said."

[blue_green_sparks]

Do y'all think the West missed an opportunity to bring Russia into the system so to speak after the USSR fell? That was rough times for them and under those conditions a guy like Putin has a nice smooth runway. Not unlike Adolf's situation in Post WW1 Germany.

And now on the contrary we have China, who prospered beyond their wildest dreams since joining the commercial community and despite all of that seems poised to go down the bad path.

Almost seems there are no lessons to learn from history, LOL.

[zolotiyeruki]

Do y'all think the West missed an opportunity to bring Russia into the system so to speak after the USSR fell? That was rough times for them and under those conditions a guy like Putin has a nice smooth runway. Not unlike Adolf's situation in Post WW1 Germany.

And now on the contrary we have China, who prospered beyond their wildest dreams since joining the commercial community and despite all of that seems poised to go down the bad path.

Almost seems there are no lessons to learn from history, LOL.

I actually recently saw some opinions specifically about your question.  I'm not expert enough to judge whether it's true or not, but I can at least paraphrase.  As I understand it, here's the answer: "We tried it."

The prime directive of the Chinese Communist Party is a monopoly on power.  Nothing trumps that.  For a long time, economic growth and connection with the West was compatible with that goal.  With the growth of the economy and the rise of private(ish) enterprise and a middle class, however, came political pressure.  Large business owners started wanting some influence on policy.  Since that threatens the Prime Directive, it must be throttled.  That's why we see big business owners disappearing, imprisoned, stripped of their assets or position, etc. in China.

You can apply similar thinking to Russia, although the goal there appears to be enrichment of the few, along with protecting the power of the mob that rules Russia.  After 1989, attempts were made to bring Russia into the rest of the world.  Europe started importing a whole lot more petroleum products.  Lots of tourism to Russia, etc. All of this was compatible with the Russian ruling class's goal: personal enrichment and empowerment.  If you go back 15-20 years, the flow of information, immigration, and commerce started shifting attitudes towards more westernization.  The former Soviet bloc countries were getting better relationships with the rest of the world.  All of that poses a threat to the Russian ruling class.  And so it had to be stamped out.  Chechnya, Georgia, the various 'stans, and yes, Ukraine, had to be kept in line.

In the long term, I personally think Putin lost one week after his troops marched into Ukraine.  Russia already experienced a huge brain drain when the USSR broke up--much of their technical expertise was in Ukraine--and it's happening again.  Anyone who had the brains and money to do so, left Russia at the beginning of the war.  Stack that on top of the 460k casualties (perhaps half of which are dead) and Russia's already-teetering population pyramid, and Russia is in deep trouble in the long term.  Unlike the US, they never had much immigration.  I lived there for a couple years around the turn of the century, and there's a whole lot a of racism.  Not universal, but pervasive and intense.  You don't want to be a black person in Russia.

Russia's arms exports have cratered, and they ain't coming back for a long, long time.  Even if Russia succeeds in conquering Ukraine, *and* if other countries wanted to buy their stuff, *and* if they avoid sanctions, Russia will take years, if not decades, to rebuild everything they've lost before they have enough capacity to export to other countries.  They've enacted a wartime economy, stripping workers and resources away from other industries in order to support their war.  They're printing Rubles like there's no tomorrow.  Their oil and gas exports are *way* down.  They're going to be hurting for a long, long time, regardless of the outcome in Ukraine.

[ChpBstrd]

Do y'all think the West missed an opportunity to bring Russia into the system so to speak after the USSR fell? That was rough times for them and under those conditions a guy like Putin has a nice smooth runway. Not unlike Adolf's situation in Post WW1 Germany.

And now on the contrary we have China, who prospered beyond their wildest dreams since joining the commercial community and despite all of that seems poised to go down the bad path.

Almost seems there are no lessons to learn from history, LOL.

Yea, I spent the 1990s and even early 2000s wondering why the U.S. was being so standoffish toward Russia, since they were then a fellow capitalistic democracy. I thought US presidents were not doing their job if they were not visiting Moscow once a year. I figured the government and voting base was made up of boomer and silent generation cold warriors, whose youthful indoctrination prevented them from being able to see Russia as a possible ally to be embraced and folded into Western systems of treaties and law. From this perspective, the descent of Russia into oligopoly and dictatorship was partly a result of sustained Western hostility and neglect, which occurred despite Russia's abandonment of communism. I felt pro-democracy Russians had been abandoned by the West.

Before the 2014 invasion of Crimea, I imagined Putin might not have become a dictator if there was more cultural, economic, and diplomatic exchange between the U.S. and Russian people. By 2022, Putin had gone full-Hitler. Conversations with a Ukrainian immigrant about the Russian mafia-state and the corrupt puppet regime of Viktor Yanokovich slowly changed my mind, and I began to see Russia as an expansionist colonial empire led by a brutal dictator who uses corruption as a weapon.

During all this time, China seemed to be accepting capitalism /mercantilism, though not moving in any sense toward democracy. My attitude here was that close trading partners rarely go to war, and maybe that was the best possible world. China was dependent upon US markets for economic growth and the US was dependent upon China to finance the massive deficits induced by our tax cuts and wars. However the Xi Jinpeng era has been associated with consistent threats and territorial grabs against Vietnam and the Philippines, a large military buildup, unenforced and possibly state-sponsored criminal behavior against the U.S. such as hacking, and unrelenting espionage. Then China cut off the supply of N95 masks to the U.S. during a pandemic.

At some point, you give up on the project of changing people. I'm now starting to align with the emerging consensus that dictatorships are inherently expansionist, and that trying to deal with them is dangerous. Europe attempted to build bridges to Russia via energy deals, but that eventually backfired. Perhaps US dependency on China for manufacturing and technology will turn out the same way. That's what all the policy makers in the U.S. are thinking.

Yet I don't think most Americans are ready to go back to the cold war. Taxes and inflation would double.

[Tyson]

Re: Russia, in the 80's their economy was somewhat close to the US but it's not anymore.  Russian GDP is less than Texas. 

Nowadays the only threat Russia poses is the nuclear threat. 

One silver lining I see with the current situation is it pushed many countries in the west (like Germany) off Russian fossil fuels and toward renewable energy much faster than would have happened otherwise.

[zolotiyeruki]

Re: Russia, in the 80's their economy was somewhat close to the US but it's not anymore.  Russian GDP is less than Texas. 

Nowadays the only threat Russia poses is the nuclear threat. 

One silver lining I see with the current situation is it pushed many countries in the west (like Germany) off Russian fossil fuels and toward renewable energy much faster than would have happened otherwise.

FWIW, Germany was already in a headlong (and a bit foolhardy) rush to solar/wind well before Feb 2022, even shutting down nuclear reactors.

I've found Sarah Paine's interviews with Dwarkesh Patel on youtube very enlightening--a whole lot of global and historical context that doesn't always get its just attention.  A few key quotes: "Putin has no back down plan."  "(Russia) will be the new North Korea" (referring to long-term prospects)

[pecunia]

Do y'all think the West missed an opportunity to bring Russia into the system so to speak after the USSR fell? That was rough times for them and under those conditions a guy like Putin has a nice smooth runway. Not unlike Adolf's situation in Post WW1 Germany.

And now on the contrary we have China, who prospered beyond their wildest dreams since joining the commercial community and despite all of that seems poised to go down the bad path.

Almost seems there are no lessons to learn from history, LOL.

I actually recently saw some opinions specifically about your question.  I'm not expert enough to judge whether it's true or not, but I can at least paraphrase.  As I understand it, here's the answer: "We tried it."

The prime directive of the Chinese Communist Party is a monopoly on power.  Nothing trumps that.  For a long time, economic growth and connection with the West was compatible with that goal.  With the growth of the economy and the rise of private(ish) enterprise and a middle class, however, came political pressure.  Large business owners started wanting some influence on policy.  Since that threatens the Prime Directive, it must be throttled.  That's why we see big business owners disappearing, imprisoned, stripped of their assets or position, etc. in China.

You can apply similar thinking to Russia, although the goal there appears to be enrichment of the few, along with protecting the power of the mob that rules Russia.  After 1989, attempts were made to bring Russia into the rest of the world.  Europe started importing a whole lot more petroleum products.  Lots of tourism to Russia, etc. All of this was compatible with the Russian ruling class's goal: personal enrichment and empowerment.  If you go back 15-20 years, the flow of information, immigration, and commerce started shifting attitudes towards more westernization.  The former Soviet bloc countries were getting better relationships with the rest of the world.  All of that poses a threat to the Russian ruling class.  And so it had to be stamped out.  Chechnya, Georgia, the various 'stans, and yes, Ukraine, had to be kept in line.

In the long term, I personally think Putin lost one week after his troops marched into Ukraine.  Russia already experienced a huge brain drain when the USSR broke up--much of their technical expertise was in Ukraine--and it's happening again.  Anyone who had the brains and money to do so, left Russia at the beginning of the war.  Stack that on top of the 460k casualties (perhaps half of which are dead) and Russia's already-teetering population pyramid, and Russia is in deep trouble in the long term.  Unlike the US, they never had much immigration.  I lived there for a couple years around the turn of the century, and there's a whole lot a of racism.  Not universal, but pervasive and intense.  You don't want to be a black person in Russia.

Russia's arms exports have cratered, and they ain't coming back for a long, long time.  Even if Russia succeeds in conquering Ukraine, *and* if other countries wanted to buy their stuff, *and* if they avoid sanctions, Russia will take years, if not decades, to rebuild everything they've lost before they have enough capacity to export to other countries.  They've enacted a wartime economy, stripping workers and resources away from other industries in order to support their war.  They're printing Rubles like there's no tomorrow.  Their oil and gas exports are *way* down.  They're going to be hurting for a long, long time, regardless of the outcome in Ukraine.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

I just wonder about these guys.  With just a little hindsight, it looks like both Putin and Russia would have been better off just doing "normal" business with the West.  All these dictators are rich enough to have their own experts.  Think of all the farmland Putin could have bought in Ukraine with the money he has spent on this war.  He could have been the investor to develop Ukraine's gas fields.  If he provided good work and good pay to Ukrainians, he could have essentially taken over the country without firing a shot.  Owning the corporations that provide a living for the citizens is essentially controlling the country.

I'm no rampant Capitalist, but devastating his main income source (oil), the best resource for the future of the country (the people who fled) and frightening off investors for maybe a generation seems kind of dumb.

Then there's the PR thing.  Stealing kids is a no no in any society.  The mass murder thing and the utter devastation of Ukrainian cities gives the world press excellent stories.  How will he ever make peace with the world behaving like a 13th century nomadic barbarian?  Actually, I think Genghis Khan seems maybe a little less barbaric than Putin.

Putin was said to be the richest man in Europe.  Now, the other Europeans will tell him, "Your money is no good here."

I guess I really didn't say anything that hasn't already been said.

[Sibley]

I just wonder about these guys.  With just a little hindsight, it looks like both Putin and Russia would have been better off just doing "normal" business with the West.  All these dictators are rich enough to have their own experts.  Think of all the farmland Putin could have bought in Ukraine with the money he has spent on this war.  He could have been the investor to develop Ukraine's gas fields.  If he provided good work and good pay to Ukrainians, he could have essentially taken over the country without firing a shot.  Owning the corporations that provide a living for the citizens is essentially controlling the country.

I'm no rampant Capitalist, but devastating his main income source (oil), the best resource for the future of the country (the people who fled) and frightening off investors for maybe a generation seems kind of dumb.

Then there's the PR thing.  Stealing kids is a no no in any society.  The mass murder thing and the utter devastation of Ukrainian cities gives the world press excellent stories.  How will he ever make peace with the world behaving like a 13th century nomadic barbarian?  Actually, I think Genghis Khan seems maybe a little less barbaric than Putin.

Putin was said to be the richest man in Europe.  Now, the other Europeans will tell him, "Your money is no good here."

I guess I really didn't say anything that hasn't already been said.

They're playing by a different set of rules. To paraphrase Grim Squeaker (and correct me if I've got the wrong person), what looks like illogical behavior is perfectly logical when viewed through the lens of their set of rules.

I don't understand Putin's set of rules, nor do I condone them, but I do recognize that he's got a very different set of rules than I do. And by those rules, his actions are much more intelligible.

[zolotiyeruki]

They're playing by a different set of rules. To paraphrase Grim Squeaker (and correct me if I've got the wrong person), what looks like illogical behavior is perfectly logical when viewed through the lens of their set of rules.

I don't understand Putin's set of rules, nor do I condone them, but I do recognize that he's got a very different set of rules than I do. And by those rules, his actions are much more intelligible.

Precisely correct.  When trying to make sense of something that doesn't make sense, it's important not to project our own values onto other people. Just because you and I care about the wellbeing of individual Ukrainians (and Russians!) doesn't mean that Putin also cares about it.  And just because we see economic growth and general prosperity as being really important, doesn't mean that Putin and his ilk also give it a similar priority.

Putin's a wannabe Strongman.  And Russian Mobster Strongmen prove that strength by taking things by force and coercion, through assassination and intimidation, not by subtle business tactics.  Besides, if he purchased all that land and then made a power play, Ukraine could simply say "yoink, you no longer own that land."

[Tyson]

Re: Russia, in the 80's their economy was somewhat close to the US but it's not anymore.  Russian GDP is less than Texas. 

Nowadays the only threat Russia poses is the nuclear threat. 

One silver lining I see with the current situation is it pushed many countries in the west (like Germany) off Russian fossil fuels and toward renewable energy much faster than would have happened otherwise.

FWIW, Germany was already in a headlong (and a bit foolhardy) rush to solar/wind well before Feb 2022, even shutting down nuclear reactors.

I've found Sarah Paine's interviews with Dwarkesh Patel on youtube very enlightening--a whole lot of global and historical context that doesn't always get its just attention.  A few key quotes: "Putin has no back down plan."  "(Russia) will be the new North Korea" (referring to long-term prospects)

I don't really understand the resistance to nuclear power.  It doesn't emit greenhouse gasses like fossil fuels.  It's way safer, too.  The number of deaths in fossil fuels every year is several orders of magnitude greater than from nuclear.

Deaths per TWH, Coal is 24, Oil is 18 and Nuclear is .03.  Its crazy that the actual data is exactly the opposite of what you'd expect it to be, if you only got your information from newspaper headlines. 

The only issue I see with Nuclear is it's super expensive.  Like 90% more than fossil fuels, and 300% more expensive than wind/solar. 

[ChpBstrd]

Re: Russia, in the 80's their economy was somewhat close to the US but it's not anymore.  Russian GDP is less than Texas. 

Nowadays the only threat Russia poses is the nuclear threat. 

One silver lining I see with the current situation is it pushed many countries in the west (like Germany) off Russian fossil fuels and toward renewable energy much faster than would have happened otherwise.

FWIW, Germany was already in a headlong (and a bit foolhardy) rush to solar/wind well before Feb 2022, even shutting down nuclear reactors.

I've found Sarah Paine's interviews with Dwarkesh Patel on youtube very enlightening--a whole lot of global and historical context that doesn't always get its just attention.  A few key quotes: "Putin has no back down plan."  "(Russia) will be the new North Korea" (referring to long-term prospects)

I don't really understand the resistance to nuclear power.  It doesn't emit greenhouse gasses like fossil fuels.  It's way safer, too.  The number of deaths in fossil fuels every year is several orders of magnitude greater than from nuclear.

Deaths per TWH, Coal is 24, Oil is 18 and Nuclear is .03.  Its crazy that the actual data is exactly the opposite of what you'd expect it to be, if you only got your information from newspaper headlines. 

The only issue I see with Nuclear is it's super expensive.  Like 90% more than fossil fuels, and 300% more expensive than wind/solar.

Also, countries in Germany's position would merely be replacing foreign fossil fuel dependency with foreign uranium dependency. It's a national security concern.

Then there is the waste storage problem. Fusion cannot get here fast enough.

[zolotiyeruki]

Also, countries in Germany's position would merely be replacing foreign fossil fuel dependency with foreign uranium dependency. It's a national security concern.

Then there is the waste storage problem. Fusion cannot get here fast enough.

Meh, the concerns over storage are hugely overblown from a technical perspective, and if we'd get off our duffs and start reprocessing spent fuel, the foreign dependency gets drastically reduced.

The capital costs are huge, absolutely, but if you run it long enough, it becomes far better economically than even fossil fuel plants.  I have to wonder, however, how much of that premium is driven by regulation, litigation, and the fact that every nuclear plant is designed from scratch.  When someone can tie up the project for years with a frivolous lawsuit, it dramatically impacts the economics of the project.  France reduced costs greatly by building a larger number of identical (or very similar) plants, and is reaping the benefits.

[pecunia]

Re: Russia, in the 80's their economy was somewhat close to the US but it's not anymore.  Russian GDP is less than Texas. 

Nowadays the only threat Russia poses is the nuclear threat. 

One silver lining I see with the current situation is it pushed many countries in the west (like Germany) off Russian fossil fuels and toward renewable energy much faster than would have happened otherwise.

FWIW, Germany was already in a headlong (and a bit foolhardy) rush to solar/wind well before Feb 2022, even shutting down nuclear reactors.

I've found Sarah Paine's interviews with Dwarkesh Patel on youtube very enlightening--a whole lot of global and historical context that doesn't always get its just attention.  A few key quotes: "Putin has no back down plan."  "(Russia) will be the new North Korea" (referring to long-term prospects)

I don't really understand the resistance to nuclear power.  It doesn't emit greenhouse gasses like fossil fuels.  It's way safer, too.  The number of deaths in fossil fuels every year is several orders of magnitude greater than from nuclear.

Deaths per TWH, Coal is 24, Oil is 18 and Nuclear is .03.  Its crazy that the actual data is exactly the opposite of what you'd expect it to be, if you only got your information from newspaper headlines. 

The only issue I see with Nuclear is it's super expensive.  Like 90% more than fossil fuels, and 300% more expensive than wind/solar.

Also, countries in Germany's position would merely be replacing foreign fossil fuel dependency with foreign uranium dependency. It's a national security concern.

Then there is the waste storage problem. Fusion cannot get here fast enough.

Guys think that fusion energy will be a panacea.  However, it really hasn't been ironed out.  Who is to say that fusion energy won't also produce waste?  I suspect it will.

How about fission?  are we beating a dead horse?

First the new designs for nuclear plants produce much less waste than the ones we have now.  The existing plants are nothing but the best of 1960s technology.  Second - The existing plants actually produce a rather small amount of waste.

Let's ask Mr. Internet.  How much nuclear wast is produced in the United States?

"The U.S. generates about 2,000 metric tons of spent fuel each year. This number may sound like a lot, but the volume of the spent fuel assemblies is actually quite small considering the amount of energy they produce. The amount is roughly equivalent to less than half the volume of an Olympic-sized swimming pool.Oct 3, 2022

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel

Note that they also say the stuff can be recycled.  Ninety percent of the energy is still in the spent fuel.

Are generation IV reactors expected to be better than the reactors now in service?

Wikipedia article says they have the following advantages:

   " Nuclear waste that remains radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia[46]

    100–300x energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel[47]

    Broader range of fuels, including unencapsulated raw fuels (non-pebble MSR, LFTR).

    Potential to burn existing nuclear waste and produce electricity: a closed fuel cycle.

    Improved safety via features such as ambient pressure operation, automatic passive reactor shutdown, and alternate coolants.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

You know - I've never seen a Star Trek episode where the ship is wind or solar powered.  (Solar sails may soon be coming to NASA.)

[Radagast]

How Ukraine is faring at any given time over the past two years in one graph:

If anyone is looking for a recommendation, I recommend Phillips OBrien. Basically he mirrors my thoughts on most things Russo-Ukraine war, but far more knowledgeably. Was a better follow before paywalling himself, but still free substack posts on weekends.

My typical rant:
Biden: a good steady hand with the allies and domestic policy, against belligerent nations will generally get it wrong, as demonstrated August 2022 - August 2023 in Ukraine (also see Iraq, Afghanistan). His administration willing falls for Russian hybrid and information operations, despite it being their job to see through them.
US Republicans: I've seen media label R's voting against defending freedom "conservatives" but I think that is the wrong label. Golden age R conservatives Eisenhower through Reagan said (rightly at the time) "the US is the best and strongest country in the world, so we should continue doing the things that got us here." Many modern R's do not favor continuing to do things that make the US successful, and so are no longer conservative. Interestingly, they are also neither liberal nor progressive. Basically many R's are now just anti-American.
Europe: after 20 years of US nagging, 4 years of Trump, and three years of a direct Russian invasion of ... Europe, Europe will still not have the capacity to defend itself against an obviously belligerent country that has 1/3 its population and like 1/6 its economy. Just wow.
US Congress: You realize the aid package you just passed was for the last 7 months right? You should start working on the package for the next 7 months now so it can be passed in the next few weeks. After 7 months of nothing you need to double down you losers.

[Radagast]

Then China cut off the supply of N95 masks to the U.S. during a pandemic.

To be fair, on this one there was likely no nefarious intent and they actually had domestic demand that outstripped their manufacturing capacity. And if the US cared about things like this, they'd try and keep manufacturing of them in the US. Don't try = don't care.

[LennStar]

I have to wonder, however, how much of that premium is driven by regulation,

You mean like the regulation that nuclear power plants don't have to be insured? (Because the premium would be so high it's unpayable.)

In regards to Fusion: It won't be here in time. And likely another monolith production.
It would be a LOT saver though. It cannot explode (in the same way, the worst is the reactor being melted on the inside). There is no waste except the reactor stuff. And that stuff is radioactive for about a century or two until basically safe, instead of a million years.
And I think it does not even have gamma radiation, so a few meter of air is enough safety. *check recommended)

[zolotiyeruki]

FWIW, modern nuclear (fission) power plant designs are "walk-away safe," i.e. every control system could fail and the power go completely out, and nothing bad happens.

[waltworks]

Based on what I'm see on open source twitter stuff, we/Mike Johnson waited much too long. Things not going well at all.

-W

[ChpBstrd]

How Ukraine is faring at any given time over the past two years in one graph:

If $44B is all we spent to wipe out half of Russia's military capacity at a time when Putin is going full-on-Hitler, then that's possibly the best military investment the U.S. has ever made. We spend that within a few days of defending the Persian Gulf so that tankers can ship oil to China.

[reeshau]

That's where I'm at, and I have told my Representative and Senators.  Our spending is nuts, but to de-claw Russia in this way is not only cheap, but also the cheapest outcome we can have.  Let's hope for some kind of revolution and get back to true democracy there; but unable to cause global trouble for a couple of decades due to lack of manpower and munitions, and economic damage dealt, is an OK consolation prize.

[Sibley]

That's where I'm at, and I have told my Representative and Senators.  Our spending is nuts, but to de-claw Russia in this way is not only cheap, but also the cheapest outcome we can have.  Let's hope for some kind of revolution and get back to true democracy there; but unable to cause global trouble for a couple of decades due to lack of manpower and munitions, and economic damage dealt, is an OK consolation prize.

Our spending is largely non-cash. We're not going out and buying the weapons and equipment. We're going to our storage facility, finding the dusty section of old stuff we don't use, grabbing a bunch of stuff, dusting it off and putting it in the mail.

So yes, there's actual expense associated - payroll, some rehab/repair, and transportation. But that is peanuts compared to the "cost" of the items themselves. Frankly, we would have to pay to dispose of a lot of this stuff if we didn't give it to Ukraine, so it's very possible we're actually saving money.

[zolotiyeruki]

As I understand it, a big chunk of the spending is for us to buy new stuff for ourselves, so that we can send the old stuff to Ukraine without leaving ourselves in the lurch.

You're right about the fact that a lot of these weapons are reaching EOL and would have required (expensive) disposal anyway.

In any case, IMO it's still a matter of "this stuff was made to fight Russia.  Do we really care who's using it to fight Russia?"

[Michael in ABQ]

That's where I'm at, and I have told my Representative and Senators.  Our spending is nuts, but to de-claw Russia in this way is not only cheap, but also the cheapest outcome we can have.  Let's hope for some kind of revolution and get back to true democracy there; but unable to cause global trouble for a couple of decades due to lack of manpower and munitions, and economic damage dealt, is an OK consolation prize.

Our spending is largely non-cash. We're not going out and buying the weapons and equipment. We're going to our storage facility, finding the dusty section of old stuff we don't use, grabbing a bunch of stuff, dusting it off and putting it in the mail.

So yes, there's actual expense associated - payroll, some rehab/repair, and transportation. But that is peanuts compared to the "cost" of the items themselves. Frankly, we would have to pay to dispose of a lot of this stuff if we didn't give it to Ukraine, so it's very possible we're actually saving money.

This may have been true at the beginning, but a lot of that materiel is now being built expressly for export to Ukraine - especially the munitions since we used relatively little artillery, anti-tank missiles, or anti-aircraft missiles over the last few decades.

There's really not a lot of excess weapon systems and munitions sitting around in warehouse ala the Soviet/Russian model of keeping thousands of pieces of obsolete equipment on hand just in case. Many of the vehicles and larger equipment were taken from existing units - with the idea that those units would get newer equipment to replace it.


In general though, most of the money for foreign military sales (or donations) flows back to the US defense industry. During my last deployment I helped deliver dozens of brand new HMMWVs and a couple dozen brand new machine guns to a foreign military. The total cost was about $15 million. In reality that meant the Department of Defense paid AM General and FN Herstal for those vehicles and weapons - plus the cost of shipping them to the other side of the world - plus the cost of contractor support and millions in spare parts. There were some old uniforms, boots, rucksacks, helmets, etc. that were also donated and those truly did just come from some warehouse full of old equipment that had long ago been turned in by American Soldiers.

[pecunia]

When this war is finally over, Ukraine will have many millions of dollars of scrap metal to sell.

[Telecaster]

The capital costs are huge, absolutely, but if you run it long enough, it becomes far better economically than even fossil fuel plants.  I have to wonder, however, how much of that premium is driven by regulation, litigation, and the fact that every nuclear plant is designed from scratch.  When someone can tie up the project for years with a frivolous lawsuit, it dramatically impacts the economics of the project.  France reduced costs greatly by building a larger number of identical (or very similar) plants, and is reaping the benefits.

France also built them one after another, so they could apply the lessons from the last one to the next one.   However, France pretty much stopped building them when everybody else did in the late 1980s/early 1990s.    The French have a modern, standardized reactor design, the  European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) which came out in the early 2000s (IIRC).  However, EPR has been a disaster.   There have been epic delays and enormous cost over runs.  There are two under construction, and the French claim they want to build a few more, but the costs are so enormous I'm skeptical.    There is a new type called the EPR2 which is supposed to be simpler and better, but no one has built one yet.   

The US has a similar standardized design, the Westinghouse AP 1000 that was designed to be simpler and safter than previous reactor designs.   However, like the French we forgot how to build reactors.  IIRC, there were four units that actually began construction.  However, cost overruns and delays wound up bankrupting Westinghouse.   Two of the units got canceled.  One just came online this year, and one will come online next year.    However, everything was way, behind schedule and way over budget.   I think it effectively killed any hope of new large scale nuclear in the near future in the US.

That said, most nuclear sites were designed to accommodate multiple reactors.    There are lots of sites that could accept new reactors with minimal local pushback.   If the nation could commit to building say, five in row it might become feasible.   

[LennStar]

Yes, those EPRs will produce power for about 3 times the cost of solar and 2 times the cost of offshore wind.

You can get a lot of storage for that difference. And you don't have the waste problem.

There are 2 resons why nuclear was bulid in the past:
First the general technomania of the 60s (in 2000 we will all have flying atom-powered cars and a base on Mars!!).
Second it was a lot cheaper to produce atomic bomb material while producing electricity than to produce it without generating electricity (remember, France has atom bombs)

[pecunia]

Yes, those EPRs will produce power for about 3 times the cost of solar and 2 times the cost of offshore wind.

You can get a lot of storage for that difference. And you don't have the waste problem.

There are 2 resons why nuclear was bulid in the past:
First the general technomania of the 60s (in 2000 we will all have flying atom-powered cars and a base on Mars!!).
Second it was a lot cheaper to produce atomic bomb material while producing electricity than to produce it without generating electricity (remember, France has atom bombs)

The EPR is really not that much of a new idea.  It mostly adds redundant safety features.

Isn't is worth trying to build at least one of the new designs on the drawing boards?  They are said to have those advantages I isted earlier and have cost savings from factory modular construction.  Just the like the EPR, the first few may be expensive, but the lessons learned from the this attempt can be applied to save money on the those that could be built later.  Despite great PR, there doesn't seem to be much storage large enough for utility scale energy.

[markbike528CBX]

The capital costs are huge, absolutely, but if you run it long enough, it becomes far better economically than even fossil fuel plants.  I have to wonder, however, how much of that premium is driven by regulation, litigation, and the fact that every nuclear plant is designed from scratch.  When someone can tie up the project for years with a frivolous lawsuit, it dramatically impacts the economics of the project.  France reduced costs greatly by building a larger number of identical (or very similar) plants, and is reaping the benefits.

France also built them one after another, so they could apply the lessons from the last one to the next one.   However, France pretty much stopped building them when everybody else did in the late 1980s/early 1990s.    The French have a modern, standardized reactor design, the  European Pressurized Reactor (EPR) which came out in the early 2000s (IIRC).  However, EPR has been a disaster.   There have been epic delays and enormous cost over runs.  There are two under construction, and the French claim they want to build a few more, but the costs are so enormous I'm skeptical.    There is a new type called the EPR2 which is supposed to be simpler and better, but no one has built one yet.   

The US has a similar standardized design, the Westinghouse AP 1000 that was designed to be simpler and safter than previous reactor designs.   However, like the French we forgot how to build reactors.  IIRC, there were four units that actually began construction.  However, cost overruns and delays wound up bankrupting Westinghouse.   Two of the units got canceled.  One just came online this year, and one will come online next year.    However, everything was way, behind schedule and way over budget.   I think it effectively killed any hope of new large scale nuclear in the near future in the US.

That said, most nuclear sites were designed to accommodate multiple reactors.    There are lots of sites that could accept new reactors with minimal local pushback.   If the nation could commit to building say, five in row it might become feasible.

Vogtle 3 came on line _last_ year    and Vogtle 4 is in testing 2024 Q2 for full commercial operation. Today (4/27/24) Vogtle 4 is at 33% power.
Don't forget the Chinese AP1000  at  Sanmen 1 and 2 and Haiyang 1 and 2 which were commissioned in 2018.
4 more AP1000 at the same sites are ordered.

On topic, 9 AP1000 have been considered in Ukraine.
 https://info.westinghousenuclear.com/news/westinghouse-congratulates-energoatom-on-start-of-ap1000-work-at-khmelnytskyi-npp
Westinghouse also makes VVER-1000 and VVER-400 fuel for Ukraine.

Building 5 in a row might be a stretch, witness WPPSS, the largest municipal bond default at the time (since exceeded), while attempting to build 5 reactors on two sites.
Only WPPSS Unit 2 , now renamed Columbia Generating Station for some reason, WooooPPSS, is currently running.

[bacchi]

Building 5 in a row might be a stretch, witness WPPSS, the largest municipal bond default at the time (since exceeded), while attempting to build 5 reactors on two sites.
Only WPPSS Unit 2 , now renamed Columbia Generating Station for some reason, WooooPPSS, is currently running.

As an aside, you can take a tour of Satsop, a mostly complete nuclear plant. They let us scurry around the entire site and climb ladders and go into the containment block. It's a fun day trip.

[markbike528CBX]

Building 5 in a row might be a stretch, witness WPPSS, the largest municipal bond default at the time (since exceeded), while attempting to build 5 reactors on two sites.
Only WPPSS Unit 2 , now renamed Columbia Generating Station for some reason, WooooPPSS, is currently running.

As an aside, you can take a tour of Satsop, a mostly complete nuclear plant. They let us scurry around the entire site and climb ladders and go into the containment block. It's a fun day trip.

I'd kinda like to tour Sastop.  A B&W two-loop PWR -- I've never been in one.

Running around freely would be a change from the operating plants I've been in :-)
    BWR- Boiling Water Reactors,  US, Taiwan, Germany
    PWR - US, France- although I've never been in containment in France.

Things that slow you down (for good reason) in a operational nuclear power plant.
   Health Physics Technicians- RWP Radiation Work Permits, logging in and logging out.
   Pre-job briefs, which sometimes are not brief.
   Heavily Armed and Armored Security Guards -- in my experience, really nice, polite people. YMMV :-)   
       I asked one of the guards what the ammo loadout was, then relayed this number to a Marine (Gulf War I) who said:
        "no way, by the time you pop that many caps, somebody (good guy or bad guy) is going to be down and you can use that stuff"
Physical barriers, doors (one person at time), slowdown pathways to give the nice people noted above time to shoot at you.