German/Russian Baltic Sea Plans

Added to that for example here in Finland, the elecricity consumption is rising approx. 10% per year and it’s seems to be sort of a standart, no depression or other changes affects on it. With evergrowing need for power and demands to cut down the greenhouse gases, you don’t have to be a wizard to figure out whats the trend will be in next 20 years. Nuclearpower is the only choise with these consumption rates, unfortunetly.

Unfortunately nuclear power is about the only long term available base load power capability available.

Everything else either uses up finite fossil fuels, contributes to global warming and climate change (which the extremists seem to believe will render life untenable for a large percentage of the Earth’s population) or is unsuitable for base load (wind, solar, other renewables).

Long term, it looks like countries either go nuclear to reduce their dependancy on fossil fuels, or take their chances with suppliers who have a track record of using their energy supply power to try and influence other nations policy’s to something more to their liking.

Unicorn

well nuclear can be made safe…as safe as any man made thing can be. The proplem is that despite all the safety technologies and stuff, the possibility that some one pushes the wrong putton at some point cannot be made 100% impossiple. And when nuclear plant goes overboard, single mistake can make half of the continent unlivable for the next 10,000 years. IMO the risk is too big…

alternative energy sources

Yeah, I agree, the decissions needs to be taken now as well as first steps. The proplem is that all our way of life is so dependable over consuming energy.
Biggest proplem in there however is that we have let too much power to the Energy companies themselves, and by advocating free markets, we gradually give away all the tools needed to make the changes. I work myself in big energy company and what comes to enveriomental issues, they are only concerned when they can improve their public image by little stunts. All reall steps like investing to Wind and other alternatives are still beyond reality as they dont give profit, and unfortuanetly, that is what the “free world” is all about, profit…

Even nuclear leaves us relying on other nations for fuel, albiet more reliable and trustworthy ones perhaps, and shipping it great distances. Having said that I agree in principal with nuclear energy, but the regulations need to be exceedingly tight and enforced. However (UK) have probably already left it a bit tight to get new stations up and running in a suitable timescale, especially once “public consultations”; protests and the dithering of politicians are all underway 🙁

The costs of the alternative energy sources, nuclear, wind etc. are even now still higher than fossil fuels. There are only two ways they will really get established:- massive subsidies or once the fossil fuel prices have reached uneconomic levels. Cannot see number one happening over here……..We might get the Govts. 20% by 2020 If nuclear is included, but I fear we might need far more than that by then!

Found on the new blog dedicated to the German Navy:

http://rearechelon.blogspot.com/

Excerpts:

“The Baltic Sea, in recent times, has become somewhat more of a potential low-conflict zone. This, of course, because of the Joint German-Russian pipeline that is supposed to run through it, and for which construction is supposed to start next year already.

“On September 14th, the German and Russian Navy signed a bilateral cooperation treaty (i.e. outside existing NATO PfP arrangements) to “improve joint operations against new threats”.”

“Ships of the Baltic Fleet have paid friendly visits to German events in 2007 – such as a Neustrashimy at the Kieler Woche – and Russian and German rear-echelon officials have exchanged concepts and ideas with regard to coastal security and environmental protection since 2006.”

The entire blog is a must read full of excellent analysis.

IMHO this is a tremendously important development with many complicated implications for the navies of the Baltic Sea region.

Any thoughts?

I found that hilarious:

And Poland of course is simply calling the pipeline “the new Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact” (aka “Hitler-Stalin Pact”), because it will make it possible for Russia to cut gas to Poland without affecting Western Europe.

OK, since yesterday night the Polish will use better wording, although the change in government does not change the strategical objects so much. Just the new government does not rely so much on anti-German feelings.

Anyways, I think the Baltics are a potential zone of smuggling and “terror”. Interrupting the gas pipeline would cause major consequences, and the line runs through international waters. Also small boats can start from international waters and land at the coast, hard to detect and deter. Maybe we can arrange some kind of “bouncer” at the Skagerrak who watches every ship that enters the Baltic, refusing those without permission.

From the pure international conflict point of view I don’t see issues. All countries around the Baltic are either NATO or EU, or Russia.

From the economic and environmental point of view I think much was achieved, but even more needs to be achieved. I think foremost of pollution by industrial centers at the coast and rivers, and fishing. The Baltic is pretty much empty and only joined effort can restore and stabilize a useful harvest ground for fishing. But if it comes to fishing, EU proves unable to find any useful compromise. Maybe the Germans then have to scare the others with the Russian bear. 😀

In the UK the renewables obligation certificate (ROC) system has produced genuine investment in renewables but it is still a tiny percentage of generating capacity, and unfortunately almost all of it has gone to wind farms, I’m not against wind but we need more than wind. The UK has the potential to generate vast amounts of power from tidal sources but so far there has been nothing beyond talk, the Severn barrage is again being talked about, that would give 8.6GW, the equivalent of around 3 or 4 large coal or nuclear stations, the solway is another prime candidate. There has been some investment in biomass too but again it’s very small relative to other investment. The big decision is whether to go nuclear again or not, and that decision needs to be taken soon given the lead time of nuclear stations and the requirement for replacing older stations.

Yeah, I agree, the decissions needs to be taken now as well as first steps. The proplem is that all our way of life is so dependable over consuming energy.
Biggest proplem in there however is that we have let too much power to the Energy companies themselves, and by advocating free markets, we gradually give away all the tools needed to make the changes. I work myself in big energy company and what comes to enveriomental issues, they are only concerned when they can improve their public image by little stunts. All reall steps like investing to Wind and other alternatives are still beyond reality as they dont give profit, and unfortuanetly, that is what the “free world” is all about, profit…

The idea that we are reliant on fossil fuels is only because people are used to “cheap” energy that is no longer so cheap, and it is better to start converting now when we have some control rather than staring over a sheer drop into oblivion in a few years. Technically, there are already numerous options. I’m a big supporter of nuclear, it is not perfect, but it is still the cleanest, most sustainable way of generating a stable base load independent of environmental factors (the big problem of wind and many other renewables). On gas, Russia isn’t the only option, IMO it is far from even being the best option and we can easily enough import LNG from other gas suppliers.

Non-phossile fuels are the way for the future, but as now, they cannot match the need of modern western consumption, so the process to replace gas and oil with them is long march that would require severe changes in attitudes of both governments and individual citicens. As there is little of will to replace the current system that worships economical growth and material prosperity over anything, We have to face the reality that the West-Siberian gas is the only solution to avoid energy cost rising beyond reasonable. Nuclear power shoudln’t be held as option, as its own risk and proplems are too big and non-by passed by anything that our current thecnology can provide.

Personally, I think what europe should really be doing is developing alternatives to fossil fuel, generate our electricity from nuclear and renewable plants (and some european countries have enough coal to cover an intermediate stage in maintaining energy security) and push the adoption of stuff like fuel cells and hydrogen for cars. At that point it won’t matter either way if somebody cuts off the gas tap. If the will was there it’d almost certainly be possible, and the cost probably would end up competitive with the military costs of protecting our jugular vein and competing for finite resources, and whatever happens those resources won’t last forever so we need to be working on what comes next anyway.

At first I must stand out my personal amusment over Polands and other anti-russian europeans behalf, when they know how despretly dependaple they are from the Russian gas and oil, but yet they still wish to find somesort of justification to bully and boast in any opportunity given.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: These parties should really start re-evaluate the situation that europe is slowly begun to face and show some humbelness and modesty toward those who deliver our gas. Becouse that sort of ranting will only make the Russian part feeling suspicious over their change to co-operate with the europeans and that only couses trouples and twist to the partnership that benefits both parties. Neither Europe nor Russia needs any sort of confortation against each others.

I think its a good sigth. Europe and Russians needs to understand that we both would do far better in co-operation, than as foes. The gasline is indeed good singh of how the co-existence should be done and I dont wish to see any sort of naval build up coming from due it. Naturally, the pipeline travels pretty close to our terretorial waters, and if it forms some sort of root of the trouple to the region, the outcome wouldn’t be good.
The most important part of the co-operation would be the enveriomental part. The Baltic sea is almoust dead by irresponsiople pollutioning from all shore states that have laid their waste into this sensitive ecosystem. One big oil cathastrophe could at worst case cease all marine life from the sea:(