By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Greece Defaults. What now?

Psychotic on 09 July 2015
routsounmanman said:

Re-read my post.

Oh, my bad. Right on it.

routsounmanman said:

"Democracy" in Europe. We don't like your government, FALL.

Never said that. The Greeks, however,  used they right to vote to willfully create obstacles in negotiations, because of their short-sightedness and lack of knowledge about economics and world politics. They should accept responsibility for their actions. There is such a thing as "bad decision". I believe the Greeks made it. Now they have to live with the consequences.

 

routsounmanman said:

Proof or not true [that Greece has the biggest social spending in the EU]. And even if it is, maybe it's necessary, because we have 26% unemployment rate, and a staggering 70% in youth. Should they just die?

Here's a graph of social spending compared to GDP. Greece is second from the left, under the code "EL". Source: iDNES, one of the oldest, biggest and most respected media outlet in my country. I saw a similar graph in the UK media I read, too.

No, they shouldn't "just die". But paying them money you don't have and possibly will never have is hardly a good alternative.

 

routsounmanman said:

Right before Tsipras got elected, all Europe was congratulating Greece (even Mr. Shauble) for the biggest reforms a developed country has ever done in such a little time. We also got from a 15% deficit to a 2% surplus. Try doing that in Germany, Netherlands or any other country; with a 26% loss in GDP.

Yes, exactly: Right before Tsipras got elected. I like the language: "got elected"- like he just got elected by himself or something.

Greece was on their way to successfully deal with this crisis, before THEY ELECTED TSIPRAS, who in turn became their hero by stopping austerity measures. I hope they thanked him enough for making the situation a hundred times worse.



Around the Network
generic-user-1 on 09 July 2015
mai said:
generic-user-1 said:
mai said:
generic-user-1 said:
mai said:
generic-user-1 said:

burning great amounts of oil for energie isnt the cause, its a symptom.

How that relates to my question? What's your reserves you could actually excavate?

there are no reserves that would turn a profit  at the low prices for oil and coal we have today.  but that would change realy fast if the price would rise sharply or if the markets doesnt want to sell to us anymore. 

Profitable in terms of energy return. How much that cost in cut paper is completely irrelevant.

its very hard to have a negative energie return on coal or oil.  and making gasoline out of coal isnt a problem too.  thats 100 years old tech thats proven to work(and is still used in some parts of the world).

You don't need to have it negative, nobody will even bother with EROEI below 3-4 and that's a norm today, how much higher it's going to be when assosiated energy costs will go up, nobody knows. It's death spiral upside down. In terms of tech you're behind the times by a mile, would you have been as smart as you've claimed you'd have acknowledge simple facts: Europe has peaked on all fossil fules, Europe is hopelessly energy deficit, there's only two ways of covering the deficit: either by cutting costs (and given the time that is left the cutting would look more like collapse), or ramping up prodcutions of energies that could replace decline of fossil fuels, like nuclear as the best of options in terms of availability, output and price.

nuclear? are you out of your mind? thats the most expensive energie and the only that isnt mined enough for todays needs.

and cutting costs is no big deal, we come from the highest oil prices ever, prices that will not come again so soon with opec broken and iran sanctions lifted(the us doesnt have the power to block a deal and if europe and brics say yes to the deal the us wil follow).



nanarchy on 09 July 2015
generic-user-1 said:
mai said:

 

You don't need to have it negative, nobody will even bother with EROEI below 3-4 and that's a norm today, how much higher it's going to be when assosiated energy costs will go up, nobody knows. It's death spiral upside down. In terms of tech you're behind the times by a mile, would you have been as smart as you've claimed you'd have acknowledge simple facts: Europe has peaked on all fossil fules, Europe is hopelessly energy deficit, there's only two ways of covering the deficit: either by cutting costs (and given the time that is left the cutting would look more like collapse), or ramping up prodcutions of energies that could replace decline of fossil fuels, like nuclear as the best of options in terms of availability, output and price.

nuclear? are you out of your mind? thats the most expensive energie and the only that isnt mined enough for todays needs.

and cutting costs is no big deal, we come from the highest oil prices ever, prices that will not come again so soon with opec broken and iran sanctions lifted(the us doesnt have the power to block a deal and if europe and brics say yes to the deal the us wil follow).

where are you getting your numbers from? Nuclear is one of the most cost effective energy options. well ahead of solar and wind and their is plenty of materials available for it. Many mines have had to cut back on production, e.g. Australia is mining around 40% less than it was a decade ago even though it has massive reserves of uranium



mai on 10 July 2015
generic-user-1 said:

nuclear? are you out of your mind? thats the most expensive energie and the only that isnt mined enough for todays needs.

and cutting costs is no big deal, we come from the highest oil prices ever, prices that will not come again so soon with opec broken and iran sanctions lifted(the us doesnt have the power to block a deal and if europe and brics say yes to the deal the us wil follow).

^What has been said above.

+

Yes, nuclear (as well as wind and solar btw) is not immune to "red queen's race", i.e. diminishing results on every new buck invested, but to a lesser degree if closed fuel cycle would have been a norm. Plus consider new developments in the field like fast breeders that considerably increase resource base, at least among all other options those are closest to being implemented into actual series production.



generic-user-1 on 10 July 2015
nanarchy said:
generic-user-1 said:
mai said:

 

You don't need to have it negative, nobody will even bother with EROEI below 3-4 and that's a norm today, how much higher it's going to be when assosiated energy costs will go up, nobody knows. It's death spiral upside down. In terms of tech you're behind the times by a mile, would you have been as smart as you've claimed you'd have acknowledge simple facts: Europe has peaked on all fossil fules, Europe is hopelessly energy deficit, there's only two ways of covering the deficit: either by cutting costs (and given the time that is left the cutting would look more like collapse), or ramping up prodcutions of energies that could replace decline of fossil fuels, like nuclear as the best of options in terms of availability, output and price.

nuclear? are you out of your mind? thats the most expensive energie and the only that isnt mined enough for todays needs.

and cutting costs is no big deal, we come from the highest oil prices ever, prices that will not come again so soon with opec broken and iran sanctions lifted(the us doesnt have the power to block a deal and if europe and brics say yes to the deal the us wil follow).

where are you getting your numbers from? Nuclear is one of the most cost effective energy options. well ahead of solar and wind and their is plenty of materials available for it. Many mines have had to cut back on production, e.g. Australia is mining around 40% less than it was a decade ago even though it has massive reserves of uranium


nuclear is more expensive than burning money... the brits have to pay 92,5 Pound/mw.

and that finish nuclear plant is still in the building burning alot of money...



Around the Network
Player2 on 10 July 2015
generic-user-1 said:
nanarchy said:

where are you getting your numbers from? Nuclear is one of the most cost effective energy options. well ahead of solar and wind and their is plenty of materials available for it. Many mines have had to cut back on production, e.g. Australia is mining around 40% less than it was a decade ago even though it has massive reserves of uranium


nuclear is more expensive than burning money... the brits have to pay 92,5 Pound/mw.

and that finish nuclear plant is still in the building burning alot of money...

That's because UK is buying it from the french. Remember: Never trust the french.

Over 70% of the energy produced in France comes from nuclear plants and on average their kwh is cheaper than UK's by a slim margin. It wouldn't make any sense if nuclear was as expensive as you say.



generic-user-1 on 10 July 2015
Player2 said:
generic-user-1 said:
nanarchy said:

where are you getting your numbers from? Nuclear is one of the most cost effective energy options. well ahead of solar and wind and their is plenty of materials available for it. Many mines have had to cut back on production, e.g. Australia is mining around 40% less than it was a decade ago even though it has massive reserves of uranium


nuclear is more expensive than burning money... the brits have to pay 92,5 Pound/mw.

and that finish nuclear plant is still in the building burning alot of money...

Nuclear is expensive in UK because they're buying it from the french. Remember: Never trust the french.

Over 70% of the energy produced in France comes from nuclear plants and on average their kwh is cheaper than UK's by a slim margin. It wouldn't make any sense if nuclear was as expensive as you say.


those are old, and realy badly build and maintained.  building a new one, with todays safety standard, well thats costs a lot.



thepurplewalrus on 10 July 2015
sc94597 said:
fatslob-:O said:
sc94597 said:

The rest of Europe, parts of Asia, and the U.S follow within the next 30 years or so. Greece is just an extreme example of where the rest of the world is heading.

You think so ?

Yep. I have no confidence that any of these countries will stop what they are doing: going back and forth on interest rates until their bubbles get bigger and bigger due to malinvestments (directed by said interest rates), bailing out said malinvestments, while they amass trillions of dollars worth of debt which they'll never be able to sustain. There will be a larger recession than the one in 2008, hyperinflation, and higher unemployment everywhere. Furthermore, with the growing economic powers in the second and third worlds global wealth distributions will more often transfer to these other, more stable regions. The cause of this? Cronyism.

Wow, that's depressing.



Player2 on 10 July 2015
generic-user-1 said:
Player2 said:
generic-user-1 said:
nanarchy said:

where are you getting your numbers from? Nuclear is one of the most cost effective energy options. well ahead of solar and wind and their is plenty of materials available for it. Many mines have had to cut back on production, e.g. Australia is mining around 40% less than it was a decade ago even though it has massive reserves of uranium


nuclear is more expensive than burning money... the brits have to pay 92,5 Pound/mw.

and that finish nuclear plant is still in the building burning alot of money...

Nuclear is expensive in UK because they're buying it from the french. Remember: Never trust the french.

Over 70% of the energy produced in France comes from nuclear plants and on average their kwh is cheaper than UK's by a slim margin. It wouldn't make any sense if nuclear was as expensive as you say.


those are old, and realy badly build and maintained.  building a new one, with todays safety standard, well thats costs a lot.

And it'll last for over 30+ years. What happens here is that there's another guy in the middle who wants money. Uk wanted to pay 80 Pounds/mw, France 100 Pounds/mw and it ended at 92.5 Pounds/mw.



generic-user-1 on 10 July 2015
Player2 said:
generic-user-1 said:
Player2 said:
generic-user-1 said:
nanarchy said:

where are you getting your numbers from? Nuclear is one of the most cost effective energy options. well ahead of solar and wind and their is plenty of materials available for it. Many mines have had to cut back on production, e.g. Australia is mining around 40% less than it was a decade ago even though it has massive reserves of uranium


nuclear is more expensive than burning money... the brits have to pay 92,5 Pound/mw.

and that finish nuclear plant is still in the building burning alot of money...

Nuclear is expensive in UK because they're buying it from the french. Remember: Never trust the french.

Over 70% of the energy produced in France comes from nuclear plants and on average their kwh is cheaper than UK's by a slim margin. It wouldn't make any sense if nuclear was as expensive as you say.


those are old, and realy badly build and maintained.  building a new one, with todays safety standard, well thats costs a lot.

And it'll last for over 30+ years. What happens here is that there's another guy in the middle who wants money. Uk wanted to pay 80 Pounds/mw, France 100 Pounds/mw and it ended at 92.5 Pounds/mw.

wind lasts 20 years minimum, and costs alot less...