1899
Comments (277)
sorted by:
248
magapatriot_pa 248 points ago +249 / -1

Why doesn't the EU just use solar and wind?

100
kent [S] 100 points ago +100 / -0

They can't hide the need for fossil fuels that much,lol.

74
DontArkancideMeBro 74 points ago +74 / -0

The very term “fossil fuel” is a scam itself. Oil is not dinosaurs.

53
skatestraight 53 points ago +53 / -0

Yup, oil is renewable

11
22
TheLoiteringKid 22 points ago +22 / -0

Hell, you can turn food wast into methane in under a month with an anaerobic digester.

67
ProVoice 67 points ago +67 / -0

I can turn food into methane in under 8 hours.

13
ObamakilledJoan 13 points ago +13 / -0

🤣 I needed this humor tonight.

12
p0nchik 12 points ago +12 / -0

Even faster if the food is taco bell

... continue reading thread?
6
emjayt 6 points ago +7 / -1

Crude joke. You need to refine your sense of humor, stop with all the gas jokes.

... continue reading thread?
2
Geralt_of_Rivia1 2 points ago +10 / -8

Methane is a single carbon surrounded by four hydrogens, gasoline is 10-14 carbons in a string. Huge fucking difference, methane isn't a polymer oil is. You dont see crude oil deposits in landfills but you get plenty of methane.

You need heat and pressure to get the long chain hydrocarbons to form.

11
kiowachief 11 points ago +13 / -2

How many alts does that massive faggot, Anaconda, have?

... continue reading thread?
6
762xPat 6 points ago +6 / -0

You mean like with a refinery? You can turn methane into any number of refined products. Same with coal gasification to oil, even wood gas. More expensive, but it works and is proven tech.

... continue reading thread?
2
KekosaurusTrump 2 points ago +3 / -1

Grass is a long chain hydrocarbon.

2
goat_nebula 2 points ago +2 / -0

Most hard plastics/polymers such as Polyethylene are made from natural gas...

... continue reading thread?
1
hey_spike 1 point ago +2 / -1

Hydrogen and carbon (both plentiful elements in the crust) with heat and pressure combine in different ways to make long chain molecules.

Just like pure carbon can be found as graphite or diamond.

... continue reading thread?
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
kaczan3 2 points ago +2 / -0

Notice how these lefties aren't worried that we're going to run out of salt?

-2
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -2 points ago +5 / -7

No it is not

1
SouthernParadise 1 point ago +3 / -2

Ignore the socially inept children on here acting like they know wtf they’re talking about. I understood what you were saying. Some of these people here act like the elitist libtards they rail against.

16
NinjaPlease 16 points ago +17 / -1

Oh come on , you don’t believe that there is massive piles of decaying Dinos 3 miles underground that melt back into carbon Stop questioning the phyence !! Bigot !

7
DontArkancideMeBro 7 points ago +7 / -0

phyence

Nice!

11
vargen 11 points ago +11 / -0

Oil, coal and gas is organic material exposed to pressure for a various amount of time, fully renewable as new organic material is always being generated through life. Oil in the ocean would leak out one day anyway, humans are doing the nature a favor by pumping it up.

The only cleaner alternative, which doesn't ruin ecosystems, the grid, or entire economies is nuclear. Which is only suitable in larger populated areas. With 80% of the worlds population living in cities, if they only made cities powered by nuclear it wouldn't matter at all if all rural areas where powered by local coal, gas or oil power stations.

In fact it would be good for the environment, and nothing to ruin ecosystems like bird and bug killing wind turbines, hydro turbines preventing the salmon from going upstream, or solar panels that's only really useful for charging a small amount of batteries off grid.

7
wannabe 7 points ago +7 / -0

Lol. I have questioned the fossil fuel scam since I was a kid. I would ask people to describe the process from beginning to end. It never made sense.

My young mind would envision an elephant dying and decomposing and I would think, where did the oil come from? Especially considering the amounts of oil that has been discovered. I couldn’t tell you how it was created, just that it wasn’t from dinosaurs.

3
Viduus_maga 3 points ago +3 / -0

Heating decaying organic material (pressure speeds things up) makes Kirogen & Petrolium (maybe one becomes the other - who knows) then the petrolium is refined into our products.

2
hey_spike 2 points ago +2 / -0

Jupiter's moon Titan is covered in methane. Hydrocarbons are naturally occurring, independent of biology.

33
NinjaPlease 33 points ago +34 / -1

Insert “Monkey looking away meme “ here !

15
RedneckWhiteandBlue 15 points ago +15 / -0

I wonder if we’ll ever go go back. Or if it’s just over for ever. Pray

4
mamayaya3 4 points ago +5 / -1

🛐🛐🛐🙏✝️✝️✝️

11
GodDamnedEngineer 11 points ago +11 / -0

WHAT A BUNCH OF MORONS. SAME AS GOING TO MCDONALDS AND TELLING THEM YOU WILL ONLY PAY 99 CENTS FOR A BURGER THATS PRICED AS 3.40$

6
gunteh 6 points ago +6 / -0

More like refusing to buy the McDs burger unless they sell it for 4 cents cheaper. McDs will tell them to go pound sand, obviously, because unlike this analogy, the EU NEEDS to buy gas from someone…

42
WilliamHRacy 42 points ago +42 / -0

They are going to freeze their people to death. If the blood clots don't get them, the frostbite will! WEF marches on

38
ManFromLagos 38 points ago +38 / -0

They are going to freeze their people to death and blame Russia for not giving them oil.

18
deleted 18 points ago +18 / -0
16
WilliamHRacy 16 points ago +16 / -0

Bingo. Our RINO cucks and the Eurofags want WW3 so much... why can't they just let people live their lives.

9
RallyinStJohnsWood 9 points ago +9 / -0

why can't they just let people live their lives.

because on this planet, narcissist abusers claw their way to the top everywhere.

"Human thought is considered an infectious disease in some of your better universes." -MIB

5
gunteh 5 points ago +5 / -0

Narcissists have some compulsive desire to micromanage everyone and everything to get what they want, if they didn’t have that burning need they’re be much more tolerable.

16
NomadicKrow2 16 points ago +17 / -1

All Russia has to do is blast a message as far and as wide as they can manage. "We've been waiting for you at the peace negotiation. None of you will come when we invite you. Every invite, you are in a worse position than the previous."

4
BidensPrisonWallet 4 points ago +4 / -0

ding ding ding ding ding !!!!!!!!

2
Millie1234 2 points ago +2 / -0

All the media in Europe is calling it Putin's freeze. Most sane people know it's the politicians.

8
Ricky_CIA 8 points ago +10 / -2

A dead faggot euro-tard is a good faggot euro-tard.

5
Side-o-Beef_Curtains 5 points ago +5 / -0

The only correct answer...

At least they aren't canadians

2
DJTrump 2 points ago +3 / -1

This post reminded me, we are so long overdue in taking over Canada it's getting ridiculous. Look at what the knuckleheads up there are doing when left to themselves.

3
vargen 3 points ago +5 / -2

The Germans need to fire up the ovens again.

2
TeeBP 2 points ago +2 / -0

if it's not any of those it'll be the Muslim "refugees" that'll get them.

16
NoCoupForYou 16 points ago +16 / -0

Yeah, what happened to Angela Merkle's Wind Farms the Germans were always blowing in everybody's faces.

Of course, we know that they brought coal power from Poland and nuclear power from France to make up for the shortfall.

12
behemoth887 12 points ago +12 / -0

like most lib ideas they sound ok when everything is going good but when the shit hits the fan they are completely and utterly worthless

13
TexasBrowncoat 13 points ago +13 / -0

Libs are like kids that think that they can live in the blanket fort in their parents living room forever.

"Look mommy! I am independent now."

-16
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -16 points ago +2 / -18

Wind turbines are pretty damn efficient. Only about a third as efficient as a turbine that you burn fuel to power, but still, three wind turbines vs one that runs on natural gas... the three wind turbines become cheaper.

15
MrTexan 15 points ago +15 / -0

Your mafffification doesn’t add up. Also no one ever considers the amount of “fossil fuel” it takes to build a wind turbine vs how much power you can get out of it over its lifetime. They also require a great deal of oil as lubricant that has to be change regularly. About 158 gallons that needs to be changed every 500 hours.

https://www.windturbinemagazine.com/how-much-oil-do-wind-turbines-use/

-2
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -2 points ago +4 / -6

Also no one ever considers the amount of “fossil fuel” it takes to build a wind turbine vs how much power you can get out of it over its lifetime

Why would I give a fuck? My goal is cheap power not green power. I am writing this while sitting on a coal seam that contains a trillion tons of coal, the world's largest coal seam, and support the local mining industry.

About 158 gallons that needs to be changed every 500 hours.

You missed a zero, they aren't there doing oin changes once a month, it is annual at most. Hell, I can get away with an oil change every 200k miles in my truck with a bypass filter...

Also, 158 gallons of lubricant is jack shit, and also, nuclear still needs lubricant oil for the steam turbine...

3
MrTexan 3 points ago +4 / -1

Why would I give a fuck? My goal is cheap power not green power. I am writing this while sitting on a coal seam that contains a trillion tons of coal, the world's largest coal seam, and support the local mining industry.

You are a moron. You have to consider the energy consumed in making a wind generator vs how much you get out of it.

-3
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -3 points ago +1 / -4

If you are against turbine based power, that literally only leaves solar panels

-6
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -6 points ago +2 / -8

hey also require a great deal of oil as lubricant that has to be change regularly. About 158 gallons that needs to be changed every 500 hours. https://www.windturbinemagazine.com/how-much-oil-do-wind-turbines-use/

Why are you a compulsive liar? Your article never makes any such claim, and is ridiculous to anyone who understands how long lubricating oils last. Additionally, if you are against turbine based power, that doesnt just mean no wind turbines - that means no water turbines or steam turbines or gas turbines

That means no hydroelectric power (water turbines)

No natural gas power (gas turbine or steam turbine)

No coal power (steam turbine)

No nuclear power (steam turbines)

There is literally only one form of power that we use at scale that isnt turbine based. It is called a solar panel.

4
MrTexan 4 points ago +4 / -0

There are several links in the article from which you can glean that information. It’s also a big leap to say “if you’re against wind turbines you’re against all turbines” what kind of idiot are you? That’s like saying if you think electric automobiles are silly you must be against the wheel.

0
Geralt_of_Rivia1 0 points ago +1 / -1

There are no links that say 158 gallons per 500 hours, that is insane. That is 15 oil changes a year... Where the oil is constantly at temp, in an electrical turbine not a combustion engine.

I can literally run my diesel truck for 5000 hours at 60mph without an oil change with a simple bypass filter, and no oil changes. That has to deal with fuel contamination, oxidization, and internal combustion being harsher. In a turbine it is anaerobic, no contact with any fuel, and is just rotating at a constant speed

... continue reading thread?
-1
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -1 points ago +1 / -2

Do you think they are lubricating the foundation? No, the lubricant is there to lubricate the turbine. You are criticizing turbine based power on the basis that turbines require lubrication

... continue reading thread?
7
Brellin 7 points ago +7 / -0

Except the amount of resources it takes to construct even one wind turbine generator is far more than said generator will produce over the entirety of its lifetime and it generates massive blades that cannot be recycled and kills an unimaginably large amount of birds (many of which are endangered). They're a scam and always have been, they are simply not efficient and long-lived enough to actually justify the expense of making them, especially when those methods of production use the very materials and methods the wind turbines are in theory supposed to be replacing (ie: non green energy sources).

-7
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -7 points ago +1 / -8

Except the amount of resources it takes to construct even one wind turbine generator is far more than said generator will produce over the entirety of its lifetime

That is a misquote of a paper saying that if they were built in a retarded manner that they wouldn't work. See what China does in order to look "green" without any modeling for potential yield, and instead putting them where they look best for propaganda footage.

If that was true for all wind energy, then no form of turbine based power would be viable - which is all forms of power besides solar.

and it generates massive blades that cannot be recycled

It is fiberglass, we know how to deal with fiberglass waste

and kills an unimaginably large amount of bird

Glass windows kill 1000 times as many birds

6
Ricky_CIA 6 points ago +6 / -0

Until the wind isn't blowing.

-10
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -10 points ago +2 / -12

law of large numbers. We arent talking about a single wind turbine here, we are talking about hundreds of thousands over 3.8 million square miles.

6
nemonster 6 points ago +6 / -0

Poor bearings. They will rust fast

-11
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -11 points ago +1 / -12

...if you are against turbine based power, the only form of power that is acceptable is solar power

... continue reading thread?
1
TexasBrowncoat 1 point ago +1 / -0

I lived near a huge wind farm and most of the time only 1/3 of them were working. I had a friend that repaired them and he said that they were always breaking down. Also there is about 55 gallons of oil in each one to keep it lubed.

0
Geralt_of_Rivia1 0 points ago +1 / -1

All turbines need lubricating oil, that isnt a valid criticism unless you want the only alternative to turbine based power (solar panels)

And they have about 50k a year in maintenance per turbine. Not insignificant, but relative to the amount of power they make it is cost effective

And we have the actual math, not just what your friend saw. It is on average a .32 conversion factor from nameplate capacity. Which still has it as one of the cheapest forms of power - coal is slightly cheaper within a few hundred mile radius of where I live, natural gas is about the same, and that is it.

0
DaayTerkErJerbs 0 points ago +1 / -1

Did they test this during a hurricane for 3 hours an extrapolate the results to infinity going foward?

-1
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -1 points ago +1 / -2

if you are against turbine based power, that doesnt just mean no wind turbines - that means no water turbines or steam turbines or gas turbines

That means no hydroelectric power (water turbines)

No natural gas power (gas turbine or steam turbine)

No coal power (steam turbine)

No nuclear power (steam turbines)

There is literally only one form of power that we use at scale that isnt turbine based. It is called a solar panel.

1
DaayTerkErJerbs 1 point ago +1 / -0

I understand all electric is basically coming from a spinning turbine an the only difference is what produces the heat the make the steam to spin it (except wind) but wind turbines don't look very useful. I've seen them all over the place an maybe 1 out 10 is even moving. It makes far more sense if they used them to harness waves instead of wind as water movement is way more consistent.

0
Geralt_of_Rivia1 0 points ago +1 / -1

It makes far more sense if they used them to harness waves instead of wind as water movement is way more consistent.

Water is way less consistent and way harsher on all turbines. There is a reason "marine-anything" is fucking expensive and that is because salt water destroys everything.

Meanwhile, the average wind turbine produces on average 32% of it's nameplate capacity, which when you run the math for puts US ground based wind turbines as being one of the cheapest sources of electricity.

4
Side-o-Beef_Curtains 4 points ago +4 / -0

I've never heard a lib idea that sounded good, regardless of context

2
Brellin 2 points ago +2 / -0

The old saying that socialism works right up until you run out of other people's money is as true to day as it was when it was first made.

-4
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -4 points ago +2 / -6

Windmills work fine. They dont power cars though.

10
Seruna_Kanus 10 points ago +10 / -0

If wind worked, they'd have turbines set up outside the parliaments.

3
vargen 3 points ago +3 / -0

Even the old flour mills was built next to a river because the people where smart enough to realize that without wind there would be no rotation force hence nothing to rotate the mill and production would come to an halt.

And to this day, we still lack proper infrastructure to store large amounts of energy, so anything that cannot produce power on demand no matter of weather conditions is basically worthless.

-8
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -8 points ago +5 / -13

Wind works, but it needs to be put in places that actually have wind.

Wind farms arent justified based off of green environmentalist nonsense, they are built when the money would justify it, and the money more than justifies it with current technology.

11
Ricky_CIA 11 points ago +11 / -0

You're like a bad take printing press.

-4
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -4 points ago +4 / -8

What have I said that is wrong?

7
Brellin 7 points ago +9 / -2

Just about everything?

-2
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -2 points ago +4 / -6

Then point out a single claim I have made that is wrong and provide factual evidence

4
RallyinStJohnsWood 4 points ago +5 / -1

I like your take, I don't know enough to agree or disagree but it's interesting to hear something besides the echo chamber in here.

and I'm not seeing enough of a logical rebuttal to you so far.

... continue reading thread?
4
daty_dato 4 points ago +4 / -0

How do you get the power to people if they are only in places with wind?

-5
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -5 points ago +1 / -6

There is currently a project to build a wind farm in southwest Wyoming to power California

2
daty_dato 2 points ago +2 / -0

You know how much power is lost running it there? You do know how an extension cord works right?

0
Geralt_of_Rivia1 0 points ago +1 / -1

~5%

View 5 more comments
115
pnwpatriot97 115 points ago +116 / -1

Learn to coal, eurofags.

42
kent [S] 42 points ago +42 / -0

I hear Alabama has 2000 years worth of coal alone. Biden doesn't want them getting rich selling it.

17
pnwpatriot97 17 points ago +18 / -1

We would truly become energy dominate and continue to be with Trump.

7
p0nchik 7 points ago +7 / -0

Under trump, we were pumping more oil than every country in the world. Think about that for a second. EU is holding itself hostage with Russian oil and the Saudis can hold the world hostage. Yet we have the capacity to produce as much as anyone and don't and we still complain

1
pnwpatriot97 1 point ago +1 / -0

Exactly, my fren.

12
Capitalism_Fuck_Yeah 12 points ago +12 / -0

We have 10,000 years worth of thorium. Mostly as mine waste.

-12
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -12 points ago +4 / -16

Thorium reactors are theoretical not viable to rely on for energy.

8
TheDTOMDon 8 points ago +8 / -0

I was about to go, “WTF”…

Looks at username

I thought I blocked you already.

Hey, if you can’t learn from your fuckups at least serve as a warning to others. Never go full retard.

-10
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -10 points ago +2 / -12

You are wanting us to dive headfirst into untested energy technology when we have shit that works and is cheap

11
deleted 11 points ago +11 / -0
1
peltast 1 point ago +1 / -0

This, of course, doesn't mean that we'll have a Civil War, as the only cause of the last one was slavery.

/s

-5
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -5 points ago +4 / -9

(They) realized that the south was going to have all the manufactures and chemical production due to natural resource and geography. (they) realized that soon the north would be beggared of wealth having to buy everything from the South.

Yeah, about that, Alabama's coal is less than a rounding error in calculating Wyoming's coal reserves. It is about 4 billion tons while Wyoming has 820-900 billion tons recoverable (1.4 trillion total). Meanwhile Alabama's coal is like 3% sulfur - sulfur emissions are fucking nasty. Wyoming's coal is ~.25% sulfur.

And also Alabama is highly business unfriendly due to a combination of unionization and blacks committing violent crime. Wyoming is the most anti-union state in the country, one of the lowest crime rate states in the country, and literally invented the LLC so that your family cant sue your employer if you die in the uranium mines.

8
FatBeagleMars 8 points ago +8 / -0

I would love a sauce on that. I'm not challenging you, but it would make it easier if I could read more.

-3
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -3 points ago +5 / -8

Alabama has shit for coal (about 4 billion tons) and it is pretty shitty coal too

Wyoming though, 830 billion tons. Montana also has about a quarter trillion tons. The US uses about 500 million tons a year

1
NoCoupForYou 1 point ago +4 / -3

Imagine if Trump was President.

Not only would have Putin not dared (or been prodded/manipulated) to go into THE Ukraine, but if we were in this situation, think of how much beautiful Oil and Coal and LNG we'd be shipping to Europe.

6
vargen 6 points ago +6 / -0

Putin would have gone in if Ukraine keeps fucking over Russians living in Ukraine. The difference is that Trump wouldn't try to provoke a world war but instead try to skip peace in the region, by not throwing billions at Ukraine or enforcing retarded sanctions that's fucking up all of Europe.

-4
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -4 points ago +2 / -6

We wouldnt really be shipping coal to Europe, we would be shipping it to China - it is easier to ship coal from Wyoming to China and China will pay more.

1
DaayTerkErJerbs 1 point ago +1 / -0

We should have spent the Obama years pulling as much out the ground as we could an shipping it to anyone willing to give us money. Most seem to believe it's going to be useless in the next 100 years. Obama instead tried to destroy all the coal mines instead of selling it while it was still useful which imo was always completely retarded. Someone is gonna mine it, someone is gonna buy it, but we took America out of the equation for a retarded ideology and at a time when our economy was barely moving

View 2 more comments
21
preferredfault 21 points ago +21 / -0

China's dumping whole mountains of coal into power plants every minute, yet we're supposed to be worried about our consumption.

11
pnwpatriot97 11 points ago +11 / -0

Thats nothing, we SHIP them even MORE coal overseas every day. It comes all the way from Montana, through Idaho, into Washington State and out to China via seaports. When will we be able to use our own resources?

9
preferredfault 9 points ago +9 / -0

I don't care about coal, we have soo much natural gas that we have literally been burning it straight from the wells for years because we have soo much we can't even store it all. We have enough natural gas that we never need to burn coal again, and natural gas is better than coal. It's not even a climate or pollution thing. But the elites have abused that to demonize coal and jack up natural gas when we're the saudi arabia of natural gas. We have enough natural gas that we could make every American a millionaire multiple times over, and here are the elites jacking up energy prices and hoard everything for themselves, while acting like we're the problem, when China is gobbling up more energy than all western countries combined.

1
pnwpatriot97 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're absolutely right. Having coal as backup is always a solid idea for emergencies though.

-6
Geralt_of_Rivia1 -6 points ago +1 / -7

and natural gas is better than coal.

Eh, natural gas has some problems involving storage and transport. Anyone who disagrees has never seen a 8 inch 300 PSI line get hit with an excavator after 811 told them there was nothing there.

1
tang81 1 point ago +1 / -0

There is 0 problem with storing natural gas. We pump it back into the ground for storage.

1
Geralt_of_Rivia1 1 point ago +1 / -0

That cave isnt right on top of a power plant.

0
Geralt_of_Rivia1 0 points ago +3 / -3

Thats nothing, we SHIP them even MORE coal overseas every day

I wish. All that money flows to Australia not the USA. Fuck California/Portland/Seattle, all fuck over my home state by blocking coal exports from Wyoming

1
pnwpatriot97 1 point ago +1 / -0

Its true. The fact you were downvoted means you are over target, fren.

10
KuzoKevin 10 points ago +12 / -2

I almost feel guilty for laughing at that....almost.

4
Telcontar2020 4 points ago +4 / -0

Don't feel guilty. My shithead government (Aus) voted in favour of this cost cap.

Albanese's cheerleaders in the media won't be able to resist gloating about this until it goes sideways on them, then they'll be trying to find someone else to blame.

2
Nokabal 2 points ago +2 / -0

I hear you mate, we are fucked in a few years as well

2
daty_dato 2 points ago +2 / -0

We will only buy it for 60.. So they won't sell it to you for that. Now what?

9
American-Patriot 9 points ago +9 / -0

Could you imagine being a citizen in one of those countries, getting charged and taxed up the ass for Green energy, and still not even have your basic energy requirements met?

3
pnwpatriot97 3 points ago +3 / -0

Never could, fren. Sounds like the reason we Amercians told the British to kick rocks and go back to England. Now if only we could get a REAL American back at the helm again... cough TRUMP cough

2
vargen 2 points ago +2 / -0

Still better than commiefornia, not only is the tax lower but because it's the old world there's plenty of old houses which still has functional wooden stoves and open fires for heating, the government can't do shit to prevent you from staying warm and eating a lot of meat from the forest outside.

There also hasn't been rolling blackouts anywhere in Europe yet, which is a sign the dependency on "green energy" hasn't reached peak retardness yet. Just spikes in the price, mostly in UK due to temporary shortages.

3
MapleBaconWaffles 3 points ago +3 / -0

If Germany hadn't been so busy shutting down nuclear reactors for the last decade or so, they'd be in a much better position now.

1
tang81 1 point ago +1 / -0

If only some wicked smart President had warned them just a few years ago.... oh wait.

View 1 more comment
54
NotAGlowy 54 points ago +54 / -0

Such an idiotic policy. Guaranteed to lead to shortages

37
TheRedPilledArtist 37 points ago +37 / -0

All by design.

9
RedneckWhiteandBlue 9 points ago +9 / -0

Eat bugs

1
TheRedPilledArtist 1 point ago +1 / -0

Think about it: they took action to draw their line in the sand, the people eat it up, Russia declines, now they have an easy enemy to point the finger at.

The people of Europe would have believed them anyway, but this is just like butter to lubricate the pan. 🍳 Make their job easy for 'em.

Doesn't change the outcome of many Europeans freezing. But they kinda made their own bed already.

19
BigPanda71 19 points ago +19 / -0

They don’t care. The ruling class won’t freeze, just the proles.

4
RedneckWhiteandBlue 4 points ago +4 / -0

While they get rich with their corruption

3
p0nchik 3 points ago +3 / -0

My favorite part of Ukraine going off the grid was Zelenskiy continued to post content with electric lights throughout it all. Wonder if his villas, funded by me and you, are still lit up like a Christmas tree?

1
Txiribiton 1 point ago +1 / -0

And wearing the same shirt while 90% of the population is freezing.

2
unclebobinator 2 points ago +2 / -0

He only wears that shirt when he's being photographed or taped. Otherwise he's sporting Balenciaga.

14
DaayTerkErJerbs 14 points ago +14 / -0

The EU seems to believe Russia needs to sell oil to them more than they need to buy it. Play stupid games win stupid prizes. Russia should tell them the EU price just went up 10.00 a barrel over spot

2
BroadSunlitUplands 2 points ago +2 / -0

They believe Russia needs to sell oil to someone more than the EU needs to buy oil from Russia.

I don’t think they expected Russia to go along with the price cap, but they do expect it to reduce what Russia’s remaining buyers will have to pay for Russian oil.

2
p0nchik 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's what I don't get about Russia. They're playing the long game. All of these EU cucked leaders will be outta the job within 4 years. Putin won't. He's been so fucking patient in the face off their proclaimed enemies shoving regime change down his throat. He wants to protect future relations by trying to keep the status quo.

Idk how he doesn't go scorched earth and just cut these poor, needy, fucks off.

Like what is NATO going to do if they want to go to war with Russia? It's going to be America bearing the brunt of it. These NATO countries have no more weapons to give and rely mostly only on Russian energy.

4
HerbertBailBondsh 4 points ago +4 / -0

... and they'll point at Russia and call them evil.. and shitforbrains biden will send them the rest of our oil.

2
Demig80 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's quite revealing how weak Western leadership has become. One misstep and bad policy after the other.. I felt safe and secure with Trump. I miss those mean tweets and sensible foreign policies so much.

View 3 more comments
48
GeneralLiberal 48 points ago +49 / -1

imagine going to the gas station and telling the dude at the counter, im setting the price limit to 2 bux/gallon and expecting it to happen

15
GENOCIDE_PITBULLS 15 points ago +15 / -0

I’m gonna go try that tomorrow

1
2scoops2peachmints 1 point ago +1 / -0

Be sure to carry the 2nd with you to make it happen

5
ParticleCannon 5 points ago +5 / -0

The guys that didn't make it to the moon use liters

1
Toohershat 1 point ago +1 / -0

Right, Russia is not in the EU, OPEC, and they've largely been shunned by the G-whatever groups this year. It doesn't make sense to expect them to do what you say with their most valuable resources.

1
DaayTerkErJerbs 1 point ago +1 / -0

The EU tried to say Russia had to give them gas cause 'muh contracts' but they wouldn't pay them for any of it. They were gonna put money into a bank account that was under sanctions that Russia couldn't access till they're done fighting Ukraine. They really thought that was going to work. Russia told them they have to pay in Rubles now or they'll get their gas shut off cuz they're not running a charity. The arrogance of the EU is astounding.

39
Juice 39 points ago +39 / -0

Remember when there was a perfectly good brand new natural gas pipeline that mysteriously ruptured right after there was international tensions between the EU and Russia?

15
2scoops2peachmints 15 points ago +15 / -0

Remember when the US was energy independent laughing at these global faggots selling them sweet crud for a profit before the pedo stole his way in to ruin the entire fucking global market.

5
p0nchik 5 points ago +5 / -0

The one that Russia invested billions in. The one that just needed the green light from Germany. The one that would immensely boost supplies. I guess I should be surprised at this point retards think Russia destroyed it. When you actually examine that conspiracy theory, it gets stupider and stupider.

Why destroy it when you've invested billions?
Why destroy it when Germany has not even given the green light?
Why destroy it when you're set to make billions back?
Why destroy it when all you have to do is not turn it on?
Why destroy it in international waters and not create controversy doing it in your waters?
Why hasn't Sweden, who investigated it, announced it was Russia, but proclaim they know who did it?
Why goat Germany into opening it and then destroy it?
Why was there a U.S. blackhawk directly over the site the day before international waters?

None of it makes sense.

That's because it was the UK at the behest of the U.S. The U.S. stands to gain the most. Now, Germany and their EU puppets are further reliant on the U.S. Nord Stream 2 has been a problem from the U.S. from the very beginning. Aiding Ukraine to poke the bear helped them achieve this, along with some money laundering on the side. Win for the U.S. win for the elites.

31
LordScatmanJohn 31 points ago +31 / -0

No shit. I wouldn't sell my shit for half price either.

26
preferredfault 26 points ago +26 / -0

And it's not even a case of a simple bribe, it's not like "Ok sell us cheap oil and we'll let you have Ukraine with no fuss". No, they want to buy it cheap to subvert Russia and build up their energy reserves in order to use against Russia. They literally have no leverage and here they are trying to demand something from Russia. And all of this could have been avoided if NATO just stayed in its own lane instead of trying to creep up on Russia's border.

5
current_horror 5 points ago +6 / -1

America has always bargained in bad faith. When we promised not to expand NATO to Russia’s borders, what we really meant was “we’re going to set off revolutions at your border and install puppet governments, and if they happen to want NATO protection, then we’ll give it to them”. We’ve never held our agreements, and I don’t blame other superpowers for calling us out.

4
Cantshadowbanthemall 4 points ago +4 / -0

Guess who will buy it and sell it to them at the discount

1
PM_ME_UR_VIVOZ 1 point ago +1 / -0

What'll happen is other countries will buy it and then resell it to Europe at a markup. Suckers.

1
Cantshadowbanthemall 1 point ago +1 / -0

You mean like Chyna?

1
PM_ME_UR_VIVOZ 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'll always miss the way he said that :'(

30
Mooksayshigh 30 points ago +30 / -0

“You’re evil, we hate you and are paying billions to destroy you, but could you please help us out?”

What a fuckin clown show.

17
Snoman 17 points ago +17 / -0

How can the EU cap the price on something they don’t produce ?

4
BroadSunlitUplands 4 points ago +4 / -0

It’s a price cap on what companies within its jurisdiction (ie. in the EU) are allowed to pay Russia for oil. They can buy it from Russia below the price cap price, or they have to go buy it from some other country.

Russia can -of course- still sell to other buyers at any price, but you have to consider how much leverage those remaining buyers (China, India, whoever) have now to dictate what price they’ll pay. Russia realistically can’t take a position that it isn’t going to sell to anybody -not for long anyway- so the remaining buyers have Russia over a barrel in negotiations.

Europe will end up paying more, but the intent is for Russia to get less of that money than they otherwise would have.

1
p0nchik 1 point ago +1 / -0

Best part is that the arab world is on Russia's side behind the scenes. Publicly, they have to tow the line to keep that American cash flowing, but behind the scenes, it's full Russian support. Basically, every country has told the EU to fuck off. Even the ones that have decided to create new contracts with the EU have done so with stipulations that the country importing the energy is not allowed to sell or transport it elsewhere.

The U.S. thought this out for a while. Talking back to McCain under Bush. McCain is the true architect of it all. Europe is just another pawn.

0
PM_ME_UR_VIVOZ 0 points ago +1 / -1

Russia can -of course- still sell to other buyers at any price, but you have to consider how much leverage those remaining buyers (China, India, whoever) have now to dictate what price they’ll pay.

The market determines the price, not national actors making demands on sellers. China and India aren't going to suddenly turn on Russia to reduce their monetary inflows, when they can't just buy it at the prevailing price in excess and then resell it to Europe at a markup. China and India have leverage, yes, but not in the direction you think.

1
BroadSunlitUplands 1 point ago +1 / -0

The market only determines the price in a free market, which it now isn’t (and actually it hasn’t been for a while if you look at the Urals-Brent difference).

It’s not about China or India (or whoever else) ‘turning on Russia’; they’re just going to pay less for Russian oil because Europe -previously the biggest buyer in the room- effectively just stood up and walked out of the ‘Russian Oil’ auction house and declared they’d rather pay $80 in anyone else’s auction house than pay $61 in Russia’s.

The remaining buyers of Russian oil aren’t going to voluntarily pay more than they now need to. They don’t like Russia that much.

1
PM_ME_UR_VIVOZ 1 point ago +1 / -0

The market is as free as it's ever been. There has never been a time in history where the market was more free than it is today, not because it's super duper free right now, but because it's never been "free." Now, that aside -

It’s not about China or India (or whoever else) ‘turning on Russia’; they’re just going to pay less for Russian oil because Europe - previously the biggest buyer in the room- effectively just stood up and walked out of the ‘Russian Oil’ auction house and declared they’d rather pay $80 in anyone else’s auction house than pay $61 in Russia’s.

How does the EU throwing a tantrum reduce the price of oil for Russia's other customers? Nothing you wrote makes any sense, until you can square that away with reality. There isn't a world where, because the EU refused to buy from Russia, suddenly everyone else gets cheaper oil. The price of oil will go up globally because the EU will start pulling on more limited supply chains to meet its needs, and from suppliers who traditionally have not been involved in the European oil trade.

The remaining buyers of Russian oil aren’t going to voluntarily pay more than they now need to. They don’t like Russia that much.

Once again, the market sets the price. Not nation states throwing fits.

15
JollyGoodFallow 15 points ago +15 / -0

Since when does the buyer tell the seller the price? I’ll have to remember that when I buy meat at the store. Let’s say, 50 cents a pound!!

7
current_horror 7 points ago +8 / -1

That’s how you know these people are communist globalists. They think their governments should be able to dictate prices all over the world.

11
Bigly-Wrong 11 points ago +12 / -1

I guess a lump of coal is a good gift for euro poors this year.

6
magaandkag 6 points ago +6 / -0

This could make a good bee story, "Europeans behaving extra naughty this year to ensure they get coal in stocking to survive winter."

9
Hunter_loves_2_feet 9 points ago +9 / -0

Why would they or should they? Trump warned them and they “smirked” and the MSM reported it as if Trump was wrong and they were correct.

4
p0nchik 4 points ago +4 / -0

Idk. Trump was playing the game, too. He exacerbated the problem by giving Ukraine javelins when they were indiscriminately shelling Donbas, long before Russia even entered. We also trained these extremist battalions. I don't agree with any of it. I think he got caught in a dick swinging contest with Putin to show everyone how tough he was.

If he were to come back as President. I'd want to end all support for Ukraine from day 1. Cut them off. The war will end.

We will not recognize Kherson, but Donbas and Crimea we should because their support for Russia is undeniable.

Will we? No. Should we? It's the right thing to do for any anti-war, pro-liberty person, but it doesn't necessarily help us, other than stabilizing the international markets and bringing inflation down.

2
PapaPepe 2 points ago +2 / -0

Europeans don't ever think any other way. They are always so enlightened and ahead of the curve that they can't help making mistakes a 5 year old could see coming.

8
p0nchik 8 points ago +9 / -1

EU: Hey, Russia, we fucked ourselves by choosing to be cucks to American imperialism in the fake war and support for Ukraine. I know we levied the greatest amount of sanctions against you in human history, but can you do us a solid?

RU: Yeah, sure. Just open Nord Stream 2 so we can increase your supplies and pay us in rubles.

EU: No, not good enough. We won't pay in rubles, we'll bomb Nord Stream 2 (and blame you) and force you to sell us it at 60/barrel

RU: Naw, we're good.

Poland: Fine, fine. We'll force you to sell it to us at 30/barrel

RU: Okay, but still no.

EU: Why did you do this to us? You're pure evil. TeRrORiSt StAtE

7
American-Patriot 7 points ago +7 / -0

It's literally the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Did the EU honestly think they had a snowball's chance in hell that Russia would accept their "agreed on price cap"??

5
p0nchik 5 points ago +5 / -0

Lol wait til you hear what Poland petitioned for. They demanded it to be 30usd/barrel lol.

Poland is going to get us in a war with Russia. Not necessarily because of this, but these dudes + the Baltics are literally insane.

5
nehneh 5 points ago +5 / -0

of course russia wont honor the price cap from the EU and G7. they'll just sell their oil to china and the saudi's at fulll price.. and the EU and G7 will buy that same oil but with a middle man mark up

5
ShitOfPeace 5 points ago +5 / -0

Shocking, price controls lead to a shortage because you can't make someone sell you a commodity at a loss.

This is econ 101.

5
SuperMagaMan 5 points ago +5 / -0

What right does the EU think it has to set a price on another nations resources?

4
TaxDollarsHardAtWork 4 points ago +4 / -0

This is European leadership at work.

4
datagod 4 points ago +4 / -0

"We would rather freeze than pay more than 60 dollars a barrel!".

Ok, freaks. Enjoy winter.

3
GeneralBoobs 3 points ago +3 / -0

Good. Fuck them with that dildo covered in broken glass and kerosene.

1
SisterCovfefe 1 point ago +1 / -0

Upvoted for the insult AND the sentiment.

3
Calumet57 3 points ago +3 / -0

Line up cuck nations. Grovel time!

3
AngryAsian 3 points ago +3 / -0

It sounds like years of Western policies shitting on Russia for no other reason than Russiaphobia somehow didn't make them want to work with the West. Amazing how that works, who would have guessed

3
Calumet57 3 points ago +3 / -0

Russia: do you even lift?

3
Charlie 3 points ago +3 / -0

im a gonna try that next time i buy gas. See where that gets me.

3
War_Hamster 3 points ago +3 / -0

I too am going to stop buying gas in California that is over $4/gallon.

Now, I may be forced to do a lot of walking, but there's no way I'm going to pay market prices.

I sure showed them.

3
catvideos3 3 points ago +3 / -0

I put a price cap on my taxes.

2
TheLesserBambino 2 points ago +2 / -0

I love these headlines so much. What the duck did they think was going to happen.

2
Waco419 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is exactly what the WEF expected and wanted to happen. They are encouraging and facilitating (by way of their puppet governments) the suicide of the West.

2
Hardworkingdude 2 points ago +2 / -0

What about those new electric jets and rockets. Those things are bad ass sad no one. They aren’t thinking this shit through.

2
some_guy_in_tx 2 points ago +2 / -0

They don't need to, they're selling all they need to China and India in the $80-100 range.

1
some_guy_in_tx 1 point ago +1 / -0

and to add.. Europe is so screwed

2
yodayoda 2 points ago +2 / -0

yeah why would they? they would be morons to agree to that.

"here's our price. if you want it, take it. if you don't, fuck you."

actually they shouldn't sell to us at any price. why sell oil to your enemies to help fund their war effort against you?

2
DonLemonParty 2 points ago +2 / -0

Learn to chop wood.

2
Drcm 2 points ago +2 / -0

EU: we're at war, so we will only buy your stuff at a price WE agree to, cuz we are so smart

Russia: k, i just wont sell to you....

EU: surprised pikachu

2
Steveo19 2 points ago +2 / -0

Who are these ppl to tell the country that their basically at war with jow to run their country. Wtf has happened to this world.

2
DeepWinter 2 points ago +2 / -0

Imagine the EU thinking they had any room to negotiate. 🤣

View 40 more comments