Sinn Féin 33% (+1) Fine Gael 21% (-2) Fianna Fáil 20% (+3) Social Democrats 6% (+1) Greens 4% (nc) People Before Profit/Solidarity 4% (+1) Labour 3% (nc) Aontú 2 (-1) others/independents 9% (-1)
(Ireland Thinks/Sunday Independent; 4 March; 1,011; +/- change from February)
The Ukrainian military has stated that its marines conducted a surprise attack on the Chernobayevka airfield outside Kherson overnight destroying 30 Russian helicopters.
I wonder if their marines are well acquainted with Hereford?
The Ukrainian marines went on a sightseeing tour of Hereford Cathedral and other local points of interest as the Russians did in Salisbury. Revenge is a dish best served cold with friends.
The Ukrainian military has stated that its marines conducted a surprise attack on the Chernobayevka airfield outside Kherson overnight destroying 30 Russian helicopters.
I wonder if their marines are well acquainted with Hereford?
Leon led the assault?
The Artists Rifles (dress uniform includes gaylord ponceyboots) is now an SAS reserve regiment. Just sayin’..
Was it them or the HAC which according to Evelyn Waugh was known as the Monstrous Regiment of Gentlemen?
Rings a bell, but can’t properly remember. They certainly sound a very Waughian outfit, though if he’d been in their ranks he would no doubt have proved as hugely unpopular there as everywhere else.
Wiki tells me that they had their own separate Officer Training Corps through which Wilfred Owen passed.
Bayonet practice in the morning, the Georgics in the afternoon.
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
Bootle arguing that defence spend must go up to 4% at least after all this. I agree. If not higher imho. He says this must not come from increase in tax but from rebalancing existing public spend. Harder to do than sounds imho. I think some kind of wealth tax would be better. After all, what use is the millions in your property wealth if the country is being razed to the ground by Russians?
A tax that especially hit rich Russians owning empty flats in London would be excellent.
I lose track of the number of problems ‘some kind of wealth tax’ will magically solve. Paying for an ongoing 4% in defence spending wouldn’t be one of them…
It is one of the reasons that whoever wins GE24 will be facing an economic wasteland and have little scope for implementing their manifesto promises
^This. For all of the political posturing from both big parties we are going to be in challenging times. But as we have seen in the past, challenging times present both risk and opportunity.
The big tragedy from Brexit has been the utter lack of a gameplan now we're out. It was clear then and is much clearer now that being able to be as self-sufficient as possible is an advantage. So even in challenging times we can be investing in infrastructure and industries which make us less reliant on imports - a long-term ROI in both jobs and security.
I haven't seen anyone push anything that looks remotely like strategic vision. The Tories are still listening to the Singapore-on-Thames wing who see post-Brexit as an opportunity to make even less stuff, Labour are stuck with the problem* of calling for Brexit to become a workable success.
The Lords has been like that for about the last seven hundred years.
Gilbert and Sullivan (Gilbert, really) have got most of the Lebedev angles covered
Indeed! G&S are the one thing even more timeless than Yes, Minister.
While George Orwell on nationalism regularly gets quoted here regarding negative nationalists, G&S got there first in The Mikado as one entry always deserving to go on 'the list':
Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone All centuries but this, and every country but his own;
[Although that particular song is rewritten every time to include topical references so I'm not sure if that lyric is actually original or not, but its been kept in every version of the song I've heard so I'm guessing so?]
Anybody who sees a brutal war as primarily an opportunity to raise their own public profile is a disgrace. Anybody who sees a brutal war as a good opportunity to use professional PR people to display lots of attractive images of themselves on social media is a disgrace. Anybody who attends negotiations with allies or opponents during a brutal war without being knowledgeable (either through their own homework or being fully briefed) enough about the issues to seem plausible to others is a disgrace. Anybody who thinks that a brutal war could be an opportunity to further their leadership ambitions is a disgrace.
The Ukrainian military has stated that its marines conducted a surprise attack on the Chernobayevka airfield outside Kherson overnight destroying 30 Russian helicopters.
In rough numbers, the Russian Air Force is losing 1% of its aircraft *per day* in this conflict - assuming that they have what they say they have in total, and they’re all serviceable, which is not going to be close.
Give it another month, and half their Air Force will have been shot down in Ukraine. Do they have a WWII-style factory, churning out new ones somewhere, because if not…
That number available for fighting in Ukraine doesn't take account of those Russian planes stationed in Syria. (Always assuming they are still there.)
If backed up, the loss of 30 choppers in one action would at least mean that is 30 Stingers saved for a rainy day. Dura is taking his info from sites that require photographic evidence of losses. At the start of the invasion, there were reports of two Russian transport planes being downed. I'm not aware of any images of the crash sites being posted, but the CIA has confirmed that at least one of them was downed.
Much fog of war, but the only certainty is that Russia will never admit to but a tiny fraction of its losses - and there are plenty of Russian-supporting sites that seek to rubbish the Ukrainian claims. If I had to trust one source over the other for information, it would be Ukraine, not Russia.
The two IL-76 transporters remain a real mystery. I’ve still not seen any photos of them, but as you say the Amercians have confirmed the loss of at least one. They’re bloody big planes to have just disappeared!
They wouldn't be the only Russian paratroopers to have fallen into the sea, mind....
The Ukrainian military has stated that its marines conducted a surprise attack on the Chernobayevka airfield outside Kherson overnight destroying 30 Russian helicopters.
In rough numbers, the Russian Air Force is losing 1% of its aircraft *per day* in this conflict - assuming that they have what they say they have in total, and they’re all serviceable, which is not going to be close.
Give it another month, and half their Air Force will have been shot down in Ukraine. Do they have a WWII-style factory, churning out new ones somewhere, because if not…
That number available for fighting in Ukraine doesn't take account of those Russian planes stationed in Syria. (Always assuming they are still there.)
If backed up, the loss of 30 choppers in one action would at least mean that is 30 Stingers saved for a rainy day. Dura is taking his info from sites that require photographic evidence of losses. At the start of the invasion, there were reports of two Russian transport planes being downed. I'm not aware of any images of the crash sites being posted, but the CIA has confirmed that at least one of them was downed.
Much fog of war, but the only certainty is that Russia will never admit to but a tiny fraction of its losses - and there are plenty of Russian-supporting sites that seek to rubbish the Ukrainian claims. If I had to trust one source over the other for information, it would be Ukraine, not Russia.
Since the fighting is in Ukraine, any shot down planes or shot up tanks should be available for photography on the ground in Ukraine. If three Ukrainians took a pot shot at the same plane, that is three claims of success so it is easy to see how numbers might be inflated.
Pinch of salt, obviously, but the Americans have suggested that the numbers are not far off.
Only 4 drones seems exceptionally low, unless Russia aren't using much in the way of drones in order to lose them?
Which given that much of their equipment seems to be Soviet era hand-me-downs that seems entirely possible?
Interesting. Maybe drones are too much of a 21st century invention for the Russian military to have taken an interest in, as you say.
There's a darkly amusing twist of fate that while Putin seems to have launched this war because he regrets the fall of the Soviet Union . . . that while the Soviet Union fell 89-91 what we're witnessing today is possibly the final destruction of the Soviet military.
Putin's kleptocracy seems to have meant that the hardware that the Soviets recognised as being unable to keep pace with Reagan's Star Wars ambitions in the eighties is all that Russia still has today, and now its being smashed to pieces.
As others have said, if Russia don't have the facilities to create new replacement hardware (and the fact they're not even using new hardware indicates heavily that they don't) then they're going to be royally screwed soon.
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
Sorry - but anyone who thinks fracking within the UK solves anything just confirms how absolutely clueless they are.
It doesn't work for multiple reasons which can be confirmed by other posters on here who understand both the geology, technology and the marketplace.
Oh and Farage is an idiot, the best approach now is to do the exact opposite of Putin's stooge and reduce the demand for gas.
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
Yep. Weaning ourselves off cheap energy imports has to happen because they won't stay cheap. We have oil and gas that is ours we can get at - its just more expensive than some of the earlier phases. So a boosted oil price and gas going crazy helps.
So we're back to what are we trying to do? We think nuclear will be important but have largely scrapped our own industry so now pay vast sums to foreign governments to build them. We think renewables will be important but still fight planning applications and haven't thrown money into both R&D and manufacturing so that we can be a big innovator and exporter. And because of those two we don't know from one year to the next whether fossil is still relevant so do little.
At the start of the invasion, there were reports of two Russian transport planes being downed. I'm not aware of any images of the crash sites being posted, but the CIA has confirmed that at least one of them was downed.
The Curl shootdown is confirmed here and is counted in the ten fixed wing losses.
Pinch of salt, obviously, but the Americans have suggested that the numbers are not far off.
Only 4 drones seems exceptionally low, unless Russia aren't using much in the way of drones in order to lose them?
Which given that much of their equipment seems to be Soviet era hand-me-downs that seems entirely possible?
Interesting. Maybe drones are too much of a 21st century invention for the Russian military to have taken an interest in, as you say.
There's a darkly amusing twist of fate that while Putin seems to have launched this war because he regrets the fall of the Soviet Union . . . that while the Soviet Union fell 89-91 what we're witnessing today is possibly the final destruction of the Soviet military.
Putin's kleptocracy seems to have meant that the hardware that the Soviets recognised as being unable to keep pace with Reagan's Star Wars ambitions in the eighties is all that Russia still has today, and now its being smashed to pieces.
As others have said, if Russia don't have the facilities to create new replacement hardware (and the fact they're not even using new hardware indicates heavily that they don't) then they're going to be royally screwed soon.
Even if the Russians are taking more casualties and losses than the Ukrainians, the Russian military is four times the size of the Ukranian military so they will still likely take Kyiv in the end.
The longer term question is whether the Russian people will then have the stomach for maintaining the occupation with the guerrilla war from the Ukrainian resistance that follows
Certainly the current situation has secured Boris' position for the time being as he becomes a national leader in time of crisis. Even Starmer agreed Boris was safe for the short term yesterday.
The situation has also boosted the profile and chances of the defence secretary Ben Wallace at the expense of Sunak and Truss. Wallace also led the latest ConHome Cabinet favourable rating
Surprised that Wallace doesn't feature in the betting. I would have thought that he's a very credible contender. Has he ruled himself out? (Of course, people can always rule themselves back in...)
The Ukrainian military has stated that its marines conducted a surprise attack on the Chernobayevka airfield outside Kherson overnight destroying 30 Russian helicopters.
French official on EU defence: "We are missing the strategic discussions with the UK. We can't do it with Germany. It's our biggest crisis ever and we really miss the UK angle."
Pinch of salt, obviously, but the Americans have suggested that the numbers are not far off.
Only 4 drones seems exceptionally low, unless Russia aren't using much in the way of drones in order to lose them?
Which given that much of their equipment seems to be Soviet era hand-me-downs that seems entirely possible?
Interesting. Maybe drones are too much of a 21st century invention for the Russian military to have taken an interest in, as you say.
There's a darkly amusing twist of fate that while Putin seems to have launched this war because he regrets the fall of the Soviet Union . . . that while the Soviet Union fell 89-91 what we're witnessing today is possibly the final destruction of the Soviet military.
Putin's kleptocracy seems to have meant that the hardware that the Soviets recognised as being unable to keep pace with Reagan's Star Wars ambitions in the eighties is all that Russia still has today, and now its being smashed to pieces.
As others have said, if Russia don't have the facilities to create new replacement hardware (and the fact they're not even using new hardware indicates heavily that they don't) then they're going to be royally screwed soon.
I can't remember the details, but there was a mini-crisis in the early Cold War when the Russians flew dozens of a new type of bomber over a parade. The Americans counted them, and were shocked. In reality, the Russians had flow a handful of planes in loops, so they were displaying the same plane several times.
(This may have been the 'bomber gap' fiasco).
There's a distinct possibility that Russia has developed new tech to keep up with the West, but had not been able to field anything other than prototypes or early-production runs. They show these off, and buy 100 of them - and the money goes into someone's dacha.
Edit: "Adding to the concerns was an infamous event in July 1955. At the Soviet Aviation Day demonstrations at the Tushino Airfield, ten Bison bombers were flown past the reviewing stand, flew out of sight, quickly turned around, and then flew past the stands again with eight more. That presented the illusion that there were 28 aircraft in the flyby. Western analysts, extrapolating from the illusionary 28 aircraft, judged that by 1960, the Soviets would have 800." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_gap
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
Sorry - but anyone who thinks fracking within the UK solves anything just confirms how absolutely clueless they are.
It doesn't work for multiple reasons which can be confirmed by other posters on here who understand both the geology, technology and the marketplace.
Oh and Farage is an idiot, the best approach now is to do the exact opposite of Putin's stooge and reduce the demand for gas.
It seems to me, and I am not an expert by any means, but locally fracking would be possible in Lancashire at least but for the politics?
It might just be spin, but from what I've heard it would be economical and the measurements of the earth tremors that put a halt to the project would be comparable to a truck driving past a house nearby. Is that not true?
The politics of NIMBYism seems to be the thing that has put a real block to it, my personal preference would be to say "f**k the NIMBYs" but that's always my attitude, including in my own backdoor. However its not going to happen, so offshore hydrocarbon development probably remains the best alternative for the transition would be my best uneducated guess.
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
Sorry - but anyone who thinks fracking within the UK solves anything just confirms how absolutely clueless they are.
It doesn't work for multiple reasons which can be confirmed by other posters on here who understand both the geology, technology and the marketplace.
Oh and Farage is an idiot, the best approach now is to do the exact opposite of Putin's stooge and reduce the demand for gas.
I'm pro-Net Zero, but unless there's a solid technological reason not to I don't see why we shouldn't frack. In the short term we reduce our reliance on Russia, and the CO2 impact is about the same. In the long term gas provides flexible generation to make up fluctuations in supply from renewables.
The best argument against starting to frack is that a lobby might emerge around it and resist attempts to grow renewables and nuclear. But that seems a far more manageable risk than relying on Russia.
I've always assumed that NATO aircraft would easily outclass Russian ones. So, in the event of a no-fly zone, it would be a bit of a Marianas turkey-shoot.
However former RAF bod I spoke to is of the opinion that the Russian planes would be competitive.
Any views? There's usually a PB expert to put us right on matters like this.
Pinch of salt, obviously, but the Americans have suggested that the numbers are not far off.
Only 4 drones seems exceptionally low, unless Russia aren't using much in the way of drones in order to lose them?
Which given that much of their equipment seems to be Soviet era hand-me-downs that seems entirely possible?
Interesting. Maybe drones are too much of a 21st century invention for the Russian military to have taken an interest in, as you say.
There's a darkly amusing twist of fate that while Putin seems to have launched this war because he regrets the fall of the Soviet Union . . . that while the Soviet Union fell 89-91 what we're witnessing today is possibly the final destruction of the Soviet military.
Putin's kleptocracy seems to have meant that the hardware that the Soviets recognised as being unable to keep pace with Reagan's Star Wars ambitions in the eighties is all that Russia still has today, and now its being smashed to pieces.
As others have said, if Russia don't have the facilities to create new replacement hardware (and the fact they're not even using new hardware indicates heavily that they don't) then they're going to be royally screwed soon.
Even if the Russians are taking more casualties and losses than the Ukrainians, the Russian military is four times the size of the Ukranian military so they will still likely take Kyiv in the end.
The longer term question is whether the Russian people will then have the stomach for maintaining the occupation with the guerrilla war from the Ukrainian resistance that follows
You’re forgetting about the three million civilians in Kiev, many of whom are now armed to the teeth and willing to defend their city.
The Russian military is getting depleted quickly, whereas the Ukranian supply lines from Poland and Moldova are very much still open, with 17,000 NLAWs and Stingers crossing the border last week.
French official on EU defence: "We are missing the strategic discussions with the UK. We can't do it with Germany. It's our biggest crisis ever and we really miss the UK angle."
Pinch of salt, obviously, but the Americans have suggested that the numbers are not far off.
Only 4 drones seems exceptionally low, unless Russia aren't using much in the way of drones in order to lose them?
Which given that much of their equipment seems to be Soviet era hand-me-downs that seems entirely possible?
Interesting. Maybe drones are too much of a 21st century invention for the Russian military to have taken an interest in, as you say.
There's a darkly amusing twist of fate that while Putin seems to have launched this war because he regrets the fall of the Soviet Union . . . that while the Soviet Union fell 89-91 what we're witnessing today is possibly the final destruction of the Soviet military.
Putin's kleptocracy seems to have meant that the hardware that the Soviets recognised as being unable to keep pace with Reagan's Star Wars ambitions in the eighties is all that Russia still has today, and now its being smashed to pieces.
As others have said, if Russia don't have the facilities to create new replacement hardware (and the fact they're not even using new hardware indicates heavily that they don't) then they're going to be royally screwed soon.
Even if the Russians are taking more casualties and losses than the Ukrainians, the Russian military is four times the size of the Ukranian military so they will still likely take Kyiv in the end.
The longer term question is whether the Russian people will then have the stomach for maintaining the occupation with the guerrilla war from the Ukrainian resistance that follows
Four times is actually not that much if the losses end up being asymmetric and the defenders fighting for their homeland are fighting with much more morale and vigour than the conscripts who don't want to be there.
Especially when the defenders have virtually unlimited equipment pouring in from NATO, while the attackers have no reinforcement capabilities.
Pinch of salt, obviously, but the Americans have suggested that the numbers are not far off.
Only 4 drones seems exceptionally low, unless Russia aren't using much in the way of drones in order to lose them?
Which given that much of their equipment seems to be Soviet era hand-me-downs that seems entirely possible?
Interesting. Maybe drones are too much of a 21st century invention for the Russian military to have taken an interest in, as you say.
There's a darkly amusing twist of fate that while Putin seems to have launched this war because he regrets the fall of the Soviet Union . . . that while the Soviet Union fell 89-91 what we're witnessing today is possibly the final destruction of the Soviet military.
Putin's kleptocracy seems to have meant that the hardware that the Soviets recognised as being unable to keep pace with Reagan's Star Wars ambitions in the eighties is all that Russia still has today, and now its being smashed to pieces.
As others have said, if Russia don't have the facilities to create new replacement hardware (and the fact they're not even using new hardware indicates heavily that they don't) then they're going to be royally screwed soon.
I can't remember the details, but there was a mini-crisis in the early Cold War when the Russians flew dozens of a new type of bomber over a parade. The Americans counted them, and were shocked. In reality, the Russians had flow a handful of planes in loops, so they were displaying the same plane several times.
(This may have been the 'bomber gap' fiasco).
There's a distinct possibility that Russia has developed new tech to keep up with the West, but had not been able to field anything other than prototypes or early-production runs. They show these off, and buy 100 of them - and the money goes into someone's dacha.
Edit: "Adding to the concerns was an infamous event in July 1955. At the Soviet Aviation Day demonstrations at the Tushino Airfield, ten Bison bombers were flown past the reviewing stand, flew out of sight, quickly turned around, and then flew past the stands again with eight more. That presented the illusion that there were 28 aircraft in the flyby. Western analysts, extrapolating from the illusionary 28 aircraft, judged that by 1960, the Soviets would have 800." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_gap
Russia only ever built 93.
Interestingly, the analysts at RAND were told they were wrong, when they pointed out that the Russians were dumping aircraft grade aluminium on the market at a rate that, combined with the known and possible production rates in the USSR, meant they must have abandoned the bomber projects.
We're currently having an extension built, single storey, approx 22.5 sqm internal area. One wall mostly glass, aprox 4m wide (bifolds), two side walls and then open to kitchen in old part of house. We have to shortly choose between electric or hydronic underfloor heating. Difference in installation cost looks to be ~£2000 (electric cheaper) but the hydronic looks to have much cheaper running costs. The only direct comparisons I've found are on websites of companies selling hydronic systems, so clearly potential bias, but they put the difference in running costs for that kind of area at ~£400/year favouring hydronic, at 2019 prices. Now, at 2019 prices, our entire energy bill was under £900/year so I find that hard to believe, but still. Hydronic would, for now, be served from the CH boiler (2019 install, condensing combi) but could potentially come off an air source heat pump at a later point.
Any thoughts? On running costs or other pros/cons? We have electric underfloor heating (under tiles) in an upstairs bathroom and tha works well, but you can tell exactly where the mat is and is not, not an issue as where it is not is areas not normally trodden on, but those areas remain cold to touch.
Where are you building? IIRC it is somewhere in continental N Europe?
I'd say go over to Buildhub and ask there. Mainly UK community owned self-build forum, with lots of NI and Scotland as SB is easier there than England, but a fair no of internationals or people who have lived abroad. *
Whatever you do I would say one priority is to insulate the hell out of it, so you control your costs by minimizing fuel use. And you only pay for insulation once, whilst you pay for the extra electricity you haven't saved every single year. Think of near-passive standards, eg floor u-value of something like 0.11-0.12 - depending a little on the quality of the rest of the house, and whether that can be more cost-effective for investment.
Have you build a heat model to explore the balances?
I'd also somewhat question the use of bifolds as the seals weaken fairly quickly with use. IME lift-and-slide doors perform better.
Your potential heating suppliers should be able to give you some previous customers to go and talk to. Or post in your neighbourhood facebook group etc.
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
If you are an apologist or admirer of Farage, you are an apologist or admirer of Putin, and you should hang your head in shame.
I've always assumed that NATO aircraft would easily outclass Russian ones. So, in the event of a no-fly zone, it would be a bit of a Marianas turkey-shoot.
However former RAF bod I spoke to is of the opinion that the Russian planes would be competitive.
Any views? There's usually a PB expert to put us right on matters like this.
It would definitely go NATO's way very quickly. That's why nuclear immolation would ensue shortly thereafter.
I've beat up a Polish Navy TS-11 in a Hawk over 20 years ago so that definitively proves my point. This was the same trip as the famous "Yorkshire Terrier" incident which has now passed into pb.com folklore.
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
Sorry - but anyone who thinks fracking within the UK solves anything just confirms how absolutely clueless they are.
It doesn't work for multiple reasons which can be confirmed by other posters on here who understand both the geology, technology and the marketplace.
Oh and Farage is an idiot, the best approach now is to do the exact opposite of Putin's stooge and reduce the demand for gas.
It seems to me, and I am not an expert by any means, but locally fracking would be possible in Lancashire at least but for the politics?
It might just be spin, but from what I've heard it would be economical and the measurements of the earth tremors that put a halt to the project would be comparable to a truck driving past a house nearby. Is that not true?
The politics of NIMBYism seems to be the thing that has put a real block to it, my personal preference would be to say "f**k the NIMBYs" but that's always my attitude, including in my own backdoor. However its not going to happen, so offshore hydrocarbon development probably remains the best alternative for the transition would be my best uneducated guess.
I don't have an objection in principle to fracking, but from what I have seen / read of the American experience its a ponzi scheme. More and more money poured into more and more sites with restricted amounts of products actually being produced.
Alternately we have large oil and gas fields we can still explore in the Shetlands and elsewhere - its just more expensive to get at. Once connected though a lot of product and no need for endless expansion of sites.
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
If you are an apologist or admirer of Farage, you are an apologist or admirer of Putin, and you should hang your head in shame.
It is possible to admire people in some respects while disagreeing with them in others.
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
Sorry - but anyone who thinks fracking within the UK solves anything just confirms how absolutely clueless they are.
It doesn't work for multiple reasons which can be confirmed by other posters on here who understand both the geology, technology and the marketplace.
Oh and Farage is an idiot, the best approach now is to do the exact opposite of Putin's stooge and reduce the demand for gas.
The proposal is to allow exploration and pilot drillings to continue to properly evaluate the potential. Expert opinion is divided on the likely outcome. The most recent study does lower the estimate for the Bowland Shale to "only" ten years of UK gas consumption. Offshore oil and gas should continue to be developed not blocked for green virtue signalling.
I've always assumed that NATO aircraft would easily outclass Russian ones. So, in the event of a no-fly zone, it would be a bit of a Marianas turkey-shoot.
However former RAF bod I spoke to is of the opinion that the Russian planes would be competitive.
Any views? There's usually a PB expert to put us right on matters like this.
Not an expert, but it's not just the planes: it's the training. Pilots need regular flying hours.
"The NATO minimum is 180 hours (15 per month). RAF flying hours for jet pilots is between 180 and 240 per year (18.5 per month on average). Of these hours, 150 hours (12–14 hours per month; 12.5 on average) are felt to be a safety-of-flight minimum (instruments, takeoffs, landings)."
In comparison, Russian pilots get between 60 and 100 hours a year. Ukrainian pilots get less.
Surely that lack of training must affect combat effectiveness?
There's also the types of combat they are trained for: just air-to-air, ground-pounding or combined ops?
(I daresay Dura_Ace is spitting his coffee out of his nose at this post...)
We're currently having an extension built, single storey, approx 22.5 sqm internal area. One wall mostly glass, aprox 4m wide (bifolds), two side walls and then open to kitchen in old part of house. We have to shortly choose between electric or hydronic underfloor heating. Difference in installation cost looks to be ~£2000 (electric cheaper) but the hydronic looks to have much cheaper running costs. The only direct comparisons I've found are on websites of companies selling hydronic systems, so clearly potential bias, but they put the difference in running costs for that kind of area at ~£400/year favouring hydronic, at 2019 prices. Now, at 2019 prices, our entire energy bill was under £900/year so I find that hard to believe, but still. Hydronic would, for now, be served from the CH boiler (2019 install, condensing combi) but could potentially come off an air source heat pump at a later point.
Any thoughts? On running costs or other pros/cons? We have electric underfloor heating (under tiles) in an upstairs bathroom and tha works well, but you can tell exactly where the mat is and is not, not an issue as where it is not is areas not normally trodden on, but those areas remain cold to touch.
Where are you building? IIRC it is somewhere in continental N Europe?
I'd say go over to Buildhub and ask there. Mainly UK self-build forum, with lots of NI and Scotland as SB is easier there, but a fair no of internationals or people who have lived abroad. *
Whatever you do I would say one priority is to insulate the hell out of it, so you control your costs by minimizing fuel use. And you only pay for insulation once, whilst you pay for the extra electricity you haven't saved every single year. Think of near-passive standards, eg floor u-value of something like 0.11-0.12 - depending a little on the quality of the rest of the house, and whether that can be more cost-effective for investment.
Have you build a heat model to explore the balances?
I'd also somewhat question the use of bifolds as the seals weaken fairly quickly with use. IME lift-and-slide doors perform better.
Your potential heating suppliers should be able to give you some previous customers to go and talk to. Or post in your neighbourhood facebook group etc.
That and really, really look at the window performance - It's a whole package, frames, glass and coatings working together. Some badly built rubbish has hi specs, but leaks heat in and out like a sieve. Given how much money you will be spending, the lifetime of good windows... well worth it.
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
Sorry - but anyone who thinks fracking within the UK solves anything just confirms how absolutely clueless they are.
It doesn't work for multiple reasons which can be confirmed by other posters on here who understand both the geology, technology and the marketplace.
Oh and Farage is an idiot, the best approach now is to do the exact opposite of Putin's stooge and reduce the demand for gas.
It seems to me, and I am not an expert by any means, but locally fracking would be possible in Lancashire at least but for the politics?
It might just be spin, but from what I've heard it would be economical and the measurements of the earth tremors that put a halt to the project would be comparable to a truck driving past a house nearby. Is that not true?
The politics of NIMBYism seems to be the thing that has put a real block to it, my personal preference would be to say "f**k the NIMBYs" but that's always my attitude, including in my own backdoor. However its not going to happen, so offshore hydrocarbon development probably remains the best alternative for the transition would be my best uneducated guess.
You Tory halfwits will not be happy till you have F***ed the water table for a few litres of gas. Typical short sighted greedy lying cheating Tories.
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
Sorry - but anyone who thinks fracking within the UK solves anything just confirms how absolutely clueless they are.
It doesn't work for multiple reasons which can be confirmed by other posters on here who understand both the geology, technology and the marketplace.
Oh and Farage is an idiot, the best approach now is to do the exact opposite of Putin's stooge and reduce the demand for gas.
I'm pro-Net Zero, but unless there's a solid technological reason not to I don't see why we shouldn't frack. In the short term we reduce our reliance on Russia, and the CO2 impact is about the same. In the long term gas provides flexible generation to make up fluctuations in supply from renewables.
The best argument against starting to frack is that a lobby might emerge around it and resist attempts to grow renewables and nuclear. But that seems a far more manageable risk than relying on Russia.
I will wait for the expert on such things - as we have a poster who knows this stuff on the site - but take it from me Fracking makes no sense in the UK for Geological and other reasons (another of which is that the quantities available aren't that significant).
French official on EU defence: "We are missing the strategic discussions with the UK. We can't do it with Germany. It's our biggest crisis ever and we really miss the UK angle."
I've always assumed that NATO aircraft would easily outclass Russian ones. So, in the event of a no-fly zone, it would be a bit of a Marianas turkey-shoot.
However former RAF bod I spoke to is of the opinion that the Russian planes would be competitive.
Any views? There's usually a PB expert to put us right on matters like this.
Given it is mainly missiles at distance nowadays it for sure will not be easy and certainly no turkey shoot.
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
Sorry - but anyone who thinks fracking within the UK solves anything just confirms how absolutely clueless they are.
It doesn't work for multiple reasons which can be confirmed by other posters on here who understand both the geology, technology and the marketplace.
Oh and Farage is an idiot, the best approach now is to do the exact opposite of Putin's stooge and reduce the demand for gas.
It seems to me, and I am not an expert by any means, but locally fracking would be possible in Lancashire at least but for the politics?
It might just be spin, but from what I've heard it would be economical and the measurements of the earth tremors that put a halt to the project would be comparable to a truck driving past a house nearby. Is that not true?
The politics of NIMBYism seems to be the thing that has put a real block to it, my personal preference would be to say "f**k the NIMBYs" but that's always my attitude, including in my own backdoor. However its not going to happen, so offshore hydrocarbon development probably remains the best alternative for the transition would be my best uneducated guess.
You Tory halfwits will not be happy till you have F***ed the water table for a few litres of gas. Typical short sighted greedy lying cheating Tories.
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
Sorry - but anyone who thinks fracking within the UK solves anything just confirms how absolutely clueless they are.
It doesn't work for multiple reasons which can be confirmed by other posters on here who understand both the geology, technology and the marketplace.
Oh and Farage is an idiot, the best approach now is to do the exact opposite of Putin's stooge and reduce the demand for gas.
It seems to me, and I am not an expert by any means, but locally fracking would be possible in Lancashire at least but for the politics?
It might just be spin, but from what I've heard it would be economical and the measurements of the earth tremors that put a halt to the project would be comparable to a truck driving past a house nearby. Is that not true?
The politics of NIMBYism seems to be the thing that has put a real block to it, my personal preference would be to say "f**k the NIMBYs" but that's always my attitude, including in my own backdoor. However its not going to happen, so offshore hydrocarbon development probably remains the best alternative for the transition would be my best uneducated guess.
You Tory halfwits will not be happy till you have F***ed the water table for a few litres of gas. Typical short sighted greedy lying cheating Tories.
I know that being insulted by you is to be highly prized but you go too far when accusing me of being a Tory!
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
If you are an apologist or admirer of Farage, you are an apologist or admirer of Putin, and you should hang your head in shame.
It is possible to admire people in some respects while disagreeing with them in others.
Yes. Saw the Louis Theroux programme of him with the new american hard right. The young kid running AFPAC is impressive in his oratory and media skills even if what he is saying is repulsive.
Pinch of salt, obviously, but the Americans have suggested that the numbers are not far off.
Only 4 drones seems exceptionally low, unless Russia aren't using much in the way of drones in order to lose them?
Which given that much of their equipment seems to be Soviet era hand-me-downs that seems entirely possible?
Interesting. Maybe drones are too much of a 21st century invention for the Russian military to have taken an interest in, as you say.
There's a darkly amusing twist of fate that while Putin seems to have launched this war because he regrets the fall of the Soviet Union . . . that while the Soviet Union fell 89-91 what we're witnessing today is possibly the final destruction of the Soviet military.
Putin's kleptocracy seems to have meant that the hardware that the Soviets recognised as being unable to keep pace with Reagan's Star Wars ambitions in the eighties is all that Russia still has today, and now its being smashed to pieces.
As others have said, if Russia don't have the facilities to create new replacement hardware (and the fact they're not even using new hardware indicates heavily that they don't) then they're going to be royally screwed soon.
Even if the Russians are taking more casualties and losses than the Ukrainians, the Russian military is four times the size of the Ukranian military so they will still likely take Kyiv in the end.
The longer term question is whether the Russian people will then have the stomach for maintaining the occupation with the guerrilla war from the Ukrainian resistance that follows
Its going to be very difficult for Russia to take Kyiv, indeed it already has been so far. Russia does not have unlimited resources, which is why it is logical that they may be trying to bring in experienced street fighters from Syria. Meanwhile the Ukrainian forces are getting new and better resources. The Iraqi republican guard was huge and it fell to much smaller forces. High morale, better kit, better intelligence, the Ukrainian army is holding its own, and the Russian forces are struggling to regroup. The battle is much more evenly matched than you think.
"Ian Blackford said the party must be “respectful of the responsibilities” it has following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, adding he remains committed to delivering on the independence mandate."
Poland has taken in over 900,000 Ukrainian refugees. The Home Office has issued 50 visas. It’s almost impossible to believe, until you remember Priti Patel is Home Secretary and Boris Johnson is Prime Minister. https://twitter.com/MatthewStadlen/status/1500727972763996176
A government being outshone on moral leadership by the Polish one is some achievement.
Says a Scottish Nationalist, who's ex-leader is an absolute paragon of moral fortitude and also a lickspittle RT presenter for Putin's RT.
Talking to a friend yesterday who has a Mittelstand business with subsidiaries in Russia and Ukraine. He just managed to get his Ukraine employees' families out of Ukraine (others wanted to stay and fight), he now has two families in his spare rooms. He said one of the children started crying when she heard the garbage truck because she thought it might be a tank. Of course he's writing off losses, and doesn't know if he can pay his Russian employees because of sanctions. He had thought he was doing the right thing investing in Russia, he didn't think he was supporting Putin - he believed the engagement would undermine Putin.
He is quite pessimistic about the possibility of the war expanding - he thinks it is quite likely. And doesn't trust the US to a) care if a big war happens in Europe or b) actually really fight if one happens. These views are quite common. Accelerating German rearmament (not a phrase with happy connotations!) I think is very likely from now on.
He asked me when Britain would freeze all the Russian money in London (as if I would know!), because "that would help".
Well your friend is not entirely wrong about why he invested in Russia. Sanctions would be massively less effective if the Russian economy were not heavily integrated into the western economy - and it's certain that they would in that case have much closer economic ties with China. For oil production, manufacturing and finance, the reliance on the west is very great.
A much closer alliance with China seems quite likely in the future - how else will the Russian economy rebuild after this ? But it will take some years.
iirc it was a general view across a lot of EU that engagement with RU, trade and cultural exchange and travel and so on would help 'soften' the Russians towards a more open, democratic mindset in long run.
Which worked as well as with China. Perhaps there is a lesson in diversification there.
What if we shifted 1/3rd of of buying cheap crap to South America, 1/3rd to India and 1/3rd to Africa? That would put the shits up the Xi 1000% more than 10 new aircraft carriers.
It would also do for South America, India and Africa what the money previously did for China - give them the ability to pull themselves up to the next level in development.
We might usefully give greater priority to manufacturing in the UK. In that respect we matter considerably less than (for example) either South Korea or Taiwan.
Steady on, suggesting on shore manufacturing might cause people to explode - very gammon idea.
Not at all gammon - just common sense. And the archetypal gammony project set back some manufacturing sectors by years.
We're currently having an extension built, single storey, approx 22.5 sqm internal area. One wall mostly glass, aprox 4m wide (bifolds), two side walls and then open to kitchen in old part of house. We have to shortly choose between electric or hydronic underfloor heating. Difference in installation cost looks to be ~£2000 (electric cheaper) but the hydronic looks to have much cheaper running costs. The only direct comparisons I've found are on websites of companies selling hydronic systems, so clearly potential bias, but they put the difference in running costs for that kind of area at ~£400/year favouring hydronic, at 2019 prices. Now, at 2019 prices, our entire energy bill was under £900/year so I find that hard to believe, but still. Hydronic would, for now, be served from the CH boiler (2019 install, condensing combi) but could potentially come off an air source heat pump at a later point.
Any thoughts? On running costs or other pros/cons? We have electric underfloor heating (under tiles) in an upstairs bathroom and tha works well, but you can tell exactly where the mat is and is not, not an issue as where it is not is areas not normally trodden on, but those areas remain cold to touch.
Where are you building? IIRC it is somewhere in continental N Europe?
I'd say go over to Buildhub and ask there. Mainly UK community owned self-build forum, with lots of NI and Scotland as SB is easier there than England, but a fair no of internationals or people who have lived abroad. *
Whatever you do I would say one priority is to insulate the hell out of it, so you control your costs by minimizing fuel use. And you only pay for insulation once, whilst you pay for the extra electricity you haven't saved every single year. Think of near-passive standards, eg floor u-value of something like 0.11-0.12 - depending a little on the quality of the rest of the house, and whether that can be more cost-effective for investment.
Have you build a heat model to explore the balances?
I'd also somewhat question the use of bifolds as the seals weaken fairly quickly with use. IME lift-and-slide doors perform better.
Your potential heating suppliers should be able to give you some previous customers to go and talk to. Or post in your neighbourhood facebook group etc.
Yep, Yorkshire. Existing house is 1925 semi with solid walls and this room open on to part of that (but that room will have vitually no outside walls left and what remains is gaining external insulation as part of the build).
I'll ask on buildhub. We have someone doing calcs at present, but a hydronic specialist, so some potential for bias (not intentional, I don't think, but may have a bias towards the systems he installs). Thanks for the comment on bifolds too, will look into that.
Also forgot to mention we have a 9kW solar array, but no storage at present - some potential to offset electricity use as we have spare capacity normally in the day, but heating of course needed largely when dark and in winter...
French official on EU defence: "We are missing the strategic discussions with the UK. We can't do it with Germany. It's our biggest crisis ever and we really miss the UK angle."
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
If you are an apologist or admirer of Farage, you are an apologist or admirer of Putin, and you should hang your head in shame.
Good God! I said the opportunist Farage had sniffed out a potentially popular cause due to our unrealistic energy policies. Where did I support him? My Remainer centrist politics are nowhere near Farrage. I'm a bit pissed off by your response TBH.
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
Sorry - but anyone who thinks fracking within the UK solves anything just confirms how absolutely clueless they are.
It doesn't work for multiple reasons which can be confirmed by other posters on here who understand both the geology, technology and the marketplace.
Oh and Farage is an idiot, the best approach now is to do the exact opposite of Putin's stooge and reduce the demand for gas.
It seems to me, and I am not an expert by any means, but locally fracking would be possible in Lancashire at least but for the politics?
It might just be spin, but from what I've heard it would be economical and the measurements of the earth tremors that put a halt to the project would be comparable to a truck driving past a house nearby. Is that not true?
The politics of NIMBYism seems to be the thing that has put a real block to it, my personal preference would be to say "f**k the NIMBYs" but that's always my attitude, including in my own backdoor. However its not going to happen, so offshore hydrocarbon development probably remains the best alternative for the transition would be my best uneducated guess.
You Tory halfwits will not be happy till you have F***ed the water table for a few litres of gas. Typical short sighted greedy lying cheating Tories.
Take a chill pill Malc.
F*** off, who are you to try and tell me what to post. Fracking is a disaster for the water table and only ignorant greedy crooked liars would want to do it for all the measly benefit it would provide.
French official on EU defence: "We are missing the strategic discussions with the UK. We can't do it with Germany. It's our biggest crisis ever and we really miss the UK angle."
The UK keeps asking for co-ordination meetings to give the impression they are leading, but they are not. We are missing the strategic discussions with the UK. We can't do it with Germany. It's our biggest crisis ever and we really miss the UK angle .
I've always assumed that NATO aircraft would easily outclass Russian ones. So, in the event of a no-fly zone, it would be a bit of a Marianas turkey-shoot.
However former RAF bod I spoke to is of the opinion that the Russian planes would be competitive.
Any views? There's usually a PB expert to put us right on matters like this.
Not an expert, but it's not just the planes: it's the training. Pilots need regular flying hours.
"The NATO minimum is 180 hours (15 per month). RAF flying hours for jet pilots is between 180 and 240 per year (18.5 per month on average). Of these hours, 150 hours (12–14 hours per month; 12.5 on average) are felt to be a safety-of-flight minimum (instruments, takeoffs, landings)."
In comparison, Russian pilots get between 60 and 100 hours a year. Ukrainian pilots get less.
Surely that lack of training must affect combat effectiveness?
There's also the types of combat they are trained for: just air-to-air, ground-pounding or combined ops?
(I daresay Dura_Ace is spitting his coffee out of his nose at this post...)
I’m always amazed by how few hours the mil pilots seem to get. They must really like drinking tea!
In commercial aviation, the upper limits are 100 hours a month and 900 hours a year. Most airlines work their expensive resources close to the max.
In terms of aircraft, the MiG-35 is supposed to be a fair match against a Typhoon, but Wiki reckons they only have eight of them in service..
"Ian Blackford said the party must be “respectful of the responsibilities” it has following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, adding he remains committed to delivering on the independence mandate."
The SNP has zero intention of holding a referendum, for as long as its led by people like Sturgeon there is never going to be one. She's much happier being Queen of Holyrood than actually having to fight (and possibly lose) a Referendum.
The status quo suits the current SNP leadership too much to want to actually rock the boat, better to always have the next referendum only just over the horizon.
I've got more faith in George R R Martin writing books swiftly, than I do the SNP swiftly arranging a referendum.
"Ian Blackford said the party must be “respectful of the responsibilities” it has following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, adding he remains committed to delivering on the independence mandate."
They must have been sweating that covid panic was dying on its feet, been desperate to find another fake excuse.
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
Sorry - but anyone who thinks fracking within the UK solves anything just confirms how absolutely clueless they are.
It doesn't work for multiple reasons which can be confirmed by other posters on here who understand both the geology, technology and the marketplace.
Oh and Farage is an idiot, the best approach now is to do the exact opposite of Putin's stooge and reduce the demand for gas.
I'm pro-Net Zero, but unless there's a solid technological reason not to I don't see why we shouldn't frack. In the short term we reduce our reliance on Russia, and the CO2 impact is about the same. In the long term gas provides flexible generation to make up fluctuations in supply from renewables.
The best argument against starting to frack is that a lobby might emerge around it and resist attempts to grow renewables and nuclear. But that seems a far more manageable risk than relying on Russia.
I will wait for the expert on such things - as we have a poster who knows this stuff on the site - but take it from me Fracking makes no sense in the UK for Geological and other reasons (another of which is that the quantities available aren't that significant).
Why not let the companies do the exploratory drilling then - it is at their own expense.
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
Sorry - but anyone who thinks fracking within the UK solves anything just confirms how absolutely clueless they are.
It doesn't work for multiple reasons which can be confirmed by other posters on here who understand both the geology, technology and the marketplace.
Oh and Farage is an idiot, the best approach now is to do the exact opposite of Putin's stooge and reduce the demand for gas.
It seems to me, and I am not an expert by any means, but locally fracking would be possible in Lancashire at least but for the politics?
It might just be spin, but from what I've heard it would be economical and the measurements of the earth tremors that put a halt to the project would be comparable to a truck driving past a house nearby. Is that not true?
The politics of NIMBYism seems to be the thing that has put a real block to it, my personal preference would be to say "f**k the NIMBYs" but that's always my attitude, including in my own backdoor. However its not going to happen, so offshore hydrocarbon development probably remains the best alternative for the transition would be my best uneducated guess.
2 seconds search on twitter gives me this thread from yesterday - please go and read it and come tell me you still think fracking is a good idea
Yes he gets too political at the end but the logic is the potential supply isn't significant enough to impact our external demand and the risk is too higher
Talking to a friend yesterday who has a Mittelstand business with subsidiaries in Russia and Ukraine. He just managed to get his Ukraine employees' families out of Ukraine (others wanted to stay and fight), he now has two families in his spare rooms. He said one of the children started crying when she heard the garbage truck because she thought it might be a tank. Of course he's writing off losses, and doesn't know if he can pay his Russian employees because of sanctions. He had thought he was doing the right thing investing in Russia, he didn't think he was supporting Putin - he believed the engagement would undermine Putin.
He is quite pessimistic about the possibility of the war expanding - he thinks it is quite likely. And doesn't trust the US to a) care if a big war happens in Europe or b) actually really fight if one happens. These views are quite common. Accelerating German rearmament (not a phrase with happy connotations!) I think is very likely from now on.
He asked me when Britain would freeze all the Russian money in London (as if I would know!), because "that would help".
Well your friend is not entirely wrong about why he invested in Russia. Sanctions would be massively less effective if the Russian economy were not heavily integrated into the western economy - and it's certain that they would in that case have much closer economic ties with China. For oil production, manufacturing and finance, the reliance on the west is very great.
A much closer alliance with China seems quite likely in the future - how else will the Russian economy rebuild after this ? But it will take some years.
iirc it was a general view across a lot of EU that engagement with RU, trade and cultural exchange and travel and so on would help 'soften' the Russians towards a more open, democratic mindset in long run.
Which worked as well as with China. Perhaps there is a lesson in diversification there.
What if we shifted 1/3rd of of buying cheap crap to South America, 1/3rd to India and 1/3rd to Africa? That would put the shits up the Xi 1000% more than 10 new aircraft carriers.
It would also do for South America, India and Africa what the money previously did for China - give them the ability to pull themselves up to the next level in development.
We might usefully give greater priority to manufacturing in the UK. In that respect we matter considerably less than (for example) either South Korea or Taiwan.
Steady on, suggesting on shore manufacturing might cause people to explode - very gammon idea.
Not at all gammon - just common sense. And the archetypal gammony project set back some manufacturing sectors by years.
You should see the reaction you get when suggesting onshore - at least until recently.
I went to an internal bank presentation on the space sector, a little while ago.
This was mined at institutional investors - I got invited because I was working in the bank, on contract, and had an interest in the area.
The idiot who was giving it didn't even understand the ITAR issues. But he was adamant that all manufacturing of everything should be done in China. And was advocating launch in Russia as the best option... LOL
Which argued as especial pig headedness and complete lack of knowledge of the modern space industry, but hey....
EDIT: I had a chat with him afterwards. He became very red faced at the idea of onshore manufacturing, practically spitting at the idea.
French official on EU defence: "We are missing the strategic discussions with the UK. We can't do it with Germany. It's our biggest crisis ever and we really miss the UK angle."
Did Putin determine the EU's all-or-nothing approach to the negotiations? If France had approached it differently, then we would all be in a different place now.
I've always assumed that NATO aircraft would easily outclass Russian ones. So, in the event of a no-fly zone, it would be a bit of a Marianas turkey-shoot.
However former RAF bod I spoke to is of the opinion that the Russian planes would be competitive.
Any views? There's usually a PB expert to put us right on matters like this.
Not an expert, but it's not just the planes: it's the training. Pilots need regular flying hours.
"The NATO minimum is 180 hours (15 per month). RAF flying hours for jet pilots is between 180 and 240 per year (18.5 per month on average). Of these hours, 150 hours (12–14 hours per month; 12.5 on average) are felt to be a safety-of-flight minimum (instruments, takeoffs, landings)."
In comparison, Russian pilots get between 60 and 100 hours a year. Ukrainian pilots get less.
Surely that lack of training must affect combat effectiveness?
There's also the types of combat they are trained for: just air-to-air, ground-pounding or combined ops?
(I daresay Dura_Ace is spitting his coffee out of his nose at this post...)
It'd be interesting to know whether there is any impact from the relative complexity/user friendliness of the systems.
(And offering @Dura_Ace a free coffee-based sinus enema sounds like the kind of service PB has been missing out on.)
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
If you are an apologist or admirer of Farage, you are an apologist or admirer of Putin, and you should hang your head in shame.
It is possible to admire people in some respects while disagreeing with them in others.
Really? Hitler was fond of dogs and was pretty good at oratory, but I don't think I would ever say I in any way admire him. Not saying Farage is in the same league as Hitler, but Putin is getting pretty close and Farage, like Corbyn and Salmond, is an apologist. All these three are scum of the earth so far as I am concerned. Nobody should admire anything about any of them until they show genuine contrition.
I've always assumed that NATO aircraft would easily outclass Russian ones. So, in the event of a no-fly zone, it would be a bit of a Marianas turkey-shoot.
However former RAF bod I spoke to is of the opinion that the Russian planes would be competitive.
Any views? There's usually a PB expert to put us right on matters like this.
Not an expert, but it's not just the planes: it's the training. Pilots need regular flying hours.
"The NATO minimum is 180 hours (15 per month). RAF flying hours for jet pilots is between 180 and 240 per year (18.5 per month on average). Of these hours, 150 hours (12–14 hours per month; 12.5 on average) are felt to be a safety-of-flight minimum (instruments, takeoffs, landings)."
In comparison, Russian pilots get between 60 and 100 hours a year. Ukrainian pilots get less.
Surely that lack of training must affect combat effectiveness?
There's also the types of combat they are trained for: just air-to-air, ground-pounding or combined ops?
(I daresay Dura_Ace is spitting his coffee out of his nose at this post...)
It's about right but NATO pilots get a hell of a lot of very high quality simulator time on top. There is no such thing as a very high quality Russian simulator.
Some air forces (Italy and Poland are the two that do it off the top of my head) network the sim sessions into real flying sorties which makes the sim experience even more valuable.
At the start of the invasion, there were reports of two Russian transport planes being downed. I'm not aware of any images of the crash sites being posted, but the CIA has confirmed that at least one of them was downed.
The Curl shootdown is confirmed here and is counted in the ten fixed wing losses.
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
Sorry - but anyone who thinks fracking within the UK solves anything just confirms how absolutely clueless they are.
It doesn't work for multiple reasons which can be confirmed by other posters on here who understand both the geology, technology and the marketplace.
Oh and Farage is an idiot, the best approach now is to do the exact opposite of Putin's stooge and reduce the demand for gas.
It seems to me, and I am not an expert by any means, but locally fracking would be possible in Lancashire at least but for the politics?
It might just be spin, but from what I've heard it would be economical and the measurements of the earth tremors that put a halt to the project would be comparable to a truck driving past a house nearby. Is that not true?
The politics of NIMBYism seems to be the thing that has put a real block to it, my personal preference would be to say "f**k the NIMBYs" but that's always my attitude, including in my own backdoor. However its not going to happen, so offshore hydrocarbon development probably remains the best alternative for the transition would be my best uneducated guess.
You Tory halfwits will not be happy till you have F***ed the water table for a few litres of gas. Typical short sighted greedy lying cheating Tories.
I know that being insulted by you is to be highly prized but you go too far when accusing me of being a Tory!
The ultimate insult, but it was directed at the man with as many names as Grant Schapps, Bart Simpson or whatever alias he is using to pretend to not be a CCHQ plant. Apologies if it could be construed to have been aimed at your goodself.
"Ian Blackford said the party must be “respectful of the responsibilities” it has following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, adding he remains committed to delivering on the independence mandate."
They must have been sweating that covid panic was dying on its feet, been desperate to find another fake excuse.
One thing we can agree on, Malc.
Blackford and co. having far too much fun and frolics at the taxpayers' expense down in Westminster. Why put it all at risk?
"Ian Blackford said the party must be “respectful of the responsibilities” it has following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, adding he remains committed to delivering on the independence mandate."
Yoons be like:
Indy ref II is over, I don't know why anyone even bothers discussing it. I shall now provide 243 posts to prove my point.
Talking to a friend yesterday who has a Mittelstand business with subsidiaries in Russia and Ukraine. He just managed to get his Ukraine employees' families out of Ukraine (others wanted to stay and fight), he now has two families in his spare rooms. He said one of the children started crying when she heard the garbage truck because she thought it might be a tank. Of course he's writing off losses, and doesn't know if he can pay his Russian employees because of sanctions. He had thought he was doing the right thing investing in Russia, he didn't think he was supporting Putin - he believed the engagement would undermine Putin.
He is quite pessimistic about the possibility of the war expanding - he thinks it is quite likely. And doesn't trust the US to a) care if a big war happens in Europe or b) actually really fight if one happens. These views are quite common. Accelerating German rearmament (not a phrase with happy connotations!) I think is very likely from now on.
He asked me when Britain would freeze all the Russian money in London (as if I would know!), because "that would help".
Well your friend is not entirely wrong about why he invested in Russia. Sanctions would be massively less effective if the Russian economy were not heavily integrated into the western economy - and it's certain that they would in that case have much closer economic ties with China. For oil production, manufacturing and finance, the reliance on the west is very great.
A much closer alliance with China seems quite likely in the future - how else will the Russian economy rebuild after this ? But it will take some years.
iirc it was a general view across a lot of EU that engagement with RU, trade and cultural exchange and travel and so on would help 'soften' the Russians towards a more open, democratic mindset in long run.
Which worked as well as with China. Perhaps there is a lesson in diversification there.
What if we shifted 1/3rd of of buying cheap crap to South America, 1/3rd to India and 1/3rd to Africa? That would put the shits up the Xi 1000% more than 10 new aircraft carriers.
It would also do for South America, India and Africa what the money previously did for China - give them the ability to pull themselves up to the next level in development.
We might usefully give greater priority to manufacturing in the UK. In that respect we matter considerably less than (for example) either South Korea or Taiwan.
Steady on, suggesting on shore manufacturing might cause people to explode - very gammon idea.
Not at all gammon - just common sense. And the archetypal gammony project set back some manufacturing sectors by years.
The old manufacturing canard believed by so many on the left. The UK is 8th in the world in manufacturing, which considering our population is pretty impressive. The fact that we don't do much bashing of sheet metal these days doesn't mean we don't manufacture
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
Sorry - but anyone who thinks fracking within the UK solves anything just confirms how absolutely clueless they are.
It doesn't work for multiple reasons which can be confirmed by other posters on here who understand both the geology, technology and the marketplace.
Oh and Farage is an idiot, the best approach now is to do the exact opposite of Putin's stooge and reduce the demand for gas.
It seems to me, and I am not an expert by any means, but locally fracking would be possible in Lancashire at least but for the politics?
It might just be spin, but from what I've heard it would be economical and the measurements of the earth tremors that put a halt to the project would be comparable to a truck driving past a house nearby. Is that not true?
The politics of NIMBYism seems to be the thing that has put a real block to it, my personal preference would be to say "f**k the NIMBYs" but that's always my attitude, including in my own backdoor. However its not going to happen, so offshore hydrocarbon development probably remains the best alternative for the transition would be my best uneducated guess.
You Tory halfwits will not be happy till you have F***ed the water table for a few litres of gas. Typical short sighted greedy lying cheating Tories.
I know that being insulted by you is to be highly prized but you go too far when accusing me of being a Tory!
The ultimate insult, but it was directed at the man with as many names as Grant Schapps, Bart Simpson or whatever alias he is using to pretend to not be a CCHQ plant. Apologies if it could be construed to have been aimed at your goodself.
Thank you, that is much appreciated. We just have different view on the risks and rewards of fracking ...
French official on EU defence: "We are missing the strategic discussions with the UK. We can't do it with Germany. It's our biggest crisis ever and we really miss the UK angle."
The UK keeps asking for co-ordination meetings to give the impression they are leading, but they are not. We are missing the strategic discussions with the UK. We can't do it with Germany. It's our biggest crisis ever and we really miss the UK angle .
If France is missing the strategic discussions with the UK, why not hold the co-ordination meetings?
"Ian Blackford said the party must be “respectful of the responsibilities” it has following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, adding he remains committed to delivering on the independence mandate."
They must have been sweating that covid panic was dying on its feet, been desperate to find another fake excuse.
Regardless of whether the SNP win or lose a referendum - once it occurs the SNP in it's current form will be dead.
And that is a risk the SNP can't take so as you well know they will continue to aim for a referendum tomorrow (always tomorrow) because it's always a day away.
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
Sorry - but anyone who thinks fracking within the UK solves anything just confirms how absolutely clueless they are.
It doesn't work for multiple reasons which can be confirmed by other posters on here who understand both the geology, technology and the marketplace.
Oh and Farage is an idiot, the best approach now is to do the exact opposite of Putin's stooge and reduce the demand for gas.
It seems to me, and I am not an expert by any means, but locally fracking would be possible in Lancashire at least but for the politics?
It might just be spin, but from what I've heard it would be economical and the measurements of the earth tremors that put a halt to the project would be comparable to a truck driving past a house nearby. Is that not true?
The politics of NIMBYism seems to be the thing that has put a real block to it, my personal preference would be to say "f**k the NIMBYs" but that's always my attitude, including in my own backdoor. However its not going to happen, so offshore hydrocarbon development probably remains the best alternative for the transition would be my best uneducated guess.
2 seconds search on twitter gives me this thread from yesterday - please go and read it and come tell me you still think fracking is a good idea
OK read it and don't see a single thing in that thread relevant to what I wrote.
The first half of the thread makes the common mistake, typically but not exclusively made by those against renewables, of letting the fact that its not a perfect and complete solution be a reason not to do anything at all.
No individual energy solution is going to satisfy 100% of our consumption, so therefore reject every solution as being not good enough. Its a total farce and fallacy, don't let the idealised perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
The questions I would like to know the answer for fracking are: Is it viable, is it safe, is it affordable? Not a single one of those was answered in that thread at all.
We need to switch to renewables, but in the interim we need hydrocarbons, if these hydrocarbons are viable, safe and affordable we should extract them. If they're not, we should not. The fact that its not 100% of domestic demand is utterly irrelevant.
French official on EU defence: "We are missing the strategic discussions with the UK. We can't do it with Germany. It's our biggest crisis ever and we really miss the UK angle."
Did Putin determine the EU's all-or-nothing approach to the negotiations? If France had approached it differently, then we would all be in a different place now.
Of all the excuses for the Brexit clusterfuck, "the French made us do it" has to be one of the lamest.
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
If you are an apologist or admirer of Farage, you are an apologist or admirer of Putin, and you should hang your head in shame.
Good God! I said the opportunist Farage had sniffed out a potentially popular cause due to our unrealistic energy policies. Where did I support him? My Remainer centrist politics are nowhere near Farrage. I'm a bit pissed off by your response TBH.
Apologies for my misreading of your post. It looked as though it was in admiration.
French official on EU defence: "We are missing the strategic discussions with the UK. We can't do it with Germany. It's our biggest crisis ever and we really miss the UK angle."
Exactly . Not sure why some Leavers refuse to accept that Putin wanted Brexit and was hoping it would lead to a domino effect so whether they like it or not those are the facts .
Perhaps the realization that their vote could have helped Putin is a bit too much for them to bear at this time !
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
Sorry - but anyone who thinks fracking within the UK solves anything just confirms how absolutely clueless they are.
It doesn't work for multiple reasons which can be confirmed by other posters on here who understand both the geology, technology and the marketplace.
Oh and Farage is an idiot, the best approach now is to do the exact opposite of Putin's stooge and reduce the demand for gas.
It seems to me, and I am not an expert by any means, but locally fracking would be possible in Lancashire at least but for the politics?
It might just be spin, but from what I've heard it would be economical and the measurements of the earth tremors that put a halt to the project would be comparable to a truck driving past a house nearby. Is that not true?
The politics of NIMBYism seems to be the thing that has put a real block to it, my personal preference would be to say "f**k the NIMBYs" but that's always my attitude, including in my own backdoor. However its not going to happen, so offshore hydrocarbon development probably remains the best alternative for the transition would be my best uneducated guess.
2 seconds search on twitter gives me this thread from yesterday - please go and read it and come tell me you still think fracking is a good idea
OK read it and don't see a single thing in that thread relevant to what I wrote.
The first half of the thread makes the common mistake, typically but not exclusively made by those against renewables, of letting the fact that its not a perfect and complete solution be a reason not to do anything at all.
No individual energy solution is going to satisfy 100% of our consumption, so therefore reject every solution as being not good enough. Its a total farce and fallacy, don't let the idealised perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
The questions I would like to know the answer for fracking are: Is it viable, is it safe, is it affordable? Not a single one of those was answered in that thread at all.
We need to switch to renewables, but in the interim we need hydrocarbons, if these hydrocarbons are viable, safe and affordable we should extract them. If they're not, we should not. The fact that its not 100% of domestic demand is utterly irrelevant.
Is it safe? Well we know that Fracking resulted in eathquakes in Lancashire so you can't be sure it's safe.
Now I know the worst case scenario is Blackpool being separated from the rest of Lancashire but we also have to remember that that is the best case scenario as well
Pinch of salt, obviously, but the Americans have suggested that the numbers are not far off.
The amount of Russian equipment which was reported captured was interesting to me - if someone could post it again.
Armies which are winning do not have their equipment captured.
Well this is all very impressive - but what is it as a percentage of Russia's overall military resources? Have they lost 5%? 10%? And what is their ability to re-arm? I would imagine pretty sub-optimal, but I may be wrong.
I've always assumed that NATO aircraft would easily outclass Russian ones. So, in the event of a no-fly zone, it would be a bit of a Marianas turkey-shoot.
However former RAF bod I spoke to is of the opinion that the Russian planes would be competitive.
Any views? There's usually a PB expert to put us right on matters like this.
Not an expert, but it's not just the planes: it's the training. Pilots need regular flying hours.
"The NATO minimum is 180 hours (15 per month). RAF flying hours for jet pilots is between 180 and 240 per year (18.5 per month on average). Of these hours, 150 hours (12–14 hours per month; 12.5 on average) are felt to be a safety-of-flight minimum (instruments, takeoffs, landings)."
In comparison, Russian pilots get between 60 and 100 hours a year. Ukrainian pilots get less.
Surely that lack of training must affect combat effectiveness?
There's also the types of combat they are trained for: just air-to-air, ground-pounding or combined ops?
(I daresay Dura_Ace is spitting his coffee out of his nose at this post...)
I’m always amazed by how few hours the mil pilots seem to get. They must really like drinking tea!
In commercial aviation, the upper limits are 100 hours a month and 900 hours a year. Most airlines work their expensive resources close to the max.
In terms of aircraft, the MiG-35 is supposed to be a fair match against a Typhoon, but Wiki reckons they only have eight of them in service..
Interesting this (from Wiki):
"The MiG-35 was a contender with the Eurofighter Typhoon, Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, Saab JAS 39 Gripen, and General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon in the Indian MRCA competition for 126 multirole combat aircraft to be procured by the Indian Air Force."
Impressive that Sweden can develop a fighter that is competitive with those produced by the big boys. And it's not as though they seem to sell many to foreign customers either. Wonder how it works?
French official on EU defence: "We are missing the strategic discussions with the UK. We can't do it with Germany. It's our biggest crisis ever and we really miss the UK angle."
Exactly . Not sure why some Leavers refuse to accept that Putin wanted Brexit and was hoping it would lead to a domino effect so whether they like it or not those are the facts .
Perhaps the realization that their vote could have helped Putin is a bit too much for them to bear at this time !
Because its Remainer BS.
Putin is against NATO. The EU if anything was increasingly a threat to NATO, hence why people like Macron were calling NATO 'braindead'.
The biggest strategic mistake that Putin has made is reuniting and reinvigorating NATO, not reinvigorating the EU.
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
Sorry - but anyone who thinks fracking within the UK solves anything just confirms how absolutely clueless they are.
It doesn't work for multiple reasons which can be confirmed by other posters on here who understand both the geology, technology and the marketplace.
Oh and Farage is an idiot, the best approach now is to do the exact opposite of Putin's stooge and reduce the demand for gas.
It seems to me, and I am not an expert by any means, but locally fracking would be possible in Lancashire at least but for the politics?
It might just be spin, but from what I've heard it would be economical and the measurements of the earth tremors that put a halt to the project would be comparable to a truck driving past a house nearby. Is that not true?
The politics of NIMBYism seems to be the thing that has put a real block to it, my personal preference would be to say "f**k the NIMBYs" but that's always my attitude, including in my own backdoor. However its not going to happen, so offshore hydrocarbon development probably remains the best alternative for the transition would be my best uneducated guess.
You Tory halfwits will not be happy till you have F***ed the water table for a few litres of gas. Typical short sighted greedy lying cheating Tories.
Take a chill pill Malc.
F*** off, who are you to try and tell me what to post. Fracking is a disaster for the water table and only ignorant greedy crooked liars would want to do it for all the measly benefit it would provide.
Articulate as ever from PB's preeminent intellect and obnoxious tosser.
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
Sorry - but anyone who thinks fracking within the UK solves anything just confirms how absolutely clueless they are.
It doesn't work for multiple reasons which can be confirmed by other posters on here who understand both the geology, technology and the marketplace.
Oh and Farage is an idiot, the best approach now is to do the exact opposite of Putin's stooge and reduce the demand for gas.
It seems to me, and I am not an expert by any means, but locally fracking would be possible in Lancashire at least but for the politics?
It might just be spin, but from what I've heard it would be economical and the measurements of the earth tremors that put a halt to the project would be comparable to a truck driving past a house nearby. Is that not true?
The politics of NIMBYism seems to be the thing that has put a real block to it, my personal preference would be to say "f**k the NIMBYs" but that's always my attitude, including in my own backdoor. However its not going to happen, so offshore hydrocarbon development probably remains the best alternative for the transition would be my best uneducated guess.
2 seconds search on twitter gives me this thread from yesterday - please go and read it and come tell me you still think fracking is a good idea
OK read it and don't see a single thing in that thread relevant to what I wrote.
The first half of the thread makes the common mistake, typically but not exclusively made by those against renewables, of letting the fact that its not a perfect and complete solution be a reason not to do anything at all.
No individual energy solution is going to satisfy 100% of our consumption, so therefore reject every solution as being not good enough. Its a total farce and fallacy, don't let the idealised perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
The questions I would like to know the answer for fracking are: Is it viable, is it safe, is it affordable? Not a single one of those was answered in that thread at all.
We need to switch to renewables, but in the interim we need hydrocarbons, if these hydrocarbons are viable, safe and affordable we should extract them. If they're not, we should not. The fact that its not 100% of domestic demand is utterly irrelevant.
Is it safe? Well we know that Fracking resulted in eathquakes in Lancashire so you can't be sure it's safe.
Now I know the worst case scenario is Blackpool being separated from the rest of Lancashire but we also have to remember that that is the best case scenario as well
I've always assumed that NATO aircraft would easily outclass Russian ones. So, in the event of a no-fly zone, it would be a bit of a Marianas turkey-shoot.
However former RAF bod I spoke to is of the opinion that the Russian planes would be competitive.
Any views? There's usually a PB expert to put us right on matters like this.
Not an expert, but it's not just the planes: it's the training. Pilots need regular flying hours.
"The NATO minimum is 180 hours (15 per month). RAF flying hours for jet pilots is between 180 and 240 per year (18.5 per month on average). Of these hours, 150 hours (12–14 hours per month; 12.5 on average) are felt to be a safety-of-flight minimum (instruments, takeoffs, landings)."
In comparison, Russian pilots get between 60 and 100 hours a year. Ukrainian pilots get less.
Surely that lack of training must affect combat effectiveness?
There's also the types of combat they are trained for: just air-to-air, ground-pounding or combined ops?
(I daresay Dura_Ace is spitting his coffee out of his nose at this post...)
Spitting out his vegan no-chicken Chicken Kyiv, you mean
Forgive me but I struggle to see where the Cons or the PM have made a recovery, the general by election trends both local and national indicate very much the opposite. Labours national vote is being held because of the Lib Dem and Green support in areas where those parties are seen as the challengers, otherwise they are on track to be the next government either majority or minority led, even without Scotland.
French official on EU defence: "We are missing the strategic discussions with the UK. We can't do it with Germany. It's our biggest crisis ever and we really miss the UK angle."
Did Putin determine the EU's all-or-nothing approach to the negotiations? If France had approached it differently, then we would all be in a different place now.
Of all the excuses for the Brexit clusterfuck, "the French made us do it" has to be one of the lamest.
There will be a lamer one along any minute/hour/day. Any scapegoat in a storm.
French official on EU defence: "We are missing the strategic discussions with the UK. We can't do it with Germany. It's our biggest crisis ever and we really miss the UK angle."
The UK keeps asking for co-ordination meetings to give the impression they are leading, but they are not. We are missing the strategic discussions with the UK. We can't do it with Germany. It's our biggest crisis ever and we really miss the UK angle .
The UK wants to run its multilateral dealings through NATO, but that organisation's firm decision is not to get involved in Ukraine. The EU is involved and could be more involved again, but the the UK doesn't want to deal with that organisation. So the UK's only dealings are bilateral and not very strategic.
The nature of our society is that many people don't care about things that don't directly affect them. They don't really care about the news unless it is sport or entertainment. Ukraine still won't have resonated much. Nor has the arguments about forthcoming tax rises.
What slams them now is the exploding price of road and heating fuels, gas, food and soon everything. And then there is supposedly a whopping tax rise to fund the NHS getting worse before it gets better.
Piers Morgan is one of many "i'm dead influential me" commentators demanding airstrikes and no fly zones. I don't think most normals want that - they don't want Russian airstrikes on Dudley as retaliation, and they don't want the war to completely bugger their ability to drive their car, heat their house etc.
So in answer to the question as to what the Nigel thinks he will do next and his reaction against "Net Zero 2050" I think there is a sizeable audience. Anti-war, anti-price rises, anti-woke crap (which includes green crap).
Farage can sniff out opportunities. Even before the current war Net Zero was an unachievable, astonishingly expensive vainglorious nonsense. A form of net zero or at least big reductions in emissions can be implemented, still at great cost, but it would require a lot of nuclear power generation and pragmatism over fracking and exploitation of our fossil fuel resources in the transition.
Sorry - but anyone who thinks fracking within the UK solves anything just confirms how absolutely clueless they are.
It doesn't work for multiple reasons which can be confirmed by other posters on here who understand both the geology, technology and the marketplace.
Oh and Farage is an idiot, the best approach now is to do the exact opposite of Putin's stooge and reduce the demand for gas.
It seems to me, and I am not an expert by any means, but locally fracking would be possible in Lancashire at least but for the politics?
It might just be spin, but from what I've heard it would be economical and the measurements of the earth tremors that put a halt to the project would be comparable to a truck driving past a house nearby. Is that not true?
The politics of NIMBYism seems to be the thing that has put a real block to it, my personal preference would be to say "f**k the NIMBYs" but that's always my attitude, including in my own backdoor. However its not going to happen, so offshore hydrocarbon development probably remains the best alternative for the transition would be my best uneducated guess.
2 seconds search on twitter gives me this thread from yesterday - please go and read it and come tell me you still think fracking is a good idea
OK read it and don't see a single thing in that thread relevant to what I wrote.
The first half of the thread makes the common mistake, typically but not exclusively made by those against renewables, of letting the fact that its not a perfect and complete solution be a reason not to do anything at all.
No individual energy solution is going to satisfy 100% of our consumption, so therefore reject every solution as being not good enough. Its a total farce and fallacy, don't let the idealised perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
The questions I would like to know the answer for fracking are: Is it viable, is it safe, is it affordable? Not a single one of those was answered in that thread at all.
We need to switch to renewables, but in the interim we need hydrocarbons, if these hydrocarbons are viable, safe and affordable we should extract them. If they're not, we should not. The fact that its not 100% of domestic demand is utterly irrelevant.
Is it safe? Well we know that Fracking resulted in eathquakes in Lancashire so you can't be sure it's safe.
Now I know the worst case scenario is Blackpool being separated from the rest of Lancashire but we also have to remember that that is the best case scenario as well
"Earthquakes"
That takes us full circle back to what I originally wrote, my understanding is the "earthquake" tremors measured were the same as what would be measured by a truck going past a house with the measuring equipment - and we don't outlaw trucks.
Now that might be spin, in which case I stand to be corrected, but if its not then I'm struggling to see those so-called "earthquakes" as evidence of it not being safe.
But as always I will happily listen to an actual expert if one exists who can correct it. And its all moot since the NIMBYs have won and offshore is the best realistic option for us.
Pinch of salt, obviously, but the Americans have suggested that the numbers are not far off.
The amount of Russian equipment which was reported captured was interesting to me - if someone could post it again.
Armies which are winning do not have their equipment captured.
Russia is losing battles. But you can lose battles and win the war.
I forgot to take a note of those YouTube links someone posted about a very different analysis that Russia is on schedule. In particular, I would like to know when they are scheduled to take Kyiv, for comparison with reality. Bellingcat suggested the Russian now reliant on re-armament from outside Ukraine.
"Ian Blackford said the party must be “respectful of the responsibilities” it has following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, adding he remains committed to delivering on the independence mandate."
Yoons be like:
Indy ref II is over, I don't know why anyone even bothers discussing it. I shall now provide 243 posts to prove my point.
Nothing to do with the Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party being on 17%. Ahem.
"Ian Blackford said the party must be “respectful of the responsibilities” it has following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, adding he remains committed to delivering on the independence mandate."
The SNP has zero intention of holding a referendum, for as long as its led by people like Sturgeon there is never going to be one. She's much happier being Queen of Holyrood than actually having to fight (and possibly lose) a Referendum.
The status quo suits the current SNP leadership too much to want to actually rock the boat, better to always have the next referendum only just over the horizon.
I've got more faith in George R R Martin writing books swiftly, than I do the SNP swiftly arranging a referendum.
Too close to London Bridge now anyway, coinciding with that would catch a fatal upswell of affection for HM, a known unionist. Gotta hit the sweet spot between her and the unaccountably popular Baldy n Death's head, with a pair of fat self-sastisfied elderly billionaires in the hot seat.
French official on EU defence: "We are missing the strategic discussions with the UK. We can't do it with Germany. It's our biggest crisis ever and we really miss the UK angle."
Exactly . Not sure why some Leavers refuse to accept that Putin wanted Brexit and was hoping it would lead to a domino effect so whether they like it or not those are the facts .
Perhaps the realization that their vote could have helped Putin is a bit too much for them to bear at this time !
Because its Remainer BS.
Putin is against NATO. The EU if anything was increasingly a threat to NATO, hence why people like Macron were calling NATO 'braindead'.
The biggest strategic mistake that Putin has made is reuniting and reinvigorating NATO, not reinvigorating the EU.
You live in an alternate universe ! The EU 27 have come together and are more united now . A section of leavers voted to try and weaken the EU and many were desperate to celebrate its collapse which Putin wanted .
French official on EU defence: "We are missing the strategic discussions with the UK. We can't do it with Germany. It's our biggest crisis ever and we really miss the UK angle."
The UK keeps asking for co-ordination meetings to give the impression they are leading, but they are not. We are missing the strategic discussions with the UK. We can't do it with Germany. It's our biggest crisis ever and we really miss the UK angle .
If France is missing the strategic discussions with the UK, why not hold the co-ordination meetings?
A fair point. Johnson's Ukraine activities are mostly performative as is everything else he does, but there might some value in these meetings.
"Ian Blackford said the party must be “respectful of the responsibilities” it has following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, adding he remains committed to delivering on the independence mandate."
The SNP has zero intention of holding a referendum, for as long as its led by people like Sturgeon there is never going to be one. She's much happier being Queen of Holyrood than actually having to fight (and possibly lose) a Referendum.
The status quo suits the current SNP leadership too much to want to actually rock the boat, better to always have the next referendum only just over the horizon.
I've got more faith in George R R Martin writing books swiftly, than I do the SNP swiftly arranging a referendum.
Too close to London Bridge now anyway, coinciding with that would catch a fatal upswell of affection for HM, a known unionist. Gotta hit the sweet spot between her and the unaccountably popular Baldy n Death's head, with a pair of fat self-sastisfied elderly billionaires in the hot seat.
We could be close to London Bridge for another decade potentially.
That would suit the SNP perfectly. Always just over the horizon, always just one more heave, just vote for us and it will happen next time, trust us ...
French official on EU defence: "We are missing the strategic discussions with the UK. We can't do it with Germany. It's our biggest crisis ever and we really miss the UK angle."
Exactly . Not sure why some Leavers refuse to accept that Putin wanted Brexit and was hoping it would lead to a domino effect so whether they like it or not those are the facts .
Perhaps the realization that their vote could have helped Putin is a bit too much for them to bear at this time !
Because its Remainer BS.
Putin is against NATO. The EU if anything was increasingly a threat to NATO, hence why people like Macron were calling NATO 'braindead'.
The biggest strategic mistake that Putin has made is reuniting and reinvigorating NATO, not reinvigorating the EU.
You live in an alternate universe ! The EU 27 have come together and are more united now . A section of leavers voted to try and weaken the EU and many were desperate to celebrate its collapse which Putin wanted .
The EU was never going to collapse and nor should it, it just didn't suit the UK.
But its NATO not the EU that is leading the charge with Ukraine and so it should. If the EU nations do more through NATO then great, but the UK and USA are leading powers in NATO and always will be.
Anyone who wants European defence channelled through the EU instead of NATO is a Putinist stooge.
French official on EU defence: "We are missing the strategic discussions with the UK. We can't do it with Germany. It's our biggest crisis ever and we really miss the UK angle."
Exactly . Not sure why some Leavers refuse to accept that Putin wanted Brexit and was hoping it would lead to a domino effect so whether they like it or not those are the facts .
Perhaps the realization that their vote could have helped Putin is a bit too much for them to bear at this time !
Because its Remainer BS.
Putin is against NATO. The EU if anything was increasingly a threat to NATO, hence why people like Macron were calling NATO 'braindead'.
The biggest strategic mistake that Putin has made is reuniting and reinvigorating NATO, not reinvigorating the EU.
You are in denial. Brexit was a major victory for Putin. Many of us said so at the time. It was one of the things (along with Trumpism in the US) that emboldened him. He thought it showed cracks in Western cohesion. His next ambition with respect to UK is it's breakup which is why he has invested so much in cultivating links with the SNP, just like he did with the Brexity end of the Conservative Party. One can argue over the rights and wrongs of Brexit, but to suggest that it wasn't in Putin's interest, or that he didn't do everything he could to encourage it is just dumb.
"Ian Blackford said the party must be “respectful of the responsibilities” it has following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, adding he remains committed to delivering on the independence mandate."
Coincidentally I am sure No back ahead 51% to 49% in the latest poll
Comments
Buying new weapons would mean the hassle of setting up the corruption from scratch.
Fine Gael 21% (-2)
Fianna Fáil 20% (+3)
Social Democrats 6% (+1)
Greens 4% (nc)
People Before Profit/Solidarity 4% (+1)
Labour 3% (nc)
Aontú 2 (-1)
others/independents 9% (-1)
(Ireland Thinks/Sunday Independent; 4 March; 1,011; +/- change from February)
Wiki tells me that they had their own separate Officer Training Corps through which Wilfred Owen passed.
Bayonet practice in the morning, the Georgics in the afternoon.
The big tragedy from Brexit has been the utter lack of a gameplan now we're out. It was clear then and is much clearer now that being able to be as self-sufficient as possible is an advantage. So even in challenging times we can be investing in infrastructure and industries which make us less reliant on imports - a long-term ROI in both jobs and security.
I haven't seen anyone push anything that looks remotely like strategic vision. The Tories are still listening to the Singapore-on-Thames wing who see post-Brexit as an opportunity to make even less stuff, Labour are stuck with the problem* of calling for Brexit to become a workable success.
Anybody who sees a brutal war as a good opportunity to use professional PR people to display lots of attractive images of themselves on social media is a disgrace.
Anybody who attends negotiations with allies or opponents during a brutal war without being knowledgeable (either through their own homework or being fully briefed) enough about the issues to seem plausible to others is a disgrace.
Anybody who thinks that a brutal war could be an opportunity to further their leadership ambitions is a disgrace.
Sadly, Liz Truss is Anybody.
Pinch of salt and all that...
Putin's kleptocracy seems to have meant that the hardware that the Soviets recognised as being unable to keep pace with Reagan's Star Wars ambitions in the eighties is all that Russia still has today, and now its being smashed to pieces.
As others have said, if Russia don't have the facilities to create new replacement hardware (and the fact they're not even using new hardware indicates heavily that they don't) then they're going to be royally screwed soon.
It doesn't work for multiple reasons which can be confirmed by other posters on here who understand both the geology, technology and the marketplace.
Oh and Farage is an idiot, the best approach now is to do the exact opposite of Putin's stooge and reduce the demand for gas.
So we're back to what are we trying to do? We think nuclear will be important but have largely scrapped our own industry so now pay vast sums to foreign governments to build them. We think renewables will be important but still fight planning applications and haven't thrown money into both R&D and manufacturing so that we can be a big innovator and exporter. And because of those two we don't know from one year to the next whether fossil is still relevant so do little.
https://postimg.cc/VSMWgz9d
I feel like actual photographic evidence is a more useful informational threshold than random shit some scrandy posts on Twitter.
The longer term question is whether the Russian people will then have the stomach for maintaining the occupation with the guerrilla war from the Ukrainian resistance that follows
https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1500760872783908864
(This may have been the 'bomber gap' fiasco).
There's a distinct possibility that Russia has developed new tech to keep up with the West, but had not been able to field anything other than prototypes or early-production runs. They show these off, and buy 100 of them - and the money goes into someone's dacha.
Edit:
"Adding to the concerns was an infamous event in July 1955. At the Soviet Aviation Day demonstrations at the Tushino Airfield, ten Bison bombers were flown past the reviewing stand, flew out of sight, quickly turned around, and then flew past the stands again with eight more. That presented the illusion that there were 28 aircraft in the flyby. Western analysts, extrapolating from the illusionary 28 aircraft, judged that by 1960, the Soviets would have 800."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomber_gap
Russia only ever built 93.
It might just be spin, but from what I've heard it would be economical and the measurements of the earth tremors that put a halt to the project would be comparable to a truck driving past a house nearby. Is that not true?
The politics of NIMBYism seems to be the thing that has put a real block to it, my personal preference would be to say "f**k the NIMBYs" but that's always my attitude, including in my own backdoor. However its not going to happen, so offshore hydrocarbon development probably remains the best alternative for the transition would be my best uneducated guess.
The best argument against starting to frack is that a lobby might emerge around it and resist attempts to grow renewables and nuclear. But that seems a far more manageable risk than relying on Russia.
However former RAF bod I spoke to is of the opinion that the Russian planes would be competitive.
Any views? There's usually a PB expert to put us right on matters like this.
The Russian military is getting depleted quickly, whereas the Ukranian supply lines from Poland and Moldova are very much still open, with 17,000 NLAWs and Stingers crossing the border last week.
Especially when the defenders have virtually unlimited equipment pouring in from NATO, while the attackers have no reinforcement capabilities.
I'd say go over to Buildhub and ask there. Mainly UK community owned self-build forum, with lots of NI and Scotland as SB is easier there than England, but a fair no of internationals or people who have lived abroad. *
Whatever you do I would say one priority is to insulate the hell out of it, so you control your costs by minimizing fuel use. And you only pay for insulation once, whilst you pay for the extra electricity you haven't saved every single year. Think of near-passive standards, eg floor u-value of something like 0.11-0.12 - depending a little on the quality of the rest of the house, and whether that can be more cost-effective for investment.
Have you build a heat model to explore the balances?
I'd also somewhat question the use of bifolds as the seals weaken fairly quickly with use. IME lift-and-slide doors perform better.
Your potential heating suppliers should be able to give you some previous customers to go and talk to. Or post in your neighbourhood facebook group etc.
(* https://forum.buildhub.org.uk/)
I've beat up a Polish Navy TS-11 in a Hawk over 20 years ago so that definitively proves my point. This was the same trip as the famous "Yorkshire Terrier" incident which has now passed into pb.com folklore.
Alternately we have large oil and gas fields we can still explore in the Shetlands and elsewhere - its just more expensive to get at. Once connected though a lot of product and no need for endless expansion of sites.
"The NATO minimum is 180 hours (15 per month). RAF flying hours for jet pilots is between 180 and 240 per year (18.5 per month on average). Of these hours, 150 hours (12–14 hours per month; 12.5 on average) are felt to be a safety-of-flight minimum (instruments, takeoffs, landings)."
In comparison, Russian pilots get between 60 and 100 hours a year. Ukrainian pilots get less.
Surely that lack of training must affect combat effectiveness?
There's also the types of combat they are trained for: just air-to-air, ground-pounding or combined ops?
(I daresay Dura_Ace is spitting his coffee out of his nose at this post...)
You'd better believe it....IndyRef could be delayed!! Gasp.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/ian-blackford-hints-at-possible-delay-to-snps-indyref2-plans-3598939
"Ian Blackford said the party must be “respectful of the responsibilities” it has following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, adding he remains committed to delivering on the independence mandate."
And the archetypal gammony project set back some manufacturing sectors by years.
Yep, Yorkshire. Existing house is 1925 semi with solid walls and this room open on to part of that (but that room will have vitually no outside walls left and what remains is gaining external insulation as part of the build).
I'll ask on buildhub. We have someone doing calcs at present, but a hydronic specialist, so some potential for bias (not intentional, I don't think, but may have a bias towards the systems he installs). Thanks for the comment on bifolds too, will look into that.
Also forgot to mention we have a 9kW solar array, but no storage at present - some potential to offset electricity use as we have spare capacity normally in the day, but heating of course needed largely when dark and in winter...
The UK keeps asking for co-ordination meetings to give the impression they are leading, but they are not. We are missing the strategic discussions with the UK. We can't do it with Germany. It's our biggest crisis ever and we really miss the UK angle .
In commercial aviation, the upper limits are 100 hours a month and 900 hours a year. Most airlines work their expensive resources close to the max.
In terms of aircraft, the MiG-35 is supposed to be a fair match against a Typhoon, but Wiki reckons they only have eight of them in service..
The status quo suits the current SNP leadership too much to want to actually rock the boat, better to always have the next referendum only just over the horizon.
I've got more faith in George R R Martin writing books swiftly, than I do the SNP swiftly arranging a referendum.
https://twitter.com/mac_puck/status/1500466064257425416
Yes he gets too political at the end but the logic is the potential supply isn't significant enough to impact our external demand and the risk is too higher
I went to an internal bank presentation on the space sector, a little while ago.
This was mined at institutional investors - I got invited because I was working in the bank, on contract, and had an interest in the area.
The idiot who was giving it didn't even understand the ITAR issues. But he was adamant that all manufacturing of everything should be done in China. And was advocating launch in Russia as the best option... LOL
Which argued as especial pig headedness and complete lack of knowledge of the modern space industry, but hey....
EDIT: I had a chat with him afterwards. He became very red faced at the idea of onshore manufacturing, practically spitting at the idea.
(And offering @Dura_Ace a free coffee-based sinus enema sounds like the kind of service PB has been missing out on.)
Some air forces (Italy and Poland are the two that do it off the top of my head) network the sim sessions into real flying sorties which makes the sim experience even more valuable.
But how do you characterise stuff like this ?
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1500519346749284360
Apologies if it could be construed to have been aimed at your goodself.
Blackford and co. having far too much fun and frolics at the taxpayers' expense down in Westminster. Why put it all at risk?
Indy ref II is over, I don't know why anyone even bothers discussing it. I shall now provide 243 posts to prove my point.
Armies which are winning do not have their equipment captured.
And that is a risk the SNP can't take so as you well know they will continue to aim for a referendum tomorrow (always tomorrow) because it's always a day away.
The first half of the thread makes the common mistake, typically but not exclusively made by those against renewables, of letting the fact that its not a perfect and complete solution be a reason not to do anything at all.
No individual energy solution is going to satisfy 100% of our consumption, so therefore reject every solution as being not good enough. Its a total farce and fallacy, don't let the idealised perfect be the enemy of the good enough for now.
The questions I would like to know the answer for fracking are: Is it viable, is it safe, is it affordable? Not a single one of those was answered in that thread at all.
We need to switch to renewables, but in the interim we need hydrocarbons, if these hydrocarbons are viable, safe and affordable we should extract them. If they're not, we should not. The fact that its not 100% of domestic demand is utterly irrelevant.
Perhaps the realization that their vote could have helped Putin is a bit too much for them to bear at this time !
Now I know the worst case scenario is Blackpool being separated from the rest of Lancashire but we also have to remember that that is the best case scenario as well
And what is their ability to re-arm? I would imagine pretty sub-optimal, but I may be wrong.
"The MiG-35 was a contender with the Eurofighter Typhoon, Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, Saab JAS 39 Gripen, and General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon in the Indian MRCA competition for 126 multirole combat aircraft to be procured by the Indian Air Force."
Impressive that Sweden can develop a fighter that is competitive with those produced by the big boys. And it's not as though they seem to sell many to foreign customers either. Wonder how it works?
Putin is against NATO. The EU if anything was increasingly a threat to NATO, hence why people like Macron were calling NATO 'braindead'.
The biggest strategic mistake that Putin has made is reuniting and reinvigorating NATO, not reinvigorating the EU.
Labours national vote is being held because of the Lib Dem and Green support in areas where those parties are seen as the challengers, otherwise they are on track to be the next government either majority or minority led, even without Scotland.
I think the French have a point here.
That takes us full circle back to what I originally wrote, my understanding is the "earthquake" tremors measured were the same as what would be measured by a truck going past a house with the measuring equipment - and we don't outlaw trucks.
Now that might be spin, in which case I stand to be corrected, but if its not then I'm struggling to see those so-called "earthquakes" as evidence of it not being safe.
But as always I will happily listen to an actual expert if one exists who can correct it. And its all moot since the NIMBYs have won and offshore is the best realistic option for us.
I forgot to take a note of those YouTube links someone posted about a very different analysis that Russia is on schedule. In particular, I would like to know when they are scheduled to take Kyiv, for comparison with reality. Bellingcat suggested the Russian now reliant on re-armament from outside Ukraine.
That would suit the SNP perfectly. Always just over the horizon, always just one more heave, just vote for us and it will happen next time, trust us ...
But its NATO not the EU that is leading the charge with Ukraine and so it should. If the EU nations do more through NATO then great, but the UK and USA are leading powers in NATO and always will be.
Anyone who wants European defence channelled through the EU instead of NATO is a Putinist stooge.
https://twitter.com/WhatScotsThink/status/1500397101615833090?s=20&t=SZBDNkhMeuA0sfvfHL3PkA