It is becoming clear that anything resembling a Russian "victory" must be prevented. Given the dangers of direct military intervention by NATO I think the following need to be considered: 1. Increase blockade including by by unofficial measures. 2. Be diplomatic to China, India and fence sitters and encourage their switch. Behind the scenes make it clear this conflict is our no 1 priority. If they undermine us they will suffer. E.g India should be secretly threatened with big long term economic hit if they buy increased amounts of Russian gas or oil. 3. Covertly give green light to Blackwater and similar to enter Ukraine as a counter balance to Wagner. I assume they are well trained in modern weapon systems which can accompany them. 4. Can we get long range missiles into Ukraine to hit rail transport inside Russia and also hit their long range missile and artillery systems?
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).
So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.
The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.
From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones
Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.
Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
£££
By the way, can I just reiterate my suggestion of a saltwater jet, like the Jet D'Eau in Geneva, being engineered into the Swansea Bay scheme? More than anything, probably even his love of free holidays and posh totty, Boris wants a legacy. The Boris jet, the highest saltwater jet in the world, would be a huge icon and tourist attraction. He might even risk the displeasure of the powerful lobbies to make it happen. This is someone who insisted on a land bridge over the Irish sea.
BJ comes all over Welsh would be excellent headline.
His track record over legacy projects isn't great, though the long term and permanent impairment of the Conservative and Unionist party looks promising.
Ukrainian officials tell me tonight: The Russians are trying to sell to the world as if the deal is almost done. They are doing it for one simple aim: to prevent further sanctions.
Russia starts conscripting population living in occupied Donbas to reinforce its armed forces fighting in Ukraine. This is a gross violation of international law, including Geneva Convention. Russian officials’ list of war crimes continues to expand. They will be held accountable https://mobile.twitter.com/OlegNikolenko_/status/1505277919366627336
More conscripts. That'll do the trick, Vlad.
Er, weeks back, wasn't Vlad firing generals because they, er, used conscripts that they weren't supposed to take to war? All very confusing. Almost as if Putin has double standards or something.
Ah, but no doubt it is just the proper authorities of the 'independent' states in Donbas that are doing the conscripting, so that's fine.
Or he made the mistake of saying something even his grip on the media couldn't pretend was true, so he pulled the dictator equivalent of the 'I'm stupid' defence and had to pretend it had happened without official sanction.
Being optimistic, I don't think it's impossible that this will end with Russia baulking at the prospect of being dominated by China and ending up with a pro-Western reformist government.
Patrick Reevell @Reevellp · 18m Angry (and fearless) crowd confronting Russian troops in the occupied Ukrainian city of Energodar (home to the nuclear plant). A Russian soldier fires his rifle over his head but the crowd doesn’t flinch.
It's one thing to shell civilian areas from a distance, but if they want to hold the cities they will need to be willing to fire into not just above crowds. Hopefully the troops won't stand for that.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).
So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.
The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.
From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones
Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.
Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
£££
By the way, can I just reiterate my suggestion of a saltwater jet, like the Jet D'Eau in Geneva, being engineered into the Swansea Bay scheme? More than anything, probably even his love of free holidays and posh totty, Boris wants a legacy. The Boris jet, the highest saltwater jet in the world, would be a huge icon and tourist attraction. He might even risk the displeasure of the powerful lobbies to make it happen. This is someone who insisted on a land bridge over the Irish sea.
The PM could have had a series of Boris Bays, a legacy that would (at a minimum) last into the middle of the next century. And the Swansea scheme had lots of works of art along the length of the sea wall.
Patrick Reevell @Reevellp · 18m Angry (and fearless) crowd confronting Russian troops in the occupied Ukrainian city of Energodar (home to the nuclear plant). A Russian soldier fires his rifle over his head but the crowd doesn’t flinch.
Not to be pedantic about his but important to remember that Enerhodar is more like a medium sized town than a city - population 53,000.
The biggest settlement Russia has got control of is Kherson, population 290,000. Unless the Ukrainian army collapses the casualties they'll take in trying to control the major cities are enormous.
Ukrainian officials tell me tonight: The Russians are trying to sell to the world as if the deal is almost done. They are doing it for one simple aim: to prevent further sanctions.
Basically: the first Russian plan has failed, and we are heading for a bloody stalemate.
I've been following that site for a while, Josias. It has been consistently restrained and well-balanced.
At the outset it was deeply pessimistic about the prospects of Ukraine and its army. It has gradually modified its view and the report to which you refer is the most optimistic assessment they have produced yet.
My reading of the situation is that the ISW doesn't want to raise false expectations, especially as Russia may yet resort to chemical or tactical nuclear weapons. Nevertheless it is impossible to read their coverage without inferring that the tide has been turning, and may well do so further.
The tide has turned from Russia wining quickly, militarily, to Russia wining very, very slowly, militarily.
The question is can they sustain this meat grinder, while the economy collapses from sanctions?
Quite.
And Russian supply problems will likely only worsen, as their manufacturing ability is going to be hit by sanctions.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).
So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.
The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.
From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones
Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.
Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
Why are you so confident that lagoons will not suffer massive price increases over their proponent's projections?
They are massive engineering structures.
They are a sea wall. With 160 turbines in two banks of 80. Unless the seabed surveys have gone REALLY awry, they are very straightforward to construct and maintain. CV an untried nuclear option that might have issues. Probably will. They usually do. And have to put hands in the taxpayers' pocket to bail them out.
And even if lagoons got hit by costs that were doubled, they would still be a third cheaper than nuclear. And last 2, 3, 4 or more times as long. But there is no reason to believe that the costings are adrift at all.
(My background is the oil industry, where if cost overruns approach 10%, the operator is likely to get fired. Private sector vs public sector costings....public sector just gets a tut and a pay cheque.)
I presume by a "sea-wall" you mean rocks/sand/clay at a fairly low angle of repose?
If you, tons of such structure have been built over the years. There was even an accidental (!) tidal pond, of that nature, built round an oil rig in Alaska, IIRC.
I would think that the big question in this is the maintenance/damage rate of the turbines - exposed to storm/wave action and with lots of sand and larger particles in the water going through them. Not necessarily a show stopper, but that would be the biggest risk, I would thing.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).
So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.
The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.
From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones
Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.
Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
£££
By the way, can I just reiterate my suggestion of a saltwater jet, like the Jet D'Eau in Geneva, being engineered into the Swansea Bay scheme? More than anything, probably even his love of free holidays and posh totty, Boris wants a legacy. The Boris jet, the highest saltwater jet in the world, would be a huge icon and tourist attraction. He might even risk the displeasure of the powerful lobbies to make it happen. This is someone who insisted on a land bridge over the Irish sea.
The PM could have had a series of Boris Bays, a legacy that would (at a minimum) last into the middle of the next century. And the Swansea scheme had lots of works of art along the length of the sea wall.
Patrick Reevell @Reevellp · 18m Angry (and fearless) crowd confronting Russian troops in the occupied Ukrainian city of Energodar (home to the nuclear plant). A Russian soldier fires his rifle over his head but the crowd doesn’t flinch.
Not to be pedantic about his but important to remember that Enerhodar is more like a medium sized town than a city - population 53,000.
Intentionally being pedantic, but as the definition of city is not fixed, and in this country at least is not technically tied to its size at all, it could still be a city.
What counts as a village, town or city may vary based on the size of the country in question as well, so what counts a city in one might not in the other.
Basically: the first Russian plan has failed, and we are heading for a bloody stalemate.
Sounds about right. We'll be at a month-long conflict before long and Russia's progress has been very slow of late. I struggle to see how they make a decisive breakthrough at this point.
A lot more gain and suffering to come unless a compromise can be found diplomatically.
Whilst that is a reasonable assessment of the military situation, it ignores the war's collossal cost to Russia.
If it were not for its nuclear arsenal, I think you could dismiss Russia as a serious player in world affairs for the foreseeable future.
I agree with that.
Economically, Russia is in a tactically weak position (impact of sanctions, withdrawal of foreign investment), but in an even weaker strategic position. The acceleration of Europe moving away from Russian oil/gas will be impossible to avoid, and won't be coming back given the move to net zero. Demographics are already terrible and a prolonged war will only make them worse by killing off many young men.
What will keep them as a player is their nuclear arsenal and the fear they are more willing than most to use it. Few will fear their conventional warfare in the same way again so long as they under NATO's protection.
Even their nuclear advantage will decline over time. It is unclear they can purchase all the inputs needed to maintain nukes over time. Plus the US is investing heavily in anti-missile technology via its close defense work with the Israelis. There could come a point in the future where the West could shoot all the nukes out of the sky.
They could hand carry one from Kaliningrad to a suitable European capital.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).
So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.
The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.
From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones
Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.
Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
£££
By the way, can I just reiterate my suggestion of a saltwater jet, like the Jet D'Eau in Geneva, being engineered into the Swansea Bay scheme? More than anything, probably even his love of free holidays and posh totty, Boris wants a legacy. The Boris jet, the highest saltwater jet in the world, would be a huge icon and tourist attraction. He might even risk the displeasure of the powerful lobbies to make it happen. This is someone who insisted on a land bridge over the Irish sea.
The PM could have had a series of Boris Bays, a legacy that would (at a minimum) last into the middle of the next century. And the Swansea scheme had lots of works of art along the length of the sea wall.
The graphic shows the evolution in how confident people are that Russia will be defeated.
Encouraging for Ukraine, discouraging for Putin. A nation confidently united, like that, can literally never be defeated. Unless he deports them ALL to Siberia
I still don't see path to them regaining Donbas (never mind Crimea), but if they remain united like that it means the Leadership can presumably hold firmer against offering concessions to the Russians as the price for peace, on the basis that the Ukrainian people would rather not pay some prices.
I don't see why they couldn't get the Donbass back under some scenarios. I wouldn't rule out Crimea either. However that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one facing a humanitarian crisis. Unless Putin is prepared to use WMD (horrible thought) or starts calling up masses of reserves - 500,000? - it is hard to see him winning a military victory so long as the Ukrainian air force keeps flying and their army isn't decimated. I believe the Ukrainians are busy training reservists - I thought I saw a figure of 250,000 - which would give them superior numbers. Hopefully all the Nato weapons are getting there.
VVP never articulated the aims or schedule of Operation Ukrainian Freedom in anything other than the most ambiguous terms so he can declare victory whenever he wants.
We can surmise the aims were:
1. Regime change in Ukraine turning them into another gimp state like Belarus. 2. No NATO for Ukraine. 3. A more sustainable form for the DPR/LPR. 4. Land bridge to Crimea and deny Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
1. is looking like a stretch at the moment although they might get lucky and get Zeldisney. 2. That's a tick. 3. and 4. are looking achievable.
VVP might be inclined to settle for 2,3 & 4, work on getting sanctions lifted as the west eventually gets bored/greedy and then have another go 5-10 years hence and break off another piece.
Yes, unfortunately that does seem plausible. It may have been at higher cost than he wanted, but a glorified snatch and grab may well succeed.
But at what cost?
Germany rearming and - along with the rest of Europe - weaning itself off Russian gas. Bans on fracking in eastern Europe being overturned left and right. Relations between the UK and the EU much improved. Finland and Sweden potentially in NATO. And sanctions on the high tech machine tools and oil services equipment Russia desperately needs continuing in perpetuity.
And the remainder of Ukraine welcomed into the EU.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).
So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.
The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.
From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones
Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.
Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
The other side of the question is what is wrong with tidal? Because the complete dislike of it is interesting…
Very simple. A handful of civil servants nailed their colours to the nuclear mast - and did everything they could to block anything that might have been competition.
There is a massive win for Starmer on this. The Government is taking a hell of a risk of him playing this card. Especially as it would go down especially well in all the Red Wall seats. Both where the lagoons get built and the components get made (they are 85%+ UK spend).
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).
So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.
The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.
From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones
Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.
Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
£££
By the way, can I just reiterate my suggestion of a saltwater jet, like the Jet D'Eau in Geneva, being engineered into the Swansea Bay scheme? More than anything, probably even his love of free holidays and posh totty, Boris wants a legacy. The Boris jet, the highest saltwater jet in the world, would be a huge icon and tourist attraction. He might even risk the displeasure of the powerful lobbies to make it happen. This is someone who insisted on a land bridge over the Irish sea.
The PM could have had a series of Boris Bays, a legacy that would (at a minimum) last into the middle of the next century. And the Swansea scheme had lots of works of art along the length of the sea wall.
The graphic shows the evolution in how confident people are that Russia will be defeated.
Encouraging for Ukraine, discouraging for Putin. A nation confidently united, like that, can literally never be defeated. Unless he deports them ALL to Siberia
I still don't see path to them regaining Donbas (never mind Crimea), but if they remain united like that it means the Leadership can presumably hold firmer against offering concessions to the Russians as the price for peace, on the basis that the Ukrainian people would rather not pay some prices.
I don't see why they couldn't get the Donbass back under some scenarios. I wouldn't rule out Crimea either. However that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one facing a humanitarian crisis. Unless Putin is prepared to use WMD (horrible thought) or starts calling up masses of reserves - 500,000? - it is hard to see him winning a military victory so long as the Ukrainian air force keeps flying and their army isn't decimated. I believe the Ukrainians are busy training reservists - I thought I saw a figure of 250,000 - which would give them superior numbers. Hopefully all the Nato weapons are getting there.
VVP never articulated the aims or schedule of Operation Ukrainian Freedom in anything other than the most ambiguous terms so he can declare victory whenever he wants.
We can surmise the aims were:
1. Regime change in Ukraine turning them into another gimp state like Belarus. 2. No NATO for Ukraine. 3. A more sustainable form for the DPR/LPR. 4. Land bridge to Crimea and deny Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
1. is looking like a stretch at the moment although they might get lucky and get Zeldisney. 2. That's a tick. 3. and 4. are looking achievable.
VVP might be inclined to settle for 2,3 & 4, work on getting sanctions lifted as the west eventually gets bored/greedy and then have another go 5-10 years hence and break off another piece.
Yes, unfortunately that does seem plausible. It may have been at higher cost than he wanted, but a glorified snatch and grab may well succeed.
But at what cost?
Germany rearming and - along with the rest of Europe - weaning itself off Russian gas. Bans on fracking in eastern Europe being overturned left and right. Relations between the UK and the EU much improved. Finland and Sweden potentially in NATO. And sanctions on the high tech machine tools and oil services equipment Russia desperately needs continuing in perpetuity.
And the remainder of Ukraine welcomed into the EU.
You also wonder how useful untrammelled access to the Black Sea will be to Russia if nobody around its shores will trade with them and the Bosporus remains closed to their shipping.
The graphic shows the evolution in how confident people are that Russia will be defeated.
Encouraging for Ukraine, discouraging for Putin. A nation confidently united, like that, can literally never be defeated. Unless he deports them ALL to Siberia
I still don't see path to them regaining Donbas (never mind Crimea), but if they remain united like that it means the Leadership can presumably hold firmer against offering concessions to the Russians as the price for peace, on the basis that the Ukrainian people would rather not pay some prices.
I don't see why they couldn't get the Donbass back under some scenarios. I wouldn't rule out Crimea either. However that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one facing a humanitarian crisis. Unless Putin is prepared to use WMD (horrible thought) or starts calling up masses of reserves - 500,000? - it is hard to see him winning a military victory so long as the Ukrainian air force keeps flying and their army isn't decimated. I believe the Ukrainians are busy training reservists - I thought I saw a figure of 250,000 - which would give them superior numbers. Hopefully all the Nato weapons are getting there.
VVP never articulated the aims or schedule of Operation Ukrainian Freedom in anything other than the most ambiguous terms so he can declare victory whenever he wants.
We can surmise the aims were:
1. Regime change in Ukraine turning them into another gimp state like Belarus. 2. No NATO for Ukraine. 3. A more sustainable form for the DPR/LPR. 4. Land bridge to Crimea and deny Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
1. is looking like a stretch at the moment although they might get lucky and get Zeldisney. 2. That's a tick. 3. and 4. are looking achievable.
VVP might be inclined to settle for 2,3 & 4, work on getting sanctions lifted as the west eventually gets bored/greedy and then have another go 5-10 years hence and break off another piece.
Yes, unfortunately that does seem plausible. It may have been at higher cost than he wanted, but a glorified snatch and grab may well succeed.
But at what cost?
Germany rearming and - along with the rest of Europe - weaning itself off Russian gas. Bans on fracking in eastern Europe being overturned left and right. Relations between the UK and the EU much improved. Finland and Sweden potentially in NATO. And sanctions on the high tech machine tools and oil services equipment Russia desperately needs continuing in perpetuity.
And the remainder of Ukraine welcomed into the EU.
Oh it'd be a very stupid tradeoff. But from Putin's perspective gaining physical territory to enlarge Russia for his personal glory is probably worth any cost whatsoever. He wants maps in Russia to show territory regained under the Tsar Vladimir.
The graphic shows the evolution in how confident people are that Russia will be defeated.
Encouraging for Ukraine, discouraging for Putin. A nation confidently united, like that, can literally never be defeated. Unless he deports them ALL to Siberia
I still don't see path to them regaining Donbas (never mind Crimea), but if they remain united like that it means the Leadership can presumably hold firmer against offering concessions to the Russians as the price for peace, on the basis that the Ukrainian people would rather not pay some prices.
I don't see why they couldn't get the Donbass back under some scenarios. I wouldn't rule out Crimea either. However that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one facing a humanitarian crisis. Unless Putin is prepared to use WMD (horrible thought) or starts calling up masses of reserves - 500,000? - it is hard to see him winning a military victory so long as the Ukrainian air force keeps flying and their army isn't decimated. I believe the Ukrainians are busy training reservists - I thought I saw a figure of 250,000 - which would give them superior numbers. Hopefully all the Nato weapons are getting there.
VVP never articulated the aims or schedule of Operation Ukrainian Freedom in anything other than the most ambiguous terms so he can declare victory whenever he wants.
We can surmise the aims were:
1. Regime change in Ukraine turning them into another gimp state like Belarus. 2. No NATO for Ukraine. 3. A more sustainable form for the DPR/LPR. 4. Land bridge to Crimea and deny Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
1. is looking like a stretch at the moment although they might get lucky and get Zeldisney. 2. That's a tick. 3. and 4. are looking achievable.
VVP might be inclined to settle for 2,3 & 4, work on getting sanctions lifted as the west eventually gets bored/greedy and then have another go 5-10 years hence and break off another piece.
Yes, unfortunately that does seem plausible. It may have been at higher cost than he wanted, but a glorified snatch and grab may well succeed.
But at what cost?
Germany rearming and - along with the rest of Europe - weaning itself off Russian gas. Bans on fracking in eastern Europe being overturned left and right. Relations between the UK and the EU much improved. Finland and Sweden potentially in NATO. And sanctions on the high tech machine tools and oil services equipment Russia desperately needs continuing in perpetuity.
And the remainder of Ukraine welcomed into the EU.
Sorry...
Did I mention that he had already trashed the reputation of Russian military kit relative to Western gear, thus destroying one of their few non commodity exports.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).
So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.
The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.
From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones
Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.
Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
Why are you so confident that lagoons will not suffer massive price increases over their proponent's projections?
They are massive engineering structures.
They are a sea wall. With 160 turbines in two banks of 80. Unless the seabed surveys have gone REALLY awry, they are very straightforward to construct and maintain. CV an untried nuclear option that might have issues. Probably will. They usually do. And have to put hands in the taxpayers' pocket to bail them out.
And even if lagoons got hit by costs that were doubled, they would still be a third cheaper than nuclear. And last 2, 3, 4 or more times as long. But there is no reason to believe that the costings are adrift at all.
(My background is the oil industry, where if cost overruns approach 10%, the operator is likely to get fired. Private sector vs public sector costings....public sector just gets a tut and a pay cheque.)
I presume by a "sea-wall" you mean rocks/sand/clay at a fairly low angle of repose?
If you, tons of such structure have been built over the years. There was even an accidental (!) tidal pond, of that nature, built round an oil rig in Alaska, IIRC.
I would think that the big question in this is the maintenance/damage rate of the turbines - exposed to storm/wave action and with lots of sand and larger particles in the water going through them. Not necessarily a show stopper, but that would be the biggest risk, I would thing.
La Rance tidal power station was built in the 1960's in France. They recently put a new set of turbines in, which they expect to last another 60 years.
Patrick Reevell @Reevellp · 18m Angry (and fearless) crowd confronting Russian troops in the occupied Ukrainian city of Energodar (home to the nuclear plant). A Russian soldier fires his rifle over his head but the crowd doesn’t flinch.
Not to be pedantic about his but important to remember that Enerhodar is more like a medium sized town than a city - population 53,000.
Intentionally being pedantic, but as the definition of city is not fixed, and in this country at least is not technically tied to its size at all, it could still be a city.
What counts as a village, town or city may vary based on the size of the country in question as well, so what counts a city in one might not in the other.
Wells is of course a city, and you have the City of London which is a mere one mile square.
Winchcombe, where I am now, has a population of about 5,000 and is a town. In fact they get very sniffy if you call it a village, which to all appearances it is.
Polling shows Ukrainians see Britain as their third closest ally after neighbouring Poland and Lithuania, ahead of the United States. France and Germany are seventh and fifth from bottom respectively. What this shows is the importance Ukrainians are placing on military aid.
The graphic shows the evolution in how confident people are that Russia will be defeated.
Encouraging for Ukraine, discouraging for Putin. A nation confidently united, like that, can literally never be defeated. Unless he deports them ALL to Siberia
I still don't see path to them regaining Donbas (never mind Crimea), but if they remain united like that it means the Leadership can presumably hold firmer against offering concessions to the Russians as the price for peace, on the basis that the Ukrainian people would rather not pay some prices.
I don't see why they couldn't get the Donbass back under some scenarios. I wouldn't rule out Crimea either. However that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one facing a humanitarian crisis. Unless Putin is prepared to use WMD (horrible thought) or starts calling up masses of reserves - 500,000? - it is hard to see him winning a military victory so long as the Ukrainian air force keeps flying and their army isn't decimated. I believe the Ukrainians are busy training reservists - I thought I saw a figure of 250,000 - which would give them superior numbers. Hopefully all the Nato weapons are getting there.
VVP never articulated the aims or schedule of Operation Ukrainian Freedom in anything other than the most ambiguous terms so he can declare victory whenever he wants.
We can surmise the aims were:
1. Regime change in Ukraine turning them into another gimp state like Belarus. 2. No NATO for Ukraine. 3. A more sustainable form for the DPR/LPR. 4. Land bridge to Crimea and deny Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
1. is looking like a stretch at the moment although they might get lucky and get Zeldisney. 2. That's a tick. 3. and 4. are looking achievable.
VVP might be inclined to settle for 2,3 & 4, work on getting sanctions lifted as the west eventually gets bored/greedy and then have another go 5-10 years hence and break off another piece.
Yes, unfortunately that does seem plausible. It may have been at higher cost than he wanted, but a glorified snatch and grab may well succeed.
But at what cost?
Germany rearming and - along with the rest of Europe - weaning itself off Russian gas. Bans on fracking in eastern Europe being overturned left and right. Relations between the UK and the EU much improved. Finland and Sweden potentially in NATO. And sanctions on the high tech machine tools and oil services equipment Russia desperately needs continuing in perpetuity.
And the remainder of Ukraine welcomed into the EU.
Sorry...
Did I mention that he had already trashed the reputation of Russian military kit relative to Western gear, thus destroying one of their few non commodity exports.
It's a mystery to me why, say India, buys so much kit from them. Is it bargain basement price?
The graphic shows the evolution in how confident people are that Russia will be defeated.
Encouraging for Ukraine, discouraging for Putin. A nation confidently united, like that, can literally never be defeated. Unless he deports them ALL to Siberia
I still don't see path to them regaining Donbas (never mind Crimea), but if they remain united like that it means the Leadership can presumably hold firmer against offering concessions to the Russians as the price for peace, on the basis that the Ukrainian people would rather not pay some prices.
I don't see why they couldn't get the Donbass back under some scenarios. I wouldn't rule out Crimea either. However that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one facing a humanitarian crisis. Unless Putin is prepared to use WMD (horrible thought) or starts calling up masses of reserves - 500,000? - it is hard to see him winning a military victory so long as the Ukrainian air force keeps flying and their army isn't decimated. I believe the Ukrainians are busy training reservists - I thought I saw a figure of 250,000 - which would give them superior numbers. Hopefully all the Nato weapons are getting there.
VVP never articulated the aims or schedule of Operation Ukrainian Freedom in anything other than the most ambiguous terms so he can declare victory whenever he wants.
We can surmise the aims were:
1. Regime change in Ukraine turning them into another gimp state like Belarus. 2. No NATO for Ukraine. 3. A more sustainable form for the DPR/LPR. 4. Land bridge to Crimea and deny Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
1. is looking like a stretch at the moment although they might get lucky and get Zeldisney. 2. That's a tick. 3. and 4. are looking achievable.
VVP might be inclined to settle for 2,3 & 4, work on getting sanctions lifted as the west eventually gets bored/greedy and then have another go 5-10 years hence and break off another piece.
Yes, unfortunately that does seem plausible. It may have been at higher cost than he wanted, but a glorified snatch and grab may well succeed.
But at what cost?
Germany rearming and - along with the rest of Europe - weaning itself off Russian gas. Bans on fracking in eastern Europe being overturned left and right. Relations between the UK and the EU much improved. Finland and Sweden potentially in NATO. And sanctions on the high tech machine tools and oil services equipment Russia desperately needs continuing in perpetuity.
And the remainder of Ukraine welcomed into the EU.
Sorry...
Did I mention that he had already trashed the reputation of Russian military kit relative to Western gear, thus destroying one of their few non commodity exports.
It's a mystery to me why, say India, buys so much kit from them. Is it bargain basement price?
Russia's customer service department is going to be handling a lot of returns when this war is over.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).
So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.
The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.
From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones
Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.
Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
The other side of the question is what is wrong with tidal? Because the complete dislike of it is interesting…
It means, effectively, deleting/reworking multiple square kilometres of shallow water seabed/tidal flats.
This gets the environmentalists who are interested in such areas very, very upset.
Also, those are the areas where mud is deposited from ther river (or from further to sea) - and if one disturbs the current and slows it the water is apt to dump the sediment.
I seem to remember this can be an issue for some river dams where the water has a high sediment load.
I have no idea if this is even an issue for tidal, but how often does one needf to clean out the tidal basin?
The graphic shows the evolution in how confident people are that Russia will be defeated.
Encouraging for Ukraine, discouraging for Putin. A nation confidently united, like that, can literally never be defeated. Unless he deports them ALL to Siberia
I still don't see path to them regaining Donbas (never mind Crimea), but if they remain united like that it means the Leadership can presumably hold firmer against offering concessions to the Russians as the price for peace, on the basis that the Ukrainian people would rather not pay some prices.
I don't see why they couldn't get the Donbass back under some scenarios. I wouldn't rule out Crimea either. However that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one facing a humanitarian crisis. Unless Putin is prepared to use WMD (horrible thought) or starts calling up masses of reserves - 500,000? - it is hard to see him winning a military victory so long as the Ukrainian air force keeps flying and their army isn't decimated. I believe the Ukrainians are busy training reservists - I thought I saw a figure of 250,000 - which would give them superior numbers. Hopefully all the Nato weapons are getting there.
VVP never articulated the aims or schedule of Operation Ukrainian Freedom in anything other than the most ambiguous terms so he can declare victory whenever he wants.
We can surmise the aims were:
1. Regime change in Ukraine turning them into another gimp state like Belarus. 2. No NATO for Ukraine. 3. A more sustainable form for the DPR/LPR. 4. Land bridge to Crimea and deny Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
1. is looking like a stretch at the moment although they might get lucky and get Zeldisney. 2. That's a tick. 3. and 4. are looking achievable.
VVP might be inclined to settle for 2,3 & 4, work on getting sanctions lifted as the west eventually gets bored/greedy and then have another go 5-10 years hence and break off another piece.
Yes, unfortunately that does seem plausible. It may have been at higher cost than he wanted, but a glorified snatch and grab may well succeed.
But at what cost?
Germany rearming and - along with the rest of Europe - weaning itself off Russian gas. Bans on fracking in eastern Europe being overturned left and right. Relations between the UK and the EU much improved. Finland and Sweden potentially in NATO. And sanctions on the high tech machine tools and oil services equipment Russia desperately needs continuing in perpetuity.
And the remainder of Ukraine welcomed into the EU.
Sorry...
Did I mention that he had already trashed the reputation of Russian military kit relative to Western gear, thus destroying one of their few non commodity exports.
Yet supposedly the reason why India is trying to keep in Russias good books is to keep military equipment (especially spares) coming
Patrick Reevell @Reevellp · 18m Angry (and fearless) crowd confronting Russian troops in the occupied Ukrainian city of Energodar (home to the nuclear plant). A Russian soldier fires his rifle over his head but the crowd doesn’t flinch.
Not to be pedantic about his but important to remember that Enerhodar is more like a medium sized town than a city - population 53,000.
Intentionally being pedantic, but as the definition of city is not fixed, and in this country at least is not technically tied to its size at all, it could still be a city.
What counts as a village, town or city may vary based on the size of the country in question as well, so what counts a city in one might not in the other.
Wells is of course a city, and you have the City of London which is a mere one mile square.
Winchcombe, where I am now, has a population of about 5,000 and is a town. In fact they get very sniffy if you call it a village, which to all appearances it is.
No I don't understand it either.
I believe any parish or community council can simply decide to call themselves a town and that's all it takes. I'd call 5000 a very large village, but I know a few parishes which with combined settlements are larger, and a few which have transitioned to calling themselves town councils.
As I see it we basically have villages, towns, and conurbations, any of which might be gain the title of city.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).
So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.
The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.
From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones
Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.
Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
Why are you so confident that lagoons will not suffer massive price increases over their proponent's projections?
They are massive engineering structures.
They are a sea wall. With 160 turbines in two banks of 80. Unless the seabed surveys have gone REALLY awry, they are very straightforward to construct and maintain. CV an untried nuclear option that might have issues. Probably will. They usually do. And have to put hands in the taxpayers' pocket to bail them out.
And even if lagoons got hit by costs that were doubled, they would still be a third cheaper than nuclear. And last 2, 3, 4 or more times as long. But there is no reason to believe that the costings are adrift at all.
(My background is the oil industry, where if cost overruns approach 10%, the operator is likely to get fired. Private sector vs public sector costings....public sector just gets a tut and a pay cheque.)
From an engineering pov, what is their maximum depth?
You can work with the contours of the seabed to shape the lagoon to keep the depths to a minimum. They are not sufficiently deep to require massive piling to keep them in place.
This is a public document you might find interesting:
" shallow waters with gently sloping beach profiles are preferable to minimise environmental and economic impacts."
Patrick Reevell @Reevellp · 18m Angry (and fearless) crowd confronting Russian troops in the occupied Ukrainian city of Energodar (home to the nuclear plant). A Russian soldier fires his rifle over his head but the crowd doesn’t flinch.
Not to be pedantic about his but important to remember that Enerhodar is more like a medium sized town than a city - population 53,000.
Intentionally being pedantic, but as the definition of city is not fixed, and in this country at least is not technically tied to its size at all, it could still be a city.
What counts as a village, town or city may vary based on the size of the country in question as well, so what counts a city in one might not in the other.
Wells is of course a city, and you have the City of London which is a mere one mile square.
Winchcombe, where I am now, has a population of about 5,000 and is a town. In fact they get very sniffy if you call it a village, which to all appearances it is.
The graphic shows the evolution in how confident people are that Russia will be defeated.
Encouraging for Ukraine, discouraging for Putin. A nation confidently united, like that, can literally never be defeated. Unless he deports them ALL to Siberia
I still don't see path to them regaining Donbas (never mind Crimea), but if they remain united like that it means the Leadership can presumably hold firmer against offering concessions to the Russians as the price for peace, on the basis that the Ukrainian people would rather not pay some prices.
I don't see why they couldn't get the Donbass back under some scenarios. I wouldn't rule out Crimea either. However that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one facing a humanitarian crisis. Unless Putin is prepared to use WMD (horrible thought) or starts calling up masses of reserves - 500,000? - it is hard to see him winning a military victory so long as the Ukrainian air force keeps flying and their army isn't decimated. I believe the Ukrainians are busy training reservists - I thought I saw a figure of 250,000 - which would give them superior numbers. Hopefully all the Nato weapons are getting there.
VVP never articulated the aims or schedule of Operation Ukrainian Freedom in anything other than the most ambiguous terms so he can declare victory whenever he wants.
We can surmise the aims were:
1. Regime change in Ukraine turning them into another gimp state like Belarus. 2. No NATO for Ukraine. 3. A more sustainable form for the DPR/LPR. 4. Land bridge to Crimea and deny Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
1. is looking like a stretch at the moment although they might get lucky and get Zeldisney. 2. That's a tick. 3. and 4. are looking achievable.
VVP might be inclined to settle for 2,3 & 4, work on getting sanctions lifted as the west eventually gets bored/greedy and then have another go 5-10 years hence and break off another piece.
Yes, unfortunately that does seem plausible. It may have been at higher cost than he wanted, but a glorified snatch and grab may well succeed.
But at what cost?
Germany rearming and - along with the rest of Europe - weaning itself off Russian gas. Bans on fracking in eastern Europe being overturned left and right. Relations between the UK and the EU much improved. Finland and Sweden potentially in NATO. And sanctions on the high tech machine tools and oil services equipment Russia desperately needs continuing in perpetuity.
And the remainder of Ukraine welcomed into the EU.
Sorry...
Did I mention that he had already trashed the reputation of Russian military kit relative to Western gear, thus destroying one of their few non commodity exports.
It's a mystery to me why, say India, buys so much kit from them. Is it bargain basement price?
Stopgap while they developed their own arms industry, which is happening fairly quickly now.
The graphic shows the evolution in how confident people are that Russia will be defeated.
Encouraging for Ukraine, discouraging for Putin. A nation confidently united, like that, can literally never be defeated. Unless he deports them ALL to Siberia
I still don't see path to them regaining Donbas (never mind Crimea), but if they remain united like that it means the Leadership can presumably hold firmer against offering concessions to the Russians as the price for peace, on the basis that the Ukrainian people would rather not pay some prices.
I don't see why they couldn't get the Donbass back under some scenarios. I wouldn't rule out Crimea either. However that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one facing a humanitarian crisis. Unless Putin is prepared to use WMD (horrible thought) or starts calling up masses of reserves - 500,000? - it is hard to see him winning a military victory so long as the Ukrainian air force keeps flying and their army isn't decimated. I believe the Ukrainians are busy training reservists - I thought I saw a figure of 250,000 - which would give them superior numbers. Hopefully all the Nato weapons are getting there.
VVP never articulated the aims or schedule of Operation Ukrainian Freedom in anything other than the most ambiguous terms so he can declare victory whenever he wants.
We can surmise the aims were:
1. Regime change in Ukraine turning them into another gimp state like Belarus. 2. No NATO for Ukraine. 3. A more sustainable form for the DPR/LPR. 4. Land bridge to Crimea and deny Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
1. is looking like a stretch at the moment although they might get lucky and get Zeldisney. 2. That's a tick. 3. and 4. are looking achievable.
VVP might be inclined to settle for 2,3 & 4, work on getting sanctions lifted as the west eventually gets bored/greedy and then have another go 5-10 years hence and break off another piece.
Yes, unfortunately that does seem plausible. It may have been at higher cost than he wanted, but a glorified snatch and grab may well succeed.
But at what cost?
Germany rearming and - along with the rest of Europe - weaning itself off Russian gas. Bans on fracking in eastern Europe being overturned left and right. Relations between the UK and the EU much improved. Finland and Sweden potentially in NATO. And sanctions on the high tech machine tools and oil services equipment Russia desperately needs continuing in perpetuity.
And the remainder of Ukraine welcomed into the EU.
Sorry...
Did I mention that he had already trashed the reputation of Russian military kit relative to Western gear, thus destroying one of their few non commodity exports.
Yet supposedly the reason why India is trying to keep in Russias good books is to keep military equipment (especially spares) coming
Think you answered your own question there - spares. India's land and air forces run primarily on Russian equipment. Also, India's military leadership is probably a lot better than Russia's and their likely military adversaries (Pakistan / China) have little access to advanced Western equipment so their equipment is likely to be relatively on a par in combat.
Patrick Reevell @Reevellp · 18m Angry (and fearless) crowd confronting Russian troops in the occupied Ukrainian city of Energodar (home to the nuclear plant). A Russian soldier fires his rifle over his head but the crowd doesn’t flinch.
Not to be pedantic about his but important to remember that Enerhodar is more like a medium sized town than a city - population 53,000.
Intentionally being pedantic, but as the definition of city is not fixed, and in this country at least is not technically tied to its size at all, it could still be a city.
What counts as a village, town or city may vary based on the size of the country in question as well, so what counts a city in one might not in the other.
Wells is of course a city, and you have the City of London which is a mere one mile square.
Winchcombe, where I am now, has a population of about 5,000 and is a town. In fact they get very sniffy if you call it a village, which to all appearances it is.
Polling shows Ukrainians see Britain as their third closest ally after neighbouring Poland and Lithuania, ahead of the United States. France and Germany are seventh and fifth from bottom respectively. What this shows is the importance Ukrainians are placing on military aid.
The graphic shows the evolution in how confident people are that Russia will be defeated.
Encouraging for Ukraine, discouraging for Putin. A nation confidently united, like that, can literally never be defeated. Unless he deports them ALL to Siberia
I still don't see path to them regaining Donbas (never mind Crimea), but if they remain united like that it means the Leadership can presumably hold firmer against offering concessions to the Russians as the price for peace, on the basis that the Ukrainian people would rather not pay some prices.
I don't see why they couldn't get the Donbass back under some scenarios. I wouldn't rule out Crimea either. However that's easy for me to say, I'm not the one facing a humanitarian crisis. Unless Putin is prepared to use WMD (horrible thought) or starts calling up masses of reserves - 500,000? - it is hard to see him winning a military victory so long as the Ukrainian air force keeps flying and their army isn't decimated. I believe the Ukrainians are busy training reservists - I thought I saw a figure of 250,000 - which would give them superior numbers. Hopefully all the Nato weapons are getting there.
VVP never articulated the aims or schedule of Operation Ukrainian Freedom in anything other than the most ambiguous terms so he can declare victory whenever he wants.
We can surmise the aims were:
1. Regime change in Ukraine turning them into another gimp state like Belarus. 2. No NATO for Ukraine. 3. A more sustainable form for the DPR/LPR. 4. Land bridge to Crimea and deny Ukraine access to the Black Sea.
1. is looking like a stretch at the moment although they might get lucky and get Zeldisney. 2. That's a tick. 3. and 4. are looking achievable.
VVP might be inclined to settle for 2,3 & 4, work on getting sanctions lifted as the west eventually gets bored/greedy and then have another go 5-10 years hence and break off another piece.
Yes, unfortunately that does seem plausible. It may have been at higher cost than he wanted, but a glorified snatch and grab may well succeed.
But at what cost?
Germany rearming and - along with the rest of Europe - weaning itself off Russian gas. Bans on fracking in eastern Europe being overturned left and right. Relations between the UK and the EU much improved. Finland and Sweden potentially in NATO. And sanctions on the high tech machine tools and oil services equipment Russia desperately needs continuing in perpetuity.
And the remainder of Ukraine welcomed into the EU.
Oh it'd be a very stupid tradeoff. But from Putin's perspective gaining physical territory to enlarge Russia for his personal glory is probably worth any cost whatsoever. He wants maps in Russia to show territory regained under the Tsar Vladimir.
He will be lucky not to lose any at this rate. The citizens of St Petersburg must be thinking about the possibilty of declaring UDI.
As usual the author allows his extreme dislike of the Prime Minister to overshadow any point he is trying to make. I rather doubt that the reporting of a tiny element of what was quite a good and certainly well received speech will have any lasting effect whatsoever on Johnson's period as PM. If people's living standards decline for a prolonged period and the opposition parties manage to put together a semi plausible scenario to allay that ( a huge task for them) then Johnson is doomed. But perhaps not otherwise.
By Johnson's recent standards (the last 30 years?) and with a far lower expectation than that demanded of any other senior UK politician, the speech was surprising well presented.
Even if one edits out the analogy that the EU is tantamount to Putin's Russia, there remains an awful lot of, shall we call it, absolute b****cks?
Part of Boris's problem is that he has burnt through a lot of people's reserves of benefit-of-the-doubt. His role in Vote Leave didn't help, but neither did Dom in Durham, sitting on the Russia Report, crisis school meals, Paterson, parties... It's quite a list. And looking at his CV, it's what he does and why he has that Cavalier swagger that people find attractive.
But losing the BotD means that the rest of us are less inclined to give him credit when the boy does good and more inclined to believe the worst when he doesn't. See Blair post-Iraq or Major post-Black Wednesday.
Not entirely fair, but human nature. And frankly, a PM expecting sympathy because politics is unfair is as absurd as a fish complaining that water is wet.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).
So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.
The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.
From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones
Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.
Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
The other side of the question is what is wrong with tidal? Because the complete dislike of it is interesting…
Very simple. A handful of civil servants nailed their colours to the nuclear mast - and did everything they could to block anything that might have been competition.
There is a massive win for Starmer on this. The Government is taking a hell of a risk of him playing this card. Especially as it would go down especially well in all the Red Wall seats. Both where the lagoons get built and the components get made (they are 85%+ UK spend).
I have a USP to sell the lagoons to Johnson. What about a big ****- off, Statue of Liberty sized statue of Johnson in every tidal lagoon?
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).
So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.
The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.
From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones
Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.
Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
The other side of the question is what is wrong with tidal? Because the complete dislike of it is interesting…
Very simple. A handful of civil servants nailed their colours to the nuclear mast - and did everything they could to block anything that might have been competition.
There is a massive win for Starmer on this. The Government is taking a hell of a risk of him playing this card. Especially as it would go down especially well in all the Red Wall seats. Both where the lagoons get built and the components get made (they are 85%+ UK spend).
I have a USP to sell the lagoons to Johnson. What about a big ****- off, Statue of Liberty sized statue of Johnson in every tidal lagoon?
"Just possibly - fighting was getting closer and close to the hospital. So there were very few mothers-to-be there - mostly evacuated or sent to other places. But it is still a hospital....."
So the excuse for the low casualties is that they were incompetent - it fell in front of the hospital rather than destroying it. Perhaps they'll try harder next time. Use a hypersonic, vacuum bomb or something similar. In the meantime, we can criticise the Ukranians for exaggeration. I begin to think that they lie badly because it doesn't matter much. Only the domestic audience matters.
More that when they bombed a hospital, it was mostly empty. Because the Ukrainians were worried that the Russians might bomb the hospital.
Darn those Ukrainians for thinking that the Russians might do something they actually did and taking precautions.
The WHO have reported that they confirmed that 43 medical facilities have been attacked in the last 3 weeks.
Harsh fact is, the sensible objectives in a war like this are
1. Take and hold ground; failing that because it is too difficult
2. Kill civilians, the max number where you can just about plausibly claim that it isn't intentional
Because if you can't hold ground you want to push towards negotiation, and nothing gets international public opinion saying OMG this must be stopped, like bombing a children's hospital. Military deaths just don't have the same effect.
If we are to achieve net zero, how is there any common sense in trying to produce more CO2?
This is the time to massively invest in renewables and nuclear.
They are entirely compatible. 1. We need power next winter. If we can't get replacement gas then our gas-fired power stations are in trouble. Without them we have a big hole in our capabilities as we bet the farm on cheap gas imports to maximise profits. We may need to keep burning coal a bit longer whilst we change our capabilities. 2. We must invest into renewables. Not just erecting wind farms but actually making the turbines. Invest into tidal so that we can harness the huge tidal surges. Mass produced solar panels so that every house can have one. 3. But having done all that we still need oil. We aren't about to replace next week every truck engine with hydrogen so we need oil. We still need plastic so we still need oil. Better to use our own oil than be on the hook to someone else (see gas, point 1) 4. Nuclear is a massive dead end. We can't produce our own nuclear power stations any more from an engineering point of view, and even from a construction point of view they are very very very slow to put up and at vast cost. Better to sink the money into cheaper cleaner faster alternatives.
I have a Tesla on order to sit alongside our Ioniq EV. And I am advocating more domestic oil and gas production. The two are not incompatible.
On 4 nuclear may not be a dead end in the UK - but it depends on whether Rolls Royce’s mini nuke design works.
And the thing is we do need baseline power and there are no easy solutions there. If the wind doesn’t blow for a few days no amount of storage is going to help
It doesn't depend on whether they work (although having a nuclear sub reactor parked in your town is going to bring out a tsunami of NIMBY's). It depends on the cost. Of siting, planning permission, building, maintaining, defending, decommissioning. Boris hasn't told us any of the answers to those.
The nuke mini reactors are nearly certainly going to go on the sites of existing nuclear power stations. They have a fairly small footprint, and the sites have very large amounts of land "behind the fences". There are also the existing turbine halls to take the steam generated, the connections to the grid etc.
If you listen to the anti-nuke types, they are extremely worried by the possibility that because of this, the mini-nukes won't even get a "proper"* planning enquiry.
*One lasting decades.
Still nothing on the relative costs.
And they are still a new form of energy generation - that might have significant teething problems. A lot being taken on good faith - never wise with the nuclear industry.
The question on costs is hard to gauge at this point. They are, of course, a modification of existing nuclear reactor designs for submarines. The sizing seems to suggest something quite close to the reactors for the next generation of Trident submarines (PWR3).
So, rather than being a whole new design, they will be an evolution of an existing design. I would suspect that many components, such as the pressure vessel, will be very, very similar.
The resistance to the mini-nuke idea from the backers of traditional sized nuclear power stations has been interesting. They claimed that the re-use of military technology was an "unfair advantage". Which speaks volumes, to me.
AFAIK the proposed Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactor design isn't a modification of a nuclear submarine design. It's more that RR claims expertise because they have designed reactors for submarines.
From what I have seen SMRs shift the major capital cost risk from individual power stations to the SMR manufacturer for series production, ie a power station can purchase a couple of mini nukes rather than having to put up the cost of a large power station up front to get economy of scale. However RR (or more likely the UK taxpayer) will be in trouble if they don't sell these mini nukes in bulk. The challenges facing large nuclear power stations largely also apply to smaller ones
Currently there is one protoptype SMR being constructed in China. I am guessing we are talking 2040s for industrial production of a technology with some promise.
By which time, we could have 10-12 tidal lagoon power stations each several years into power production, each the size of Sizewell C/Hinkley C at a fraction of the cost, lasting much longer, at zero risk to the environment or the taxpayer (private equity builds them) and with virtually no abandonment costs.
Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
£££
By the way, can I just reiterate my suggestion of a saltwater jet, like the Jet D'Eau in Geneva, being engineered into the Swansea Bay scheme? More than anything, probably even his love of free holidays and posh totty, Boris wants a legacy. The Boris jet, the highest saltwater jet in the world, would be a huge icon and tourist attraction. He might even risk the displeasure of the powerful lobbies to make it happen. This is someone who insisted on a land bridge over the Irish sea.
The PM could have had a series of Boris Bays, a legacy that would (at a minimum) last into the middle of the next century. And the Swansea scheme had lots of works of art along the length of the sea wall.
Don't worry, Lewis Hamilton will be allowed to move into the correct place.
Not sure what David Croft is talking about regarding the rules. They very clearly stated all lapped cars must pass the safety car, so not sure what they've changed.
Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
The other side of the question is what is wrong with tidal? Because the complete dislike of it is interesting…
For what it's worth, when I was PPS to Malcolm Wicks as Energy Minister, the cost per unit of tidal was colossally more than any other kind of energy - I forget the exact figures but it was more than 10 times more than most of forms of energy. We really wanted to encourage it but the figures were intimidating (onshore wind was the cheapest, by a long way, but of course the need for continuous supply is an issue, quite apart from nimbyism).
That was 15 years ago and the sums will undoubtedly have changed, but have they changed enough? Or should we do it at any price because of the reliability of domestic supply? Perhaps - but it's not absolutely obvious.
It seems that bloke who claims to be an author has done a thing...
That reminds me, I need to order some bog roll.
Was watching a video about cost of goods in Russia since sanctions...luxury bog roll has got very expensive apparently. They might be using these kind of books instead shortly.
Russia starts conscripting population living in occupied Donbas to reinforce its armed forces fighting in Ukraine. This is a gross violation of international law, including Geneva Convention. Russian officials’ list of war crimes continues to expand. They will be held accountable https://mobile.twitter.com/OlegNikolenko_/status/1505277919366627336
More conscripts. That'll do the trick, Vlad.
Er, weeks back, wasn't Vlad firing generals because they, er, used conscripts that they weren't supposed to take to war? All very confusing. Almost as if Putin has double standards or something.
The way things are going he'll be running out of generals to fire very soon.
The ones that remain may be fired into the heart of the sun. Russian agents have taken a keen interest in Mr. Dancer's space cannon, I've heard....
Basically: the first Russian plan has failed, and we are heading for a bloody stalemate.
I've been following that site for a while, Josias. It has been consistently restrained and well-balanced.
At the outset it was deeply pessimistic about the prospects of Ukraine and its army. It has gradually modified its view and the report to which you refer is the most optimistic assessment they have produced yet.
My reading of the situation is that the ISW doesn't want to raise false expectations, especially as Russia may yet resort to chemical or tactical nuclear weapons. Nevertheless it is impossible to read their coverage without inferring that the tide has been turning, and may well do so further.
The tide has turned from Russia wining quickly, militarily, to Russia wining very, very slowly, militarily.
The question is can they sustain this meat grinder, while the economy collapses from sanctions?
Quite.
And Russian supply problems will likely only worsen, as their manufacturing ability is going to be hit by sanctions.
The scenario I am increasingly thinking how this plays out is the 1918 Western Front and eventual defeat of Germany.
You had the March offensive which looked like it would win the war for Germany but then it lost momentum. You then had a couple of months where Germany was pushed back but not too much, and then the collapse of its front in the final months before the Armistice as the troops refused to fight and discontent at home, fueled by the economic blockade, sparked revolt.
I don't think we are necessarily that far off this situation here. It is clear Russia cannot win; their losses are horrendous; the sanctions will increasingly bite and Russia's manufacturing capability will ground to a halt. Calling up the conscripts is likely to be the final straw.
Russia starts conscripting population living in occupied Donbas to reinforce its armed forces fighting in Ukraine. This is a gross violation of international law, including Geneva Convention. Russian officials’ list of war crimes continues to expand. They will be held accountable https://mobile.twitter.com/OlegNikolenko_/status/1505277919366627336
More conscripts. That'll do the trick, Vlad.
Er, weeks back, wasn't Vlad firing generals because they, er, used conscripts that they weren't supposed to take to war? All very confusing. Almost as if Putin has double standards or something.
The way things are going he'll be running out of generals to fire very soon.
The ones that remain may be fired into the heart of the sun. Russian agents have taken a keen interest in Mr. Dancer's space cannon, I've heard....
Have they made a special application to relate them as officials of the DfE and join the Gogalfrincham Ark B @Malmesbury is building?
Zelensky draws parallels between Russian invasion and WW2
President Zelensky draws parallels between Russia's invasion of Ukraine and World War Two.
He says the invasion is "not a military operation".
"It's a full scale war aimed at the destruction of our people, the destruction of our children, families, statehood, cities, cultures and everything that makes them Ukrainian."
"That's why I have the right to draw this parallel in history. Our wars for survival and the Second World War."
Don't worry, Lewis Hamilton will be allowed to move into the correct place.
Not sure what David Croft is talking about regarding the rules. They very clearly stated all lapped cars must pass the safety car, so not sure what they've changed.
No it didn't. It said 'any.' Not 'all.'
The problem was not the Masi's actions broke the letter of the rules. It was that he broke the spirit of them. Because 'any' probably should have included 'all' and any (sorry) reasonable person would take it that way.
However, being caught between the gruesome pressures Mercedes and RBR were bringing to bear Masi seemed to be past reason,
Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
The other side of the question is what is wrong with tidal? Because the complete dislike of it is interesting…
For what it's worth, when I was PPS to Malcolm Wicks as Energy Minister, the cost per unit of tidal was colossally more than any other kind of energy - I forget the exact figures but it was more than 10 times more than most of forms of energy. We really wanted to encourage it but the figures were intimidating (onshore wind was the cheapest, by a long way, but of course the need for continuous supply is an issue, quite apart from nimbyism).
That was 15 years ago and the sums will undoubtedly have changed, but have they changed enough? Or should we do it at any price because of the reliability of domestic supply? Perhaps - but it's not absolutely obvious.
Civil service calculations on this are claimed to be wrong, FWIW. And the costings for nuclear have already proved colossally wrong, too.
As @MarqueeMark points out, tidal lasts for a looong time. Government borrowing at very low interest rates (we might now have left it too late ?) plus the bulk of the spending being domestic also helps the sums.
There’s also the interesting tidal fence technology, which might provide a much cheaper option for the Severn.
How deeply did you go into this, Nick ? I’d be really interested to know.
It seems that bloke who claims to be an author has done a thing...
That reminds me, I need to order some bog roll.
Was watching a video about cost of goods in Russia since sanctions...luxury bog roll has got very expensive apparently. They might be using these kind of books instead shortly.
Which does leave open the question - what the fuck is Boris playing at pushing nuclear?
The other side of the question is what is wrong with tidal? Because the complete dislike of it is interesting…
For what it's worth, when I was PPS to Malcolm Wicks as Energy Minister, the cost per unit of tidal was colossally more than any other kind of energy - I forget the exact figures but it was more than 10 times more than most of forms of energy. We really wanted to encourage it but the figures were intimidating (onshore wind was the cheapest, by a long way, but of course the need for continuous supply is an issue, quite apart from nimbyism).
That was 15 years ago and the sums will undoubtedly have changed, but have they changed enough? Or should we do it at any price because of the reliability of domestic supply? Perhaps - but it's not absolutely obvious.
The cost is significantly below nuclear - £92.50 for Hinkley C, Cardiff would be £50-£55 range.
The problem was Swansea as a testbed was much smaller and so had a much higher unit cost than all the scaled up tidal lagoons. Even so, it was cheaper than nuclear. But the Swansea numbers get thrown about as being typical - by people trying to say tidal doesn't work. It would, and on a massive scale. Wind is saying it will be a sub-£40 cost for 2025 onwards. But that kit will barely last 30 years before it has to be replaced from the seabed up. When you factor in that, tidal is a brilliant resource.
Plus, it is utterly dependable. 14 hours a day, every day, you can predict what power it will be generating in 125 years time. No drop-off. And with a series of 10 lagoons around the coast, because of differing times of the high tides, you have a predictable baseload across 24 hours.
Polling shows Ukrainians see Britain as their third closest ally after neighbouring Poland and Lithuania, ahead of the United States. France and Germany are seventh and fifth from bottom respectively. What this shows is the importance Ukrainians are placing on military aid.
So Red Bull have the second fastest car, but they're nearly as unreliable as a civil servant's analysis of education (and it's not just Verstappen either).
Meanwhile, Mercedes are well off the pace, but at least can keep their cars running.
And Ferrari have a car that seems to be fast and reliable.
Don't worry, Lewis Hamilton will be allowed to move into the correct place.
Not sure what David Croft is talking about regarding the rules. They very clearly stated all lapped cars must pass the safety car, so not sure what they've changed.
No it didn't. It said 'any.' Not 'all.'
The problem was not the Masi's actions broke the letter of the rules. It was that he broke the spirit of them. Because 'any' probably should have included 'all' and any (sorry) reasonable person would take it that way.
However, being caught between the gruesome pressures Mercedes and RBR were bringing to bear Masi seemed to be past reason,
Okay, let's do this all again for those who just don't get it.
The rule stated: "If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system, any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car.
"Unless the clerk of the course considers the presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap."
So, not all drivers were informed and there's no discretion about it. Lapped cars are required to pass the safety car. And the safety car didn't do another lap after the lapped cars overtook.
And even if Masi buckled under pressure, the stewards should have corrected the error after the race.
Polling shows Ukrainians see Britain as their third closest ally after neighbouring Poland and Lithuania, ahead of the United States. France and Germany are seventh and fifth from bottom respectively. What this shows is the importance Ukrainians are placing on military aid.
A better analogy than Boris's EU vs. Britain = Russia vs. Ukraine one would be a post-separation Scotland wanting to join the EU, but RUK, for strategic reasons, is very anti. It offers the RUK-friendly Scottish PM a wide-ranging trade deal with RUK if Scotland gives up it's attempt to join the EU. However, it all kicks off on the Scottish side, as the attempt by RUK to decide the course of Scotland's future is resented by many, and many others frankly just hate the bones of the English, so it doesn't matter that there's probably more benefit in the UK deal than the EU deal for Scotland, protests kick off (aided by the EU) and unseat the RUK favouring PM, replacing him with an EU-loving one. There's pretty much open dislike from then on, RUK accusing the EU of unwarranted interference in it's back yard, the EU insisting that the UK is being a bully and attempting to thwart the will of the Scottish people. Scottish people growing steadily less pro-RUK, except a significant English minority, who are just getting more and more nervous. Etc.
So, I'm struggling with the use of the word 'analogy', because it normally implies some sort of similarity.
Let's start with the obvious.
1. Ukraine voted overwhelmingly for independence when they had the chance. 2. Russia then guaranteed Ukraine's borders in return for them giving up their nuclear weapons. 3. Russia then ignored these guarantees and invaded in 2014.
So, when you say 'analogy', what exactly do you mean?
Ultimately it seems to be just a fancy way of justifying why you think the Russians deserve agency, while the Ukrainians should do what they're told (by the Russians).
Even their nuclear advantage will decline over time. It is unclear they can purchase all the inputs needed to maintain nukes over time. Plus the US is investing heavily in anti-missile technology via its close defense work with the Israelis. There could come a point in the future where the West could shoot all the nukes out of the sky.
The word "could" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. I'd note that the US, Russian, and Chinese governments have much less ambitious aims for their ABM systems, limiting their expensive programmes to shooting down a few missiles from a rogue state, or defending only a small area. People have been working on ABM systems for over 60 years, and the cost of such systems has always favoured the attacker. i.e. It's cheap to up the number of targets, but it's expensive to increase the number and type of targets that can be engaged.
Even their nuclear advantage will decline over time. It is unclear they can purchase all the inputs needed to maintain nukes over time. Plus the US is investing heavily in anti-missile technology via its close defense work with the Israelis. There could come a point in the future where the West could shoot all the nukes out of the sky.
The word "could" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. I'd note that the US, Russian, and Chinese governments have much less ambitious aims for their ABM systems, limiting their expensive programmes to shooting down a few missiles from a rogue state, or defending only a small area. People have been working on ABM systems for over 60 years, and the cost of such systems has always favoured the attacker. i.e. It's cheap to up the number of targets, but it's expensive to increase the number and type of targets that can be engaged.
As the IRA observed "You have to be lucky always. We only have to be lucky once."
Don't worry, Lewis Hamilton will be allowed to move into the correct place.
Not sure what David Croft is talking about regarding the rules. They very clearly stated all lapped cars must pass the safety car, so not sure what they've changed.
No it didn't. It said 'any.' Not 'all.'
The problem was not the Masi's actions broke the letter of the rules. It was that he broke the spirit of them. Because 'any' probably should have included 'all' and any (sorry) reasonable person would take it that way.
However, being caught between the gruesome pressures Mercedes and RBR were bringing to bear Masi seemed to be past reason,
Okay, let's do this all again for those who just don't get it.
The rule stated: "If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system, any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car.
"Unless the clerk of the course considers the presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap."
So, not all drivers were informed and there's no discretion about it. Lapped cars are required to pass the safety car. And the safety car didn't do another lap after the lapped cars overtook.
OK, I'll leave it. You're wrong, but it is after all no longer important and I don't wish to find you have a Hyufd style persistence to stick to your own view while everyone else wishes we would STFU.
Red Bull are going to have to improve reliability if they want to challenge Ferrari here. On this race they remind me of McLaren in the Hakkinen era. Very fast, but very fragile.
Where do Mercedes find around a second a lap to challenge though? Hard work ahead.
It will be interesting to see how well Hamilton does in a less competitive car though. He's never really had a car that was so far off the pace.
Distressing stories coming out of Belarus, of the local soldiers being forced to clean Russian tanks
And when I say "clean" I mean: hosing out the remains of Russian soldiers. Apparently this chore is known to cause deep trauma in anyone tasked with it, hence the Russians using Belarusians
Even their nuclear advantage will decline over time. It is unclear they can purchase all the inputs needed to maintain nukes over time. Plus the US is investing heavily in anti-missile technology via its close defense work with the Israelis. There could come a point in the future where the West could shoot all the nukes out of the sky.
The word "could" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. I'd note that the US, Russian, and Chinese governments have much less ambitious aims for their ABM systems, limiting their expensive programmes to shooting down a few missiles from a rogue state, or defending only a small area. People have been working on ABM systems for over 60 years, and the cost of such systems has always favoured the attacker. i.e. It's cheap to up the number of targets, but it's expensive to increase the number and type of targets that can be engaged.
As the IRA observed "You have to be lucky always. We only have to be lucky once."
It's really quite simple. A decoy is dirt cheap, so you can lots of those for not much money, but you can't have a decoy interceptor, those have to be real. Never mind electronic warfare where you end up firing very expensive ABM missiles at ghosts.
The Ukraine war is moving towards a stalemate according to what I have read. The Russian aim for a quick victory has been thwarted but they now move on to plan B, i.e. pound the cities into submission with bombs.
What puzzles me is why the successful Ukrainian attacks with hand-held rockets and drones against tanks and vehicles would not work against artillery howitzers. Can anyone explain?
Don't worry, Lewis Hamilton will be allowed to move into the correct place.
Not sure what David Croft is talking about regarding the rules. They very clearly stated all lapped cars must pass the safety car, so not sure what they've changed.
No it didn't. It said 'any.' Not 'all.'
The problem was not the Masi's actions broke the letter of the rules. It was that he broke the spirit of them. Because 'any' probably should have included 'all' and any (sorry) reasonable person would take it that way.
However, being caught between the gruesome pressures Mercedes and RBR were bringing to bear Masi seemed to be past reason,
Okay, let's do this all again for those who just don't get it.
The rule stated: "If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system, any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car.
"Unless the clerk of the course considers the presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap."
So, not all drivers were informed and there's no discretion about it. Lapped cars are required to pass the safety car. And the safety car didn't do another lap after the lapped cars overtook.
OK, I'll leave it. You're wrong, but it is after all no longer important and I don't wish to find you have a Hyufd style persistence to stick to your own view while everyone else wishes we would STFU.
Don't worry, Lewis Hamilton will be allowed to move into the correct place.
Not sure what David Croft is talking about regarding the rules. They very clearly stated all lapped cars must pass the safety car, so not sure what they've changed.
No it didn't. It said 'any.' Not 'all.'
The problem was not the Masi's actions broke the letter of the rules. It was that he broke the spirit of them. Because 'any' probably should have included 'all' and any (sorry) reasonable person would take it that way.
However, being caught between the gruesome pressures Mercedes and RBR were bringing to bear Masi seemed to be past reason,
Okay, let's do this all again for those who just don't get it.
The rule stated: "If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system, any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car.
"Unless the clerk of the course considers the presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap."
So, not all drivers were informed and there's no discretion about it. Lapped cars are required to pass the safety car. And the safety car didn't do another lap after the lapped cars overtook.
OK, I'll leave it. You're wrong, but it is after all no longer important and I don't wish to find you have a Hyufd style persistence to stick to your own view while everyone else wishes we would STFU.
Don't you fucking dare.
Why am I wrong?
Because you're reading into it a lack of ambiguity that wasn't there.
But like I say, this would get tedious. As we saw last year, indeed.
Gentle request to the petrolheads about the race - some of us (i.e. me) watch the catch up on Ch 4 later, so could you please comment within the spoiler tag which is conveniently there for you to do so.
Distressing stories coming out of Belarus, of the local soldiers being forced to clean Russian tanks
And when I say "clean" I mean: hosing out the remains of Russian soldiers. Apparently this chore is known to cause deep trauma in anyone tasked with it, hence the Russians using Belarusians
Such a charming regime
So....are those tanks in Belarus? Or Belarussian soldiers in Ukraine?
If the tanks are in Belarus - how? Why? We are seeing them just abandoned on the battlefield, bodies scattered. Not sure why they would be cleaning out tanks that had been hit.
The Ukraine war is moving towards a stalemate according to what I have read. The Russian aim for a quick victory has been thwarted but they now move on to plan B, i.e. pound the cities into submission with bombs.
What puzzles me is why the successful Ukrainian attacks with hand-held rockets and drones against tanks and vehicles would not work against artillery howitzers. Can anyone explain?
I think the howitzers are a lot further away - often actually inside Russia.
Don't worry, Lewis Hamilton will be allowed to move into the correct place.
Not sure what David Croft is talking about regarding the rules. They very clearly stated all lapped cars must pass the safety car, so not sure what they've changed.
No it didn't. It said 'any.' Not 'all.'
The problem was not the Masi's actions broke the letter of the rules. It was that he broke the spirit of them. Because 'any' probably should have included 'all' and any (sorry) reasonable person would take it that way.
However, being caught between the gruesome pressures Mercedes and RBR were bringing to bear Masi seemed to be past reason,
Okay, let's do this all again for those who just don't get it.
The rule stated: "If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system, any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car.
"Unless the clerk of the course considers the presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap."
So, not all drivers were informed and there's no discretion about it. Lapped cars are required to pass the safety car. And the safety car didn't do another lap after the lapped cars overtook.
OK, I'll leave it. You're wrong, but it is after all no longer important and I don't wish to find you have a Hyufd style persistence to stick to your own view while everyone else wishes we would STFU.
Don't you fucking dare.
Why am I wrong?
Because you're reading into it a lack of ambiguity that wasn't there.
But like I say, this would get tedious. As we saw last year, indeed.
At the very least, what is ambiguous about:
"once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap."
The Ukraine war is moving towards a stalemate according to what I have read. The Russian aim for a quick victory has been thwarted but they now move on to plan B, i.e. pound the cities into submission with bombs.
What puzzles me is why the successful Ukrainian attacks with hand-held rockets and drones against tanks and vehicles would not work against artillery howitzers. Can anyone explain?
I'd like to know the answer to that too.
Also how well the Ukrainians are getting on with training reservists.
Comments
1. Increase blockade including by by unofficial measures.
2. Be diplomatic to China, India and fence sitters and encourage their switch. Behind the scenes make it clear this conflict is our no 1 priority. If they undermine us they will suffer. E.g India should be secretly threatened with big long term economic hit if they buy increased amounts of Russian gas or oil.
3. Covertly give green light to Blackwater and similar to enter Ukraine as a counter balance to Wagner. I assume they are well trained in modern weapon systems which can accompany them.
4. Can we get long range missiles into Ukraine to hit rail transport inside Russia and also hit their long range missile and artillery systems?
https://twitter.com/amichaistein1/status/1505260513260969986?s=21
Or he made the mistake of saying something even his grip on the media couldn't pretend was true, so he pulled the dictator equivalent of the 'I'm stupid' defence and had to pretend it had happened without official sanction.
https://www.lda-design.co.uk/work/portfolio/swansea-bay-tidal-lagoon/
The biggest settlement Russia has got control of is Kherson, population 290,000. Unless the Ukrainian army collapses the casualties they'll take in trying to control the major cities are enormous.
And Russian supply problems will likely only worsen, as their manufacturing ability is going to be hit by sanctions.
If you, tons of such structure have been built over the years. There was even an accidental (!) tidal pond, of that nature, built round an oil rig in Alaska, IIRC.
I would think that the big question in this is the maintenance/damage rate of the turbines - exposed to storm/wave action and with lots of sand and larger particles in the water going through them. Not necessarily a show stopper, but that would be the biggest risk, I would thing.
What counts as a village, town or city may vary based on the size of the country in question as well, so what counts a city in one might not in the other.
We might have to use quite small print, of course.
Germany rearming and - along with the rest of Europe - weaning itself off Russian gas. Bans on fracking in eastern Europe being overturned left and right. Relations between the UK and the EU much improved. Finland and Sweden potentially in NATO. And sanctions on the high tech machine tools and oil services equipment Russia desperately needs continuing in perpetuity.
And the remainder of Ukraine welcomed into the EU.
There is a massive win for Starmer on this. The Government is taking a hell of a risk of him playing this card. Especially as it would go down especially well in all the Red Wall seats. Both where the lagoons get built and the components get made (they are 85%+ UK spend).
Did I mention that he had already trashed the reputation of Russian military kit relative to Western gear, thus destroying one of their few non commodity exports.
It produces the cheapest power in France.
So no, not such an issue.
Winchcombe, where I am now, has a population of about 5,000 and is a town. In fact they get very sniffy if you call it a village, which to all appearances it is.
No I don't understand it either.
I seem to remember this can be an issue for some river dams where the water has a high sediment load.
I have no idea if this is even an issue for tidal, but how often does one needf to clean out the tidal basin?
As I see it we basically have villages, towns, and conurbations, any of which might be gain the title of city.
This is a public document you might find interesting:
" shallow waters with gently sloping beach profiles are preferable to minimise
environmental and economic impacts."
https://www.tidallagoonpower.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/8.1_Part3.pdf
Kirkwall in Orkney = under 8K but a city.
Don't forget the cheap oil + wheat as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Davids
The Bible of the Dead??
1. Take and hold ground; failing that because it is too difficult
2. Kill civilians, the max number where you can just about plausibly claim that it isn't intentional
Because if you can't hold ground you want to push towards negotiation, and nothing gets international public opinion saying OMG this must be stopped, like bombing a children's hospital. Military deaths just don't have the same effect.
That was 15 years ago and the sums will undoubtedly have changed, but have they changed enough? Or should we do it at any price because of the reliability of domestic supply? Perhaps - but it's not absolutely obvious.
You had the March offensive which looked like it would win the war for Germany but then it lost momentum. You then had a couple of months where Germany was pushed back but not too much, and then the collapse of its front in the final months before the Armistice as the troops refused to fight and discontent at home, fueled by the economic blockade, sparked revolt.
I don't think we are necessarily that far off this situation here. It is clear Russia cannot win; their losses are horrendous; the sanctions will increasingly bite and Russia's manufacturing capability will ground to a halt. Calling up the conscripts is likely to be the final straw.
https://gwlad.org/en/english-turning-back-the-tide/
Zelensky draws parallels between Russian invasion and WW2
President Zelensky draws parallels between Russia's invasion of Ukraine and World War Two.
He says the invasion is "not a military operation".
"It's a full scale war aimed at the destruction of our people, the destruction of our children, families, statehood, cities, cultures and everything that makes them Ukrainian."
"That's why I have the right to draw this parallel in history. Our wars for survival and the Second World War."
Oddly, no mention of Brexit.
https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1505563536403091464
The problem was not the Masi's actions broke the letter of the rules. It was that he broke the spirit of them. Because 'any' probably should have included 'all' and any (sorry) reasonable person would take it that way.
However, being caught between the gruesome pressures Mercedes and RBR were bringing to bear Masi seemed to be past reason,
As @MarqueeMark points out, tidal lasts for a looong time. Government borrowing at very low interest rates (we might now have left it too late ?) plus the bulk of the spending being domestic also helps the sums.
There’s also the interesting tidal fence technology, which might provide a much cheaper option for the Severn.
How deeply did you go into this, Nick ? I’d be really interested to know.
The problem was Swansea as a testbed was much smaller and so had a much higher unit cost than all the scaled up tidal lagoons. Even so, it was cheaper than nuclear. But the Swansea numbers get thrown about as being typical - by people trying to say tidal doesn't work. It would, and on a massive scale. Wind is saying it will be a sub-£40 cost for 2025 onwards. But that kit will barely last 30 years before it has to be replaced from the seabed up. When you factor in that, tidal is a brilliant resource.
Plus, it is utterly dependable. 14 hours a day, every day, you can predict what power it will be generating in 125 years time. No drop-off. And with a series of 10 lagoons around the coast, because of differing times of the high tides, you have a predictable baseload across 24 hours.
Meanwhile, Mercedes are well off the pace, but at least can keep their cars running.
And Ferrari have a car that seems to be fast and reliable.
Not an ideal race for Red Bull, to put it mildly.
The rule stated: "If the clerk of the course considers it safe to do so, and the message "LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE" has been sent to all Competitors via the official messaging system, any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car.
"Unless the clerk of the course considers the presence of the safety car is still necessary, once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap."
So, not all drivers were informed and there's no discretion about it. Lapped cars are required to pass the safety car. And the safety car didn't do another lap after the lapped cars overtook.
And even if Masi buckled under pressure, the stewards should have corrected the error after the race.
(For the avoidance of doubt, not your arse falling off.)
Let's start with the obvious.
1. Ukraine voted overwhelmingly for independence when they had the chance.
2. Russia then guaranteed Ukraine's borders in return for them giving up their nuclear weapons.
3. Russia then ignored these guarantees and invaded in 2014.
So, when you say 'analogy', what exactly do you mean?
Ultimately it seems to be just a fancy way of justifying why you think the Russians deserve agency, while the Ukrainians should do what they're told (by the Russians).
https://mk.ru/politics/2022/03/20/zamkomanduyushhego-chernomorskogo-flota-andrey-paliy-pogib-na-ukraine.html
https://kommersant.ru/doc/5269657
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1505584798231900164?s=20&t=pekGZM3Q5kulei35NPZM8w
Red Bull are going to have to improve reliability if they want to challenge Ferrari here. On this race they remind me of McLaren in the Hakkinen era. Very fast, but very fragile.
Where do Mercedes find around a second a lap to challenge though? Hard work ahead.
It will be interesting to see how well Hamilton does in a less competitive car though. He's never really had a car that was so far off the pace.
And when I say "clean" I mean: hosing out the remains of Russian soldiers. Apparently this chore is known to cause deep trauma in anyone tasked with it, hence the Russians using Belarusians
Such a charming regime
What puzzles me is why the successful Ukrainian attacks with hand-held rockets and drones against tanks and vehicles would not work against artillery howitzers. Can anyone explain?
Why am I wrong?
The cricket, however...
But like I say, this would get tedious. As we saw last year, indeed.
If the tanks are in Belarus - how? Why? We are seeing them just abandoned on the battlefield, bodies scattered. Not sure why they would be cleaning out tanks that had been hit.
Odd.
"once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap."
He'll have to go to the front line himself at this rate.
Also how well the Ukrainians are getting on with training reservists.