Russia invades Ukraine

[gg1]

2. EU-wide energy saving; roughly 10 bcm per 1C reduction in buildings heat. With thermostats at 18C (reduced from 22C): total 40 bcm

2. This one has some legs, though there's a huge assumption about current thermostat settings and the energy efficiency of buildings.

This is the least realistic of all of them IMO as it relies on the individual actions of 300+ million people. The only way it's vaguely plausible is if it's enshrined in law (something referenced in the headline page of the site you quoted but omitted in the details), and even then how would it be enforced? Random spot checks of people's homes?

I do agree with the point you alluded to about current thermostat settings, IME office buildings tend to be set in the high teens anyway and I very much doubt more than a small minority of people set their home thermostat at 22 or higher.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I wonder how serious Boris is about investing in nuclear and other green energy solutions so we don't become solely dependent on oil from Arab states - thus giving them the power to blackmail us in the future, or turn blind eyes to incidents?

He is not. At all.

I guess I must've been imagining this story from just over a week ago then (link)

On nuclear:

The government announced that a new body called Great British Nuclear will be launched to bolster the UK's nuclear capacity, with the hope that by 2050 up to 24 GW of electricity will come from that source - 25% of the projected electricity demand.
The focus on nuclear could deliver up to eight new reactors to be built on existing sites.
The government hopes to have a new reactor approved each year until 2030 with the aim to have them up and running by 2050.

It also confirmed advanced plans to approve two new reactors at Sizewell in Suffolk during this parliament.

On wind (from the same story):

The government said it would reform planning rules to cut approval times for new offshore wind farms, with the ambition that by 2030 more than half of the UK's renewable capacity will be wind.

I would say though that it's disappointing that more isn't being done about energy efficiency and more sustainable transport.

 

[najaB]

I guess I must've been imagining this story from just over a week ago then (link)

Oh, he'll say that he's serious but based on past experience (Boris bridge, Thames Estuary Airport, Northern Ireland fixed link, NPR, Tube ticket offices, ...) he is not .

Hopefully those civil servants who are actually going to be responsible for implementing the policy will be though.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Oh, he'll say that he's serious but based on past experience (Boris bridge, Thames Estuary Airport, Northern Ireland fixed link, NPR,...) he is not .

To be fair, I don't se any reason to doubt that he was serious about all those. The first three that you were cite were ultimately dropped not because of any lack of seriousness by Mr. Johnson, but because the relevant professionals investigated and concluded that the cost-benefit ratio made them not remotely worth building. (And if by 'Boris Bridge' you're referring to the proposed Thames Garden Bridge - I believe it was Sadiq Khan who ultimately scrapped that). But there doesn't seem any reason to disbelieve that whey would have proceeded if it had turned out to be sensible to do so. NPR is - as far as I'm aware - still planned to go ahead, although obviously bogged down in planning about what is doable and affordable.

Besides, 'past experience' about Boris promoting stuff would also include HS2, the London cablecar, the cycle superhighway network, and the Boris buses - and they are going/did go ahead (the cycle superhighway network in part because Sadiq Khan continued the idea)

 

[najaB]

To be fair, I don't se any reason to doubt that he was serious about all those.

If you believe that those were actual serious proposals rather than an attempt to get press attention, then that's actually even worse! He was serious about things that were obvious non-starters/extremely poor value for money.

Besides, 'past experience' about Boris promoting stuff would also include HS2, the London cablecar, the cycle superhighway network

HS2 Phase One achieved Royal Assent almost two years before he was PM, so is neither here nor there. Under his tenure, the scope of HS2 Phase Two has been considerably cut back.

The Emirates Airline is in a next-to-useless location, and as a result has a ridership of just c. 23,000 per week and cost nearly £60M (some £25M of which came from the taxpayer). £25M would have paid for at least 50 new electric double-decker buses. They cycle super-highway is a good one, agreed.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If you believe that those were actual serious proposals rather than an attempt to get press attention, then that's actually even worse! He was serious about things that were obvious non-starters/extremely poor value for money.

I think you're being unfair. To take the Thames Estuary airport as an example, sure - in 2022 it's obvious to those of us who hang around this forum enough to get some technical knowledge that it was a non-starter given the cost of building it. But politicians have to be all-rounder people, not technical experts, and back in 2008, before any studies had been done, it wasn't so obvious. There were good reasons for thinking about the idea: You would never today build an airport where Heathrow is - surrounded by built up area causing noise and pollution to millions of people and eating up a huge amount of valuable land in a prime position in London. And that was also a time when the risk of terrorist attacks causing aircraft to crash was much higher in the public consciousness than it is today - so the continuous stream of aircraft flying low over the middle of London on their approach to Heathrow weren't exactly comforting! And yes - I lived in London when Boris was Mayor - he was pushing the idea of the Thames Gateway Airport very strongly. But obviously, preliminary feasibility work was done, it became clear that the whole idea was way too expensive, and it was therefore sensibly dropped. That seems to me to be the right way to go about things, no?

And yes the Emirates Airline has been a white elephant and waste of money. Ditto the Boris buses turned out to be poor value. But if you are going to make big investment decisions, sometimes they won't work out. (Millennium Done, anyone?) I think though that a fair criticism of Boris is that he loves big ideas but doesn't do details (such as feasibility) so well.

HS2 Phase One achieved Royal Assent almost two years before he was PM, so is neither here nor there.

It received Royal Assent in 2017, but not full funding, and at the time Boris became PM, there was huge concern about mounting costs, and a very strong campaign by many Tories, the Green Party, and people who lived along the proposed route to get the whole thing scrapped. The Government commissioned the Oakervee review to look into it, and there did seem a real possibility in early 2020 that the Government would refuse funding to build it. I recall a lot of worry and debating on these forums about that during 2019. In the end, they did decide to proceed and that's all now history. Of course we have no way of knowing what private conversations happened within the Government at that time, but Boris was certainly a strong supporter of HS2 so there seems to be some possibility that influenced the decision (the 'red wall' constituencies were probably a factor too).

 

[najaB]

To take the Thames Estuary airport as an example, sure - in 2022 it's obvious to those of us who hang around this forum enough to get some technical knowledge that it was a non-starter given the cost of building it.

A Thames Estuary airport has been an obvious non-starter every time it's been proposed, which goes back to the 1940s.

But politicians have to be all-rounder people, not technical experts, and back in 2008, before any studies had been done, it wasn't so obvious.

Which is exactly why politicians have to surround themselves by competent people, and listen to the advice they're given. Failing to do so results in either publicly supporting completely infeasible projects at the least, or catastrophic military invasions of neighbouring countries with unclear objectives and no exit strategy which end up killing thousands of people and squandering billions for nothing in result.

 

[Typhoon]

But politicians have to be all-rounder people, not technical experts, and back in 2008, before any studies had been done, it wasn't so obvious.

Study No. 1. Was to planned to be anywhere near the wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery, a sunken WWII munitions vessel, cargo intact (well sort of)? Answer: Yes. Conclusion - site unsuitable.
I offer that for free. That's before you consider the sea fret.

FOR 60 years the people of Sheerness in the UK have been living next to a time bomb. A lethal mixture of unstable second world war bombs – amounting to 1400 tonnes of TNT – is in the rusting wreck of the Richard Montgomery, a US cargo ship which lies half submerged on a sandbank in the Thames estuary, just over 2 kilometres from the Kent town.

If the cargo explodes, the blast will bring death and devastation to a wide area. The UK government, though, has always played down the risk. Only seven months ago David Jamieson, the UK transport minister responsible for shipping, said that the Richard Montgomery “appears to be in a stable condition”. But 60 years after it sank, a New Scientist investigation, based partly on recently released government documents, reveals that the cargo is still deadly. A collision with another vessel, a terrorist or even the small shock of a bomb moving in the tide could set off the explosives. Worse, far from being stable, the condition of the bombs means they could even explode spontaneously.

Finding a solution to the problem is becoming more and more urgent. There is a worrying crack in the hull of the ship, close to where the most sensitive bombs are lying. If the hull gives way bombs could scatter onto the seabed, or the whole lot could go up.

Just the place for an airport - OK, the airport wasn't intended to be on top of the wreck, but surely anywhere even fairly close is a 'No'. You won't get me living in Sheerness or much of the rest of northern Sheppey as a result.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18324615-100-the-doomsday-wreck/?ignored=irrelevant

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A Thames Estuary airport has been an obvious non-starter every time it's been proposed, which goes back to the 1940s.

I usually spend my entire working day immersed in technology that probably wasn't remotely feasible even 25 years ago. So I'm not buying any argument that, because a Thames Estuary Airport wasn't feasible in the 1940s or even - say - the 1970s, you shouldn't at least investigate whether it might be feasible in 2008.

Which is exactly why politicians have to surround themselves by competent people, and listen to the advice they're given. Failing to do so results in either publicly supporting completely infeasible projects at the least, or catastrophic military invasions of neighbouring countries with unclear objectives and no exit strategy which end up killing thousands of people and squandering billions for nothing in result.

Which rather neatly brings us back to the topic of this debate. I suspect you might have been thinking of a different invasion when you wrote that, but I would strongly suspect that Ukraine would not be trying to fight off overwhelming numbers of incompetent Russian military if Putin had received decent advice beforehand. And the problem there is much more acute because it rather seems that the lack of democracy in Russia means no-one is willing to offer impartial advice if it's not what the President is likely to want to hear.

 

[najaB]

Which rather neatly brings us back to the topic of this debate. I suspect you might have been thinking of a different invasion when you wrote that,

It, unfortunately, can be applied to any number of failed windmill-tilting exercises through history.

I usually spend my entire working day immersed in technology that probably wasn't remotely feasible even 25 years ago. So I'm not buying any argument that, because a Thames Estuary Airport wasn't feasible in the 1940s or even - say - the 1970s, you shouldn't at least investigate whether it might be feasible in 2008.

Just to try to bookend this sub-discussion - it's always been technically feasible, it's just never been the right solution.

 

[yorksrob]

Now that Russian forces appear to be consolidating on the east of Ukraine, be I wonder if this is a time to infill Western forces to the rest of the country.

Russia is confined to lobbing some missiles over, perhaps now is the time to deny them territory in the area.

Russia has, in all but name, given up on the western areas of Ukraine. perhaps now is the time to defend the majority of Ukraine with the West and ensure that Russia is never again allowed to exert influence against Europe again. Get the armies and the missiles (we had an agreement with the Russians not to have nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe. That must surely have been destroyed by the current situation. We need to arm to the teeth.) lined up to keep Russia at bay.

 

[Chingy]

Now that Russian forces appear to be consolidating on the east of Ukraine, be I wonder if this is a time to infill Western forces to the rest of the country.

Russia is confined to lobbing some missiles over, perhaps now is the time to deny them territory in the area.

Russia has, in all but name, given up on the western areas of Ukraine. perhaps now is the time to defend the majority of Ukraine with the West and ensure that Russia is never again allowed to exert influence against Europe again. Get the armies and the missiles (we had an agreement with the Russians not to have nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe. That must surely have been destroyed by the current situation. We need to arm to the teeth.) lined up to keep Russia at bay.

There have been quite a few rocket attacks on Lviv in recent days, about as far west in Ukraine as you can get.

On the ground, they are concentrating on the two eastern regions of Ukraine, yes, but all areas of Ukraine are still at risk of attack, the west namely from the air so I don't think they've quite given up, just more that they've realised they haven't the ground troops to attack the whole of Ukraine on the ground.

 

[najaB]

Now that Russian forces appear to be consolidating on the east of Ukraine, be I wonder if this is a time to infill Western forces to the rest of the country.

By "Western forces" do you mean NATO troops? I think it would still be potentially seen as escalatory, though I could see some Patriot/THAAD batteries being deployed in Eastern Poland or Romania.

 

[Annetts key]

I would certainly be in favour of the west supplying Ukraine with lots of missile defence systems…
Once in place, then the west could train Ukrainian military in the use of modern western supplied weapon systems.

 

[yorksrob]

Exactly, Russia has decided on the East. NATO should exert is presence in the the Western Ukraine (with Ukraine's agreement, obviously) then Anything Russia does, they will have to decide if they escalate.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I would certainly be in favour of the west supplying Ukraine with lots of missile defence systems…
Once in place, then the west could train Ukrainian military in the use of modern western supplied weapon systems.

Yes, I have wondered about how many rockets are getting through - though there seem to be reports that at least some are getting destroyed by Ukraine's air defence systems.

Does anyone know... is it a question of, the West hasn't yet supplied Ukraine with sufficient ground-to-air defence systems, but it would be possible to do so if we chose to, or is it that it is impossible to completely protect against missiles?

 

[najaB]

Does anyone know... is it a question of, the West hasn't yet supplied Ukraine with sufficient ground-to-air defence systems, but it would be possible to do so if we chose to, or is it that it is impossible to completely protect against missiles?

It's a bit of both. We haven't supplied a lot anti-missile systems, and even if we had, they aren't 100% effective.

 

[yorksrob]

The more anti-aircraft systems we can supply against Russia, the better.

 

[TheEdge]

Yes, I have wondered about how many rockets are getting through - though there seem to be reports that at least some are getting destroyed by Ukraine's air defence systems.

Does anyone know... is it a question of, the West hasn't yet supplied Ukraine with sufficient ground-to-air defence systems, but it would be possible to do so if we chose to, or is it that it is impossible to completely protect against missiles?

What @najaB said. Shooting down missiles isn't an easy thing to do. The best platforms (ironically) for anti missile defense are warships using Close In Weapons Systems (CIWS). There are normally huge multi barrel rotary canon affairs like Phalanx, Goalkeeper or the AK-630 systems. But they have relatively short effective ranges (a few thousand metres) and are designed for hitting large subsonic sea skimming anti ship missiles. Ballistic missiles and cruise missiles are normally high subsonic, supersonic or sometimes terminally supersonic (that is they use a rocket to accelerate into a dive at their target to reduce reaction times), much smaller and cruising at altitudes meaning a system with a 2,000m range wont get a very long window to engage them. And normal air defense systems are capable of shooting them down but it a much lower success rate than against aircraft.

There are some very advanced and effective systems, notably Israel's Iron Dome system but for political reasons that's not going to Ukraine any time soon. You've also got Aegis which is a fully NATO system but it's not really something that can really be given to Ukraine practically.

 

[Annetts key]

While it is certainly true that no system is 100% effective, where they are not having to provide point defence of one asset, and if there are enough covering a wide area, then they can certainly provide sufficient protection to reduce the number of missiles that get through.

Although it does depend on the types of missiles that are being fired at you.

Going on some reports, at least some of the missiles targeted at western Ukraine are being air launched from Russian aircraft flying outside Ukrainian airspace. So to get to western Ukraine they have a significant distance to fly.

 

[DustyBin]

Now that Russian forces appear to be consolidating on the east of Ukraine, be I wonder if this is a time to infill Western forces to the rest of the country.

Russia is confined to lobbing some missiles over, perhaps now is the time to deny them territory in the area.

Russia has, in all but name, given up on the western areas of Ukraine. perhaps now is the time to defend the majority of Ukraine with the West and ensure that Russia is never again allowed to exert influence against Europe again. Get the armies and the missiles (we had an agreement with the Russians not to have nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe. That must surely have been destroyed by the current situation. We need to arm to the teeth.) lined up to keep Russia at bay.

The Russians are attacking targets across Ukraine at present (or “lobbing some missiles over” as you put it). The problem is that any forces entering Ukraine would be potential targets, and personally at this stage I think Putin absolutely would target them. That leads us straight into the very situation we’ve been trying to avoid. At some point I could see a peacekeeping force (preferably UN) being deployed in Ukraine, but not during a major Russian offensive.

The strategy being pursued is the correct one in my opinion, i.e. give Ukraine the tools to defend itself. In the short term there are limits as to what is actually useful due to the training required etc. but longer term I’d like to see Ukraine provided with sophisticated anti-aircraft systems and other equipment to bolster it’s capabilities. Ukraine will very likely end up providing Europe with a “buffer zone” against Russian aggression, which is somewhat ironic given Putin’s original objective……

It’s clear at this point that Russia poses little threat to the rest of Europe, which was the concern when the invasion began. That said there’s no harm in NATO reinforcing it’s eastern flank if only to provide reassurance in the area and signal to Russia that it’s serious (it’s actually doing this already). Stationing nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe though isn’t a great move. It achieves nothing in practical terms and I don’t think anybody wants a re-run of the Cuban Missile Crisis!

 

[Cloud Strife]

I do agree with the point you alluded to about current thermostat settings, IME office buildings tend to be set in the high teens anyway and I very much doubt more than a small minority of people set their home thermostat at 22 or higher.

22 is pretty much normal in Poland and other countries in this part of the world. It's ridiculous. There was a massive outroar in one municipality when school temperatures were reduced to the legal minimum of 18C.

 

[yorksrob]

The Russians are attacking targets across Ukraine at present (or “lobbing some missiles over” as you put it). The problem is that any forces entering Ukraine would be potential targets, and personally at this stage I think Putin absolutely would target them. That leads us straight into the very situation we’ve been trying to avoid. At some point I could see a peacekeeping force (preferably UN) being deployed in Ukraine, but not during a major Russian offensive.

The strategy being pursued is the correct one in my opinion, i.e. give Ukraine the tools to defend itself. In the short term there are limits as to what is actually useful due to the training required etc. but longer term I’d like to see Ukraine provided with sophisticated anti-aircraft systems and other equipment to bolster it’s capabilities. Ukraine will very likely end up providing Europe with a “buffer zone” against Russian aggression, which is somewhat ironic given Putin’s original objective……

It’s clear at this point that Russia poses little threat to the rest of Europe, which was the concern when the invasion began. That said there’s no harm in NATO reinforcing it’s eastern flank if only to provide reassurance in the area and signal to Russia that it’s serious (it’s actually doing this already). Stationing nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe though isn’t a great move. It achieves nothing in practical terms and I don’t think anybody wants a re-run of the Cuban Missile Crisis!

You're probably correct.

I think at some stage Ukraine will need to be given the option of being brought into the Western military alliance.

This whole situation appears to have been enabled because this wasn't done quickly enough.

 

[Annetts key]

Ukraine found itself in a catch 22 situation once Russia took Crimea and the ‘breakaway’ Donbas areas. While these are disputed, it is unlikely to be accepted as a N.A.T.O. member. But without being a member of N.A.T.O. it had to rely on its own military forces to defend itself against Russia. But the whole original purpose of N.A.T.O. is to defend members against a large aggressor… Just what Ukraine wanted and needed. And I think if western military forces or N.A.T.O. member forces had been in Ukraine in large numbers, Russia would not have started this 2022 war in Ukraine.

Instead, due to some of the N.A.T.O. members being cautious about possibly escalating the war, and being afraid of Putin using nuclear weapons, the western countries have decided only to supply Ukraine with supplies.

What happens next is anyone’s guess. Will the Ukrainian forces continue to hold back the Russian forces? Or will Russian forces break through and grab even more of the country?

How will western governments react if this happens.

So many lives of people destroyed and far, far too many people killed. All for a war that should never have happened.

 

[gg1]

22 is pretty much normal in Poland and other countries in this part of the world. It's ridiculous. There was a massive outroar in one municipality when school temperatures were reduced to the legal minimum of 18C.

Wow, that surprises me, I wasn't aware of that.

My response was based purely on the situation in the UK, I hadn't considered the different norms elsewhere in Europe.

 

[Annetts key]

Wow, that surprises me, I wasn't aware of that.

My response was based purely on the situation in the UK, I hadn't considered the different norms elsewhere in Europe.

The temperature of any thermostat does depend on what people are accustomed to. And older people often have their homes warmer than younger people. But this is a generalisation, as it’s not true for all. Far from it.

 

[najaB]

Wow, that surprises me, I wasn't aware of that.

I suspect that the former Warsaw Pact countries will tend to have higher thermostat settings than western Europe. I have a friend who grew up in Moscow and she says that in her apartment building they have free heating and it's usually set around 23/24°.

 

[DustyBin]

You're probably correct.

I think at some stage Ukraine will need to be given the option of being brought into the Western military alliance.

This whole situation appears to have been enabled because this wasn't done quickly enough.

I think it's more likely that Ukraine will simply become a fortress which Russia can't invade again, with the country adopting a "westward looking" but neutral position.

 

[najaB]

I think it's more likely that Ukraine will simply become a fortress which Russia can't invade again, with the country adopting a "westward looking" but neutral position.

I think this is most likely. In the EU but not a NATO member.

 

[Mag_seven]

Can we stick to discussing the war in Ukraine in this thread please.

If anyone wants to discuss anything else such as thermostat settings then they are welcome to start a new thread elsewhere.

thanks