We find some in London also, though occurrences become less frequent as time passes. I seem to recall that finding them in the river happens a fair bit.
You are referring to Russian gangsters, I assume 
Massive Russian stampede out of Kherson right now. Great news really.
Hydrogen via electrolysis is not very efficient. for use as electricity storage.
Peter wrote:
Hydrogen via electrolysis is not very efficient. for use as electricity storage.
True, but what kind of electricity storage would work on a huge scale for countries that don’t have lots of hills to build pumped storage works (Collims dictionary says that’s the English word for Pumpspeicherkraftwerk, a power plant that works by water flowing down a hill and driving a turbine, where the water is pumped upwards when there is excess electricity in the grid)?
Hydrogen could directly supplant natural gas (methane) in many industrial processes.
MedEwok wrote:
Hydrogen could directly supplant natural gas (methane) in many industrial processes.
Hydrogen can be mixed with natural gas to some degree, perhaps as much as 20% without changing the overall characteristics too much. Although hydrogen is inefficient to produce (by wind, solar), it doesn’t cost much to produce it. Energy per € is good, even though 70-80% of the solar/wind energy (from the cells/turbines) is lost. The reason for this is the true cost of electric energy from solar/wind is never made public. One would believe it was much better to produce electricity than hydrogen, but hydrogen can be produced from solar/wind without the need for a grid and everything involved with that, making it relatively cheap.
The principal commentator on the USSR is undergoing a meltdown
The “Daily Fail” is reporting that Putin has been offered a peace accord by the West, which would leave him in power, put Crimea into a special status until 2029 and create a demilitarized 60 km zone along the border with Russia. It also is said to include offers to him and his chronies not to be prosecuted by any war crimes tribunal. It also would include guarantees that Ukraine would not be allowed into NATO for the forseeable future.
Analysts claim this may well be because Biden knows that if the Republicans take over congress, they will stop the aid to Ukraine and therefore Russia would be in a much better position than now.
So the question is for whom this accord would be a capitulation: Putin or the West?
That sounds more like a Russian propaganda wish list than anything likely to be true.
Firstly the two biggest supports of Ukraine (the USA and UK) have both said on multiple occasions that there will be no talks about Ukraine without Ukraine. Doing the above would be a massive betrayal now. And it would be pointless if Ukraine wouldn’t agree to the outcome anyway.
A 60km demilitarised zone would presumably involve 30km each side of the Russian border. I can’t see that being acceptable to the Russian population living in those zones.
Crimea going into a special zone until 2029? That’s just storing up problems. It gives Russia extra time to make sure all Ukrainians are removed from it and funnel millions of Russians in so that it’s hard to justify giving it back to Ukraine. And what are the chances that Russia refuses to give it back then anyway?
Many knowledgeable military commentators are suggesting that Crimea will be back under Ukraine control anyway by next summer. So what’s the point from a western point of view?
Leaving Putin in power is not an option for the west. It’s nothing to do with them, and they won’t want to be seen to be interfering in internal Russian politics. That’s for the Russian people to decide (at least in theory).
Exemption from prosecution at the ICC is a non-starter. Firstly that’s not in their gift to make. The Ukrainians can make a complaint and present their evidence, and the ICC will proceed. The idea of political interference and political exemptions from prosecution given by the USA (not even a party to the ICC) would make a mockery of the ICC’s independence. It could no longer be seen as a fair and independent court. In any case Putin will never be in front of it unless his own people give him up or he’s forced to flee Russia (both unlikely to happen).
The idea that the Republicans will cut off aid to Russia is massively overstated (at least according to the Republican commentators that I’ve heard speaking). DT’s changes of being the next president looks less likely after the mid-terms. So all in all, I’d say that aid being cut off from the USA is very unlikely and even more unlikely that it was last week.
So none of that story rings true for me. It really sound like a Russian wish list rather than anything real.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
The “Daily Fail” is reporting that Putin has been offered a peace accord by the West, which would leave him in power, put Crimea into a special status until 2029 and create a demilitarized 60 km zone along the border with Russia. It also is said to include offers to him and his chronies not to be prosecuted by any war crimes tribunal. It also would include guarantees that Ukraine would not be allowed into NATO for the forseeable future.
Daily Mail mentioned that this information came from Valery Solovey, a Russian historian and, until three years ago, a professor of political science at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations. He is obviously well-connected and well-informed, yet I wouldn’t call his information entirely reliable because of his propensity to sound somewhat more authoritative than he really is, as well as his unusual political stance: he is clearly anti-Putin yet vaguely pro-Russian, albeit trying to sound academically unbiased. This is the way an ideologist of a future palace coup could be speaking.
I just found his video in Russian, and the information he discloses is somewhat different. According to him, the terms are as follows:
- Complete withdrawal of Russia from Donbass, as well as from Transnistria (a Russian-held area of frozen conflict in Moldova)
- A 100 km demilitarised zone along the Russian-Ukrainian border
- Complete demilitarisation of Crimea (including withdrawal of the Russian navy) and freezing of all discussions of its political status until 2029
- Ukraine undertaking not to join NATO until 2029
- No criminal prosecution of those currently in power in Russia
He claims that these terms have been endorsed by Ukraine and six countries have undertaken to act as guarantors of this deal, and that Russian establishment has allegedly reacted positively to it. He calls it an ultimatum rather than a peace accord, explaining that it effectively means a capitulation of Russia in this war and a definitive fiasco of Putin’s regime.
If this ultimatum has indeed been given, then I, as a native of Russia, bet €1 it will be rejected :-)
For those who understand Russian, this is the video:
Indeed. If that is what the Russinan “wish-list” boils down to they would suffer a massive loss, going from “owning” the Crimea and the “rebel” areas in Ukraine to having a 60 mile DMZ in their own territory, and no place to put the Black Sea fleet.
While “regime change” is not something “the west” can force on Russia from the outside without an all-out war, invasion and defeat of Russia, such a massive loss of territory and prestige will probably come quite close to ensuring he will lose power.
I don’t find that list credible. Why should Ukraine negotiate for anything at this stage, when they have Russia on the run?
Also whoever controls Crimea controls the Black Sea (via artillery and anti ship missiles).
And de-militarisation of any bit of Ukraine is just silly, since everybody knows Russia will have another go if they can. Ukraine needs to be strong.
De-militarisation of any part of Russia near its border will be unenforceable, and anyway nobody will want to do anything about any movements there once Russia is selling them cheap gas again.
