back to article Google Russia goes broke after bank account snatched

Google Russia is shutting down and filing for bankruptcy after Vladimir Putin's government confiscated the Chocolate Factory's bank account in the nation. "The Russian authorities' seizure of Google Russia's bank account has made it untenable for our Russia office to function, including employing and paying Russia-based …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Seize Russian ships

    Pass laws letting countries seize Russian assets to repay their asset seizures within Russia. Use it to seize Russia ships, their oil tankers, Russian oil in third party tankers, warships, supplies into Russia that they've paid for, before they take delivery of said goods. Anything of value.

    Reparations for Google's lost accounts.

    Ukraine Reparations fund too, that fund needs Russia money in it. Start collecting those reparations now, in preparation for Russia losing its war, so Ukraine can be compensated and rebuilt. The less money Russia has, the less it can spend on its political puppets around the world.

    See the new Ted Cruz/GOP Supreme Court ruling: Politicians can solicit donations to their election campaigns, AFTER winning the election, when there is NO LONGER an election campaign, and they can use that money themselves for their own debts. That's money straight into an elected politicians pocket at that point, as he is signing and voting on legislation, for a campaign he's already won. It's like "NO WIN NO FEE" for bribers.

    The more money you grab from Russia, the less it would have available to funnel into a Ted Cruz Cancun bank account. The less it can try to buy influence by paying the Wackadoodle's campaign funds.

    1. Potemkine! Silver badge

      Very bad idea

      That would mean that any Russian citizen and company is guilty because of the actions of his/her/its government and deserves punishment.

      I see no reason to target individuals or private companies when they are not linked with Putin Khuylo.This is unfair and would a great help to the Russian official propaganda. Russians citizens to a lesser extent are victims too.

      1. ChoHag
        Thumb Up

        Re: Very bad idea

        > That would mean that any Russian citizen and company is guilty because of the actions of his/her/its government and deserves punishment.

        Yes.

        1. My-Handle Silver badge

          Re: Very bad idea

          No.

          I'll be damned if I'm held personally responsible for BoJo's actions, and the UK is technically a democracy.

          Likewise, I'm not going to start demanding that every US company / citizen gets fined because of Trump's insurrection.

          1. Tomato42

            Re: Very bad idea

            The difference is that you can't have a big enterprise in Russia without being very close to Putin and the rest of the ruling oligarchs, so the difference between mafia owned and state owned is very blurry.

            Don't know about you, but I don't have oil tankers docked in my back yard. So I'm pretty sure no average Russian will lose money by civilised countries seizing ill gotten goods.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Very bad idea

            but I do feel PERSONALLY responsible for this... person, even though I never voted for him, or his pals. I feel responsible, even though there was any realistic prospect of me doing anything more about it, never mind an odd fantasy or two... And, whether I like it or not, I am being 'punished' for this... person whenever I go to an EU country. The same applies to Russian citizens, guilty, less guilty, unguilty, the collective punishement applies to them all (unless they're rich enough to have purchased another passport, or are in the process of doing so).

          3. Cederic Silver badge

            Re: Very bad idea

            For clarity: "Trump's insurrection" was the subject of a trial that found him not guilty. Because there was no insurrection.

            It's ok, if you only read the BBC you'll have missed that.

            1. Blank Reg Silver badge

              Re: Very bad idea

              he is guilty, but his accomplices in the senate couldn't convict him without implicating themselves

              It's OK, if you only watch faux news you'd be too clueless to get that

            2. My-Handle Silver badge

              Re: Very bad idea

              Whether you believe it happened or not, it is at least a well-known and easy example to hand re punishing one person on the (alleged) actions of their leader.

              I would have brought up Bill Clinton, who was at least tried and found guilty, but that was a little before my time and that situation sounded sticky enough without me wading into it.

              1. pdebarra
                Coffee/keyboard

                Re: Very bad idea

                Bill Clinton? Sticky? My dear sir!

              2. MachDiamond Silver badge

                Re: Very bad idea

                "I would have brought up Bill Clinton, who was at least tried and found guilty, but that was a little before my time and that situation sounded sticky enough without me wading into it."

                The real issue there got obscured with salacious activities reports. The real crime was Mr Clinton asking Ms Lewinski to lie in a government inquiry unrelated to their personal activities. This is akin to covering up robbing a bank by running naked through the streets so the indecent exposure charges overshadow the more serious crime.

            3. Snake Silver badge

              Re: Very bad idea

              "Subject of a trail"

              What trial?! The congressional investigation is still ongoing, if you bother to pay attention to the real world and not propaganda TV.

              Oh, and actually the people who attacked the Capitol ARE being found guilty, thank you very much.

        2. Zolko Silver badge

          Re: Very bad idea

          That would mean that any Russian citizen and company is guilty because of the actions of his/her/its government and deserves punishment.

          Yes.

          Which is the definition of fascism : Übermenschen and Untermenschen. Thank-you for the confirmation, now we can see on what side we should stand.

      2. danielanthony

        Re: Very bad idea

        You will find that the Germans have paid compensation to their wartime victims, why should Russia be any different?

        1. Dave K

          Re: Very bad idea

          Correction, the German *government* were required to pay compensation/reparations.

          Other Western nations didn't wander around seizing the property and money of ordinary German citizens. Should Putin and his cronies pay for the invasion? Absolutely. Should we wander around confiscating money and goods from ordinary Russian citizens with no links to Putin? No.

          1. TDog

            Re: Very bad idea

            To be fair, we did wander all overf Germany, by land and air, blowing it to shit. But that was a war...Oh.

            1. vtcodger Silver badge

              Re: Very bad idea

              And the victors did grab a lot of German non-military assets. Thus leading to the famous incident where both the British (Rootes Group) and American (Ford) car makers turned down the opportunity to take over the VolksWagen Wolfsburg plant where the Germans were bringing the production line for the VW beetle back into service.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Very bad idea

                Winner takes it all! Including all the paperwork of German patent office.

                p.s. it's not a dig at any specific 'winner', the Germans looted, the Soviets looted, the French, the British, and all minor ones (never mind the Vikings, etc.) Change to present perfect continuous...

          2. nijam Silver badge

            Re: Very bad idea

            > Correction, the German *government* were required to pay compensation/reparations.

            Correction. German taxpayers were required to pay their goverment so that the government couuld pay... Oh, never mind.

          3. Law

            Re: Very bad idea

            "... didn't wander around seizing the property and money of ordinary German citizens"

            If anything, it was the nazis that liked taking property & wealth from ordinary (jewish) German citizens.

      3. Stuart Castle Silver badge

        Re: Very bad idea

        Re: "I see no reason to target individuals or private companies when they are not linked with Putin Khuylo.This is unfair and would a great help to the Russian official propaganda. Russians citizens to a lesser extent are victims too."

        Agreed, any attempt to do anything that targets Russian citizens or companies that don't have anything to do with Putin, even if in error, would help the propaganda machine currently telling Russians that Putin is great and the West is evil.

        1. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: Very bad idea

          "I see no reason to target individuals or private companies when they are not linked with Putin"

          It gets to be a fine line. The goal with sanctions is sometimes to get the populace to rise up against their government to end a conflict. Russia has a tremendous amount of military equipment and can require young men to sacrifice themselves via warfare until there aren't many left.

          I'd like to see the Russian people decide that their lives being made miserable so V. Putin can go out grabbing land from neighbors is not a good thing. I'm not an "app" person my self, but if mobile users are cut off from buying apps for their phones and being able to continue subscriptions or buy in-game things, they aren't going to be very happy about it. I'm unaware of a Russian made mobile phone and operating system. Is all of this worth it? Will the average Russian be any better off by the government annexing Ukraine and continuing to occupy Crimea? When food gets in even shorter supply, more people are going to be very unhappy.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Seize Russian ships

      Shipping doesn't really work like that any more. When you buy large quantities of product, you technically automatically buy/rent the boat they are currently on, directly paying the crew, etc...

      So... it isn't really a "Russian ship" (unless it is carrying stuff to Russia). Capturing civilian ships on route to Russia might be considered a bit extreme, especially if they come from countries that are not involved in the conflict...

      Sadly the best option is usually to wait until $CRAZY_LEADER gets too old... and hope someone sensible comes next.

      1. Alumoi Silver badge

        Re: Seize Russian ships

        Which $CRAZY_LEADER? I know more than a couple.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Seize Russian ships

          well, 99% of leaders are crazy and old, and that's only in Europe. Yes, yes, Finland, Sweden, Moldava. That's 3 out of how many?

          Obviously, if you ask a Russian, they'll tell you that 'not everything is so clear-cut', particularly about their leader. But that's whataboutism, etc.

          1. EvilDrSmith Silver badge

            Re: Seize Russian ships

            "That's 3 out of how many?"

            Less than 100 (given that there are ~190 countries in the world in total)

            You might want to recalibrate that "99% of leaders...only in Europe"

          2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

            Re: Seize Russian ships

            "99% of leaders are crazy and old, and that's only in Europe"

            From my PoV they're mostly young even without, in one case, giving their performance of an erratic teenager.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Seize Russian ships

        > Sadly the best option is usually to wait until $CRAZY_LEADER gets too old... and hope someone sensible comes next.

        We actually did that in Spain, letting dictator Franco die of old age. This solves nothing, because even when the dictator itself dies, many many loyal people to his ideals will be left on top positions and will carry on with its legacy.

        Search for Villarejo and "cloacas del Estado" (state sewers), for instance. Just yesterday audio recordings were made public about a police conspiracy to publish false corruption allegations to opposing parties to undermine them in a regional election.

        Sadly need to be AC for saying this kind of things.

    3. Cereberus

      Re: Seize Russian ships

      If it wasn't for this being a rant against the GOP I'd almost think it had been written by Bob, although there probably aren't enough words IN CAPITALS just for the sake of it.

      Anyway as far as See the new Ted Cruz/GOP Supreme Court ruling is concerned my understanding is that it allows the politician to recoup essentially up front costs. There are a lot of potential problems for fraud etc. but that is to be seen,

      The idea is that someone who wants to go into politics but isn't well known is at a distinct disadvantage - this law allows them to front load the costs themselves, then claim the money back later from donations. You still have to have the money upfront which will stop most people from coming forward but it allows you to enter the election cycle. If you aren't well known (in political circles especially) you won't get donations from people, until you become well known. How do you become well known? By spending lots of money on advertising, except you can't until you get the donations to pay for it, which you can't get because nobody knows about you. By fronting the costs yourself you can become well known, get donations and pay of the early costs.

      Some people, like the orange one, would probably say this is the bestest idea in the world, and he thought of it before anybody else and was going to have the biggliest discussion about it when he got re-elected, except he didn't - he lost, threw his dummy in the corner and still complains how he was robbed. Now he would almost certainly try to use it to feed money back to himself for his own personal debts. Implementation will be, as with so many things, key and law makers will need to be vigilant that the idea isn't abused - that doesn't make it a bad idea though.

      Good luck America, I think you'll need it.....

      1. Martin an gof Silver badge

        Re: Seize Russian ships

        someone who wants to go into politics but isn't well known is at a distinct disadvantage - this law allows them to front load the costs themselves

        Or, y'know, do something more sensible such as limiting the amount of money you are allowed to spend on an election campaign so that elections aren't won by those with the biggest budgets? Even Formula 1 realised this was a problem, though the exact measures they've taken to "level the playing field" might not be ideal.

        I'm not a huge fan of all the details of the electoral system in the UK, but it does have a couple of features that the US (and probably others) could note and copy for big benefit:

        • low barrier-to-entry; that is, anyone can put their name on a ballot paper for £500 and ten signatures of backers. If you pass a certain threshold of votes (5% for a general election I believe), you even get this £500 back!
        • strict rules about donations to avoid (or at least reduce the risk of) "cash for influence"
        • very strict rules about money spent on campaigning, meaning that those with the biggest budgets aren't able to steamroller less well-endowed campaigns out of public attention
        • a clear distinction between "working" and "campaigning" which is most obviously expressed in the rule that election campaigns have a definite "start" point and a definite "end" point. Parliament is "working" right up until the moment it is dissolved, and campaigning doesn't start until then
        • a very short campaign - generally around three weeks - from the date parliament is dissolved to the date of the public vote which by itself goes a long way to limit spending

        There's also something to be said for the lack of a "primaries" stage, which itself reduces needless campaigning and additional trips to the ballot box.

        It isn't perfect - and established political parties are always to a certain extent "campaigning" - but it does mean that while there are two big national parties in GB (I'm deliberately ignoring NI for now), there are also two or three "second rank" parties (Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid Cymru) which have strong public support though perhaps not so many actual elected members, mainly due to the first-past-the-post system.

        Going off my point really though, which was that elections in the US could be improved immediately by limiting funding, limiting campaigning and reducing the barrier to entry.

        M.

        1. Def Silver badge

          Re: Seize Russian ships

          Personally I think all campaign funds should be paid by the tax payer - a fixed amount for each candidate/party, all forms of paid lobbying/donations should be illegal, TV/Radio stations should donate equal advertising airtime to all candidates, and newspapers should be required to give equal, fixed space for adverts.

        2. Xalran

          Re: Seize Russian ships

          The system is similar on this side of the Channel Tunnel.

          For presidential election, like the one that occured a few weeks ago, you need to collect 500 signatures from elected officials ( mayors, senators, ... ) before the deadline and you're set. Even if you are a political unknown ( i.e. : Zeymour ).

        3. MachDiamond Silver badge

          Re: Seize Russian ships

          "Going off my point really though, which was that elections in the US could be improved immediately by limiting funding, limiting campaigning and reducing the barrier to entry."

          A huge improvement would be strict term limits. It's often the career politicians that appear the most corrupt and wind up on the most influential and powerful committees which they will be entrenched for years. It might also be good for senior staff to be limited as well. There's no point in rotating the elected officials every 70 years or so but leaving in the behind-the-scenes people that could be bad influences.

          It's also odd that somebody that's served in politics for a lifetime is able to amass such a huge fortune by retirement age on their salary (bloated as it is). Laws don't seem to apply to them when it comes to things like drink driving and insider trading.

          Besides limits on campaign spending, it should also be required that somebody running for a different office stand down from their current one before being allowed to file their intention and campaign. Somebody looking to take over a more senior post in the next election seems to stop doing their current job or uses it as a means to attract more votes.

          Politicians should be held to a much higher standard in the legal system. If they are convicted of any crimes, sentencing should be a multiple in fines or confinement that any regular person might be subject too. Serious crimes such as drink driving, assault, fraud, etc should have a mandatory removal from office and prison term. No more slaps on the wrist. Gross financial crimes should be met with a stripping of their wealth down to a minimum level. Perhaps with stipends paid for child support and their ex-spouse. It's generally said that punishment should fit the crime, but in the case of politicians, the amount of trust they are being given and the power they wield must be checked with a much bigger downside for violating that trust.

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Seize Russian ships

          "[...] strict rules about donations to avoid (or at least reduce the risk of) "cash for influence""

          The current Westminster government is trying to pull the teeth of the independent body that enforces compliance with electoral rules. Another of their crypto-fascist playbook moves of undermining independence of the judicial system and media.

    4. Snowy Silver badge
      Holmes

      Re: Seize Russian ships

      Did that after the first world world and look what that lead to, I do not want a repeat of that.

      Instead maybe we should look to what was done after the second world war for guidance?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Seize Russian ships

        "Instead maybe we should look to what was done after the second world war for guidance?"

        German production equipment was appropriated to refurbish UK manufacturing companies. This gave Germany an incentive to invest in new technology - while UK manufacturing didn't.

  2. Jan K.

    Yeah. To Dubai, another great place well-known for it's high human rights standard.

    Good done.

    1. spireite Silver badge
      Joke

      Dubai is full of Russian tarts... may come with jam *adopts Jimmy Carr impression* "That's not jam"

  3. Auntie Dix
    Big Brother

    Google Has Been the Willful, Kowtowing Propaganda Puppet of Russia and China

    Good riddance.

    Too bad that Russia does not shut down all of Google Russia

    (the so-called "free" offerings cited that will continue to operate).

    1. sreynolds Silver badge

      Re: Google Has Been the Willful, Kowtowing Propaganda Puppet of Russia and China

      I can't say that I feel at all sorry for them.

    2. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: Google Has Been the Willful, Kowtowing Propaganda Puppet of Russia and China

      "Too bad that Russia does not shut down all of Google Russia"

      Russia may want to shut down all of Google, but Google doesn't want that to happen. They'd lose out on incredible amount of intel and not be able to keep up the dossiers of the Russian population. The worm is just there as a lure and to cover up the hook.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Boo hoo

  5. bombastic bob Silver badge
    Megaphone

    tit for tat

    All that the USA really needs to do is re-introduce the Trump-era energy policies, and export fossil fuels to EU and other places (undercutting anything Russia offers) which would bankrupt their war effort and END THE RECESSION AND THE INFLATION THAT CAUSES THE STAG-FLATION, but NOOOooo... woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap. (only IDIOTS think this is a GOOD thing, In My Bombastic Opinion)

    so instead we get "tit for tat" BULLSHIT.!

    what a bunch of... well... BULLSHIT

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap

      You can beat that drum as often as you like, the climate is still changing.

      1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

        Re: woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap

        Citation needed.

        In what way is the climate changing, and how is this different to any past climate change, like the MWP or LIA?

        Then there's the problem, and proposed solutions. Google uses it's AlGoreithms to promote disinformation. So climate change is going to lead to extreme weather. This may be high winds, or low winds. The West has a bit of an inflation crisis, which started prior to Russia's invasion, and has been made worse by sanctions.

        The EU's 'solution' is to reduce dependence on Russian gas by increasing reliance on err... other country's gas, which we'll have to import, process and distribute. There's a finite volume of LNG that can be produced, stored, and transported, especially as demand is increasing due to 'decarbonisation' policies requiring massive increases to electricity generation.

        The EU's 'solution' is to gift taxpayer's money to the 'renewables' lobby to build even more windmills. As we've increased the number of windmills, electricity costs have also increased due to it's huge expense, and lack of reliability. So the EU's 'solution' doubles down on dumb by making EU energy users more dependent on expensive, intermittent and unreliable generation that's already massively increased energy costs due to subsidies.

        And the methane clathrate on the cake is because climate change, average wind speeds may reduce (as they have in the UK), making wind power even more useless. And because it's useless and intermittent due to the dependence on weather/wind speeds, windmills are backed up by gas generation. So as we increase dependency on sail power, we also increase dependency on gas (or other energy sources) to keep lights on when the wind is to high, or too low.

        It's some remarkable cognitive dissonance where politicians can't seem to join the dots between the energy 'policy' they've promoted, and the natural consequences, namely rocketing energy costs and inflation.

        1. Jesthar

          Re: woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap

          Given that the tradiional hydrocarbon fuels are indeed a finite resouce, I am genuinely curious as to how you envisage replacing them in a long term sutainable fashion?

          1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

            Re: woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap

            They're not a finite resource. So look up the Sabatier and Fischer-Tropsch processes. Both can make synthetic fuels. F-T was used by both Germany and S.Africa to produce fuel when they were sanctioned.

            Downside would be cost, especially if you're trying to make fuel using wind or solar power, or 'green' hydrogen. If, however you've got some surplus, off-peak nuclear power, you could use that and it'd be far cheaper than any 'renewable' energy.

            Larger downside is because our eco-facists (not Gendron) have decided to decarbonise the economy, we're facing a massive increase in demand for electricity. So costs will be even higher.

            On the plus side, we might get fusion working. Or politicians may remember why the Age of Sail gave way to the Age of Steam.

            1. Jesthar

              Re: woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap

              Traditional hydrocarbons (coal, oil, NG) are finite - hence the qualifier.

              Last I checked, most F-T processes use coal or NG to produce synthetic oil. Biomas is useable, but lagging behind in terms of commercial development and has more technical challenges. Could be useful if it can utilise primarily waste biomass from manufacturing/food processing, otherwise it's just converting one traditional non-renewable hydrocarbon to an alternate format - at a net energy loss, of course.

              Sabatier does have a better track record using wood as a carbon source (though coal and NG are still more common), but it also seems to have found a key role in renewable energy heavy systems as a method of using excess energy when demand is low to produce fuel that can be used on demand to cover shortfalls when demand is high.

              Sure, renewables are far from perfect, and need to improve a lot in many ways. But maybe recent events will provide the catalyst for focussing minds on trying to make those improvements, now that there will be a lot more profit to be made - especially by the first to crack the various problems., particularly regarding sustainable microgeneration I suspect.

              1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                Re: woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap

                Last I checked, most F-T processes use coal or NG to produce synthetic oil. Biomas is useable, but lagging behind in terms of commercial development and has more technical challenges. Could be useful if it can utilise primarily waste biomass from manufacturing/food processing, otherwise it's just converting one traditional non-renewable hydrocarbon to an alternate format - at a net energy loss, of course.

                End-end efficiency has never been a problem for 'renewables'. Just ignore them, and get someone else to pay for inefficiencies. ISTR both Germany and S.Africa primarily used coal for synfuels, and luckily there's still plenty of both around.

                Using gas to make H2 is pretty bonkers though, ie the energy needed to convert CH4 to H2 means you're converting a perfectly good fuel source into a much more expensive and inefficient one. Same is true for producing H2 via electrolysis, especially given the volume of H2 needed and the extortionate cost of 'renewable' electricity.

                But, ignoring economics and efficiency, it's entirely feasible to produce H2, then add CO2 and make synfuel. NASA's been doing some fun research into using Sabatier to manufacture rocket fuel in space.

                Sure, renewables are far from perfect, and need to improve a lot in many ways. But maybe recent events will provide the catalyst for focussing minds on trying to make those improvements, now that there will be a lot more profit to be made - especially by the first to crack the various problems., particularly regarding sustainable microgeneration I suspect.

                I think the problem is many of the problems with 'renewables' are fundamental. So solar is uselss at night when people might want to charge EVs, cook, heat etc. Wind is slightly better, but still highly variable.

                Solutions tend to just throw good money after bad. So to overcome intermittency, we should simply 'invest' in massive battery arrays that increase the cost. Much the same with other costs, ie massive investments in grid upgrades to cope with the unreliable/intermittent generation.

                And of course the costs are subsidised, the profits, privatised. And ironically, increasing dependence on 'renewables' also increases dependence on gas for stand-by or grid stabilisation. As for microgeneration, I think the most sensible and practical solution are SMRs, but naturally the Greens hate nuclear.

                1. MachDiamond Silver badge

                  Re: woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap

                  "I think the problem is many of the problems with 'renewables' are fundamental."

                  I find one of the big issues is people thinking that a renewable source is or can be a drop in replacement for a fossil fuel. Yes, solar doesn't work as night, but people are mostly awake and busy doing things during the day. We've also hammered the way we do things into a particular schedule (9-5 nominally) rather than optimizing certain things to fit energy availability. This has lead to rush hour traffic twice a day and downtown business districts that are ghost towns on weekends and holidays. A factory with shifts starting a bit earlier or later might allow one parent to get the kids ready for school in the morning and the other to be there with they get home in the afternoon instead of the entire family needing to be at school/work at the same time in the morning with some travel allowance differences. The school being local means a minimal travel time and many times a job is 40 minutes away with traffic/train schedules. A big waste of energy is helicopter parents ferrying their kids to school. I walked or rode my bike for all but two years when I took a bus. When I walked in primary school, I can remember parents and neighbors on their front porch in robes with a mug of coffee keeping an eye on the procession so we were all kept safe from weirdos. The only time I'd get a ride to school was if it was pissing down rain.

                  There needs to be more thought and the willingness to make some changes. What if electrical pricing was sent down the wires and you could set your EV to charge when tariffs are low? When there is an excess of wind in the middle of the night, prices could drop considerably. It's also a win for both sides. The "grid" sells power when demand is historically low and EV owners recharge at much reduced rates. Ok, maybe that's too much work for people to sort that out, but it would be easy for me and in 20 years, the next generation would see it as normal to set up charging parameters for their car (or download somebody else's). I'm putting together thermal storage as a DIY project, but there are thermal batteries from companies such as Sunamp (.co.uk). Now that the house is paid off, once I can get a new roof installed, there will be solar PV. I won't be compeletely off-grid, but I will be able to generate the vast majority of my usage. I see this as a very good stepping stone since I'm not going to be able to leap the river in one go.

                  I don't see SMR's as viable. So much of upfront costs for nuclear power are the lawyers, lawsuits, planning enviromental assesments, etc. I don't see how building more, but smaller nuclear power plants will work better. There are people that have freaked out when I've shown them a chunk of pitchblende (uranium ore) or a pack of Thorinated welding tips. I even have a piece of Trinitite (green glass from the Trinity site where the first nuclear bomb was tested). Yes, it's radioactive, not particularly dangerous but I don't carry it around in my pocket as a good luck charm. They let people wander around the Trinity site twice a year. I think it used to be open more often, but it's on the White Sands Missile range and they wound up getting too many people in robes chanting and waving signs.

                  I have to agree than many "green" projects are 100% scams. It's easy to get government funding for them as politicians are most often lawyers with very little technical savvy and a fondness for slick CGI presentations.

                  Smart homes can be giant white elephants. The cost of the gadgets never saves enough to have any return on investment and many of them are made by companies that are gone in a year or two when the grants have run out leaving things that break easy and can't be repaired. It's interesting that a house can turn lighting on and off based on outside light levels while opening and closing drapery/blinds for light and HVAC reasons. The problem is that most of that is only needed for the house to be 100% autonomous with nobody living inside. If I was a complete invalid, it might be useful, but many home automation products only take care of tasks that I can do easily enough myself, thank you very much. There isn't any point in spending thousands for these things to save a few hundred only if the stuff doesn't break down and need repairs or replacement. Even routine maintenance might be more effort than what it saves. The same thing is happening with cars.

                  1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                    Re: woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap

                    Yes, solar doesn't work as night, but people are mostly awake and busy doing things during the day.

                    Sure. So previously peak demand was during the day when people did work. Decarbonisation shifts demand, so heating as an example. If a home is empty during the day, it doesn't require much heating/cooling. At night when people are doing people things, it requires more electricity for heating, cooking, EV charging and doing general life stuff.

                    Obviously solar is useless at meeting night-time demand, even though that's where the majority of demand increase will occur.

                    There needs to be more thought and the willingness to make some changes. What if electrical pricing was sent down the wires and you could set your EV to charge when tariffs are low?

                    That's part of the regulatory capture. Consumers aren't supposed to benefit from 'smart' meters, hence why they have no functionality like that. Simplest way to boost 'smart' meter adoption is if there were tariff options, and you could set your meter to automatically use the lowest rate. Technically, this isn't that difficult and is pretty much how telecomms works with voice trading exchanges. So suppliers offer minutes and rates, consumers can pick where to send calls based on that data.

            2. MachDiamond Silver badge

              Re: woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap

              "They're not a finite resource. So look up the Sabatier and Fischer-Tropsch processes. Both can make synthetic fuels. F-T was used by both Germany and S.Africa to produce fuel when they were sanctioned.

              "

              "Fossil" fuels are indeed finite and limited. That doesn't mean that "hydrocarbon" fuels are. The advantage of fossil fuels is the eROI. Even though crude oil requires refining into fractions that fit their purpose better, the energy in compared to the energy out makes them most attractive. Synth fuels don't do as well. Coal only needs to be collected up and sent somewhere to be ground and set on fire. Coke requires more processing but has a very specific use.

              "On the plus side, we might get fusion working. Or politicians may remember why the Age of Sail gave way to the Age of Steam."

              Mainly speed. That's being touted today the same way only the speed increases come at a much higher cost. Elon babbles on about point to point rocket travel and the news is fixated on everything "hypersonic". Virgin Hyperloop One has dropped ambitions to put people in vacuum tubes and send them to their destinations like inter-office memos in an air tube. Now they will concentrate on being able to send cargo faster than a jet from Alice to Bob. Perhaps they'll figure out that the cost of the system is too much for the times when companies really need to move items that fast. I used to get component parts from a supplier via "rail deferred" and it was very inexpensive compared to other shipping methods. All it took on my part was some planning which is expected that one do when operating a manufacturing company. JIT doesn't work very well for a company that doesn't have billions in revenue.

              1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                Re: woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap

                Coal only needs to be collected up and sent somewhere to be ground and set on fire. Coke requires more processing but has a very specific use.

                Yup. Hydrocarbons are far more efficient as transportable energy stores than H2 or batteries. Coke's interesting because of the recent demands to block mining of coking coal in the UK. Eco-facists don't seem to understand than you need coke to produce steel, which you need to produce windmills and solar panels.

                There have also been bigger issues wrt coal. So some time ago, eco-facists produced the UK's 'Climate Change Act' demanding a 30% reduction in carbon emissions. The UK's coal generating fleet was pretty ancient. So Kingsnorth was a 4x500MW coal (and gas, oil) generating station. E.On proposed an upgrade to a modern, more efficient design that would have reduced CO2 output by close to 30%, even without trying to make CCS work.

                Greenpeace naturally objected, flew in a climate 'expert' from the US to appear at a judicial review, and got the project cancelled. Even though it would have resulted in the required CO2 emission reductions. So the plant shut down, taking 2GW out of supply and costing around 3,000 jobs.

                Mainly speed. That's being touted today the same way only the speed increases come at a much higher cost.

                Not really. Clipper ships were for some time faster than steam ships. Downside is of course dependency on fair winds and following seas to maintain that speed and get goods to market. Steam ships had the advantage of being able to maintain a steady speed, with less impact from the weather. Plus being able to carry a lot more cargo. Age of Sail pretty much died when the Suez canal opened, reducing the distance travelled and removing sail's speed/cost advantages.

                But such is politics. There's been a neat demonstration of what can happen when politicians follow bad advice (or good lobbying). So-

                https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2022/05/20/go-organic-and-starve/#more-56631

                Last April, Rajapaksa’s government made good on that promise, imposing a nationwide ban on the importation and use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides and ordering the country’s 2 million farmers to go organic.

                The result was brutal and swift. Against claims that organic methods can produce comparable yields to conventional farming, domestic rice production fell 20 percent in just the first six months. Sri Lanka, long self-sufficient in rice production, has been forced to import $450 million worth of rice even as domestic prices for this staple of the national diet surged by around 50 percent. The ban also devastated the nation’s tea crop, its primary export and source of foreign exchange.

                Oops. Who could have predicted that outcome? Except virtually every farmer. But Sri Lanka's had civil unrest, deaths etc because they bought into eco-facists's lies about the virtues of organic. And that's an experiment being repeated on a far larger scale, albeit involuntarily due to current fertiliser shortages thanks to sanctions.

                1. MachDiamond Silver badge

                  Re: woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap

                  "Clipper ships were for some time faster than steam ships. Downside is of course dependency on fair winds and following seas to maintain that speed and get goods to market."

                  That's a good point. I think to make my argument airtight I'd need to do a bunch of research of crossing times and get and average and mean for both.

                  An issue I point out when people go on about point to point rocket travel is that while it could be faster for a very few very long routes, it far more prone to delays and cancellations. It's also incredibly more dangerous and expensive. If you need to make a long trip and must be at the destination by a certain deadline, flying in an aircraft is going to be have the highest likelihood of getting you there. Schedules are also a big deal. Travel between major cities by plane often has multiple options every day. A rocket might be once a day, but more likely once a week. The speed advantage of the actual travel is swamped out by the much slower total process and risk of the trip not happening.

            3. bombastic bob Silver badge
              Thumb Up

              Re: woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap

              because our eco-facists [snip] have decided to decarbonise the economy, we're facing a massive increase in demand for electricity

              like, from electric cars and electric heat.

              1. MachDiamond Silver badge

                Re: woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap

                "we're facing a massive increase in demand for electricity

                like, from electric cars and electric heat."

                The increased need for electricity to charge EV's should be mostly offset by needing less electricity in the oil refining process. Each US gallon of petrol (3.78l) requires 7.46kWh of electricity according to an Argonne National Laboratories study done some years ago. Looked at one way, that amount of electricity will push an EV around 25miles.

                The mandate that all residential heating is switched over from gas to electric is disturbing. The difference in cost is substantial in many places.

                1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                  Re: woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap

                  The increased need for electricity to charge EV's should be mostly offset by needing less electricity in the oil refining process.

                  Luckily for petrochemicals, they work with fuel. So say you're running a large gas distribution network in say, Texas. You need electricity to power pumping/compressor/monitoring stations. Luckily, you could tap off some gas and use that to fuel a turbine and produce the electricity you need. So you don't need to buy in electricity, or rely on an unreliable electricity network.

                  Sadly for Texas, using gas turbines was banned, so pumping stations depended on grid supplies. Then Texas relied on winmills to generate electricity, and those failed. No grid supply, no gas, and the Texas grid came very close to going into 'black start' conditions, which would have taken days to recover from.

                  But such is politics. Sure, it's an overhead for petrochemicals, but cheaper and more efficient than relying on the weather.

        2. Def Silver badge

          Re: woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap

          Citation needed.

          Just ask any scientist. In the last 10 years 99.9% of climate related papers published agree the climate is changing and we're to blame. Google is a thing. Logout to remove your biases and search.

          In what way is the climate changing, and how is this different to any past climate change, like the MWP or LIA

          The climate is heating up. Rapidly. Far faster than it has ever done in the past through any natural processes that didn't immediately precede a mass extinction of most life on Earth.

          Neither the MWP nor the LIA were global events. They were mostly focused on the North Atlantic and Europe. There were localised effects noticed around the world but they were neither uniform nor long lasting.

          Obligatory XKCD.

          1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

            Re: woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap

            Just ask any scientist. In the last 10 years 99.9% of climate related papers published agree the climate is changing and we're to blame. Google is a thing. Logout to remove your biases and search.

            I'm guessing you don't understand how a cartoonist came up with the originall '97%' meme. You're partly right, they did 'ask any scientist'. So scientists who had no real knowledge wrt climate science. Then there were further attempts to promote the meme, eg-

            https://destaatvanhet-klimaat.nl/2013/05/17/cooks-survey-not-only-meaningless-but-also-misleading/

            Brandon Shollenberger, who is guest blogger at The Blackboard, was the first who reported that actually only 65 papers have been rated “category 1”. Yes that’s right, only 65 abstracts clearly “mention that human activity is a dominant influence or has caused most of recent climate change (>50%)”. 65 on a total of 12,000 is 0.5%. So a completely fair conclusion from their survey is that only 1 in 200 abstracts explicitly mentioned that humans are dominating climate. If you ignore the 8000 papers that were labelled category 4 (neutral, meaning having no position on AGW) the 65 would be 1.6%. The paper reported that only 78 papers (1.9% if you ignore the 8000 neutral abstracts) rejected AGW. (to be fair, as you can see in the table below only 10 papers fall in category 7 and therefore (7.1) “explicitly reject or minimise anthropogenic warming with a specific figure”.)

            So a case of lies, damn lies and statistics. And of course Cook's cooked data relies on a self-selected sample rated by a bunch of his mates who are empirically subjectively the opposite of climate 'sceptics'.

            But sadly it worked, and people like you bought into the lie. Which is also why this is so bad for science, or education. This kind of deliberate deception harms the credibility of science. Of couse if you point that out, you'll be branded a racist, flat-earther, science denier, jailed or executed for 'ecocide' etc etc.

            1. bombastic bob Silver badge
              Thumb Up

              Re: woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap

              see icon

          2. bombastic bob Silver badge

            Re: woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap

            "99.9%" of WHOM exactly? names, research on who they are, and obviously pointing out "appeal to authority" and "hearsay" logical fallacies being at work in that assertion.

            And how do you know that "Any scientist" does NOT include ME?

            XKCD is NOT a scientific proof of anything... but THIS just MIGHT be.

            1. Def Silver badge
              FAIL

              Re: woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap

              Here's the peer reviewed paper that studied climate-related papers from 2012. (From when the last such study was conducted.)

              but THIS just MIGHT be.

              No. That is the temperature graph from ice cores from a single location in Greenland. Trying to extrapolate temperature for the whole world from a single location is simply wrong and misleading. Stop trying to pass off fake science as real.

              Here's the same graph data with the same credit (R.B. Alley 2004) and with an actual source (GISP2 - Greenland Ice Core) but with a different time scale on the horizontal axis: https://co2coalition.org/facts/temperatures-have-changed-for-800000-years-it-wasnt-us/. They both can't be right.

              1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

                Re: woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap

                Here's the peer reviewed paper that studied climate-related papers from 2012. (From when the last such study was conducted.)

                A better question might be to wonder how that paper managed to pass 'peer review' and end up in ERL. But such is politics.

                But it's much the same as the example I gave earlier, and demonstrates just how far some activists are prepared to go to fabricate a consensus. So claim-

                We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

                Isn't supported by the evidence. So far, so climate science. So Fig.1 says "Ratings and categorizations given to 2718 randomly-sampled climate abstracts.", and then shows..

                19 / 2,718 1—Explicit endorsement with quantification

                413 / 2,718 2—Explicit endorsement without quantification

                460 / 2,718 3—Implicit endorsement

                2,104 / 2,718 4a—No position

                So 77.4% of the pre-screened sample used state no position. Only 0.69% are 'science', ie cat 1 "Explicit endorsement with quantification". Those would be 'real' science, ie what/how/why. The difference between cat 1 & 2 is important, ie a cat 1 result might be a paper stating that Global warming may hit 11C based on a Playstation model. Cat 2 might be a paper stating Thermageddon approaches, but doesn't provide any justification or data to support the claim.

                Cat 3 starts drifting into different territory where confirmation & sample bias play a major factor. That's clearest where 77% of the sample has 'no position', yet is lumped into the 99% consensus claim. And then there's politics. If the condition is 'peer reviewed' papers, then being able to gatekeep and reject sceptical papers skews the results even further. It's also somewhat racist in that it only considers papers in English.

      2. bombastic bob Silver badge
        Thumb Down

        Re: woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap

        the climate is still changing.

        not because of humans. that is my point.

        1. Def Silver badge

          Re: woke-global-climate-change-bullcrap

          So what is it then? What do you think you know that all the climate scientists in the world don't?

    2. Blank Reg Silver badge

      Re: tit for tat

      The current inflation was the inevitable outcome of a decade of free money. All it needed was a trigger, and we had several pulled almost at the same time

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "suspending its ad operations in Russia"

    Not fair. How come Russia gets a decent YouTube experience and we don't.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "suspending its ad operations in Russia"

      Don't tell ze germans, or we'll have tanks all ofer the place...

      (Obviously not, as all their working tanks have been donated to Slovakia. Both of them.)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "suspending its ad operations in Russia"

        I would like to up-vote you twice for the 'Both of them' line

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "suspending its ad operations in Russia"

        ouch, that HURT! But we, ze Germans, still have powerful Luftwaffe, mit plenty attack helikopters, about 150, they say in Bundestag. And a lot of them are combat-ready (9), aha! And plees don't mention de war, Panzefaust 3 is great!

    2. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: "suspending its ad operations in Russia"

      "How come Russia gets a decent YouTube experience and we don't."

      The ad revenue is the icing on the cake or even just the hard sugar decorations. The real value is the snooping. Sure, if they can put ads on top, that's more money in the executive bonus pool, but not where they make the real money.

  7. Cederic Silver badge

    one bit is true

    Google have indeed been sharing false reports of Russian troop losses. That's not alleged, that's demonstrably true: They air both Ukrainian reports and Russian reports, and at least one of those must be false.

    1. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: one bit is true

      "and at least one of those must be false."

      "AT LEAST", but I suspect both are.

  8. msobkow Silver badge

    Poor Vlad. No one wants to spread his BS spin on things except the Chinese and the Iranians, and maybe the North Koreans. Pretty small group of supporters for a supposed "world power", eh?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022