Michael W. Agreed, I don't think anyone did say sanctions would work quickly but conversely I don't recall the downside of them being pointed out at the outset? I'd agree that the "do nothing" wasn't an option because of probably long term consequences. I do suspect "the west" (I'm not comfortable with that term but it's convenient) hoped sanctions might set public opinion in Russia against Putin more immediately, but did they underestimation the extent to which Putin controls the media and manipulates Russian public opinionDependency on a resources is surely based on both affordability and availability of its supply which includes the delivery method? Perhaps I could have phrased it better?Maybe there is an increased interest in renewables but the message I got from our government seems to be about fracking and North Sea developments, perhaps I've isunderstood it? I'd like to be wrong on that! I know storage technology for electricity is limited; that's why investment is needed in its research to find options rather than, say, fracking? My perception is it's actually industry rather than governments that are pushing renewables as they see business opportunities but, as I say, that is a perception Obviously, another route is fossil fuels as a backup, preferably coupled with carbon capture. Nuclear is an option but development times and cost and time overruns are such that it's a long term one, and there's still the waste problem (but that's two, three or four generations away).Yes, gas is cheaper than electricity. Doesn't that raise the question that the way the market works and pays for supplies needs reviewing and doesn't mean those on fixed budgets can afford it if gas prices rise steeply.
Michael Ixer ● 577d