Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Today just about everybody gets poorer – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,006
edited April 2022 in General
imageToday just about everybody gets poorer – politicalbetting.com

Above are just six the latest front pages which focus on what looks set to be a hugely difficult period for the government as the cost of a lot of things goes up sharply and, of course, take home drops because of the rise in National Insurance levels.

Read the full story here

«1345678

Comments

  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,519
    edited April 2022
    First! Like the Tories in May.

    That's where the value lies. Blue Meanies ain't dead yet, at least in England.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,519
    In Ukraine. Not sure what to make of this. Legitimate hunt for infiltrators, or a worrying bit of authoritarianism?

    Zelenskyy fires 2 senior members of national security on the ground.
    Andriy Naumov- former head SBU main dept of internal security
    Serhiy Kryvoruchko-former head of SBU in Kherson Oblast
    "I do not have time to deal with all the traitors but they will gradually all be punished"

    https://twitter.com/OlgaNYC1211/status/1509731870677868547?t=C0XWMkhKWaNnoMnOgu0s4Q&s=19
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,253
    Multi millionaire hedge fund banker is out of touch with ordinary people.

    Who'd have thought it?

    There are, of course, big external factors but that's not the whole story. Boris Johnson is a spendthrift and we have witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of a high tax high spend Conservative Government.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,253
    Foxy said:

    First! Like the Tories in May.

    That's where the value lies. Blue Meanies ain't dead yet, at least in England.

    Okay. Fancy a bet on that then with me? If you think the tories are such value and that they will come first next month, have a bet on it with me.

  • Options
    ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 4,964
    The sheer incompetence of the invaders is, I think, going to provide a rich vein for black comedy in years to come.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/01/russians-fled-chernobyl-with-radiation-sickness-says-ukraine-as-iaea-investigates
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,141

    The sheer incompetence of the invaders is, I think, going to provide a rich vein for black comedy in years to come.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/01/russians-fled-chernobyl-with-radiation-sickness-says-ukraine-as-iaea-investigates

    People who know about radiation exposure don't seem to think it's likely they got radiation sickness.

    The thing about war is people will believe any old bullshit. Remember when people thought they knew that Bin Laden lived in a vast underground supervillain's lair? Apparently western intelligence knew all the details of this, except for where he was.
    https://twitter.com/shockproofbeats/status/1509472667065274370?t=hvXUOeZySSZbD1YvgbH8_Q&s=19
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,056
    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    In Ukraine. Not sure what to make of this. Legitimate hunt for infiltrators, or a worrying bit of authoritarianism?

    Zelenskyy fires 2 senior members of national security on the ground.
    Andriy Naumov- former head SBU main dept of internal security
    Serhiy Kryvoruchko-former head of SBU in Kherson Oblast
    "I do not have time to deal with all the traitors but they will gradually all be punished"

    https://twitter.com/OlgaNYC1211/status/1509731870677868547?t=C0XWMkhKWaNnoMnOgu0s4Q&s=19

    He also fired two ambassadors, to Georgia and Morocco.

    They are fighting a defensive war. They are under siege and the enemy has made multiple attempts to kill him. No other country has seriously come to their rescue. They have been left alone to fight one of the worlds biggest armies.

    There is pressure to concede to the enemy in 'peace' talks. Factionalism and paranoia is inevitable.
    It isn't even worth seriously questioning, in my view.

    To suggest that Zelensky is an authoritarian is to peddle a Russian talking point.
    So any criticism of Zelensky is playing the Russians game. Okay.

    We are moving into the realms of North Korean levels of deference.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    OT:

    1. I think most of the seats up for grabs are in strong Labour areas so less scope for big gains.
    2. There is some mitigation in the budget especially for core Tory vote.
    3. The polls have, thus far, tightened a little.
    4. Local by-election results generally not brilliant for Labour for several weeks now.
    5. A suggestion in the Grauniad last week that Labour pessimistic in Sunderland! :smiley:

    Overall I'd expect a mixed night if the polls were tomorrow. Today's headlines are bad but who lnows what they'll be in a few weeks. As ever the big trick for the parties is to manage expectations - not clear that the header today has done that very well for the reds.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,787
    The cost of living crisis is going to be hell.

    It is hard to see how the sanctions on Russia, and the net zero/green stuff, can survive. They will last for a while, because of the political consensus on these issues. But the costs are largely borne by low income households.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,920
    Re Schröder, I found this paragraph from the FT telling:

    In response [to his maintaining his ties with Putin and Russia], Schröder’s entire office staff resigned and he has been stripped of honorary citizenship of his home city of Hanover — a punishment it last meted out, posthumously, to Adolf Hitler.

    https://www.ft.com/content/b445d9b7-7c35-4f64-8bb5-d76a5393212f
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,920

    The sheer incompetence of the invaders is, I think, going to provide a rich vein for black comedy in years to come.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/01/russians-fled-chernobyl-with-radiation-sickness-says-ukraine-as-iaea-investigates

    People who know about radiation exposure don't seem to think it's likely they got radiation sickness.

    The thing about war is people will believe any old bullshit. Remember when people thought they knew that Bin Laden lived in a vast underground supervillain's lair? Apparently western intelligence knew all the details of this, except for where he was.
    https://twitter.com/shockproofbeats/status/1509472667065274370?t=hvXUOeZySSZbD1YvgbH8_Q&s=19
    They may not have radiation sickness, but if - as seems likely - they ingested a bunch of alpha emitters, then their life expectancy is likely to have taken a turn for the worse.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    rcs1000 said:

    Re Schröder, I found this paragraph from the FT telling:

    In response [to his maintaining his ties with Putin and Russia], Schröder’s entire office staff resigned and he has been stripped of honorary citizenship of his home city of Hanover — a punishment it last meted out, posthumously, to Adolf Hitler.

    https://www.ft.com/content/b445d9b7-7c35-4f64-8bb5-d76a5393212f

    I find it extraordinary. Is it just money?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,920
    edited April 2022
    darkage said:

    The cost of living crisis is going to be hell.

    It is hard to see how the sanctions on Russia, and the net zero/green stuff, can survive. They will last for a while, because of the political consensus on these issues. But the costs are largely borne by low income households.

    The green stuff helps wean one off Russia. (And Saudi, etc.)

    It's not just about the climate, it's about becoming more energy independent.

    And right now, the best way to lower medium term energy prices is probably to commit to a big green energy source like... oohhh... tidal*.

    * I am not as optimistic as one poster (who may be slightly conflicted) on the cost of tidal in the UK. But I suspect it will be both more reliable and cheaper than Hinckley Point C.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,109
    rcs1000 said:

    darkage said:

    The cost of living crisis is going to be hell.

    It is hard to see how the sanctions on Russia, and the net zero/green stuff, can survive. They will last for a while, because of the political consensus on these issues. But the costs are largely borne by low income households.

    The green stuff helps wean one off Russia. (And Saudi, etc.)

    It's not just about the climate, it's about becoming more energy independent.
    Which is why, in a field of pretty stiff competition, May’s cancellation of the tidal lagoons was probably her worst mistake.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    rcs1000 said:

    darkage said:

    The cost of living crisis is going to be hell.

    It is hard to see how the sanctions on Russia, and the net zero/green stuff, can survive. They will last for a while, because of the political consensus on these issues. But the costs are largely borne by low income households.

    The green stuff helps wean one off Russia. (And Saudi, etc.)

    It's not just about the climate, it's about becoming more energy independent.
    I already have solar hot water - and even through the winter we now need to use the electric top -up for about 30 minutes a day on average. Seriously looking at a bank of roof panels now as with our climate I could almost be self-sufficient. The economics is changing rapidly as the conventional power charges rise.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,787
    Taz said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    In Ukraine. Not sure what to make of this. Legitimate hunt for infiltrators, or a worrying bit of authoritarianism?

    Zelenskyy fires 2 senior members of national security on the ground.
    Andriy Naumov- former head SBU main dept of internal security
    Serhiy Kryvoruchko-former head of SBU in Kherson Oblast
    "I do not have time to deal with all the traitors but they will gradually all be punished"

    https://twitter.com/OlgaNYC1211/status/1509731870677868547?t=C0XWMkhKWaNnoMnOgu0s4Q&s=19

    He also fired two ambassadors, to Georgia and Morocco.

    They are fighting a defensive war. They are under siege and the enemy has made multiple attempts to kill him. No other country has seriously come to their rescue. They have been left alone to fight one of the worlds biggest armies.

    There is pressure to concede to the enemy in 'peace' talks. Factionalism and paranoia is inevitable.
    It isn't even worth seriously questioning, in my view.

    To suggest that Zelensky is an authoritarian is to peddle a Russian talking point.
    So any criticism of Zelensky is playing the Russians game. Okay.

    We are moving into the realms of North Korean levels of deference.
    Not really. You can observe what is going on without playing in to the 'two sides' analysis.

    Obviously one of the aims of Russian propoganda is to undermine Zelensky and western support for him.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,056
    darkage said:

    The cost of living crisis is going to be hell.

    It is hard to see how the sanctions on Russia, and the net zero/green stuff, can survive. They will last for a while, because of the political consensus on these issues. But the costs are largely borne by low income households.

    The green stuff will survive. We have an extremely well funded and powerful green lobby in the U.K. There is a lot of money to be made from the necessary transition to net zero. They won’t let that go without a struggle and all parties are on board with it.

    Indeed the high gas prices are seen as an opportunity to speed up the transition as it makes green energy more cost effective and the payback quicker.

    We will simply see measures to mitigate for the poorest in society to make it look like they are doing something.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,095
    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    In Ukraine. Not sure what to make of this. Legitimate hunt for infiltrators, or a worrying bit of authoritarianism?

    Zelenskyy fires 2 senior members of national security on the ground.
    Andriy Naumov- former head SBU main dept of internal security
    Serhiy Kryvoruchko-former head of SBU in Kherson Oblast
    "I do not have time to deal with all the traitors but they will gradually all be punished"

    https://twitter.com/OlgaNYC1211/status/1509731870677868547?t=C0XWMkhKWaNnoMnOgu0s4Q&s=19

    He also fired two ambassadors, to Georgia and Morocco.

    They are fighting a defensive war. They are under siege and the enemy has made multiple attempts to kill him. No other country has seriously come to their rescue. They have been left alone to fight one of the worlds biggest armies.

    There is pressure to concede to the enemy in 'peace' talks. Factionalism and paranoia is inevitable.
    It isn't even worth seriously questioning, in my view.

    To suggest that Zelensky is an authoritarian is to peddle a Russian talking point.
    There's going to be a lot of comms intercepted. Anybody in his circle trying to set up back channels with Russians is going to have to be very smart if they aren't going to be overheard.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,056
    ydoethur said:

    rcs1000 said:

    darkage said:

    The cost of living crisis is going to be hell.

    It is hard to see how the sanctions on Russia, and the net zero/green stuff, can survive. They will last for a while, because of the political consensus on these issues. But the costs are largely borne by low income households.

    The green stuff helps wean one off Russia. (And Saudi, etc.)

    It's not just about the climate, it's about becoming more energy independent.
    Which is why, in a field of pretty stiff competition, May’s cancellation of the tidal lagoons was probably her worst mistake.
    It will be more cost effective now with higher gas prices.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,141
    rcs1000 said:

    The sheer incompetence of the invaders is, I think, going to provide a rich vein for black comedy in years to come.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/01/russians-fled-chernobyl-with-radiation-sickness-says-ukraine-as-iaea-investigates

    People who know about radiation exposure don't seem to think it's likely they got radiation sickness.

    The thing about war is people will believe any old bullshit. Remember when people thought they knew that Bin Laden lived in a vast underground supervillain's lair? Apparently western intelligence knew all the details of this, except for where he was.
    https://twitter.com/shockproofbeats/status/1509472667065274370?t=hvXUOeZySSZbD1YvgbH8_Q&s=19
    They may not have radiation sickness, but if - as seems likely - they ingested a bunch of alpha emitters, then their life expectancy is likely to have taken a turn for the worse.
    Yeah, they definitely have a higher risk of cancer. Someone also suggested they may be suffering from anxiety: Apparently the initial symptoms look kind of similar, so that time when somebody stole a lump of cesium from an abandoned hospital and shared it around for people's kids to play with the hospitals got totally swamped with people with sort-of plausible symptoms, in addition to the smaller number who had actually been exposed.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,519
    Heathener said:

    Foxy said:

    First! Like the Tories in May.

    That's where the value lies. Blue Meanies ain't dead yet, at least in England.

    Okay. Fancy a bet on that then with me? If you think the tories are such value and that they will come first next month, have a bet on it with me.

    I used S markets for the bet.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,253
    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    darkage said:

    The cost of living crisis is going to be hell.

    It is hard to see how the sanctions on Russia, and the net zero/green stuff, can survive. They will last for a while, because of the political consensus on these issues. But the costs are largely borne by low income households.

    The green stuff helps wean one off Russia. (And Saudi, etc.)

    It's not just about the climate, it's about becoming more energy independent.
    I already have solar hot water - and even through the winter we now need to use the electric top -up for about 30 minutes a day on average. Seriously looking at a bank of roof panels now as with our climate I could almost be self-sufficient. The economics is changing rapidly as the conventional power charges rise.
    Good for you and I agree
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,362
    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    In Ukraine. Not sure what to make of this. Legitimate hunt for infiltrators, or a worrying bit of authoritarianism?

    Zelenskyy fires 2 senior members of national security on the ground.
    Andriy Naumov- former head SBU main dept of internal security
    Serhiy Kryvoruchko-former head of SBU in Kherson Oblast
    "I do not have time to deal with all the traitors but they will gradually all be punished"

    https://twitter.com/OlgaNYC1211/status/1509731870677868547?t=C0XWMkhKWaNnoMnOgu0s4Q&s=19

    He also fired two ambassadors, to Georgia and Morocco.

    They are fighting a defensive war. They are under siege and the enemy has made multiple attempts to kill him. No other country has seriously come to their rescue. They have been left alone to fight one of the worlds biggest armies.

    There is pressure to concede to the enemy in 'peace' talks. Factionalism and paranoia is inevitable.
    It isn't even worth seriously questioning, in my view.

    To suggest that Zelensky is an authoritarian is to peddle a Russian talking point.
    No, it's a legitimate question.
    As far as the ambassadors go, they were I believe sacked for ineffectiveness. That's simply an executive decision.
    Who knows about the intelligence officers - though given the last decade or so if Ukraine history, it's almost certainly that Russia does have assets in such departments.
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,056
    darkage said:

    Taz said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    In Ukraine. Not sure what to make of this. Legitimate hunt for infiltrators, or a worrying bit of authoritarianism?

    Zelenskyy fires 2 senior members of national security on the ground.
    Andriy Naumov- former head SBU main dept of internal security
    Serhiy Kryvoruchko-former head of SBU in Kherson Oblast
    "I do not have time to deal with all the traitors but they will gradually all be punished"

    https://twitter.com/OlgaNYC1211/status/1509731870677868547?t=C0XWMkhKWaNnoMnOgu0s4Q&s=19

    He also fired two ambassadors, to Georgia and Morocco.

    They are fighting a defensive war. They are under siege and the enemy has made multiple attempts to kill him. No other country has seriously come to their rescue. They have been left alone to fight one of the worlds biggest armies.

    There is pressure to concede to the enemy in 'peace' talks. Factionalism and paranoia is inevitable.
    It isn't even worth seriously questioning, in my view.

    To suggest that Zelensky is an authoritarian is to peddle a Russian talking point.
    So any criticism of Zelensky is playing the Russians game. Okay.

    We are moving into the realms of North Korean levels of deference.
    Not really. You can observe what is going on without playing in to the 'two sides' analysis.

    Obviously one of the aims of Russian propoganda is to undermine Zelensky and western support for him.
    The same can be said the other way.

    Of course the Russians are the bad guys here and the Ukrainians on the side of right but that does not mean we should simply ignore any concerns we have with Zelenskyy and his govt.

    Calling it out is not being a shill for Putin
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,920
    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re Schröder, I found this paragraph from the FT telling:

    In response [to his maintaining his ties with Putin and Russia], Schröder’s entire office staff resigned and he has been stripped of honorary citizenship of his home city of Hanover — a punishment it last meted out, posthumously, to Adolf Hitler.

    https://www.ft.com/content/b445d9b7-7c35-4f64-8bb5-d76a5393212f

    I find it extraordinary. Is it just money?
    It is astonishing that every single member of his office resigned. Every. Single. One.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,253
    edited April 2022
    I still think we have to go more nuclear, by which I mean power rather than war.

    We're getting closer to the holy grail of fusion reactors: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633

    In the meantime we build towards greener and more sustainable, less climate impacting, energy.

    And a word to my Green friends: there is no more naturally occurring form of energy in the universe than nuclear fission and fusion. And they are incredibly energy efficient. It's by far the most energy efficient source that there is: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

    You just have to do your damnedest to make sure it doesn't leak.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,253
    p.s. also quite like the idea of nuclear reactor plants in orbit. A bit safer if something goes wrong. Definitely one for the future.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,362
    darkage said:

    The cost of living crisis is going to be hell.

    It is hard to see how the sanctions on Russia, and the net zero/green stuff, can survive. They will last for a while, because of the political consensus on these issues. But the costs are largely borne by low income households.

    You're quite right that the burden will fall heaviest on poor households - and push not a few just-about-managing ones into not managing.
    But sanctions are about reducing Russia's capacity to sustain extended warfare, and are as much part of the solution as they are the problem.

    And it illustrates just how vulnerable we all are to energy price shocks - something renewables are pretty well immune to.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,362
    edited April 2022
    Heathener said:

    I still think we have to go more nuclear, by which I mean power rather than war.

    We're getting closer to the holy grail of fusion reactors: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633

    And in the meantime as we build towards greener and more sustainable, less climate impacting, energy.

    And a word to my green friends: there is no more naturally occurring form of energy in the universe than nuclear fission and fusion. And they are incredibly energy efficient. It's by far the most energy efficient source that there is: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

    You just have to do your damnedest to make sure it doesn't leak.

    Not a problem with fusion.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,109
    Taz said:

    darkage said:

    Taz said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    In Ukraine. Not sure what to make of this. Legitimate hunt for infiltrators, or a worrying bit of authoritarianism?

    Zelenskyy fires 2 senior members of national security on the ground.
    Andriy Naumov- former head SBU main dept of internal security
    Serhiy Kryvoruchko-former head of SBU in Kherson Oblast
    "I do not have time to deal with all the traitors but they will gradually all be punished"

    https://twitter.com/OlgaNYC1211/status/1509731870677868547?t=C0XWMkhKWaNnoMnOgu0s4Q&s=19

    He also fired two ambassadors, to Georgia and Morocco.

    They are fighting a defensive war. They are under siege and the enemy has made multiple attempts to kill him. No other country has seriously come to their rescue. They have been left alone to fight one of the worlds biggest armies.

    There is pressure to concede to the enemy in 'peace' talks. Factionalism and paranoia is inevitable.
    It isn't even worth seriously questioning, in my view.

    To suggest that Zelensky is an authoritarian is to peddle a Russian talking point.
    So any criticism of Zelensky is playing the Russians game. Okay.

    We are moving into the realms of North Korean levels of deference.
    Not really. You can observe what is going on without playing in to the 'two sides' analysis.

    Obviously one of the aims of Russian propoganda is to undermine Zelensky and western support for him.
    The same can be said the other way.

    Of course the Russians are the bad guys here and the Ukrainians on the side of right but that does not mean we should simply ignore any concerns we have with Zelenskyy and his govt.

    Calling it out is not being a shill for Putin
    Depends why he's sacked them, but even there some leeway should be given. Churchill fired Halifax for concluding Britain couldn't win the war and recommending peace talks, but he's not usually considered authoritarian for doing so.

    Has he actually had them arrested, or just dismissed? If the latter, maybe again we should remember most of the senior officers of the Russian Army and intelligence service are currently mysteriously absent from their posts.

    If of course he's arrested them for telling him facts about the current Russian position he doesn't like, that's altogether different.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,519
    Nigelb said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    In Ukraine. Not sure what to make of this. Legitimate hunt for infiltrators, or a worrying bit of authoritarianism?

    Zelenskyy fires 2 senior members of national security on the ground.
    Andriy Naumov- former head SBU main dept of internal security
    Serhiy Kryvoruchko-former head of SBU in Kherson Oblast
    "I do not have time to deal with all the traitors but they will gradually all be punished"

    https://twitter.com/OlgaNYC1211/status/1509731870677868547?t=C0XWMkhKWaNnoMnOgu0s4Q&s=19

    He also fired two ambassadors, to Georgia and Morocco.

    They are fighting a defensive war. They are under siege and the enemy has made multiple attempts to kill him. No other country has seriously come to their rescue. They have been left alone to fight one of the worlds biggest armies.

    There is pressure to concede to the enemy in 'peace' talks. Factionalism and paranoia is inevitable.
    It isn't even worth seriously questioning, in my view.

    To suggest that Zelensky is an authoritarian is to peddle a Russian talking point.
    No, it's a legitimate question.
    As far as the ambassadors go, they were I believe sacked for ineffectiveness. That's simply an executive decision.
    Who knows about the intelligence officers - though given the last decade or so if Ukraine history, it's almost certainly that Russia does have assets in such departments.
    I would be astonished if Russia did not have agents in Ukraine, after all they have them here and other countries. The question is whether these have been correctly identified. It is odd too that they have had their ranks stripped, and have been fired. If there was evidence then they should be arrested. Maybe they are in hiding or exile so can't be arrested.

    Ukraine is a post Soviet society, with a lot of corrupt oligarchs. I support Ukrainian aspiration to join the EU and become a full liberal democracy with open honest economy, but quite a long way still to go before that goal.


  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,920
    Nigelb said:

    Heathener said:

    I still think we have to go more nuclear, by which I mean power rather than war.

    We're getting closer to the holy grail of fusion reactors: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633

    And in the meantime as we build towards greener and more sustainable, less climate impacting, energy.

    And a word to my green friends: there is no more naturally occurring form of energy in the universe than nuclear fission and fusion. And they are incredibly energy efficient. It's by far the most energy efficient source that there is: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

    You just have to do your damnedest to make sure it doesn't leak.

    Not a problem with fusion.
    I'm a big believer in stored fusion.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Heathener said:

    I still think we have to go more nuclear, by which I mean power rather than war.

    We're getting closer to the holy grail of fusion reactors: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633

    In the meantime we build towards greener and more sustainable, less climate impacting, energy.

    And a word to my Green friends: there is no more naturally occurring form of energy in the universe than nuclear fission and fusion. And they are incredibly energy efficient. It's by far the most energy efficient source that there is: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

    You just have to do your damnedest to make sure it doesn't leak.

    And in the case of fission deal with the waste for about a thousand years. As we saw in Ukraine, long term nuclear security over that timescale might not be something to take for granted.

    Meanwhile, wind is currently accounting for 24% of energy generation right now. We could expand that and burn significantly less gas.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,109
    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    p.s. also quite like the idea of nuclear reactor plants in orbit. A bit safer if something goes wrong. Definitely one for the future.

    I quite like the fusion reactor that we rely on, at a safe distance of 93 million miles, but that one we orbit.
    It's the sun of all fears.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    p.s. also quite like the idea of nuclear reactor plants in orbit. A bit safer if something goes wrong. Definitely one for the future.

    I quite like the fusion reactor that we rely on, at a safe distance of 93 million miles, but that one we orbit.
    It's the sun of all fears.
    Such a star,
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,362
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    darkage said:

    Taz said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    In Ukraine. Not sure what to make of this. Legitimate hunt for infiltrators, or a worrying bit of authoritarianism?

    Zelenskyy fires 2 senior members of national security on the ground.
    Andriy Naumov- former head SBU main dept of internal security
    Serhiy Kryvoruchko-former head of SBU in Kherson Oblast
    "I do not have time to deal with all the traitors but they will gradually all be punished"

    https://twitter.com/OlgaNYC1211/status/1509731870677868547?t=C0XWMkhKWaNnoMnOgu0s4Q&s=19

    He also fired two ambassadors, to Georgia and Morocco.

    They are fighting a defensive war. They are under siege and the enemy has made multiple attempts to kill him. No other country has seriously come to their rescue. They have been left alone to fight one of the worlds biggest armies.

    There is pressure to concede to the enemy in 'peace' talks. Factionalism and paranoia is inevitable.
    It isn't even worth seriously questioning, in my view.

    To suggest that Zelensky is an authoritarian is to peddle a Russian talking point.
    So any criticism of Zelensky is playing the Russians game. Okay.

    We are moving into the realms of North Korean levels of deference.
    Not really. You can observe what is going on without playing in to the 'two sides' analysis.

    Obviously one of the aims of Russian propoganda is to undermine Zelensky and western support for him.
    The same can be said the other way.

    Of course the Russians are the bad guys here and the Ukrainians on the side of right but that does not mean we should simply ignore any concerns we have with Zelenskyy and his govt.

    Calling it out is not being a shill for Putin
    Depends why he's sacked them, but even there some leeway should be given. Churchill fired Halifax for concluding Britain couldn't win the war and recommending peace talks, but he's not usually considered authoritarian for doing so.

    Has he actually had them arrested, or just dismissed? If the latter, maybe again we should remember most of the senior officers of the Russian Army and intelligence service are currently mysteriously absent from their posts.

    If of course he's arrested them for telling him facts about the current Russian position he doesn't like, that's altogether different.
    The ambassadors were sacked for ineffectiveness.
    It's unclear exactly why the generals were sacked, but the were said to have 'violated their oaths' , and named as 'traitors'.
    https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3445232-zelensky-says-two-generals-who-turned-out-to-be-traitors-stripped-of-their-rank.html

    I don't think we'll know much more until they face trial - or don't.
    Zelensky appears to have happily devolved the management of fighting to the defence ministry and the armed forces, so doesn't thus far appear to be a nascent autocrat - and has referred several times to the responsibility of his successors - so I'm inclined for now to give him the benefit of the doubt.
    And I don't think Ukraine would tolerate an autocrat anyway.

    But it is an entirely legitimate concern.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,918
    Morning all. Cold today; heat from the fusion reactor in the sky is, somehow, being blocked, although it's bright enough. Snowflakes on our car (which lives outside).
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    darkage said:

    Taz said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    In Ukraine. Not sure what to make of this. Legitimate hunt for infiltrators, or a worrying bit of authoritarianism?

    Zelenskyy fires 2 senior members of national security on the ground.
    Andriy Naumov- former head SBU main dept of internal security
    Serhiy Kryvoruchko-former head of SBU in Kherson Oblast
    "I do not have time to deal with all the traitors but they will gradually all be punished"

    https://twitter.com/OlgaNYC1211/status/1509731870677868547?t=C0XWMkhKWaNnoMnOgu0s4Q&s=19

    He also fired two ambassadors, to Georgia and Morocco.

    They are fighting a defensive war. They are under siege and the enemy has made multiple attempts to kill him. No other country has seriously come to their rescue. They have been left alone to fight one of the worlds biggest armies.

    There is pressure to concede to the enemy in 'peace' talks. Factionalism and paranoia is inevitable.
    It isn't even worth seriously questioning, in my view.

    To suggest that Zelensky is an authoritarian is to peddle a Russian talking point.
    So any criticism of Zelensky is playing the Russians game. Okay.

    We are moving into the realms of North Korean levels of deference.
    Not really. You can observe what is going on without playing in to the 'two sides' analysis.

    Obviously one of the aims of Russian propoganda is to undermine Zelensky and western support for him.
    The same can be said the other way.

    Of course the Russians are the bad guys here and the Ukrainians on the side of right but that does not mean we should simply ignore any concerns we have with Zelenskyy and his govt.

    Calling it out is not being a shill for Putin
    Depends why he's sacked them, but even there some leeway should be given. Churchill fired Halifax for concluding Britain couldn't win the war and recommending peace talks, but he's not usually considered authoritarian for doing so.

    Has he actually had them arrested, or just dismissed? If the latter, maybe again we should remember most of the senior officers of the Russian Army and intelligence service are currently mysteriously absent from their posts.

    If of course he's arrested them for telling him facts about the current Russian position he doesn't like, that's altogether different.
    The ambassadors were sacked for ineffectiveness.
    It's unclear exactly why the generals were sacked, but the were said to have 'violated their oaths' , and named as 'traitors'.
    https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-ato/3445232-zelensky-says-two-generals-who-turned-out-to-be-traitors-stripped-of-their-rank.html

    I don't think we'll know much more until they face trial - or don't.
    Zelensky appears to have happily devolved the management of fighting to the defence ministry and the armed forces, so doesn't thus far appear to be a nascent autocrat - and has referred several times to the responsibility of his successors - so I'm inclined for now to give him the benefit of the doubt.
    And I don't think Ukraine would tolerate an autocrat anyway.

    But it is an entirely legitimate concern.
    I don't think dismissing people in these circumstances is remotely authoritarian.

    Authoritarian is what we see in Russia - these people would have mysteriously fallen out of a window or accidentally stabbed themselves 40 times while shaving etc instead.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,362
    .
    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    p.s. also quite like the idea of nuclear reactor plants in orbit. A bit safer if something goes wrong. Definitely one for the future.

    I quite like the fusion reactor that we rely on, at a safe distance of 93 million miles, but that one we orbit.
    A working fusion reactor would be entirely safe. If 'something goes wrong', fusion just stops. That's it.
    Sustaining fusion is the problem.
  • Options
    NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,346
    felix said:

    OT:

    1. I think most of the seats up for grabs are in strong Labour areas so less scope for big gains.
    2. There is some mitigation in the budget especially for core Tory vote.
    3. The polls have, thus far, tightened a little.
    4. Local by-election results generally not brilliant for Labour for several weeks now.
    5. A suggestion in the Grauniad last week that Labour pessimistic in Sunderland! :smiley:

    Overall I'd expect a mixed night if the polls were tomorrow. Today's headlines are bad but who lnows what they'll be in a few weeks. As ever the big trick for the parties is to manage expectations - not clear that the header today has done that very well for the reds.

    The consistency of the poor local by-election results for Labour is certainly unusual given their poll rating and where we are in the electoral cycle. Every Friday morning it seems that Labours vote has gone down in real elections.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,362
    Alistair said:

    Foxy said:

    In Ukraine. Not sure what to make of this. Legitimate hunt for infiltrators, or a worrying bit of authoritarianism?

    Zelenskyy fires 2 senior members of national security on the ground.
    Andriy Naumov- former head SBU main dept of internal security
    Serhiy Kryvoruchko-former head of SBU in Kherson Oblast
    "I do not have time to deal with all the traitors but they will gradually all be punished"

    https://twitter.com/OlgaNYC1211/status/1509731870677868547?t=C0XWMkhKWaNnoMnOgu0s4Q&s=19

    The fall of Kherson has raised a lot of questions. There has been reporting that the leadership of the area fucked off the moment Russia invaded. Reservists weren't activated and plans to blow the bridges were ignored.

    Kherson should have been untakeable given there are only two bridges across a massive river to het to it
    Yes, stuff like that might explain why Putin seemed confident about his plans.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    edited April 2022
    We've always been vulnerable to energy 'shocks'. I remember nearly fifty years ago when the Arabs put up oil prices because they could. That should have taught a lesson. The problem is that governments only last five years, so everything is short-term.

    Lagoons, tidal waves, and nuclear projects are expensive and long-term, so a government has to splurge out billions with no payback in the current electoral cycle. That money could be used to make life easier for voters. The opposition, if elected next time, receive the pay-back.

    I don't remember calls for the government to give the electorate bribes in 1973. It was blamed on the Arabs not whoever was in power at the time. The Green agenda will cause problems in the future but they will accept no blame. It's for your own good, you see.

    Short-termism was always the real problem, and there's no obvious solution. Fusion will be the future. If the Sun can do it, we will eventually. But it's radioactive, innit. All that nasty helium! It's a chemical, you know.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,586

    Morning all. Cold today; heat from the fusion reactor in the sky is, somehow, being blocked, although it's bright enough. Snowflakes on our car (which lives outside).

    Morning too OKC. Same sort of bright but wersh [Anglice, thin, insipid] day up here, though yesterday's squalls' loads of expanded polystyrene lentils have mostly melted.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,090
    Taz said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    In Ukraine. Not sure what to make of this. Legitimate hunt for infiltrators, or a worrying bit of authoritarianism?

    Zelenskyy fires 2 senior members of national security on the ground.
    Andriy Naumov- former head SBU main dept of internal security
    Serhiy Kryvoruchko-former head of SBU in Kherson Oblast
    "I do not have time to deal with all the traitors but they will gradually all be punished"

    https://twitter.com/OlgaNYC1211/status/1509731870677868547?t=C0XWMkhKWaNnoMnOgu0s4Q&s=19

    He also fired two ambassadors, to Georgia and Morocco.

    They are fighting a defensive war. They are under siege and the enemy has made multiple attempts to kill him. No other country has seriously come to their rescue. They have been left alone to fight one of the worlds biggest armies.

    There is pressure to concede to the enemy in 'peace' talks. Factionalism and paranoia is inevitable.
    It isn't even worth seriously questioning, in my view.

    To suggest that Zelensky is an authoritarian is to peddle a Russian talking point.
    So any criticism of Zelensky is playing the Russians game. Okay.

    We are moving into the realms of North Korean levels of deference.
    It's generally recognised that in times of war the force of circumstances mean that a democracy will take certain steps that would be unthinkable in peace time. Britain went ten years without a general election due to WWII, for example.

    The test of whether the experience of war has turned Zelenskyy into an authoritarian will come when the war ends, or enters a quieter, chronic phase. It's a test I expect him, and wider Ukrainian society, to pass.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 10,495
    As the government does extraordinary U turns on 'conversion therapy' has anyone any idea what in fact it intends to criminalise?

    Do we risk ending up with it being lawful for the NHS to perform massive drug, counselling and surgery led changes to a person physically, while at the same time making it doubtful whether a parent or a religious gathering can pray that some bloke will fancy some nice girl rather than some nice boy?
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,519
    Alistair said:

    Foxy said:

    In Ukraine. Not sure what to make of this. Legitimate hunt for infiltrators, or a worrying bit of authoritarianism?

    Zelenskyy fires 2 senior members of national security on the ground.
    Andriy Naumov- former head SBU main dept of internal security
    Serhiy Kryvoruchko-former head of SBU in Kherson Oblast
    "I do not have time to deal with all the traitors but they will gradually all be punished"

    https://twitter.com/OlgaNYC1211/status/1509731870677868547?t=C0XWMkhKWaNnoMnOgu0s4Q&s=19

    The fall of Kherson has raised a lot of questions. There has been reporting that the leadership of the area fucked off the moment Russia invaded. Reservists weren't activated and plans to blow the bridges were ignored.

    Kherson should have been untakeable given there are only two bridges across a massive river to het to it
    I agree, it is on the Kherson front that the Russians have had their only real success, though whether they can hold the west side of the Dnieper is not yet clear. The Ukranian counter attacks have nibbled a lot back. Whether incompetence or collusion is to blame isn't obvious yet.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,890
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    p.s. also quite like the idea of nuclear reactor plants in orbit. A bit safer if something goes wrong. Definitely one for the future.

    I quite like the fusion reactor that we rely on, at a safe distance of 93 million miles, but that one we orbit.
    A working fusion reactor would be entirely safe. If 'something goes wrong', fusion just stops. That's it.
    Sustaining fusion is the problem.
    AIUI that is probably not correct. In an ideal world, it would. But you are still dealing with immense energies and forces, and there are plenty of ways that such a reactor could go bang. It'd be different to the ways fission reactor goes pop, but still dangerous.

    Also remember that in most forms of proposed fusion reactor (aside from aneutronic ones), the high-energy neutrons released means that the rector itself becomes radioactive over time.

    A fusion reactor may well be much 'safer' if it goes wrong than a fission one. Maybe. We cannot say how much safer until we have finalised designs. They are certainly not 'entirely safe'.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,890
    Jonathan said:

    Heathener said:

    I still think we have to go more nuclear, by which I mean power rather than war.

    We're getting closer to the holy grail of fusion reactors: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633

    In the meantime we build towards greener and more sustainable, less climate impacting, energy.

    And a word to my Green friends: there is no more naturally occurring form of energy in the universe than nuclear fission and fusion. And they are incredibly energy efficient. It's by far the most energy efficient source that there is: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

    You just have to do your damnedest to make sure it doesn't leak.

    And in the case of fission deal with the waste for about a thousand years. As we saw in Ukraine, long term nuclear security over that timescale might not be something to take for granted.

    Meanwhile, wind is currently accounting for 24% of energy generation right now. We could expand that and burn significantly less gas.
    And the other day, wind was generating just a pittance.

    Sadly, we need to get storage sorted.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Heathener said:

    I still think we have to go more nuclear, by which I mean power rather than war.

    We're getting closer to the holy grail of fusion reactors: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633

    And in the meantime as we build towards greener and more sustainable, less climate impacting, energy.

    And a word to my green friends: there is no more naturally occurring form of energy in the universe than nuclear fission and fusion. And they are incredibly energy efficient. It's by far the most energy efficient source that there is: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

    You just have to do your damnedest to make sure it doesn't leak.

    Not a problem with fusion.
    I'm a big believer in stored fusion.
    Organically stored?
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,586
    Foxy said:

    First! Like the Tories in May.

    That's where the value lies. Blue Meanies ain't dead yet, at least in England.

    THey do seem to be getting confused about this trans business - pedalling back on the proposed drop of the conversion therapy ban (but only for gays, not trans, which seems odd to me)

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/31/boris-johnson-ditches-plans-for-ban-on-lgbt-conversion-practices

    'ITV News UK editor Paul Brand tweeted that the prime minister had “changed his mind” after seeing the reaction to the earlier announcement. In a move unlikely to end the controversy, Brand said the legislation would cover “only gay conversion therapy, not trans”.'

    And we used to complain about Mr Blair basing his policy on focus grouping ...
  • Options
    Jonathan said:

    Heathener said:

    I still think we have to go more nuclear, by which I mean power rather than war.

    We're getting closer to the holy grail of fusion reactors: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633

    In the meantime we build towards greener and more sustainable, less climate impacting, energy.

    And a word to my Green friends: there is no more naturally occurring form of energy in the universe than nuclear fission and fusion. And they are incredibly energy efficient. It's by far the most energy efficient source that there is: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

    You just have to do your damnedest to make sure it doesn't leak.

    And in the case of fission deal with the waste for about a thousand years. As we saw in Ukraine, long term nuclear security over that timescale might not be something to take for granted.

    Meanwhile, wind is currently accounting for 24% of energy generation right now. We could expand that and burn significantly less gas.
    Wind is fine as long as we have wind
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Foxy said:

    Alistair said:

    Foxy said:

    In Ukraine. Not sure what to make of this. Legitimate hunt for infiltrators, or a worrying bit of authoritarianism?

    Zelenskyy fires 2 senior members of national security on the ground.
    Andriy Naumov- former head SBU main dept of internal security
    Serhiy Kryvoruchko-former head of SBU in Kherson Oblast
    "I do not have time to deal with all the traitors but they will gradually all be punished"

    https://twitter.com/OlgaNYC1211/status/1509731870677868547?t=C0XWMkhKWaNnoMnOgu0s4Q&s=19

    The fall of Kherson has raised a lot of questions. There has been reporting that the leadership of the area fucked off the moment Russia invaded. Reservists weren't activated and plans to blow the bridges were ignored.

    Kherson should have been untakeable given there are only two bridges across a massive river to het to it
    I agree, it is on the Kherson front that the Russians have had their only real success, though whether they can hold the west side of the Dnieper is not yet clear. The Ukranian counter attacks have nibbled a lot back. Whether incompetence or collusion is to blame isn't obvious yet.
    Bottom half of this story has material from a now removed Russian story.

    https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2022/3/29/2088926/-Ukraine-update-How-did-Kherson-fall-so-quickly-Betrayal-looks-like-a-good-bet

    If it was incompetence then the incompetence is so large the people responsible needed to be removed.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,920
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    p.s. also quite like the idea of nuclear reactor plants in orbit. A bit safer if something goes wrong. Definitely one for the future.

    I quite like the fusion reactor that we rely on, at a safe distance of 93 million miles, but that one we orbit.
    A working fusion reactor would be entirely safe. If 'something goes wrong', fusion just stops. That's it.
    Sustaining fusion is the problem.
    That's simply not true.

    Now, sure, there isn't the risk of a meltdown, but there are a lot of moderately scary containment problems with fusion, and the issue of neutron radiation damage to... well.. everything nearby.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,890
    Heathener said:

    p.s. also quite like the idea of nuclear reactor plants in orbit. A bit safer if something goes wrong. Definitely one for the future.

    Not for fission plants, no.

    Fission reactors are relative safe in getting them to orbit, as if they get destroyed on launch, all you get is some 'clean' uranium of plutonium scattered about - and you can protect those bits. The problem is after the reactor has been used, when the whole darned thing is a mess of nasty decay products, and the satellite itself mildly glows green (*)

    Just read up on Kosmos 954:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954

    I'm for using fission reactors on deep-space missions or on Mars, or the Moon. I think having them working in orbit is a no-no.

    (*) Not really.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,920

    Jonathan said:

    Heathener said:

    I still think we have to go more nuclear, by which I mean power rather than war.

    We're getting closer to the holy grail of fusion reactors: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633

    In the meantime we build towards greener and more sustainable, less climate impacting, energy.

    And a word to my Green friends: there is no more naturally occurring form of energy in the universe than nuclear fission and fusion. And they are incredibly energy efficient. It's by far the most energy efficient source that there is: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

    You just have to do your damnedest to make sure it doesn't leak.

    And in the case of fission deal with the waste for about a thousand years. As we saw in Ukraine, long term nuclear security over that timescale might not be something to take for granted.

    Meanwhile, wind is currently accounting for 24% of energy generation right now. We could expand that and burn significantly less gas.
    And the other day, wind was generating just a pittance.

    Sadly, we need to get storage sorted.
    Almost anything is possible with decent storage; there's plenty of tidal, solar and wind available at reasonable costs. It's just that you can't guarantee you're going to have enough of it when you need it.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,639
    algarkirk said:

    As the government does extraordinary U turns on 'conversion therapy' has anyone any idea what in fact it intends to criminalise?

    Do we risk ending up with it being lawful for the NHS to perform massive drug, counselling and surgery led changes to a person physically, while at the same time making it doubtful whether a parent or a religious gathering can pray that some bloke will fancy some nice girl rather than some nice boy?

    Whether one is for or against such a ban in principle, the exact wording of the law will make a huge difference to the outcome and implementation. Good job we have a government with a precise idea of what it wants, and willing to take time to get things right, rather than just ticking boxes to be able to micro target voters on facebook.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited April 2022
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    p.s. also quite like the idea of nuclear reactor plants in orbit. A bit safer if something goes wrong. Definitely one for the future.

    I quite like the fusion reactor that we rely on, at a safe distance of 93 million miles, but that one we orbit.
    A working fusion reactor would be entirely safe. If 'something goes wrong', fusion just stops. That's it.
    Sustaining fusion is the problem.
    That's simply not true.

    Now, sure, there isn't the risk of a meltdown, but there are a lot of moderately scary containment problems with fusion, and the issue of neutron radiation damage to... well.. everything nearby.
    Yes, depending on the exact type of fusion there is the potential for lots of low grade nuclear material to be produced/used.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,090

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    p.s. also quite like the idea of nuclear reactor plants in orbit. A bit safer if something goes wrong. Definitely one for the future.

    I quite like the fusion reactor that we rely on, at a safe distance of 93 million miles, but that one we orbit.
    A working fusion reactor would be entirely safe. If 'something goes wrong', fusion just stops. That's it.
    Sustaining fusion is the problem.
    AIUI that is probably not correct. In an ideal world, it would. But you are still dealing with immense energies and forces, and there are plenty of ways that such a reactor could go bang. It'd be different to the ways fission reactor goes pop, but still dangerous.

    Also remember that in most forms of proposed fusion reactor (aside from aneutronic ones), the high-energy neutrons released means that the rector itself becomes radioactive over time.

    A fusion reactor may well be much 'safer' if it goes wrong than a fission one. Maybe. We cannot say how much safer until we have finalised designs. They are certainly not 'entirely safe'.
    I think it is fundamental to the difference between fission and fusion reactions that a fusion reactor will be orders of magnitude safer than a fission reactor. For starters, you don't need nuclear bomb quantities of uranium in a fusion reactor - that gets you a few orders of magnitude of extra safety all by itself.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,920
    algarkirk said:

    As the government does extraordinary U turns on 'conversion therapy' has anyone any idea what in fact it intends to criminalise?

    Do we risk ending up with it being lawful for the NHS to perform massive drug, counselling and surgery led changes to a person physically, while at the same time making it doubtful whether a parent or a religious gathering can pray that some bloke will fancy some nice girl rather than some nice boy?

    I believe they will only criminalise Labour -> Conservative conversion therapy, while leaving the rarer Conservative -> Labour entirely legal.

    Both LibDem to Green, and Green to LibDem are likely to remain legal, but the jury is still out on whether conversion to Reform will be banned.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    First! Like the Tories in May.

    That's where the value lies. Blue Meanies ain't dead yet, at least in England.

    THey do seem to be getting confused about this trans business - pedalling back on the proposed drop of the conversion therapy ban (but only for gays, not trans, which seems odd to me)

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/31/boris-johnson-ditches-plans-for-ban-on-lgbt-conversion-practices

    'ITV News UK editor Paul Brand tweeted that the prime minister had “changed his mind” after seeing the reaction to the earlier announcement. In a move unlikely to end the controversy, Brand said the legislation would cover “only gay conversion therapy, not trans”.'

    And we used to complain about Mr Blair basing his policy on focus grouping ...
    Tied themselves in knots. Telling gay man he is straight doubleplusbad telling him he is a woman doubleplusgood. If cutting someone's dick off and building them a word which attracts the ban 🔨 is not conversion therapy, what is?
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,253
    Was just chatting to someone: middle of the road kind of person who has often voted Conservative. Absolutely spitting about the cost of living crisis and 'hopes the tories get a drubbing' next month.

    I wonder if we're underestimating this.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    Radiation can be bad, but it can be an example of hormesis if not too high. Look it up if you're not familiar with the term.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,090

    Jonathan said:

    Heathener said:

    I still think we have to go more nuclear, by which I mean power rather than war.

    We're getting closer to the holy grail of fusion reactors: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633

    In the meantime we build towards greener and more sustainable, less climate impacting, energy.

    And a word to my Green friends: there is no more naturally occurring form of energy in the universe than nuclear fission and fusion. And they are incredibly energy efficient. It's by far the most energy efficient source that there is: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

    You just have to do your damnedest to make sure it doesn't leak.

    And in the case of fission deal with the waste for about a thousand years. As we saw in Ukraine, long term nuclear security over that timescale might not be something to take for granted.

    Meanwhile, wind is currently accounting for 24% of energy generation right now. We could expand that and burn significantly less gas.
    And the other day, wind was generating just a pittance.

    Sadly, we need to get storage sorted.
    Even when the wind is blowing strongly we don't yet have enough wind capacity that we generate a large surplus to store. So that's why storage isn't sorted, because there isn't the demand for it.

    Build large amounts of extra wind turbines, and we would then start to generate a surplus that could be stored.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,920

    Jonathan said:

    Heathener said:

    I still think we have to go more nuclear, by which I mean power rather than war.

    We're getting closer to the holy grail of fusion reactors: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633

    In the meantime we build towards greener and more sustainable, less climate impacting, energy.

    And a word to my Green friends: there is no more naturally occurring form of energy in the universe than nuclear fission and fusion. And they are incredibly energy efficient. It's by far the most energy efficient source that there is: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

    You just have to do your damnedest to make sure it doesn't leak.

    And in the case of fission deal with the waste for about a thousand years. As we saw in Ukraine, long term nuclear security over that timescale might not be something to take for granted.

    Meanwhile, wind is currently accounting for 24% of energy generation right now. We could expand that and burn significantly less gas.
    Wind is fine as long as we have wind
    There's a reason we talk about the electricity generation mix: and it's as true of fossil fuels as renewables. Simply, all your eggs in one basket opens you up to blackmail from the Russians or the NUM.

    Errr... come to mention it...

    Storage is key. Because that enables you to overbuild wind, solar, and tidal, knowing that excess power can be safely stored somewhere.

    I've always been a big fan of CAES.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,127
    IshmaelZ said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    First! Like the Tories in May.

    That's where the value lies. Blue Meanies ain't dead yet, at least in England.

    THey do seem to be getting confused about this trans business - pedalling back on the proposed drop of the conversion therapy ban (but only for gays, not trans, which seems odd to me)

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/31/boris-johnson-ditches-plans-for-ban-on-lgbt-conversion-practices

    'ITV News UK editor Paul Brand tweeted that the prime minister had “changed his mind” after seeing the reaction to the earlier announcement. In a move unlikely to end the controversy, Brand said the legislation would cover “only gay conversion therapy, not trans”.'

    And we used to complain about Mr Blair basing his policy on focus grouping ...
    Tied themselves in knots. Telling gay man he is straight doubleplusbad telling him he is a woman doubleplusgood. If cutting someone's dick off and building them a word which attracts the ban 🔨 is not conversion therapy, what is?
    I wonder if Boris has been watching the Ipcress file (which is rather good by the way) and got a bit confused.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,639
    If you are going to steal in the UK, make it in the millions, hang out with some politicians and you will get off free.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-60417156
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,920

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    p.s. also quite like the idea of nuclear reactor plants in orbit. A bit safer if something goes wrong. Definitely one for the future.

    I quite like the fusion reactor that we rely on, at a safe distance of 93 million miles, but that one we orbit.
    A working fusion reactor would be entirely safe. If 'something goes wrong', fusion just stops. That's it.
    Sustaining fusion is the problem.
    AIUI that is probably not correct. In an ideal world, it would. But you are still dealing with immense energies and forces, and there are plenty of ways that such a reactor could go bang. It'd be different to the ways fission reactor goes pop, but still dangerous.

    Also remember that in most forms of proposed fusion reactor (aside from aneutronic ones), the high-energy neutrons released means that the rector itself becomes radioactive over time.

    A fusion reactor may well be much 'safer' if it goes wrong than a fission one. Maybe. We cannot say how much safer until we have finalised designs. They are certainly not 'entirely safe'.
    I think it is fundamental to the difference between fission and fusion reactions that a fusion reactor will be orders of magnitude safer than a fission reactor. For starters, you don't need nuclear bomb quantities of uranium in a fusion reactor - that gets you a few orders of magnitude of extra safety all by itself.
    Both fusion and fission reactors throw of lots of neutrons. Those collide with basically everything nearby, weakening them and turning metal brittle.

    And that's a big issue with any power source dependent on massive containment structures, because funnelling those neutrons away from structural elements is an extremely difficult challenge.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,811
    Carnyx said:

    Morning all. Cold today; heat from the fusion reactor in the sky is, somehow, being blocked, although it's bright enough. Snowflakes on our car (which lives outside).

    Morning too OKC. Same sort of bright but wersh [Anglice, thin, insipid] day up here, though yesterday's squalls' loads of expanded polystyrene lentils have mostly melted.
    Morning Carnyx, sunny and beautiful on West coast yet again, has been incredible last 3 weeks
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,090
    edited April 2022
    A couple of videos on twitter of what is purported to be a Ukrainian attack on an oil depot in Belgorod by Ukrainian attack helicopters. Putin, please explain?

    https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1509754185427959808

    In this second video you can see four missiles being fired - with the second two leading to the big explosion and fire.

    https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1509751226392584192

    Edit: And these are thought to be the helicopters responsible. https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1509764935567519756

    There are loads of these videos. So many cameras in a modern war. https://twitter.com/L_Team10/status/1509761638454505481
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,918

    Jonathan said:

    Heathener said:

    I still think we have to go more nuclear, by which I mean power rather than war.

    We're getting closer to the holy grail of fusion reactors: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633

    In the meantime we build towards greener and more sustainable, less climate impacting, energy.

    And a word to my Green friends: there is no more naturally occurring form of energy in the universe than nuclear fission and fusion. And they are incredibly energy efficient. It's by far the most energy efficient source that there is: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

    You just have to do your damnedest to make sure it doesn't leak.

    And in the case of fission deal with the waste for about a thousand years. As we saw in Ukraine, long term nuclear security over that timescale might not be something to take for granted.

    Meanwhile, wind is currently accounting for 24% of energy generation right now. We could expand that and burn significantly less gas.
    And the other day, wind was generating just a pittance.

    Sadly, we need to get storage sorted.
    Even when the wind is blowing strongly we don't yet have enough wind capacity that we generate a large surplus to store. So that's why storage isn't sorted, because there isn't the demand for it.

    Build large amounts of extra wind turbines, and we would then start to generate a surplus that could be stored.
    It's called 'planning'!

    Fail to plan = plan to fail. However, I'm not sure that we can 'store' enough electricity, other than in giant, and I mean giant, batteries. Is it possible? Quite willing to be convinced, or to be pointed to somewhere which can convince me.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,253

    Heathener said:

    p.s. also quite like the idea of nuclear reactor plants in orbit. A bit safer if something goes wrong. Definitely one for the future.

    Not for fission plants, no.

    Fission reactors are relative safe in getting them to orbit, as if they get destroyed on launch, all you get is some 'clean' uranium of plutonium scattered about - and you can protect those bits. The problem is after the reactor has been used, when the whole darned thing is a mess of nasty decay products, and the satellite itself mildly glows green (*)

    Just read up on Kosmos 954:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954

    I'm for using fission reactors on deep-space missions or on Mars, or the Moon. I think having them working in orbit is a no-no.
    .
    Assuming Putin or some other loon doesn't annihilate life on earth then the human race will eventually have nuclear powered spacecraft as well as nuclear power stations in space e.g. on the moon.

    I can't see any reason not to have them in orbit, especially medium or high orbit. A meltdown 1000 miles up isn't going to be risky down here? I expect we will eventually build nuclear power stations on the moon etc. too.

    Fusion is an incredible energy source which may yet get us to the stars.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,977
    rcs1000 said:

    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Re Schröder, I found this paragraph from the FT telling:

    In response [to his maintaining his ties with Putin and Russia], Schröder’s entire office staff resigned and he has been stripped of honorary citizenship of his home city of Hanover — a punishment it last meted out, posthumously, to Adolf Hitler.

    https://www.ft.com/content/b445d9b7-7c35-4f64-8bb5-d76a5393212f

    I find it extraordinary. Is it just money?
    It is astonishing that every single member of his office resigned. Every. Single. One.
    All 4 of them.

    But if you were the only 1 out of 4 not to quit wouldn’t you look bad? And if 2 were quitting wouldn’t you want to make a stand and join them?
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    edited April 2022
    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    First! Like the Tories in May.

    That's where the value lies. Blue Meanies ain't dead yet, at least in England.

    THey do seem to be getting confused about this trans business - pedalling back on the proposed drop of the conversion therapy ban (but only for gays, not trans, which seems odd to me)

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/31/boris-johnson-ditches-plans-for-ban-on-lgbt-conversion-practices

    'ITV News UK editor Paul Brand tweeted that the prime minister had “changed his mind” after seeing the reaction to the earlier announcement. In a move unlikely to end the controversy, Brand said the legislation would cover “only gay conversion therapy, not trans”.'

    And we used to complain about Mr Blair basing his policy on focus grouping ...
    Let me tell you it is going to be a riot watchimg the Gov produce a bill that says "here is a bunch of morally reprehensible activities which of you undertake will result in a prison sentence and/or your professional credentials being revoked... Oh unless your victim is trans in which case all those self same activities are fine. Crack on with the mental torture until you break their will"

    That's why they wanted to ditch the whole thing to begin with, so they wouldn't have to write the hole hypocritical mess.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,573
    Video of Russian oil depot attack and explosion:

    https://twitter.com/RavetsU/status/1509783977699201033?s=20&t=x0VbWneGr-NTBgyLGyk0Fw

    Cui bono?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,920

    Jonathan said:

    Heathener said:

    I still think we have to go more nuclear, by which I mean power rather than war.

    We're getting closer to the holy grail of fusion reactors: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633

    In the meantime we build towards greener and more sustainable, less climate impacting, energy.

    And a word to my Green friends: there is no more naturally occurring form of energy in the universe than nuclear fission and fusion. And they are incredibly energy efficient. It's by far the most energy efficient source that there is: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

    You just have to do your damnedest to make sure it doesn't leak.

    And in the case of fission deal with the waste for about a thousand years. As we saw in Ukraine, long term nuclear security over that timescale might not be something to take for granted.

    Meanwhile, wind is currently accounting for 24% of energy generation right now. We could expand that and burn significantly less gas.
    And the other day, wind was generating just a pittance.

    Sadly, we need to get storage sorted.
    Even when the wind is blowing strongly we don't yet have enough wind capacity that we generate a large surplus to store. So that's why storage isn't sorted, because there isn't the demand for it.

    Build large amounts of extra wind turbines, and we would then start to generate a surplus that could be stored.
    It's called 'planning'!

    Fail to plan = plan to fail. However, I'm not sure that we can 'store' enough electricity, other than in giant, and I mean giant, batteries. Is it possible? Quite willing to be convinced, or to be pointed to somewhere which can convince me.
    There are *lots* of energy storage technologies, with varying degrees of efficiency, scalability and scariness. Chemical batteries are highly unlikely to be in the top five, or even ten, options.
  • Options
    AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    p.s. also quite like the idea of nuclear reactor plants in orbit. A bit safer if something goes wrong. Definitely one for the future.

    Not for fission plants, no.

    Fission reactors are relative safe in getting them to orbit, as if they get destroyed on launch, all you get is some 'clean' uranium of plutonium scattered about - and you can protect those bits. The problem is after the reactor has been used, when the whole darned thing is a mess of nasty decay products, and the satellite itself mildly glows green (*)

    Just read up on Kosmos 954:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954

    I'm for using fission reactors on deep-space missions or on Mars, or the Moon. I think having them working in orbit is a no-no.
    .
    Assuming Putin or some other loon doesn't annihilate life on earth then the human race will eventually have nuclear powered spacecraft as well as nuclear power stations in space e.g. on the moon.

    I can't see any reason not to have them in orbit, especially medium or high orbit. A meltdown 1000 miles up isn't going to be risky down here? I expect we will eventually build nuclear power stations on the moon etc. too.

    Fusion is an incredible energy source which may yet get us to the stars.
    Errr re-entry risk?
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,920
    edited April 2022
    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    p.s. also quite like the idea of nuclear reactor plants in orbit. A bit safer if something goes wrong. Definitely one for the future.

    Not for fission plants, no.

    Fission reactors are relative safe in getting them to orbit, as if they get destroyed on launch, all you get is some 'clean' uranium of plutonium scattered about - and you can protect those bits. The problem is after the reactor has been used, when the whole darned thing is a mess of nasty decay products, and the satellite itself mildly glows green (*)

    Just read up on Kosmos 954:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954

    I'm for using fission reactors on deep-space missions or on Mars, or the Moon. I think having them working in orbit is a no-no.
    .
    Assuming Putin or some other loon doesn't annihilate life on earth then the human race will eventually have nuclear powered spacecraft as well as nuclear power stations in space e.g. on the moon.

    I can't see any reason not to have them in orbit, especially medium or high orbit. A meltdown 1000 miles up isn't going to be risky down here? I expect we will eventually build nuclear power stations on the moon etc. too.

    Fusion is an incredible energy source which may yet get us to the stars.
    My car is fusion powered, albeit using a fairly inefficient organic system.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,519
    Alistair said:

    Foxy said:

    Alistair said:

    Foxy said:

    In Ukraine. Not sure what to make of this. Legitimate hunt for infiltrators, or a worrying bit of authoritarianism?

    Zelenskyy fires 2 senior members of national security on the ground.
    Andriy Naumov- former head SBU main dept of internal security
    Serhiy Kryvoruchko-former head of SBU in Kherson Oblast
    "I do not have time to deal with all the traitors but they will gradually all be punished"

    https://twitter.com/OlgaNYC1211/status/1509731870677868547?t=C0XWMkhKWaNnoMnOgu0s4Q&s=19

    The fall of Kherson has raised a lot of questions. There has been reporting that the leadership of the area fucked off the moment Russia invaded. Reservists weren't activated and plans to blow the bridges were ignored.

    Kherson should have been untakeable given there are only two bridges across a massive river to het to it
    I agree, it is on the Kherson front that the Russians have had their only real success, though whether they can hold the west side of the Dnieper is not yet clear. The Ukranian counter attacks have nibbled a lot back. Whether incompetence or collusion is to blame isn't obvious yet.
    Bottom half of this story has material from a now removed Russian story.

    https://m.dailykos.com/stories/2022/3/29/2088926/-Ukraine-update-How-did-Kherson-fall-so-quickly-Betrayal-looks-like-a-good-bet

    If it was incompetence then the incompetence is so large the people responsible needed to be removed.
    Yes, that is interesting. Once the war is over, those who jumped the wrong way will be in real trouble, and that looks like at least some of the Kherson government.

    The large scale and continuing protests in Kherson and other towns in the oblast do seem to show which way the people jumped.


  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,920
    Alistair said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    p.s. also quite like the idea of nuclear reactor plants in orbit. A bit safer if something goes wrong. Definitely one for the future.

    Not for fission plants, no.

    Fission reactors are relative safe in getting them to orbit, as if they get destroyed on launch, all you get is some 'clean' uranium of plutonium scattered about - and you can protect those bits. The problem is after the reactor has been used, when the whole darned thing is a mess of nasty decay products, and the satellite itself mildly glows green (*)

    Just read up on Kosmos 954:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954

    I'm for using fission reactors on deep-space missions or on Mars, or the Moon. I think having them working in orbit is a no-no.
    .
    Assuming Putin or some other loon doesn't annihilate life on earth then the human race will eventually have nuclear powered spacecraft as well as nuclear power stations in space e.g. on the moon.

    I can't see any reason not to have them in orbit, especially medium or high orbit. A meltdown 1000 miles up isn't going to be risky down here? I expect we will eventually build nuclear power stations on the moon etc. too.

    Fusion is an incredible energy source which may yet get us to the stars.
    Errr re-entry risk?
    Well, if it burns up completely on reentry and the material is spread over a wide enough area, then it's probably fine. Statistically.

    But you wouldn't want it to be a regular occurance.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,858
    rcs1000 said:

    My car is fusion powered, albeit using a fairly inefficient organic system.

    Hydrocarbons are one of the most efficient energy storage systems we know of
  • Options
    One amusing fact regarding the safety of nuclear fission etc that is rarely mentioned is that globally it is actually the safest form of energy power in the world, or was last time I saw the figures in 2012: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/?sh=14967cd2709b

    Measuring deaths per trillion Kilowatt-hour nuclear fission (even including Fukushima and the worst possible estimate for Chernobyl) has a historical mortality rate of 90 deaths per trillion kWh.

    Wind power by contrast had a death tally of 150 deaths per trillion kWh.

    Tidal power for what its worth had a death tally of 1400 per trillion kWh, while coal was 100,000 (!)
  • Options
    TazTaz Posts: 11,056

    Video of Russian oil depot attack and explosion:

    https://twitter.com/RavetsU/status/1509783977699201033?s=20&t=x0VbWneGr-NTBgyLGyk0Fw

    Cui bono?

    That’s not helping battle against climate change !
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,090
    rcs1000 said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Foxy said:

    Heathener said:

    p.s. also quite like the idea of nuclear reactor plants in orbit. A bit safer if something goes wrong. Definitely one for the future.

    I quite like the fusion reactor that we rely on, at a safe distance of 93 million miles, but that one we orbit.
    A working fusion reactor would be entirely safe. If 'something goes wrong', fusion just stops. That's it.
    Sustaining fusion is the problem.
    AIUI that is probably not correct. In an ideal world, it would. But you are still dealing with immense energies and forces, and there are plenty of ways that such a reactor could go bang. It'd be different to the ways fission reactor goes pop, but still dangerous.

    Also remember that in most forms of proposed fusion reactor (aside from aneutronic ones), the high-energy neutrons released means that the rector itself becomes radioactive over time.

    A fusion reactor may well be much 'safer' if it goes wrong than a fission one. Maybe. We cannot say how much safer until we have finalised designs. They are certainly not 'entirely safe'.
    I think it is fundamental to the difference between fission and fusion reactions that a fusion reactor will be orders of magnitude safer than a fission reactor. For starters, you don't need nuclear bomb quantities of uranium in a fusion reactor - that gets you a few orders of magnitude of extra safety all by itself.
    Both fusion and fission reactors throw of lots of neutrons. Those collide with basically everything nearby, weakening them and turning metal brittle.

    And that's a big issue with any power source dependent on massive containment structures, because funnelling those neutrons away from structural elements is an extremely difficult challenge.
    Yes, it's not trouble-free, but then an incorrectly installed domestic gas boiler can explode, but it's not as dangerous as a nuclear power plant.

    Problems with dealing with uranium fuel in fission reactors make them orders of magnitude more problematic than fusion reactors from a safety point of view.
  • Options
    darkagedarkage Posts: 4,787
    darkage said:

    Taz said:

    darkage said:

    Foxy said:

    In Ukraine. Not sure what to make of this. Legitimate hunt for infiltrators, or a worrying bit of authoritarianism?

    Zelenskyy fires 2 senior members of national security on the ground.
    Andriy Naumov- former head SBU main dept of internal security
    Serhiy Kryvoruchko-former head of SBU in Kherson Oblast
    "I do not have time to deal with all the traitors but they will gradually all be punished"

    https://twitter.com/OlgaNYC1211/status/1509731870677868547?t=C0XWMkhKWaNnoMnOgu0s4Q&s=19

    He also fired two ambassadors, to Georgia and Morocco.

    They are fighting a defensive war. They are under siege and the enemy has made multiple attempts to kill him. No other country has seriously come to their rescue. They have been left alone to fight one of the worlds biggest armies.

    There is pressure to concede to the enemy in 'peace' talks. Factionalism and paranoia is inevitable.
    It isn't even worth seriously questioning, in my view.

    To suggest that Zelensky is an authoritarian is to peddle a Russian talking point.
    So any criticism of Zelensky is playing the Russians game. Okay.

    We are moving into the realms of North Korean levels of deference.
    Not really. You can observe what is going on without playing in to the 'two sides' analysis.

    Obviously one of the aims of Russian propoganda is to undermine Zelensky and western support for him.
    Been thinking this one through a bit further.

    The situation in Ukraine is a bit like having Wayne Couzens in your house raping and killing your family for a month whilst the police decide whether they can risk 'provoking' the perpetrator by intervening. Obviously you would start to go a bit mad after 4 weeks.

    What would really get on your nerves in this situation is someone two thousand miles away, in a completely safe country, start to question your decision making - implying that actually, both sides have flaws - and that you yourself are not 'beyond criticism'.

    If the person in the 'safe' country making the criticisms was a supporter of the Green Party policy on defence - this would be a major aggravating factor, in my view.

  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,141

    Video of Russian oil depot attack and explosion:

    https://twitter.com/RavetsU/status/1509783977699201033?s=20&t=x0VbWneGr-NTBgyLGyk0Fw

    Cui bono?

    Obviously Ukraine's bono, I think? Disrupts Russia's attempts to get fuel for their war, they have to use resources to defend themselves instead of having the luxury of using it all to attack, and hopefully the people they do have defending their own airspace will freak out and start shooting down their own helicopters.

    You can't totally rule out a false flag but when Putin does this kind of thing he doesn't appear to be particularly subtle, you'd think he'd go for a home for disabled kittens or something rather than a useful military target.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,586

    One amusing fact regarding the safety of nuclear fission etc that is rarely mentioned is that globally it is actually the safest form of energy power in the world, or was last time I saw the figures in 2012: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/?sh=14967cd2709b

    Measuring deaths per trillion Kilowatt-hour nuclear fission (even including Fukushima and the worst possible estimate for Chernobyl) has a historical mortality rate of 90 deaths per trillion kWh.

    Wind power by contrast had a death tally of 150 deaths per trillion kWh.

    Tidal power for what its worth had a death tally of 1400 per trillion kWh, while coal was 100,000 (!)

    That's over the whole lifetime. Which we have not reached for any nuke station, cos of the waste.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,253
    edited April 2022
    Real life approximate energy efficiency

    Nuclear fusion = the holy grail. Think of the sun.

    Nuclear fission = 93% (but this is capacity and thermal efficiency is closer to 40%)

    Geothermal = hotly (ho ho) contested figures ranging from 90% to 20%

    Hydropower - 40%

    Natural gas = 40% but it rapes the earth (my viewpoint). It's a finite source.

    Coal 30% (ditto)

    Wind 30%

    Solar 20% (but constantly improving and some new almost paint-on panels for windows are coming)
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,360

    Jonathan said:

    Heathener said:

    I still think we have to go more nuclear, by which I mean power rather than war.

    We're getting closer to the holy grail of fusion reactors: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633

    In the meantime we build towards greener and more sustainable, less climate impacting, energy.

    And a word to my Green friends: there is no more naturally occurring form of energy in the universe than nuclear fission and fusion. And they are incredibly energy efficient. It's by far the most energy efficient source that there is: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

    You just have to do your damnedest to make sure it doesn't leak.

    And in the case of fission deal with the waste for about a thousand years. As we saw in Ukraine, long term nuclear security over that timescale might not be something to take for granted.

    Meanwhile, wind is currently accounting for 24% of energy generation right now. We could expand that and burn significantly less gas.
    And the other day, wind was generating just a pittance.

    Sadly, we need to get storage sorted.
    Even when the wind is blowing strongly we don't yet have enough wind capacity that we generate a large surplus to store. So that's why storage isn't sorted, because there isn't the demand for it.

    Build large amounts of extra wind turbines, and we would then start to generate a surplus that could be stored.
    It's called 'planning'!

    Fail to plan = plan to fail. However, I'm not sure that we can 'store' enough electricity, other than in giant, and I mean giant, batteries. Is it possible? Quite willing to be convinced, or to be pointed to somewhere which can convince me.
    When I was a student of Materials Science, and read the books by JE Gordon (one of the Great old-school boffins) he talked about the two traditions of engineering- the steel approach (concentrating energy in ever-smaller boxes) and the wood tradition (collecting energy over a large area). A lot of our engineering is in the steel tradition, and we need more wood thinking.

    The remarkable thing is how they can each do the job- we don't have a better material for holding loads up than wood by many metrics. But our approach and attitude needs to be different in each case.

    Oh, and in Gordon's words, hardly anyone in the steel business ever seems to be happy.
  • Options
    IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    Video of Russian oil depot attack and explosion:

    https://twitter.com/RavetsU/status/1509783977699201033?s=20&t=x0VbWneGr-NTBgyLGyk0Fw

    Cui bono?

    Obviously Ukraine's bono, I think? Disrupts Russia's attempts to get fuel for their war, they have to use resources to defend themselves instead of having the luxury of using it all to attack, and hopefully the people they do have defending their own airspace will freak out and start shooting down their own helicopters.

    You can't totally rule out a false flag but when Putin does this kind of thing he doesn't appear to be particularly subtle, you'd think he'd go for a home for disabled kittens or something rather than a useful military target.
    :lol:
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,090

    Jonathan said:

    Heathener said:

    I still think we have to go more nuclear, by which I mean power rather than war.

    We're getting closer to the holy grail of fusion reactors: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633

    In the meantime we build towards greener and more sustainable, less climate impacting, energy.

    And a word to my Green friends: there is no more naturally occurring form of energy in the universe than nuclear fission and fusion. And they are incredibly energy efficient. It's by far the most energy efficient source that there is: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

    You just have to do your damnedest to make sure it doesn't leak.

    And in the case of fission deal with the waste for about a thousand years. As we saw in Ukraine, long term nuclear security over that timescale might not be something to take for granted.

    Meanwhile, wind is currently accounting for 24% of energy generation right now. We could expand that and burn significantly less gas.
    And the other day, wind was generating just a pittance.

    Sadly, we need to get storage sorted.
    Even when the wind is blowing strongly we don't yet have enough wind capacity that we generate a large surplus to store. So that's why storage isn't sorted, because there isn't the demand for it.

    Build large amounts of extra wind turbines, and we would then start to generate a surplus that could be stored.
    It's called 'planning'!

    Fail to plan = plan to fail. However, I'm not sure that we can 'store' enough electricity, other than in giant, and I mean giant, batteries. Is it possible? Quite willing to be convinced, or to be pointed to somewhere which can convince me.
    Sure, yes, and we are planning. There are capacity payments being made to storage providers, and you also have a whole bunch of different companies working on different technologies.

    But you're not going to see large amounts of storage on the grid until there is demand for it. There is no point in time-shifting wind energy from a windy day to a calm day at the moment, because all the wind energy can be used on the windy day, and we have other sources of supply for the calm day - so storing some of the energy to use on the calm day would introduce inefficiencies and extra cost.

    But we are planning and making preparations, and so I am confident that we will be able to install the storage when it is required.

    We're also likely to see lots of people with batteries at home to store electricity. A battery the same size as the battery in your car (when you have an electric car) will store enough electricity for about a week's worth of electricity usage, for the average home.

    You don't need one large battery if you can have millions of batteries in people's homes. But you'd probably have some large battery facilities too.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,519
    Scott_xP said:

    rcs1000 said:

    My car is fusion powered, albeit using a fairly inefficient organic system.

    Hydrocarbons are one of the most efficient energy storage systems we know of
    Photosynthesis is the way forward.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,586
    Alistair said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    First! Like the Tories in May.

    That's where the value lies. Blue Meanies ain't dead yet, at least in England.

    THey do seem to be getting confused about this trans business - pedalling back on the proposed drop of the conversion therapy ban (but only for gays, not trans, which seems odd to me)

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/31/boris-johnson-ditches-plans-for-ban-on-lgbt-conversion-practices

    'ITV News UK editor Paul Brand tweeted that the prime minister had “changed his mind” after seeing the reaction to the earlier announcement. In a move unlikely to end the controversy, Brand said the legislation would cover “only gay conversion therapy, not trans”.'

    And we used to complain about Mr Blair basing his policy on focus grouping ...
    Let me tell you it is going to be a riot watchimg the Gov produce a bill that says "here is a bunch of morally reprehensible activities which of you undertake will result in a prison sentence and/or your professional credentials being revoked... Oh unless your victim is trans in which case all those self same activities are fine. Crack on with the mental torture until you break their will"

    That's why they wanted to ditch the whole thing to begin with, so they wouldn't have to write the hole hypocritical mess.
    Quite. And of course Mr J has now managed to upset both sides in the gender assignment wars. He'll be trusted as much as he is by the two sides in NI.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,920

    One amusing fact regarding the safety of nuclear fission etc that is rarely mentioned is that globally it is actually the safest form of energy power in the world, or was last time I saw the figures in 2012: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/?sh=14967cd2709b

    Measuring deaths per trillion Kilowatt-hour nuclear fission (even including Fukushima and the worst possible estimate for Chernobyl) has a historical mortality rate of 90 deaths per trillion kWh.

    Wind power by contrast had a death tally of 150 deaths per trillion kWh.

    Tidal power for what its worth had a death tally of 1400 per trillion kWh, while coal was 100,000 (!)

    Coal - obviously - has massive death rates compared to everything else, but I'm not convinced by the nuclear numbers vs (say) wind.

    Simply, what are the wind deaths? I mean you have to assume things about the manufacturing risks (and the costs associate with component risks), in which case are you making the same assumptions about nuclear plants, nuclear fuel, the mining of uranium, and its enrichment.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,012

    A couple of videos on twitter of what is purported to be a Ukrainian attack on an oil depot in Belgorod by Ukrainian attack helicopters. Putin, please explain?

    https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1509754185427959808

    In this second video you can see four missiles being fired - with the second two leading to the big explosion and fire.

    https://twitter.com/GirkinGirkin/status/1509751226392584192

    Edit: And these are thought to be the helicopters responsible. https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1509764935567519756

    There are loads of these videos. So many cameras in a modern war. https://twitter.com/L_Team10/status/1509761638454505481

    That’s a massive psychological blow for Russia.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 5,253



    Wind power by contrast had a death tally of 150 deaths per trillion kWh.

    Not to mention the bird life.

    I don't mind wind power but it's not the greatest thing if you're being authentic about green life.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 32,858
    On the day energy bills soar, an exclusive poll for The Telegraph finds:

    - 80% of people believe the Govt is not doing enough on energy bills

    - 67% believe Rishi Sunak is "out of touch"

    All the numbers and the key quotes from the morning round here:
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/04/01/boris-johnson-news-partygate-fines-iran-debt-ukraine-energy/
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,586

    Jonathan said:

    Heathener said:

    I still think we have to go more nuclear, by which I mean power rather than war.

    We're getting closer to the holy grail of fusion reactors: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-60312633

    In the meantime we build towards greener and more sustainable, less climate impacting, energy.

    And a word to my Green friends: there is no more naturally occurring form of energy in the universe than nuclear fission and fusion. And they are incredibly energy efficient. It's by far the most energy efficient source that there is: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most-reliable-energy-source-and-its-not-even-close

    You just have to do your damnedest to make sure it doesn't leak.

    And in the case of fission deal with the waste for about a thousand years. As we saw in Ukraine, long term nuclear security over that timescale might not be something to take for granted.

    Meanwhile, wind is currently accounting for 24% of energy generation right now. We could expand that and burn significantly less gas.
    And the other day, wind was generating just a pittance.

    Sadly, we need to get storage sorted.
    Even when the wind is blowing strongly we don't yet have enough wind capacity that we generate a large surplus to store. So that's why storage isn't sorted, because there isn't the demand for it.

    Build large amounts of extra wind turbines, and we would then start to generate a surplus that could be stored.
    It's called 'planning'!

    Fail to plan = plan to fail. However, I'm not sure that we can 'store' enough electricity, other than in giant, and I mean giant, batteries. Is it possible? Quite willing to be convinced, or to be pointed to somewhere which can convince me.
    When I was a student of Materials Science, and read the books by JE Gordon (one of the Great old-school boffins) he talked about the two traditions of engineering- the steel approach (concentrating energy in ever-smaller boxes) and the wood tradition (collecting energy over a large area). A lot of our engineering is in the steel tradition, and we need more wood thinking.

    The remarkable thing is how they can each do the job- we don't have a better material for holding loads up than wood by many metrics. But our approach and attitude needs to be different in each case.

    Oh, and in Gordon's words, hardly anyone in the steel business ever seems to be happy.
    Ooh, they were - and are - great books. I was brought up on them. Great insights into everything from Viking ship design to my biological studies.
This discussion has been closed.