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
I have just had an authentically hippy insight which is that coal stopped being a thing when fungi, including lots of psilocybin containing species, got their act together and started degrading dead trees. It's like the shrooms were trying to save us from ourselves, man.
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)
With all due respect, those numbers are utter bullshit. (And if you can find me a CCGT plant with efficiency of 40% or less, then I'll happily not ban you.)
I'm going to bed now, but the energy efficiency of a solar cell is nowhere near as interesting as its cost. If a one meter squared panel had an efficiency of 2% and a cost of $1, then that would be massively more useful that if it had an efficiency of 20% and a cost of $1,000.
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
Indeed. The point is that when there is wind, we are still not making the most of it and if we did it could make a huge difference.
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.
While the Ukrainian government hasn’t claimed responsibility yet, many pro-Ukrainian sites are:
#Ukraine: Early today, 2 Ukrainian Mi-24 attack helicopters flew at extremely low level over the border with Russia & struck the large oil facility in the city of #Belgorod with multiple S-8 series unguided rockets, causing a major fire. Here is the strike/escape in slo-mo.
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
I have just had an authentically hippy insight which is that coal stopped being a thing when fungi, including lots of psilocybin containing species, got their act together and started degrading dead trees. It's like the shrooms were trying to save us from ourselves, man.
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.
An example of which is wave power over wind power.
A wave is wind collected over a large area.
Capturing one wave delivers much more energy than multiple wind turbines
The case against this government on cost of living is there. Question is how effectively the Labour opposition makes that case.
The case turns on this government's priorities, general competence and do a party of hedge fund owners and their millionaire associates even care about the lives of ordinary people?
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.
I respectfully disagree. Measuring total global storage chemical batteries are likely to be the #1 or very close to it.
The difference is that chemical storage is distributed rather than centralised. Every electric car having a chemical battery will provide an immense amount of storage all in it's own right, without considering all our electrical devices and potetentially powerwalls etc too.
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.
It is worth noting that in the medium term, it was the developed world that benefited and the Arab world that got fucked.
We got more energy efficient, and developed Alaska and the North Sea.
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
I have just had an authentically hippy insight which is that coal stopped being a thing when fungi, including lots of psilocybin containing species, got their act together and started degrading dead trees. It's like the shrooms were trying to save us from ourselves, man.
I think I know which book you've been reading?
Yes. It isn't very good and I don't think it contains that specific thought tho.
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.
An example of which is wave power over wind power.
A wave is wind collected over a large area.
Capturing one wave delivers much more energy than multiple wind turbines
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.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by glass-fronted buildings and domestic cats. Not to mention the ones that will die out due to loss of habitat resulting from climate change which, of course, wind power is intended to counter.
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)
With all due respect, those numbers are utter bullshit. (And if you can find me a CCGT plant with efficiency of 40% or less, then I'll happily not ban you.)
I'm going to bed now, but the energy efficiency of a solar cell is nowhere near as interesting as its cost. If a one meter squared panel had an efficiency of 2% and a cost of $1, then that would be massively more useful that if it had an efficiency of 20% and a cost of $1,000.
Sigh. I do wish you would tone it down a bit Robert. You can come across as terribly aggressive sometimes.
I know the figures are contested but they are not 'utter bullshit'. Go and spend some time googling them and reading research papers.
And, yes, most contemporary solar panels are now hitting between 18% to 22% efficiency. They are getting thinner and more efficient by the year and the latest peel on ones are really going to be pretty darn cool.
p.s. you still haven't explained to me your BA pilots thing. It's obviously a mistake but still a baffling one for me.
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.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by glass-fronted buildings and domestic cats. Not to mention the ones that will die out due to loss of habitat resulting from climate change which, of course, wind power is intended to counter.
Sounds like whataboutery to me.
Estimates put the number of birds killed by wind turbines as between 10,000 and 100,000 a year in the UK.
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.
From the source article workers fatally falling off turbines during maintenance is listed as a cause of death.
Considering nuclear and wind don't have the same output per turbine/power plant you wouldn't necessarily have the same assumptions.
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.
(fx: reaches up and picks 'The new science of strong materials - or why you don't fall through the floor' off the bookshelf)
I studied materials as part of a geo end course. I only discovered Gordon's book years afterwards, and I wish I'd had them before - as the book I mention above alone was far better than the course for explaining concepts.
On your point: oddly, before (say) the 1930s - 1950s, we were very much localised in terms of power. every town would have its own power station (Derby's was by where the industrial museum - sorry, 'Museum of Making' (*) is now. Then the national grid and anti-pollution laws made larger plants more efficient, and we went for the large power plants. We're now heading back to more of a mix, with microgeneration spread around the country.
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)
With all due respect, those numbers are utter bullshit. (And if you can find me a CCGT plant with efficiency of 40% or less, then I'll happily not ban you.)
I'm going to bed now, but the energy efficiency of a solar cell is nowhere near as interesting as its cost. If a one meter squared panel had an efficiency of 2% and a cost of $1, then that would be massively more useful that if it had an efficiency of 20% and a cost of $1,000.
Sigh. I do wish you would tone it down a bit Robert. You can come across as terribly aggressive sometimes.
I know the figures are contested but they are not 'utter bullshit'. Go and spend some time googling them and reading research papers.
And, yes, most contemporary solar panels are now hitting between 18% to 22% efficiency. They are getting thinner and more efficient by the year and the latest peel on ones are really going to be pretty darn cool.
p.s. you still haven't explained to me your BA pilots thing. It's obviously a mistake but still a baffling one for me.
All you have to do is say "yeah, I might have gotten natural gas efficiency a bit wrong, and it's more like 60-65% for a new plant and 50-60% for older plants."
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 (*)
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.
What goes up must come down eventually. And the decay products of fission can be really, really nasty. Again, look at the mess created by the (relatively tiny) Kosmos reactor.
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.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by glass-fronted buildings and domestic cats. Not to mention the ones that will die out due to loss of habitat resulting from climate change which, of course, wind power is intended to counter.
Sounds like whataboutery to me.
Estimates put the number of birds killed by wind turbines as between 10,000 and 100,000 a year in the UK.
The case against this government on cost of living is there. Question is how effectively the Labour opposition makes that case.
The case turns on this government's priorities, general competence and do a party of hedge fund owners and their millionaire associates even care about the lives of ordinary people?
You make a good point about how effective is labour in opposition
I posted this yesterday and believe these are the question labour politicians need to answer.
'My critique of Starmer and Labour is that apart from a windfall tax, which by the way would not go anywhere near replacing the NI increase they want to cancel, they have not said anything about the wage increases they would offer public sector including nurses and care workers nor the latest band waggon on increasing defence spending
Rishi's budget was hard on benefits rises (3.1%) and help on energy for the poorest in society, but I have only ever heard Starmer say on every subject he would spend more, lots more without any idea how to pay for it
To those Labour supporters I would just ask if they could name one action Labour would do that the public would not like but is in the interest of the country at this moment of great crisis'
Starmer was asked about benefit uplifts this morning and his standard comment as usual followed
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.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by glass-fronted buildings and domestic cats. Not to mention the ones that will die out due to loss of habitat resulting from climate change which, of course, wind power is intended to counter.
Sounds like whataboutery to me.
Estimates put the number of birds killed by wind turbines as between 10,000 and 100,000 a year in the UK.
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.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by glass-fronted buildings and domestic cats. Not to mention the ones that will die out due to loss of habitat resulting from climate change which, of course, wind power is intended to counter.
Sounds like whataboutery to me.
Estimates put the number of birds killed by wind turbines as between 10,000 and 100,000 a year in the UK.
Another thing to remember about burning coal: it creates radioactive pollution:
"At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels."
"The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants."
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.
Question time was interesting. Hadn't realised it was from Bath as might have gone (filmed on the Uni campus in the arts theatre where i sometimes give lectures). The audience fury about partygate was striking, aside of one audience member who said it was time to move on.
Now I know that the audience is self selected people into politics. And I know that 'balance' means there will be a lot of lefties there, and Bath itself is a liberal type of place. But it seems clear that there is a huge amount of anger.
Personally I think it is overblown for reasons I have stated before, but I accept that most people disagree. Probably the only way to lance the boil is to defenestrate Johnson. Whether the Tories have the guts to do that to a man who won them an 80 seat majority after 9 years in government remains to be seen. If they dont I suspect the public will take it into their hands at the GE and we might yet see a Labour majority, or at least a Labour + Lib dem majority, which is probably my preferred outcome right now.
HMS Glasgow, currently being built on the Clyde, is to be used to ferry passengers between Scottish islands after a request from the Scottish Government due to delays with the ferries being built at Port Glasgow.
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.
Part of the reason no-one yet cares about storage for wind generation is the barking mad insistence that green energy gets first dibs, with curtailment payments if the grid can't take all of it, whilst the CCGT people end up having to lose efficiency trying to load follow rather than run in a steady state.
It's high time renewables were made to stand on their own two feet on this, and compete on the same basis as everyone else - it would incentivise their owners to solve the storage problem. If we could smooth wind production out a bit, it should mean we barely need to run the most inefficient gas stations, and instead can let the more efficient gas stations run more of the time and at more optimal constant loads.
HMS Glasgow, currently being built on the Clyde, is to be used to ferry passengers between Scottish islands after a request from the Scottish Government due to delays with the ferries being built at Port Glasgow.
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"
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
The following has been circulated - no idea if this is just internet chatter... The Russian government tried to bribe a considerable number of local officials in Ukraine, to do nothing when the invasion happened.
In many cases, the attempted bribes were reported to the government and gone along with, to gain information on what the Russians were going to do.
In the case of Kherson, the local defence plan wasn't activated. Apparently a couple of bridges are the key to access, but weren't blown. The suspicion was that someone took the Russian bribes.
Yes. Given the War in Ukraine and the cost of living crisis, I think it's a hard time for making April Fool's Jokes, but a good effort from Rory. Makes the point of who the fool really is quite well.
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?
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.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by glass-fronted buildings and domestic cats. Not to mention the ones that will die out due to loss of habitat resulting from climate change which, of course, wind power is intended to counter.
Sounds like whataboutery to me.
Estimates put the number of birds killed by wind turbines as between 10,000 and 100,000 a year in the UK.
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)
With all due respect, those numbers are utter bullshit. (And if you can find me a CCGT plant with efficiency of 40% or less, then I'll happily not ban you.)
I'm going to bed now, but the energy efficiency of a solar cell is nowhere near as interesting as its cost. If a one meter squared panel had an efficiency of 2% and a cost of $1, then that would be massively more useful that if it had an efficiency of 20% and a cost of $1,000.
Sigh. I do wish you would tone it down a bit Robert. You can come across as terribly aggressive sometimes.
I know the figures are contested but they are not 'utter bullshit'. Go and spend some time googling them and reading research papers.
And, yes, most contemporary solar panels are now hitting between 18% to 22% efficiency. They are getting thinner and more efficient by the year and the latest peel on ones are really going to be pretty darn cool.
p.s. you still haven't explained to me your BA pilots thing. It's obviously a mistake but still a baffling one for me.
All you have to do is say "yeah, I might have gotten natural gas efficiency a bit wrong, and it's more like 60-65% for a new plant and 50-60% for older plants."
That's all.
Not so hard.
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to prove, or even say, but gas efficiency is contested. Your decade old link is not the real life figure and I did stress real life figures.
More seriously though, are you sure you're not confusing capacity with efficiency? And you may be failing to take into account the extraction process and loss of conversion.
Most sources place gas efficiency at around the 40% mark.
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?
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"
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
The following has been circulated - no idea if this is just internet chatter... The Russian government tried to bribe a considerable number of local officials in Ukraine, to do nothing when the invasion happened.
In many cases, the attempted bribes were reported to the government and gone along with, to gain information on what the Russians were going to do.
In the case of Kherson, the local defence plan wasn't activated. Apparently a couple of bridges are the key to access, but weren't blown. The suspicion was that someone took the Russian bribes.
Do not under sell those bridges. They are the only crossing over the Dneiper for miles and miles and miles.
Even if you didn't blow them a vaguely competently organised defence would make them a deathtrap to try to cross.
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?
Unless it is a false flag attack in which case it is cause for the escalation Putin planned anyway.
It's the third attack that I've heard of during the war in the Belgorod area. The previous two weren't false flag attacks used to justify an escalation, so I don't see why this one would be.
Seems to fit a pattern of the Ukrainians retaining some offensive air capability, even now in the sixth week of the war.
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?
The case against this government on cost of living is there. Question is how effectively the Labour opposition makes that case.
The case turns on this government's priorities, general competence and do a party of hedge fund owners and their millionaire associates even care about the lives of ordinary people?
You make a good point about how effective is labour in opposition
I posted this yesterday and believe these are the question labour politicians need to answer.
'My critique of Starmer and Labour is that apart from a windfall tax, which by the way would not go anywhere near replacing the NI increase they want to cancel, they have not said anything about the wage increases they would offer public sector including nurses and care workers nor the latest band waggon on increasing defence spending
Rishi's budget was hard on benefits rises (3.1%) and help on energy for the poorest in society, but I have only ever heard Starmer say on every subject he would spend more, lots more without any idea how to pay for it
To those Labour supporters I would just ask if they could name one action Labour would do that the public would not like but is in the interest of the country at this moment of great crisis'
Starmer was asked about benefit uplifts this morning and his standard comment as usual followed
'We need to look into '
No Sir Keir, you need an answer
The simple answer is to grow the economy, and the obvious way to do that is a more constructive trade relationship with Europe. Unfortunately it is government policy not to do that, and Labour policy not to talk about it.
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?
Unless it is a false flag attack in which case it is cause for the escalation Putin planned anyway.
It's the third attack that I've heard of during the war in the Belgorod area. The previous two weren't false flag attacks used to justify an escalation, so I don't see why this one would be.
Seems to fit a pattern of the Ukrainians retaining some offensive air capability, even now in the sixth week of the war.
Why would Putin need to have an excuse to escalate just as his troops are returning to regroup and resupply?
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.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by glass-fronted buildings and domestic cats. Not to mention the ones that will die out due to loss of habitat resulting from climate change which, of course, wind power is intended to counter.
Sounds like whataboutery to me.
Estimates put the number of birds killed by wind turbines as between 10,000 and 100,000 a year in the UK.
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?
Unless it is a false flag attack in which case it is cause for the escalation Putin planned anyway.
Why would a false flag attack hit a military target?
As opposed to...?
As opposed to killing civilians. If Putin just wanted to get people riled up for an escalation against Ukraine, he wouldn't degrade his own ability to project force.
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.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by glass-fronted buildings and domestic cats. Not to mention the ones that will die out due to loss of habitat resulting from climate change which, of course, wind power is intended to counter.
Sounds like whataboutery to me.
Estimates put the number of birds killed by wind turbines as between 10,000 and 100,000 a year in the UK.
I'm not anti wind turbines. I actually think they can look quite cool. But they're not particularly efficient at around 30%.
I'm struggling to understand why efficiency is of any relevance whatsoever.
It does matter because it's a basic tenet of economics and because we should be seeking the most efficient energy sources we can in our move to more sustainable and long-term viable ways of producing energy. That's why energy efficiency is such a huge topic in the global discussion and in policy setting by governments.
One of the problems we have is that some of the so-called greener forms of energy are not particularly efficient. So, for example, you have to build one hell of a lot of wind turbines, or install field loads of solar panels, in order to yield the kind of comparable results with other, less sustainable, forms of energy.
The more efficient we can make things like solar panels, the more we solve the energy crisis. If we could get a solar panel that was 50% efficient, then 70% etc. then we really are getting close to cracking the energy crisis. Not only can all homes be lit and heated by solar but we may well get solar powered cars. That's just one example of why the efficiency chase is so hot at the moment.
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"
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
The following has been circulated - no idea if this is just internet chatter... The Russian government tried to bribe a considerable number of local officials in Ukraine, to do nothing when the invasion happened.
In many cases, the attempted bribes were reported to the government and gone along with, to gain information on what the Russians were going to do.
In the case of Kherson, the local defence plan wasn't activated. Apparently a couple of bridges are the key to access, but weren't blown. The suspicion was that someone took the Russian bribes.
Has anyone watched Servant of the People on All4 yet? I have not, is it worth a try or lost in translation?
Apparently deals in how to handle Russian bribery, as taxes paid for Ukr public services, and it has happened that way in a good number of cases. If Zelensky always intended to launch a political career that would count as some bit of 5 dimensional chess there.
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?
Unless it is a false flag attack in which case it is cause for the escalation Putin planned anyway.
Does Putin need an excuse to escalate? He hasn't in the past.
I think a smart move by Ukraine. Not least it ties up Russian assets defending their border, so unavailable for the decisive battle on the Don basin front. The defeat of Russia from Kharkiv to Kyiv shifts the focus to that front, and to Kherson.
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'.
As safe as a large fossil fuel power station, which can also 'go bang'. A fusion reactor can't undergo an uncontrolled runaway reaction, which is the greatest worry with fission.
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.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by glass-fronted buildings and domestic cats. Not to mention the ones that will die out due to loss of habitat resulting from climate change which, of course, wind power is intended to counter.
Sounds like whataboutery to me.
Estimates put the number of birds killed by wind turbines as between 10,000 and 100,000 a year in the UK.
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)
'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 ...
I’ve just heard the line “on reflection the PM decided he was passionate about the issue” as an explanation for making 2 U turns in 30 minutes on #conversiontherapy. Reminds me of time advised a No 10 spinner to put a sign above the desk reading “Don’t insult their intelligence” https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1509777940917149696
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"
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
The following has been circulated - no idea if this is just internet chatter... The Russian government tried to bribe a considerable number of local officials in Ukraine, to do nothing when the invasion happened.
In many cases, the attempted bribes were reported to the government and gone along with, to gain information on what the Russians were going to do.
In the case of Kherson, the local defence plan wasn't activated. Apparently a couple of bridges are the key to access, but weren't blown. The suspicion was that someone took the Russian bribes.
Has anyone watched Servant of the People on All4 yet? I have not, is it worth a try or lost in translation?
Apparently deals in how to handle Russian bribery, as taxes paid for Ukr public services, and it has happened that way in a good number of cases. If Zelensky always intended to launch a political career that would count as some bit of 5 dimensional chess there.
There was an storyline, IIRC, where someone was trying to bribe the Ukrainian government on a large scale. The Zelensky character tells everyone to take the bribes and report it to him.
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.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by glass-fronted buildings and domestic cats. Not to mention the ones that will die out due to loss of habitat resulting from climate change which, of course, wind power is intended to counter.
Sounds like whataboutery to me.
Estimates put the number of birds killed by wind turbines as between 10,000 and 100,000 a year in the UK.
I'm not anti wind turbines. I actually think they can look quite cool. But they're not particularly efficient at around 30%.
I'm struggling to understand why efficiency is of any relevance whatsoever.
All that matters is cost vs how much it generates.
Dependability is critical too. The problem with wind is long periods of cold weather with little wind that can effect large regions.
Which is why it's a great idea to have a mix of all sorts of power generation, backed up with energy storage. Wind. Wave. Nuclear. Solar, tidal. Even some CCGT as backup. Have the energy storage as a mix of massive storage sites and distributed ones. Make the grid (already brilliant) cope with localised source production and HVDC transmission from sunnier climes.
There is no single 'solution' the green energy - and anyone pushing such is being disingenuous. The answer is to have as many different sources as possible, which is good for energy security (security of supply) and energy security (sourcing the fuel).
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'.
As safe as a large fossil fuel power station, which can also 'go bang'. A fusion reactor can't undergo an uncontrolled runaway reaction, which is the greatest worry with fission.
One problem with fusion is that neutrons will be free.
That is, fusion reactors will give off a blizzard of neutrons. The current plan is to use a blanket of lithium to breed tritium - the reactor will make it's own fuel.
This in turn will drop the price and massively increase the quantities of tritium kicking around the place. Which is a major ingredient in nuclear weapons.
If you put a piece of natural uranium in the right place, you'd get plutonium from the neutron flux quite rapidly.
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.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by glass-fronted buildings and domestic cats. Not to mention the ones that will die out due to loss of habitat resulting from climate change which, of course, wind power is intended to counter.
Sounds like whataboutery to me.
Estimates put the number of birds killed by wind turbines as between 10,000 and 100,000 a year in the UK.
I'm not anti wind turbines. I actually think they can look quite cool. But they're not particularly efficient at around 30%.
I'm struggling to understand why efficiency is of any relevance whatsoever.
All that matters is cost vs how much it generates.
Dependability is critical too. The problem with wind is long periods of cold weather with little wind that can effect large regions.
It's also a problem with solar, especially in winter and (ironically) on very hot sunny days.
Which is where storage becomes important. And the efficiency of storage.
I'm baffled at the moment as to how anyone can come on here and suggest efficiency isn't a thing, or even important. I'll put it down to April 1st.
Have a nice day everyone.
Efficient use of energy matters a lot, sure, and we're not as good at it as we need to be. Less howlingly awful than in the 70's, but still not great. Go and put a jumper on.
Efficient conversion of fossil fuels matters a lot- they're a finite resource.
For renewable resources, it's a bit different. Improving the collection efficiency helps, sure, but if the choice is collecting solar energy at 20% efficiency and not collecting it at all, even an inefficient method is worth doing, if the price stacks up.
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.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by glass-fronted buildings and domestic cats. Not to mention the ones that will die out due to loss of habitat resulting from climate change which, of course, wind power is intended to counter.
Sounds like whataboutery to me.
Estimates put the number of birds killed by wind turbines as between 10,000 and 100,000 a year in the UK.
I'm not anti wind turbines. I actually think they can look quite cool. But they're not particularly efficient at around 30%.
I'm struggling to understand why efficiency is of any relevance whatsoever.
It does matter because it's a basic tenet of economics and because we should be seeking the most efficient energy sources we can in our move to more sustainable and long-term viable ways of producing energy. That's why energy efficiency is such a huge topic in the global discussion and in policy setting by governments.
One of the problems we have is that some of the so-called greener forms of energy are not particularly efficient. So, for example, you have to build one hell of a lot of wind turbines, or install field loads of solar panels, in order to yield the kind of comparable results with other, less sustainable, forms of energy.
The more efficient we can make things like solar panels, the more we solve the energy crisis. If we could get a solar panel that was 50% efficient, then 70% etc. then we really are getting close to cracking the energy crisis. Not only can all homes be lit and heated by solar but we may well get solar powered cars. That's just one example of why the efficiency chase is so hot at the moment.
Even if you had a 100% efficient solar panel, you couldn't power a car off it. Not enough area on the car to collect power.
Yes, people have built "solar powered cars", which are closer to 4 wheeled bicycles with no real world usefulness.
The massive rise in fuel bills, on top of surging general inflation, means many people on low incomes are going to be pushed into an abject situation, yet the government is doing little to help, Sunak waffling on instead about "a penny off the basic rate of income tax" before the election in order to shore up his Tory leadership credentials. So, I don't know whether Mike is right to rate a 40% chance of him losing his job this year as being a value bet, but I certainly wouldn't mind seeing it.
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'.
As safe as a large fossil fuel power station, which can also 'go bang'. A fusion reactor can't undergo an uncontrolled runaway reaction, which is the greatest worry with fission.
We do not know how we will generate fusion power. We have ideas (Iter, inertial confinement etc), but any of these, or none, or something else, may be best.
We cannot really say how safe something is until we know the final designs. We certainly cannot do it when the only thing we know about it is a series of finger-waving-in-the-air-this-might-work schemes.
In the 1950s, nuclear fission was sold as being cheap and safe. And it was safe, mostly. Until those few occasioned when it was not. (you also have to separate out incidents that were a result of weapons programs,)
Now, I agree that fusion may well end up being safer than fission. But I'd also say it might be perfectly feasible to produce fusion reactors that are much less safe than the best current fission designs.
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.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by glass-fronted buildings and domestic cats. Not to mention the ones that will die out due to loss of habitat resulting from climate change which, of course, wind power is intended to counter.
Sounds like whataboutery to me.
Estimates put the number of birds killed by wind turbines as between 10,000 and 100,000 a year in the UK.
I'm not anti wind turbines. I actually think they can look quite cool. But they're not particularly efficient at around 30%.
I'm struggling to understand why efficiency is of any relevance whatsoever.
All that matters is cost vs how much it generates.
Dependability is critical too. The problem with wind is long periods of cold weather with little wind that can effect large regions.
Which is why it's a great idea to have a mix of all sorts of power generation, backed up with energy storage. Wind. Wave. Nuclear. Solar, tidal. Even some CCGT as backup. Have the energy storage as a mix of massive storage sites and distributed ones. Make the grid (already brilliant) cope with localised source production and HVDC transmission from sunnier climes.
There is no single 'solution' the green energy - and anyone pushing such is being disingenuous. The answer is to have as many different sources as possible, which is good for energy security (security of supply) and energy security (sourcing the fuel).
I'm personally a fan of the tidal turbines idea - think underwater windmills. While they have a shorter generating period than tidal barrages and ponds, they can be scaled from a single turbine to an array. Which means we will be bale to start at small scale and cost and work up.
Given the predictability of tides and the fact that the phases change as you move along the coast, you could get a very stable base load out of them.
The massive rise in fuel bills, on top of surging general inflation, means many people on low incomes are going to be pushed into an abject situation, yet the government is doing little to help, Sunak waffling on instead about "a penny off the basic rate of income tax" before the election in order to shore up his Tory leadership credentials. So, I don't know whether Mike is right to rate a 40% chance of him losing his job this year as being a value bet, but I certainly wouldn't mind seeing it.
Well, from Boris's point of view, a weakened rival might be the safest bet in a next door neighbour.
From the party political point of view, the polls listed in the previous header do not show any dip in Conservative support following the allegedly disastrous spring statement.
For the low-paid, yes, they will be poorer in real terms but in cash terms, thanks to rises in the minimum wage and NIC threshold, they will have more in their pocket or purse at the end of the week.
The poor can always go into whoring or menial char-lady/below stairs type services.
What’s the problem? Cheaper blow jobs for the respectable classes. They stay warm and alive. Win/win
That's pretty much the mindset, I think. Predict a job offer for you in the engine room.
Btw I really enjoyed your lengthy and passionate debate with @Cyclefree about trans issues yesterday.
It gave me an easy excuse to scroll past entire pages of PB while thinking “Jesus I don’t give a fuck what cyclefree and kinabalu think about trans issues, especially if it takes 19 paragraphs for them to express themselves” thus speeding up my entire day
The poor can always go into whoring or menial char-lady/below stairs type services.
What’s the problem? Cheaper blow jobs for the respectable classes. They stay warm and alive. Win/win
That's pretty much the mindset, I think. Predict a job offer for you in the engine room.
Btw I really enjoyed your lengthy and passionate debate with @Cyclefree about trans issues yesterday.
It gave me an easy excuse to scroll past entire pages of PB while thinking “Jesus I don’t give a fuck what cyclefree and kinabalu think about trans issues, especially if it takes 19 paragraphs for them to express themselves” thus speeding up my entire day
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?
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)
With all due respect, those numbers are utter bullshit. (And if you can find me a CCGT plant with efficiency of 40% or less, then I'll happily not ban you.)
I'm going to bed now, but the energy efficiency of a solar cell is nowhere near as interesting as its cost. If a one meter squared panel had an efficiency of 2% and a cost of $1, then that would be massively more useful that if it had an efficiency of 20% and a cost of $1,000.
They're both important (and please, even as a joke, please don't conduct arguments by hinting that you'll ban someone for disagreeing) - for finite resources, efficiency is crucial, but you're clearly right that cost is rightly what Governments look at first. That's why tidal is still off the menu for most purposes. When I last looked, onshore wind was a clear winner, but obviously in Britain subject to availability of acceptable sites - crossing Denmark by train you see wind turbines everywhere you look, but we are both more mountainous in parts and parts NIMBYish. I'd like to see some serious schemes offering communities the option to acvcept windfarms nearby by referendum in return for substantial energy discounts - in today's climate, I think most people would happily trade a skyline for 25% off the bills.
The massive rise in fuel bills, on top of surging general inflation, means many people on low incomes are going to be pushed into an abject situation, yet the government is doing little to help, Sunak waffling on instead about "a penny off the basic rate of income tax" before the election in order to shore up his Tory leadership credentials. So, I don't know whether Mike is right to rate a 40% chance of him losing his job this year as being a value bet, but I certainly wouldn't mind seeing it.
Well, from Boris's point of view, a weakened rival might be the safest bet in a next door neighbour.
From the party political point of view, the polls listed in the previous header do not show any dip in Conservative support following the allegedly disastrous spring statement.
For the low-paid, yes, they will be poorer in real terms but in cash terms, thanks to rises in the minimum wage and NIC threshold, they will have more in their pocket or purse at the end of the week.
For all these reasons, I shan't be lumping on.
In cash terms many will be poorer because of fuel bills no?
The poor can always go into whoring or menial char-lady/below stairs type services.
What’s the problem? Cheaper blow jobs for the respectable classes. They stay warm and alive. Win/win
That's pretty much the mindset, I think. Predict a job offer for you in the engine room.
Btw I really enjoyed your lengthy and passionate debate with @Cyclefree about trans issues yesterday.
It gave me an easy excuse to scroll past entire pages of PB while thinking “Jesus I don’t give a fuck what cyclefree and kinabalu think about trans issues, especially if it takes 19 paragraphs for them to express themselves” thus speeding up my entire day
So, gratitude
Now you know what it's like for the rest of us when you're not sleeping off your hangovers
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.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by glass-fronted buildings and domestic cats. Not to mention the ones that will die out due to loss of habitat resulting from climate change which, of course, wind power is intended to counter.
Sounds like whataboutery to me.
Estimates put the number of birds killed by wind turbines as between 10,000 and 100,000 a year in the UK.
I'm not anti wind turbines. I actually think they can look quite cool. But they're not particularly efficient at around 30%.
I'm struggling to understand why efficiency is of any relevance whatsoever.
It does matter because it's a basic tenet of economics and because we should be seeking the most efficient energy sources we can in our move to more sustainable and long-term viable ways of producing energy. That's why energy efficiency is such a huge topic in the global discussion and in policy setting by governments.
One of the problems we have is that some of the so-called greener forms of energy are not particularly efficient. So, for example, you have to build one hell of a lot of wind turbines, or install field loads of solar panels, in order to yield the kind of comparable results with other, less sustainable, forms of energy.
The more efficient we can make things like solar panels, the more we solve the energy crisis. If we could get a solar panel that was 50% efficient, then 70% etc. then we really are getting close to cracking the energy crisis. Not only can all homes be lit and heated by solar but we may well get solar powered cars. That's just one example of why the efficiency chase is so hot at the moment.
Even if you had a 100% efficient solar panel, you couldn't power a car off it. Not enough area on the car to collect power.
Yes, people have built "solar powered cars", which are closer to 4 wheeled bicycles with no real world usefulness.
Not yet. But this is assuredly one of those areas, like computers and chip tech, where time and science will advance in incredible leaps and bounds.
Once upon a time the same technology that enables me to type on this MacBook would have required several factories filled with computer machinery and, even then, it wouldn't have come close.
Likewise battery storage capacity has come on staggeringly from fifty, thirty and even twenty years ago.
And so it has been with every scientific advance.
We WILL get there with solar power until the day dawns when most everything, including your car, could be powered by solar tech as small as the palm of your hand.
And battery storage tech will also advance unrecognisably.
Until you hit the barriers of the laws of physics e.g. the speed of light, there is nothing to stop this. And we will do it.
HY was spot on actually with a post yesterday, you only get 4%+ Labour lead at the moment by stealing from Lib Dems and greens to a degree that looks unreal. I’ll add the fact the combined Lab, ldem, and green total has been dropping quite sharply recently, nearer just 50 now than 57. I’ll also throw in, in this yougov poll, reform + Tory = labour Behind?
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?
They took a camera aircraft to the sinking of the Tirpitz.
(Morning all)
Which we sunk at the 97th attempt. The Nazis distracted an awful lot of our war effort for years by simply having a big boat in a fjord. Russia might be doing the same thing to Ukraine with the threatened amphibious landing at Odessa. If Zelensky could persuade the Americans to stick their own big boats there, a lot of Ukrainian soldiers would be freed up.
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?
They took a camera aircraft to the sinking of the Tirpitz.
(Morning all)
The biggest complaints among the Belgorod residents on social media: 1. Where did they get the helicopters? They told us UA lost all of their helicopters in the first six hours. 2. Why were those helicopters allowed to fly in and not shot?
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.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by glass-fronted buildings and domestic cats. Not to mention the ones that will die out due to loss of habitat resulting from climate change which, of course, wind power is intended to counter.
Sounds like whataboutery to me.
Estimates put the number of birds killed by wind turbines as between 10,000 and 100,000 a year in the UK.
I'm not anti wind turbines. I actually think they can look quite cool. But they're not particularly efficient at around 30%.
I'm struggling to understand why efficiency is of any relevance whatsoever.
It does matter because it's a basic tenet of economics and because we should be seeking the most efficient energy sources we can in our move to more sustainable and long-term viable ways of producing energy. That's why energy efficiency is such a huge topic in the global discussion and in policy setting by governments.
One of the problems we have is that some of the so-called greener forms of energy are not particularly efficient. So, for example, you have to build one hell of a lot of wind turbines, or install field loads of solar panels, in order to yield the kind of comparable results with other, less sustainable, forms of energy.
The more efficient we can make things like solar panels, the more we solve the energy crisis. If we could get a solar panel that was 50% efficient, then 70% etc. then we really are getting close to cracking the energy crisis. Not only can all homes be lit and heated by solar but we may well get solar powered cars. That's just one example of why the efficiency chase is so hot at the moment.
Even if you had a 100% efficient solar panel, you couldn't power a car off it. Not enough area on the car to collect power.
Yes, people have built "solar powered cars", which are closer to 4 wheeled bicycles with no real world usefulness.
Not yet. But this is assuredly one of those areas, like computers and chip tech, where time and science will advance in incredible leaps and bounds.
Once upon a time the same technology that enables me to type on this MacBook would have required several factories filled with computer machinery and, even then, it wouldn't have come close.
Likewise battery storage capacity has come on staggeringly from fifty, thirty and even twenty years ago.
And so it has been with every scientific advance.
We WILL get there with solar power until the day dawns when most everything, including your car, could be powered by solar tech as small as the palm of your hand.
And battery storage tech will also advance unrecognisably.
Until you hit the barriers of the laws of physics e.g. the speed of light, there is nothing to stop this. And we will do it.
"Not yet. But this is assuredly one of those areas, like computers and chip tech, where time and science will advance in incredible leaps and bounds."
AIUI, you will *never* get a car-sized solar panel that will generate enough power for a car to move (at least a modern-sized car). Simply because not enough energy comes from the sun over the footprint of the car for it to do so. Even with 100% efficient solar panels, in hotter countries.
It doesn't matter how much science advances: you cannot make a 'solar panel' that will generate more power than the power the area receives from the sun.
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.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by glass-fronted buildings and domestic cats. Not to mention the ones that will die out due to loss of habitat resulting from climate change which, of course, wind power is intended to counter.
Sounds like whataboutery to me.
Estimates put the number of birds killed by wind turbines as between 10,000 and 100,000 a year in the UK.
I'm not anti wind turbines. I actually think they can look quite cool. But they're not particularly efficient at around 30%.
I'm struggling to understand why efficiency is of any relevance whatsoever.
It does matter because it's a basic tenet of economics and because we should be seeking the most efficient energy sources we can in our move to more sustainable and long-term viable ways of producing energy. That's why energy efficiency is such a huge topic in the global discussion and in policy setting by governments.
One of the problems we have is that some of the so-called greener forms of energy are not particularly efficient. So, for example, you have to build one hell of a lot of wind turbines, or install field loads of solar panels, in order to yield the kind of comparable results with other, less sustainable, forms of energy.
The more efficient we can make things like solar panels, the more we solve the energy crisis. If we could get a solar panel that was 50% efficient, then 70% etc. then we really are getting close to cracking the energy crisis. Not only can all homes be lit and heated by solar but we may well get solar powered cars. That's just one example of why the efficiency chase is so hot at the moment.
Even if you had a 100% efficient solar panel, you couldn't power a car off it. Not enough area on the car to collect power.
Yes, people have built "solar powered cars", which are closer to 4 wheeled bicycles with no real world usefulness.
Not yet. But this is assuredly one of those areas, like computers and chip tech, where time and science will advance in incredible leaps and bounds.
Once upon a time the same technology that enables me to type on this MacBook would have required several factories filled with computer machinery and, even then, it wouldn't have come close.
Likewise battery storage capacity has come on staggeringly from fifty, thirty and even twenty years ago.
And so it has been with every scientific advance.
We WILL get there with solar power until the day dawns when most everything, including your car, could be powered by solar tech as small as the palm of your hand.
And battery storage tech will also advance unrecognisably.
Until you hit the barriers of the laws of physics e.g. the speed of light, there is nothing to stop this. And we will do it.
A true solar power car isn't possible because the amount of light hitting the surface of the car doesn't have enough energy in it to power the car. Even if you captured 100% of the energy.
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?
They took a camera aircraft to the sinking of the Tirpitz.
(Morning all)
Which we sunk at the 97th attempt. The Nazis distracted an awful lot of our war effort for years by simply having a big boat in a fjord. Russia might be doing the same thing to Ukraine with the threatened amphibious landing at Odessa. If Zelensky could persuade the Americans to stick their own big boats there, a lot of Ukrainian soldiers would be freed up.
The US can't. Turkey closed the Bosphorus to warships back in February. Also there are mines floating about on the western side of the Black Sea.
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?
They took a camera aircraft to the sinking of the Tirpitz.
(Morning all)
Which we sunk at the 97th attempt. The Nazis distracted an awful lot of our war effort for years by simply having a big boat in a fjord. Russia might be doing the same thing to Ukraine with the threatened amphibious landing at Odessa. If Zelensky could persuade the Americans to stick their own big boats there, a lot of Ukrainian soldiers would be freed up.
The Russian Naval Infantry who might participate in an amphibious landing are also tied up, embarked on landing ships, or kicking their heels in Sevastapol.
At some point they'll have to send them into the Donbas instead.
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.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by glass-fronted buildings and domestic cats. Not to mention the ones that will die out due to loss of habitat resulting from climate change which, of course, wind power is intended to counter.
Sounds like whataboutery to me.
Estimates put the number of birds killed by wind turbines as between 10,000 and 100,000 a year in the UK.
I'm not anti wind turbines. I actually think they can look quite cool. But they're not particularly efficient at around 30%.
I'm struggling to understand why efficiency is of any relevance whatsoever.
It does matter because it's a basic tenet of economics and because we should be seeking the most efficient energy sources we can in our move to more sustainable and long-term viable ways of producing energy. That's why energy efficiency is such a huge topic in the global discussion and in policy setting by governments.
One of the problems we have is that some of the so-called greener forms of energy are not particularly efficient. So, for example, you have to build one hell of a lot of wind turbines, or install field loads of solar panels, in order to yield the kind of comparable results with other, less sustainable, forms of energy.
The more efficient we can make things like solar panels, the more we solve the energy crisis. If we could get a solar panel that was 50% efficient, then 70% etc. then we really are getting close to cracking the energy crisis. Not only can all homes be lit and heated by solar but we may well get solar powered cars. That's just one example of why the efficiency chase is so hot at the moment.
Even if you had a 100% efficient solar panel, you couldn't power a car off it. Not enough area on the car to collect power.
Yes, people have built "solar powered cars", which are closer to 4 wheeled bicycles with no real world usefulness.
Not yet. But this is assuredly one of those areas, like computers and chip tech, where time and science will advance in incredible leaps and bounds.
Once upon a time the same technology that enables me to type on this MacBook would have required several factories filled with computer machinery and, even then, it wouldn't have come close.
Likewise battery storage capacity has come on staggeringly from fifty, thirty and even twenty years ago.
And so it has been with every scientific advance.
We WILL get there with solar power until the day dawns when most everything, including your car, could be powered by solar tech as small as the palm of your hand.
And battery storage tech will also advance unrecognisably.
Until you hit the barriers of the laws of physics e.g. the speed of light, there is nothing to stop this. And we will do it.
A true solar power car isn't possible because the amount of light hitting the surface of the car doesn't have enough energy in it to power the car. Even if you captured 100% of the energy.
HY was spot on actually with a post yesterday, you only get 4%+ Labour lead at the moment by stealing from Lib Dems and greens to a degree that looks unreal. I’ll add the fact the combined Lab, ldem, and green total has been dropping quite sharply recently, nearer just 50 now than 57. I’ll also throw in, in this yougov poll, reform + Tory = labour Behind?
The Lib Dem level is reflective of the amount of "noise" the party is making in national politics.
Quite simply, most people are not hearing from the Lib Dems.
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?
They took a camera aircraft to the sinking of the Tirpitz.
(Morning all)
Which we sunk at the 97th attempt. The Nazis distracted an awful lot of our war effort for years by simply having a big boat in a fjord. Russia might be doing the same thing to Ukraine with the threatened amphibious landing at Odessa. If Zelensky could persuade the Americans to stick their own big boats there, a lot of Ukrainian soldiers would be freed up.
Rather like the Bismarck. Reminds me, when I see or hear about it of pictures of Stone Age hunters killing a mammoth. Takes dozens of them, and ages.
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)
With all due respect, those numbers are utter bullshit. (And if you can find me a CCGT plant with efficiency of 40% or less, then I'll happily not ban you.)
I'm going to bed now, but the energy efficiency of a solar cell is nowhere near as interesting as its cost. If a one meter squared panel had an efficiency of 2% and a cost of $1, then that would be massively more useful that if it had an efficiency of 20% and a cost of $1,000.
They're both important (and please, even as a joke, please don't conduct arguments by hinting that you'll ban someone for disagreeing) - for finite resources, efficiency is crucial, but you're clearly right that cost is rightly what Governments look at first. That's why tidal is still off the menu for most purposes. When I last looked, onshore wind was a clear winner, but obviously in Britain subject to availability of acceptable sites - crossing Denmark by train you see wind turbines everywhere you look, but we are both more mountainous in parts and parts NIMBYish. I'd like to see some serious schemes offering communities the option to acvcept windfarms nearby by referendum in return for substantial energy discounts - in today's climate, I think most people would happily trade a skyline for 25% off the bills.
And just a quick shout out for storage and transfer tech; while the problem is ultimately solved if we can generate everything we need right at the point of use (like "on device"), cheaply and sustainably. However, until then, storing it where it was generated, and getting it to where it is needed, efficiently and sustainably, is at least as big a problem (if not more so). Particularly over long distances (e.g. enabling North African solar farms, or geothermal or whatever.)
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"
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.
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.
Rather it could be a legitimate concern one day. I've read this argument this morning and was a bit baffled at the idea a couple of guys being sacked or even arrested is prima facie a concerning development. I'd think a bit more of a trend or pattern, or at least reporting it was not justified, would be needed before it was presumed to be a sign of authoritarianism.
As someone mentioned Ukraine was and is not perfect, it and Zelensky might and probably will do things we consider not ok, hes not Jesus. But going 'oooh, is this a sign of authoritarianism?' seems like it requires a bit more than a couple of sackings and arrests during a war. Macron's just sacked an intelligence head is that a sign of authoritarianism or is there a non sinister explanation?
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.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by glass-fronted buildings and domestic cats. Not to mention the ones that will die out due to loss of habitat resulting from climate change which, of course, wind power is intended to counter.
Sounds like whataboutery to me.
Estimates put the number of birds killed by wind turbines as between 10,000 and 100,000 a year in the UK.
I'm not anti wind turbines. I actually think they can look quite cool. But they're not particularly efficient at around 30%.
I'm struggling to understand why efficiency is of any relevance whatsoever.
It does matter because it's a basic tenet of economics and because we should be seeking the most efficient energy sources we can in our move to more sustainable and long-term viable ways of producing energy. That's why energy efficiency is such a huge topic in the global discussion and in policy setting by governments.
One of the problems we have is that some of the so-called greener forms of energy are not particularly efficient. So, for example, you have to build one hell of a lot of wind turbines, or install field loads of solar panels, in order to yield the kind of comparable results with other, less sustainable, forms of energy.
The more efficient we can make things like solar panels, the more we solve the energy crisis. If we could get a solar panel that was 50% efficient, then 70% etc. then we really are getting close to cracking the energy crisis. Not only can all homes be lit and heated by solar but we may well get solar powered cars. That's just one example of why the efficiency chase is so hot at the moment.
Even if you had a 100% efficient solar panel, you couldn't power a car off it. Not enough area on the car to collect power.
Yes, people have built "solar powered cars", which are closer to 4 wheeled bicycles with no real world usefulness.
Not yet. But this is assuredly one of those areas, like computers and chip tech, where time and science will advance in incredible leaps and bounds.
Once upon a time the same technology that enables me to type on this MacBook would have required several factories filled with computer machinery and, even then, it wouldn't have come close.
Likewise battery storage capacity has come on staggeringly from fifty, thirty and even twenty years ago.
And so it has been with every scientific advance.
We WILL get there with solar power until the day dawns when most everything, including your car, could be powered by solar tech as small as the palm of your hand.
And battery storage tech will also advance unrecognisably.
Until you hit the barriers of the laws of physics e.g. the speed of light, there is nothing to stop this. And we will do it.
"Not yet. But this is assuredly one of those areas, like computers and chip tech, where time and science will advance in incredible leaps and bounds."
AIUI, you will *never* get a car-sized solar panel that will generate enough power for a car to move (at least a modern-sized car). Simply because not enough energy comes from the sun over the footprint of the car for it to do so. Even with 100% efficient solar panels, in hotter countries.
It doesn't matter how much science advances: you cannot make a 'solar panel' that will generate more power than the power the area receives from the sun.
So you tow an array of solar panels on a carbon fibre trailer. Or overhead on little helium balloons.
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.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by glass-fronted buildings and domestic cats. Not to mention the ones that will die out due to loss of habitat resulting from climate change which, of course, wind power is intended to counter.
Sounds like whataboutery to me.
Estimates put the number of birds killed by wind turbines as between 10,000 and 100,000 a year in the UK.
I'm not anti wind turbines. I actually think they can look quite cool. But they're not particularly efficient at around 30%.
I'm struggling to understand why efficiency is of any relevance whatsoever.
It does matter because it's a basic tenet of economics and because we should be seeking the most efficient energy sources we can in our move to more sustainable and long-term viable ways of producing energy. That's why energy efficiency is such a huge topic in the global discussion and in policy setting by governments.
One of the problems we have is that some of the so-called greener forms of energy are not particularly efficient. So, for example, you have to build one hell of a lot of wind turbines, or install field loads of solar panels, in order to yield the kind of comparable results with other, less sustainable, forms of energy.
The more efficient we can make things like solar panels, the more we solve the energy crisis. If we could get a solar panel that was 50% efficient, then 70% etc. then we really are getting close to cracking the energy crisis. Not only can all homes be lit and heated by solar but we may well get solar powered cars. That's just one example of why the efficiency chase is so hot at the moment.
Even if you had a 100% efficient solar panel, you couldn't power a car off it. Not enough area on the car to collect power.
Yes, people have built "solar powered cars", which are closer to 4 wheeled bicycles with no real world usefulness.
Not yet. But this is assuredly one of those areas, like computers and chip tech, where time and science will advance in incredible leaps and bounds.
Once upon a time the same technology that enables me to type on this MacBook would have required several factories filled with computer machinery and, even then, it wouldn't have come close.
Likewise battery storage capacity has come on staggeringly from fifty, thirty and even twenty years ago.
And so it has been with every scientific advance.
We WILL get there with solar power until the day dawns when most everything, including your car, could be powered by solar tech as small as the palm of your hand.
And battery storage tech will also advance unrecognisably.
Until you hit the barriers of the laws of physics e.g. the speed of light, there is nothing to stop this. And we will do it.
No. The incident solar energy per square metre is a limit. The physical laws of thermodynamics impose efficiency restrictions in converting that to usable electricity. The advances in materials science necessary to get closer to peak efficiency offer diminishing returns. Solar charging will not get to where you say.
Battery tech however will improve dramatically, and that will be a game changer.
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.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by glass-fronted buildings and domestic cats. Not to mention the ones that will die out due to loss of habitat resulting from climate change which, of course, wind power is intended to counter.
Sounds like whataboutery to me.
Estimates put the number of birds killed by wind turbines as between 10,000 and 100,000 a year in the UK.
I'm not anti wind turbines. I actually think they can look quite cool. But they're not particularly efficient at around 30%.
I'm struggling to understand why efficiency is of any relevance whatsoever.
It does matter because it's a basic tenet of economics and because we should be seeking the most efficient energy sources we can in our move to more sustainable and long-term viable ways of producing energy. That's why energy efficiency is such a huge topic in the global discussion and in policy setting by governments.
One of the problems we have is that some of the so-called greener forms of energy are not particularly efficient. So, for example, you have to build one hell of a lot of wind turbines, or install field loads of solar panels, in order to yield the kind of comparable results with other, less sustainable, forms of energy.
The more efficient we can make things like solar panels, the more we solve the energy crisis. If we could get a solar panel that was 50% efficient, then 70% etc. then we really are getting close to cracking the energy crisis. Not only can all homes be lit and heated by solar but we may well get solar powered cars. That's just one example of why the efficiency chase is so hot at the moment.
Even if you had a 100% efficient solar panel, you couldn't power a car off it. Not enough area on the car to collect power.
Yes, people have built "solar powered cars", which are closer to 4 wheeled bicycles with no real world usefulness.
Not yet. But this is assuredly one of those areas, like computers and chip tech, where time and science will advance in incredible leaps and bounds.
Once upon a time the same technology that enables me to type on this MacBook would have required several factories filled with computer machinery and, even then, it wouldn't have come close.
Likewise battery storage capacity has come on staggeringly from fifty, thirty and even twenty years ago.
And so it has been with every scientific advance.
We WILL get there with solar power until the day dawns when most everything, including your car, could be powered by solar tech as small as the palm of your hand.
And battery storage tech will also advance unrecognisably.
Until you hit the barriers of the laws of physics e.g. the speed of light, there is nothing to stop this. And we will do it.
Not always and everywhere. Smartphone batteries haven't noticeably improved over 15 years of smartphones
HY was spot on actually with a post yesterday, you only get 4%+ Labour lead at the moment by stealing from Lib Dems and greens to a degree that looks unreal. I’ll add the fact the combined Lab, ldem, and green total has been dropping quite sharply recently, nearer just 50 now than 57. I’ll also throw in, in this yougov poll, reform + Tory = labour Behind?
The Lib Dem level is reflective of the amount of "noise" the party is making in national politics.
Quite simply, most people are not hearing from the Lib Dems.
Except in the 25 key target seats which voted Remain and have a high %age of grads where campaigning is ongoing
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.
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is insignificant compared to the numbers killed by glass-fronted buildings and domestic cats. Not to mention the ones that will die out due to loss of habitat resulting from climate change which, of course, wind power is intended to counter.
Sounds like whataboutery to me.
Estimates put the number of birds killed by wind turbines as between 10,000 and 100,000 a year in the UK.
I'm not anti wind turbines. I actually think they can look quite cool. But they're not particularly efficient at around 30%.
I'm struggling to understand why efficiency is of any relevance whatsoever.
It does matter because it's a basic tenet of economics and because we should be seeking the most efficient energy sources we can in our move to more sustainable and long-term viable ways of producing energy. That's why energy efficiency is such a huge topic in the global discussion and in policy setting by governments.
One of the problems we have is that some of the so-called greener forms of energy are not particularly efficient. So, for example, you have to build one hell of a lot of wind turbines, or install field loads of solar panels, in order to yield the kind of comparable results with other, less sustainable, forms of energy.
The more efficient we can make things like solar panels, the more we solve the energy crisis. If we could get a solar panel that was 50% efficient, then 70% etc. then we really are getting close to cracking the energy crisis. Not only can all homes be lit and heated by solar but we may well get solar powered cars. That's just one example of why the efficiency chase is so hot at the moment.
Even if you had a 100% efficient solar panel, you couldn't power a car off it. Not enough area on the car to collect power.
Yes, people have built "solar powered cars", which are closer to 4 wheeled bicycles with no real world usefulness.
Not yet. But this is assuredly one of those areas, like computers and chip tech, where time and science will advance in incredible leaps and bounds.
Once upon a time the same technology that enables me to type on this MacBook would have required several factories filled with computer machinery and, even then, it wouldn't have come close.
Likewise battery storage capacity has come on staggeringly from fifty, thirty and even twenty years ago.
And so it has been with every scientific advance.
We WILL get there with solar power until the day dawns when most everything, including your car, could be powered by solar tech as small as the palm of your hand.
And battery storage tech will also advance unrecognisably.
Until you hit the barriers of the laws of physics e.g. the speed of light, there is nothing to stop this. And we will do it.
A true solar power car isn't possible because the amount of light hitting the surface of the car doesn't have enough energy in it to power the car. Even if you captured 100% of the energy.
Comments
I'm going to bed now, but the energy efficiency of a solar cell is nowhere near as interesting as its cost. If a one meter squared panel had an efficiency of 2% and a cost of $1, then that would be massively more useful that if it had an efficiency of 20% and a cost of $1,000.
#Ukraine: Early today, 2 Ukrainian Mi-24 attack helicopters flew at extremely low level over the border with Russia & struck the large oil facility in the city of #Belgorod with multiple S-8 series unguided rockets, causing a major fire. Here is the strike/escape in slo-mo.
https://twitter.com/UAWeapons/status/1509792735997349889
? https://www.amazon.co.uk/Entangled-Life-Worlds-Change-Futures/dp/1784708275
A wave is wind collected over a large area.
Capturing one wave delivers much more energy than multiple wind turbines
The case turns on this government's priorities, general competence and do a party of hedge fund owners and their millionaire associates even care about the lives of ordinary people?
The difference is that chemical storage is distributed rather than centralised. Every electric car having a chemical battery will provide an immense amount of storage all in it's own right, without considering all our electrical devices and potetentially powerwalls etc too.
We got more energy efficient, and developed Alaska and the North Sea.
I am looking forward to working with the PM, Ministers and Members of Parliament on the issues that matter most to our country
https://twitter.com/RoryStewartUK/status/1509794232411828224
I'm disappointed in you, Scott. You normally post such serious stuff.
The worry with the 'likes' is whether those are the PB'ers that fell for it?
I know the figures are contested but they are not 'utter bullshit'. Go and spend some time googling them and reading research papers.
And, yes, most contemporary solar panels are now hitting between 18% to 22% efficiency. They are getting thinner and more efficient by the year and the latest peel on ones are really going to be pretty darn cool.
p.s. you still haven't explained to me your BA pilots thing. It's obviously a mistake but still a baffling one for me.
Looks very, very dodgy
Estimates put the number of birds killed by wind turbines as between 10,000 and 100,000 a year in the UK.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/how-many-birds-are-killed-by-wind-turbines-in-the-uk/
I'm not anti wind turbines. I actually think they can look quite cool. But they're not particularly efficient at around 30%.
Considering nuclear and wind don't have the same output per turbine/power plant you wouldn't necessarily have the same assumptions.
I studied materials as part of a geo end course. I only discovered Gordon's book years afterwards, and I wish I'd had them before - as the book I mention above alone was far better than the course for explaining concepts.
On your point: oddly, before (say) the 1930s - 1950s, we were very much localised in terms of power. every town would have its own power station (Derby's was by where the industrial museum - sorry, 'Museum of Making' (*) is now. Then the national grid and anti-pollution laws made larger plants more efficient, and we went for the large power plants. We're now heading back to more of a mix, with microgeneration spread around the country.
(*) The MoM is rather good.
https://www.ipieca.org/resources/energy-efficiency-solutions/power-and-heat-generation/combined-cycle-gas-turbines/
That's from 2013.
All you have to do is say "yeah, I might have gotten natural gas efficiency a bit wrong, and it's more like 60-65% for a new plant and 50-60% for older plants."
That's all.
Not so hard.
And, for some reason, you missed this bit of the article:
"That’s a lot, but it’s worth noting that approximately 55 million birds are killed in the UK each year by domestic cats."
That certainly puts the numbers in context!
I posted this yesterday and believe these are the question labour politicians need to answer.
'My critique of Starmer and Labour is that apart from a windfall tax, which by the way would not go anywhere near replacing the NI increase they want to cancel, they have not said anything about the wage increases they would offer public sector including nurses and care workers nor the latest band waggon on increasing defence spending
Rishi's budget was hard on benefits rises (3.1%) and help on energy for the poorest in society, but I have only ever heard Starmer say on every subject he would spend more, lots more without any idea how to pay for it
To those Labour supporters I would just ask if they could name one action Labour would do that the public would not like but is in the interest of the country at this moment of great crisis'
Starmer was asked about benefit uplifts this morning and his standard comment as usual followed
'We need to look into '
No Sir Keir, you need an answer
All that matters is cost vs how much it generates.
"At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels."
"The result: estimated radiation doses ingested by people living near the coal plants were equal to or higher than doses for people living around the nuclear facilities. At one extreme, the scientists estimated fly ash radiation in individuals' bones at around 18 millirems (thousandths of a rem, a unit for measuring doses of ionizing radiation) a year. Doses for the two nuclear plants, by contrast, ranged from between three and six millirems for the same period. And when all food was grown in the area, radiation doses were 50 to 200 percent higher around the coal plants."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste/
Now I know that the audience is self selected people into politics. And I know that 'balance' means there will be a lot of lefties there, and Bath itself is a liberal type of place. But it seems clear that there is a huge amount of anger.
Personally I think it is overblown for reasons I have stated before, but I accept that most people disagree. Probably the only way to lance the boil is to defenestrate Johnson. Whether the Tories have the guts to do that to a man who won them an 80 seat majority after 9 years in government remains to be seen. If they dont I suspect the public will take it into their hands at the GE and we might yet see a Labour majority, or at least a Labour + Lib dem majority, which is probably my preferred outcome right now.
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/new-frigate-to-temporarily-assume-ferry-duties-for-scottish-islands/
It's high time renewables were made to stand on their own two feet on this, and compete on the same basis as everyone else - it would incentivise their owners to solve the storage problem.
If we could smooth wind production out a bit, it should mean we barely need to run the most inefficient gas stations, and instead can let the more efficient gas stations run more of the time and at more optimal constant loads.
In many cases, the attempted bribes were reported to the government and gone along with, to gain information on what the Russians were going to do.
In the case of Kherson, the local defence plan wasn't activated. Apparently a couple of bridges are the key to access, but weren't blown. The suspicion was that someone took the Russian bribes.
I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to prove, or even say, but gas efficiency is contested. Your decade old link is not the real life figure and I did stress real life figures.
More seriously though, are you sure you're not confusing capacity with efficiency? And you may be failing to take into account the extraction process and loss of conversion.
Most sources place gas efficiency at around the 40% mark.
https://www.lng2019.com/how-efficient-are-natural-gas-power-plants/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-NB-1754
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/power-generation-efficiency
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44436
Even if you didn't blow them a vaguely competently organised defence would make them a deathtrap to try to cross.
Seems to fit a pattern of the Ukrainians retaining some offensive air capability, even now in the sixth week of the war.
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/03/brexit-has-been-disastrous-but-neither-labour-nor-the-tories-will-say-so
It does matter because it's a basic tenet of economics and because we should be seeking the most efficient energy sources we can in our move to more sustainable and long-term viable ways of producing energy. That's why energy efficiency is such a huge topic in the global discussion and in policy setting by governments.
One of the problems we have is that some of the so-called greener forms of energy are not particularly efficient. So, for example, you have to build one hell of a lot of wind turbines, or install field loads of solar panels, in order to yield the kind of comparable results with other, less sustainable, forms of energy.
The more efficient we can make things like solar panels, the more we solve the energy crisis. If we could get a solar panel that was 50% efficient, then 70% etc. then we really are getting close to cracking the energy crisis. Not only can all homes be lit and heated by solar but we may well get solar powered cars. That's just one example of why the efficiency chase is so hot at the moment.
Apparently deals in how to handle Russian bribery, as taxes paid for Ukr public services, and it has happened that way in a good number of cases. If Zelensky always intended to launch a political career that would count as some bit of 5 dimensional chess there.
I think a smart move by Ukraine. Not least it ties up Russian assets defending their border, so unavailable for the decisive battle on the Don basin front. The defeat of Russia from Kharkiv to Kyiv shifts the focus to that front, and to Kherson.
A fusion reactor can't undergo an uncontrolled runaway reaction, which is the greatest worry with fission.
Reactor designs are intended to produce waste which will be safe within 100 years - and there will be no requirement to dispose of high level radioactive waste; the most radioactive products will have relatively short half lives.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1038746/radioactive-wastes-from-fusion-energy-corwm3735-preliminary-paper.pdf
Which is where storage becomes important. And the efficiency of storage.
I'm baffled at the moment as to how anyone can come on here and suggest efficiency isn't a thing, or even important. I'll put it down to April 1st.
Have a nice day everyone.
https://twitter.com/bbcnickrobinson/status/1509777940917149696
There is no single 'solution' the green energy - and anyone pushing such is being disingenuous. The answer is to have as many different sources as possible, which is good for energy security (security of supply) and energy security (sourcing the fuel).
That is, fusion reactors will give off a blizzard of neutrons. The current plan is to use a blanket of lithium to breed tritium - the reactor will make it's own fuel.
This in turn will drop the price and massively increase the quantities of tritium kicking around the place. Which is a major ingredient in nuclear weapons.
If you put a piece of natural uranium in the right place, you'd get plutonium from the neutron flux quite rapidly.
So fission reactors will be a proliferation risk.
Efficient conversion of fossil fuels matters a lot- they're a finite resource.
For renewable resources, it's a bit different. Improving the collection efficiency helps, sure, but if the choice is collecting solar energy at 20% efficiency and not collecting it at all, even an inefficient method is worth doing, if the price stacks up.
It's the other way of thinking. Wood not steel.
Yes, people have built "solar powered cars", which are closer to 4 wheeled bicycles with no real world usefulness.
What’s the problem? Cheaper blow jobs for the respectable classes. They stay warm and alive. Win/win
We cannot really say how safe something is until we know the final designs. We certainly cannot do it when the only thing we know about it is a series of finger-waving-in-the-air-this-might-work schemes.
In the 1950s, nuclear fission was sold as being cheap and safe. And it was safe, mostly. Until those few occasioned when it was not. (you also have to separate out incidents that were a result of weapons programs,)
Now, I agree that fusion may well end up being safer than fission. But I'd also say it might be perfectly feasible to produce fusion reactors that are much less safe than the best current fission designs.
We just don't know.
But you just cannot say they're 'entirely safe'.
Given the predictability of tides and the fact that the phases change as you move along the coast, you could get a very stable base load out of them.
From the party political point of view, the polls listed in the previous header do not show any dip in Conservative support following the allegedly disastrous spring statement.
For the low-paid, yes, they will be poorer in real terms but in cash terms, thanks to rises in the minimum wage and NIC threshold, they will have more in their pocket or purse at the end of the week.
For all these reasons, I shan't be lumping on.
In other news I’m en route to the geolocational horror that is Stansted airport. Wtf. But I am going somewhere EXCITING
It gave me an easy excuse to scroll past entire pages of PB while thinking “Jesus I don’t give a fuck what cyclefree and kinabalu think about trans issues, especially if it takes 19 paragraphs for them to express themselves” thus speeding up my entire day
So, gratitude
11 of the workers largest stone penises. 13,000 years old. Get in
They took a camera aircraft to the sinking of the Tirpitz.
(Morning all)
Once upon a time the same technology that enables me to type on this MacBook would have required several factories filled with computer machinery and, even then, it wouldn't have come close.
Likewise battery storage capacity has come on staggeringly from fifty, thirty and even twenty years ago.
And so it has been with every scientific advance.
We WILL get there with solar power until the day dawns when most everything, including your car, could be powered by solar tech as small as the palm of your hand.
And battery storage tech will also advance unrecognisably.
Until you hit the barriers of the laws of physics e.g. the speed of light, there is nothing to stop this. And we will do it.
https://twitter.com/olashka/status/1509766004590751783
And what a tribute to man's ingenuity that we were carving massive stone dicks before we even knew how to make clay pots
AIUI, you will *never* get a car-sized solar panel that will generate enough power for a car to move (at least a modern-sized car). Simply because not enough energy comes from the sun over the footprint of the car for it to do so. Even with 100% efficient solar panels, in hotter countries.
It doesn't matter how much science advances: you cannot make a 'solar panel' that will generate more power than the power the area receives from the sun.
At some point they'll have to send them into the Donbas instead.
Granted, this is in Australia, which is rather more favourable to sun. But still.
Quite simply, most people are not hearing from the Lib Dems.
O/t Short sharp sleet shower here.
Also: no masks. None
Uplifting
As someone mentioned Ukraine was and is not perfect, it and Zelensky might and probably will do things we consider not ok, hes not Jesus. But going 'oooh, is this a sign of authoritarianism?' seems like it requires a bit more than a couple of sackings and arrests during a war. Macron's just sacked an intelligence head is that a sign of authoritarianism or is there a non sinister explanation?
Maybe we pause the hunt until there's more to it.
Battery tech however will improve dramatically, and that will be a game changer.
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 39% (-1)
CON: 36% (+1)
LDEM: 9% (-1)
GRN: 5% (-)
via
@techneUK
30 - 31 Mar
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIT_Daedalus