As the government does extraordinary U turns on 'conversion therapy' has anyone any idea what in fact it intends to criminalise?
Do we risk ending up with it being lawful for the NHS to perform massive drug, counselling and surgery led changes to a person physically, while at the same time making it doubtful whether a parent or a religious gathering can pray that some bloke will fancy some nice girl rather than some nice boy?
AFAIU they are proposing to ban the sort of conversion therapy which seeks to convince a gay person that they are not gay.
But they are not including in this ban the provision of therapy to children or others who may have gender disorder issues. This is sensible for several reasons:
1. Currently there has been a practice at the Tavistock of affirming any child claiming to be trans without exploring whether this is genuine or whether there may be other causes for the child's distress. As the Cass Report has said this is bad medical practice and the government does not want to include this sort of therapy in any ban. The EHRC has also advised caution. 2. It makes sense to wait for the final Cass Report before deciding what, if anything, should be done. 3. There are already a range of laws which can be used if anything untoward is done to a trans child. The attached thread from Nikki da Costa, a former government advisor, explains this quite well - https://twitter.com/nmdacosta/status/1509576587825627143?s=21&t=8bu9mtPRdOOQglHRyyGCGg.
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
The batteries have actually improved a lot. The increase in usage of power for faster processors has "used up" the improvement in performance, mostly.
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)
And painters to so many battles in history. Who must have worked fast to capture the action so well. Amazing the combatants left them alone whilst they set up their easel though.
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.
The LD's are still suffering from being 4th party in Parliament. The PM gets a go, then the LotO, then the leader of the 3rd party. Lib/LD leaders from Jeremy Thorpe onwards were able to exploit their position, and generally. TBH they had a bit charisma than Davey, too. Either that or there was someone in the Press office who could write soundbites, and there isn't now.
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 conservatives seem to be and in around 35% which is remarkable considering the head winds and Rishi's budget
Furthermore labour are not seeing a recovery in local election results so far
A number of not very amusing April Fool tweets coming in. For instance:
Tim Farron:
"Excited to announce that I will be hosting a ground-breaking new show on @GBNEWS where politicians will settle their differences by actually having a fight. ‘GBH with Tim Farron’ coming to your TV screens soon!"
Rory Stewart
"It is an honour to have been asked by the PM to serve as Director of Communications for No10 Downing Street. I am looking forward to working with the PM, Ministers and Members of Parliament on the issues that matter most to our country"
Not sure why they bother TBH. (Mebbe I'm just being grumpy?)
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
The batteries have actually improved a lot. The increase in usage of power for faster processors has "used up" the improvement in performance, mostly.
Yes people may think they haven't but they maybe don't realise how much more processing power and capability they now handle. Smartphone batteries are vastly better than 15 years ago.
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.
Also, most cars aren't moving most of the time, or even most of the daytime. The temptation to work out if trickle charging a city commuter car works is now huge.
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.
Not in real time perhaps but combined with batteries surely it's possible theoretically at least so long as you park outside?
If every time you returned to your car it was fully charged, then that would be great.
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.
Granted, this is in Australia, which is rather more favourable to sun. But still.
Yes, as I commented earlier, you can build a 4 wheel bicycle which is solar powered and will crawl around at a few miles an hour.
You can't do that with a modern car, with the requirements for safety structure etc. There isn't enough incident light.
What has been done by a few people, is a solar panel to run the cars air conditioning unit at low power. So you can run the ac to keep your car cool while parked.
A number of not very amusing April Fool tweets coming in. For instance:
Tim Farron:
"Excited to announce that I will be hosting a ground-breaking new show on @GBNEWS where politicians will settle their differences by actually having a fight. ‘GBH with Tim Farron’ coming to your TV screens soon!"
Rory Stewart
"It is an honour to have been asked by the PM to serve as Director of Communications for No10 Downing Street. I am looking forward to working with the PM, Ministers and Members of Parliament on the issues that matter most to our country"
Not sure why they bother TBH. (Mebbe I'm just being grumpy?)
There's a local one where someone has claimed to have collected enough light bulbs for the community. Old ones, which use electricity at the old rate, so are cheaper.
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 conservatives seem to be and in around 35% which is remarkable considering the head winds and Rishi's budget
Furthermore labour are not seeing a recovery in local election results so far
You keep saying that. What's pretty clear is that the Ukraine War has an impact. Governments seem to do well at times of conflict. Not a moment that any opposition can land much impact.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the tax rises and energy costs start to bite. It's important to note that the costs have not come in yet.
Beyond that it is also clear that Labour has work to do in recovering from 2019.
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
I hate to be pedantic (a lie) but they have, it’s just that the power requirements of the phones have increased faster than (or as fast as) the battery output.
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
Some pollsters methodologies have libdems higher, say 12, it makes Labour total and the lead (first and last thing most people look at) lower. Some pollsters methodologies do it other way round, HY was right?
And combined Lab Lib Dem and green total is shrinking? 😕
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
Haven't they? The iPhone 3G had an 1150 mah battery I believe. A modern battery will have double to quadruple that, and will charge in around the same amount of time.
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.
It's a density/surface area problem - as you increase surface area, the structure to support it weighs something as well.
Quite simply, you need to put the solar panels somewhere stationary and charge a battery in the car. This actually works - there are quite a few people in California (for example) who power their daily commute in the their Tesla entirely from solar panels on the their property.
Sunak to go is a really bad bet at 40%. Why would Johnson give another rival the opportunity of being chancellor when he currently has one who did not wield the knife when he both could have done and was relatively popular at the time.
Johnson very rarely sacks anyone anyway. Just remember how hard Gavin Williamson tried to get the boot, how many mistakes he had to make and it still took 2 years.
A number of not very amusing April Fool tweets coming in. For instance:
Tim Farron:
"Excited to announce that I will be hosting a ground-breaking new show on @GBNEWS where politicians will settle their differences by actually having a fight. ‘GBH with Tim Farron’ coming to your TV screens soon!"
Rory Stewart
"It is an honour to have been asked by the PM to serve as Director of Communications for No10 Downing Street. I am looking forward to working with the PM, Ministers and Members of Parliament on the issues that matter most to our country"
Not sure why they bother TBH. (Mebbe I'm just being grumpy?)
I think many politicians are funnier than they usually get a chance to show, they have to be po faced and on message all the time. It's a rare one who can display some genuine humour without undermining their seriousness.
Even if they are not particularly funny they might welcome a chance to make a silly comment once a year.
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 conservatives seem to be and in around 35% which is remarkable considering the head winds and Rishi's budget
Furthermore labour are not seeing a recovery in local election results so far
You keep saying that. What's pretty clear is that the Ukraine War has an impact. Governments seem to do well at times of conflict. Not a moment that any opposition can land much impact.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the tax rises and energy costs start to bite. It's important to note that the costs have not come in yet.
Beyond that it is also clear that Labour has work to do in recovering from 2019.
I hate to be one of those people that uses this term, but this conference season really is the speech of Starmer’a life. Could make him PM in 2024. Same for Boris. It’s a 2007 moment I reckon.
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 conservatives seem to be and in around 35% which is remarkable considering the head winds and Rishi's budget
Furthermore labour are not seeing a recovery in local election results so far
You keep saying that. What's pretty clear is that the Ukraine War has an impact. Governments seem to do well at times of conflict. Not a moment that any opposition can land much impact.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the tax rises and energy costs start to bite. It's important to note that the costs have not come in yet.
Beyond that it is also clear that Labour has work to do in recovering from 2019.
Conversely, I'm getting an impression that people are becoming embarrassed at our response to the Ukraine refugee situation. I don't recall us wanting security clearances when the Ugandan Asians arrived.
A number of not very amusing April Fool tweets coming in. For instance:
Tim Farron:
"Excited to announce that I will be hosting a ground-breaking new show on @GBNEWS where politicians will settle their differences by actually having a fight. ‘GBH with Tim Farron’ coming to your TV screens soon!"
Rory Stewart
"It is an honour to have been asked by the PM to serve as Director of Communications for No10 Downing Street. I am looking forward to working with the PM, Ministers and Members of Parliament on the issues that matter most to our country"
Not sure why they bother TBH. (Mebbe I'm just being grumpy?)
When we have clowns in charge delivering nonsense on a regular basis, it is much harder for anyone to take April Fools Day seriously. How can we be sure of the difference?
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.
The LD's are still suffering from being 4th party in Parliament. The PM gets a go, then the LotO, then the leader of the 3rd party. Lib/LD leaders from Jeremy Thorpe onwards were able to exploit their position, and generally. TBH they had a bit charisma than Davey, too. Either that or there was someone in the Press office who could write soundbites, and there isn't now.
Rather harsh I think, Davey gets two questions and has recently used them very well I think. I beginning to suspect they read PB for ideas, so I have been trying to add some sound bites that may help in my posts. 😄
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
The batteries have actually improved a lot. The increase in usage of power for faster processors has "used up" the improvement in performance, mostly.
Mrs J worked on power-saving tech that is now in virtually every smartphone. It increases battery life in a small way by reducing power wastage in RF op-amps. I sometimes wonder how many tonnes of CO2 that little creation has saved. A few milliwatts saved over hundreds of millions of phones...
(Although it should be noted the idea was decades old; it took recent improvements in chip tech to allow it to work.)
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?
Necessity is the mother of invention and I expect many will change their habits, maybe using the washing machine or dishwasher less, reduce thermostats, boil the kettle less and indeed put on extra jumpers
This should be aided by the onset of Spring and Summer
I am not downplaying this, but it is a serious problem for everyone in Europe, US and elsewhere and I do believe we need to support local charities as they assist in mitigating issues for those less well of, who by the way should have had more help from the chancellor
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
I hate to be pedantic (a lie) but they have, it’s just that the power requirements of the phones have increased faster than (or as fast as) the battery output.
I suppose from a user perspective there has not been a marked improvement. A phone which needed charging every day still needs charging day, and it might charge a bit quicker but there's been no revolutionary seeming increase. Yet.
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.
The LD's are still suffering from being 4th party in Parliament. The PM gets a go, then the LotO, then the leader of the 3rd party. Lib/LD leaders from Jeremy Thorpe onwards were able to exploit their position, and generally. TBH they had a bit charisma than Davey, too. Either that or there was someone in the Press office who could write soundbites, and there isn't now.
Rather harsh I think, Davey gets two questions and has recently used them very well I think. I beginning to suspect they read PB for ideas, so I have been trying to add some sound bites that may help in my posts. 😄
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
Haven't they? The iPhone 3G had an 1150 mah battery I believe. A modern battery will have double to quadruple that, and will charge in around the same amount of time.
To the public they have not noticeably improved. They may have improved because the phones use more power, but that is not easily noticeable. The time before a charge is required, and how long it lasts before needing replacement feel very similar to when they first came out. At least the price of a replacement has come right down.
It’s all looking good for Cons to get credible result in mid term elections just weeks to go. I remember Blair saying losing about 900 councillors was a great mid term result for his government meaning they are on course for general election victory, Tories are not going to lose anything like that on all this polling.
I can also post a MoonRabbit post Felix and Marquee Mark may actually like. They have been pointing out to us the “spring statement” isn’t all that unpopular actually, now I have some anecdotal that agrees. I spoke to a Northern, moderate remain voting Conservative yesterday, my Dad. And he liked the budget. What he particularly liked was it wasn’t a splurge budget but hold the ammo till you see the whites of the problems eyes budget. He said the criticism it wasn’t a splurge is economically illiterate, splurge at this moment makes it worse in long run, if it gets to stagflation, then spend some money you have saved, as stagflation is about demand not supply so you don’t tighten to deal with it but spend.
To qualify this, I’m sure a different type of economic thinker can come allowing to say that’s rubbish 😆 And I’m still a Libdem, so this government never do enough to help and so it was an abysmal budget. 😀
Does make me think, plus when you add how well Tories do at local byelections all year, maybe Labour and Libdems aren’t going to do as well as expectations on May 5th and Tories better than expectations.
PS he also said zero chance of a move against Boris any time soon 😕
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.
The LD's are still suffering from being 4th party in Parliament. The PM gets a go, then the LotO, then the leader of the 3rd party. Lib/LD leaders from Jeremy Thorpe onwards were able to exploit their position, and generally. TBH they had a bit charisma than Davey, too. Either that or there was someone in the Press office who could write soundbites, and there isn't now.
Rather harsh I think, Davey gets two questions and has recently used them very well I think. I beginning to suspect they read PB for ideas, so I have been trying to add some sound bites that may help in my posts. 😄
Remember national poll shares are not a good indicator of LD general election performances. At GE2019 the party had a net loss of seats even though their national vote share went up 4+% to just below 12%. At GE1997 the party's seat haul increased by 26 even though their national vote share dropped.
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 conservatives seem to be and in around 35% which is remarkable considering the head winds and Rishi's budget
Furthermore labour are not seeing a recovery in local election results so far
You keep saying that. What's pretty clear is that the Ukraine War has an impact. Governments seem to do well at times of conflict. Not a moment that any opposition can land much impact.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the tax rises and energy costs start to bite. It's important to note that the costs have not come in yet.
Beyond that it is also clear that Labour has work to do in recovering from 2019.
Yes, ever since Starmer became leader the country has been in crisis - first Covid and now Ukraine. It's not just that crises benefit the incumbent government, it's also that nobody is listening much to anything else as the crises dominate the news agenda.
I'd expect Labour to benefit if/when a period of 'normal' politics returns. But that is conditional on them setting out clear, attractive and feasible alternatives to the way that the current government is running the show. Frankly, that shouldn't be too difficult.
What hasn't been commented much is what might be thought of as the failure of what might be called the Osborne-Mandelson mentality.
That countries didn't need to produce anything but could 'trade' for it from places like Russia or China - with the Osborne-Mandelson types getting a very nice commission.
That such things as energy or food were now trivialities compared to the overriding importance of moving money around.
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.
The LD's are still suffering from being 4th party in Parliament. The PM gets a go, then the LotO, then the leader of the 3rd party. Lib/LD leaders from Jeremy Thorpe onwards were able to exploit their position, and generally. TBH they had a bit charisma than Davey, too. Either that or there was someone in the Press office who could write soundbites, and there isn't now.
Rather harsh I think, Davey gets two questions and has recently used them very well I think. I beginning to suspect they read PB for ideas, so I have been trying to add some sound bites that may help in my posts. 😄
Remember national poll shares are not a good indicator of LD general election performances. At GE2019 the party had a net loss of seats even though their national vote share went up 4+% to just below 12%. At GE1997 the party's seat haul increased by 26 even though their national vote share dropped.
Yes. And they can also be very poor at predicting how Libdems do in mid term election nights. If 12 on current polls, that could be 17 in mid term council elections share when results counted.
But they don’t seem to be doing as well in local by elections now as before Christmas, nor averaging anywhere near 12% in the GE polls. 😕
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.
The LD's are still suffering from being 4th party in Parliament. The PM gets a go, then the LotO, then the leader of the 3rd party. Lib/LD leaders from Jeremy Thorpe onwards were able to exploit their position, and generally. TBH they had a bit charisma than Davey, too. Either that or there was someone in the Press office who could write soundbites, and there isn't now.
Rather harsh I think, Davey gets two questions and has recently used them very well I think. I beginning to suspect they read PB for ideas, so I have been trying to add some sound bites that may help in my posts. 😄
No, Blackford gets 2 questions.
Davey sometimes gets 1. Sometimes.
I think that's right. Of course he may be getting better with his 1. And I hope he does improve. Of course the situation would not be improved if someone else was Leader, although getting someone onto some of the chat shows (etc) regularly would help.
Sunak to go is a really bad bet at 40%. Why would Johnson give another rival the opportunity of being chancellor when he currently has one who did not wield the knife when he both could have done and was relatively popular at the time.
Johnson very rarely sacks anyone anyway. Just remember how hard Gavin Williamson tried to get the boot, how many mistakes he had to make and it still took 2 years.
And then Boris felt so guilty about it he sought forgiveness with a knighthood.
Permit me an entirely off-topic moan. Switched back to Windows after 18 happy months running a high-end Chromebook. Windows 11 does look like real progress vs before, especially the lag-ridden hell I have experienced in managed infrastructure.
But then the full experience kicks in. I use an LG ultrawide monitor with a single USB-C lead connected and more ports on the back of the screen. LG and MS haven't bothered to release drivers (for a monitor FFS) for W11 so when my Surface Pro 8 goes into standby I have unplug and replug the monitor to get the ports to work.
The work-around is tell it not to go into standby when plugged-in. Which I have. It goes into standby anyway sometimes, stays alive as demanded other times. Its the random stupidity that bugs me - always was the problem with Windows and clearly no signs of resolving that.
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.
The LD's are still suffering from being 4th party in Parliament. The PM gets a go, then the LotO, then the leader of the 3rd party. Lib/LD leaders from Jeremy Thorpe onwards were able to exploit their position, and generally. TBH they had a bit charisma than Davey, too. Either that or there was someone in the Press office who could write soundbites, and there isn't now.
Rather harsh I think, Davey gets two questions and has recently used them very well I think. I beginning to suspect they read PB for ideas, so I have been trying to add some sound bites that may help in my posts. 😄
No, Blackford gets 2 questions.
Davey sometimes gets 1. Sometimes.
Davey definitely had two in some debates, off the top of my head. I remember Posting recently “his two questions today were very good”
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.
The LD's are still suffering from being 4th party in Parliament. The PM gets a go, then the LotO, then the leader of the 3rd party. Lib/LD leaders from Jeremy Thorpe onwards were able to exploit their position, and generally. TBH they had a bit charisma than Davey, too. Either that or there was someone in the Press office who could write soundbites, and there isn't now.
Rather harsh I think, Davey gets two questions and has recently used them very well I think. I beginning to suspect they read PB for ideas, so I have been trying to add some sound bites that may help in my posts. 😄
Well, if we're advising the LibDems what they need to do in Northern, Rural Scotland to reclaim their previous prominence is to find a candidate local to the area - shouldn't be too hard, it's a big area they need to be from.
Up here, they like them local and will keep voting them in mostly forever... Though the SNP rain fell on the just and the unjust alike.
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.
The LD's are still suffering from being 4th party in Parliament. The PM gets a go, then the LotO, then the leader of the 3rd party. Lib/LD leaders from Jeremy Thorpe onwards were able to exploit their position, and generally. TBH they had a bit charisma than Davey, too. Either that or there was someone in the Press office who could write soundbites, and there isn't now.
Rather harsh I think, Davey gets two questions and has recently used them very well I think. I beginning to suspect they read PB for ideas, so I have been trying to add some sound bites that may help in my posts. 😄
Remember national poll shares are not a good indicator of LD general election performances. At GE2019 the party had a net loss of seats even though their national vote share went up 4+% to just below 12%. At GE1997 the party's seat haul increased by 26 even though their national vote share dropped.
I hope the LDs are putting a lot of thought and time into candidate selection. They need to get at least 4 high quality MPs elected to progress for the following election.
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.
Not in real time perhaps but combined with batteries surely it's possible theoretically at least so long as you park outside?
If every time you returned to your car it was fully charged, then that would be great.
Not unless you park your car outside, but only drive it once a month.
To power daily usage takes a large area of solar panels. Some people in sunny California have done this - the power from their panels is stored in a battery and then used to charge their electric car.
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
Haven't they? The iPhone 3G had an 1150 mah battery I believe. A modern battery will have double to quadruple that, and will charge in around the same amount of time.
To the public they have not noticeably improved. They may have improved because the phones use more power, but that is not easily noticeable. The time before a charge is required, and how long it lasts before needing replacement feel very similar to when they first came out. At least the price of a replacement has come right down.
The battery one my iPhone 13 lasts longer than it's predecessor (a 7) and the charging time is reduced, even with a standard charger. And it's much better with the charger designed for it.
Sunak to go is a really bad bet at 40%. Why would Johnson give another rival the opportunity of being chancellor when he currently has one who did not wield the knife when he both could have done and was relatively popular at the time.
Johnson very rarely sacks anyone anyway. Just remember how hard Gavin Williamson tried to get the boot, how many mistakes he had to make and it still took 2 years.
And then Boris felt so guilty about it he sought forgiveness with a knighthood.
That was fear not guilt of course. Jenrick didn't get shit after his sacking.
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
Haven't they? The iPhone 3G had an 1150 mah battery I believe. A modern battery will have double to quadruple that, and will charge in around the same amount of time.
To the public they have not noticeably improved. They may have improved because the phones use more power, but that is not easily noticeable. The time before a charge is required, and how long it lasts before needing replacement feel very similar to when they first came out. At least the price of a replacement has come right down.
It depends how you look at it they hadn't noticeably improved though, then the quality of your phone would still be iPhone 3G style as all the improvements of the past 15 years take power.
That you can power a phone with 4x the screen size etc but it lasts the same time and doesn't take any longer to charge is a vast improvement.
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
Haven't they? The iPhone 3G had an 1150 mah battery I believe. A modern battery will have double to quadruple that, and will charge in around the same amount of time.
To the public they have not noticeably improved. They may have improved because the phones use more power, but that is not easily noticeable. The time before a charge is required, and how long it lasts before needing replacement feel very similar to when they first came out. At least the price of a replacement has come right down.
The biggest improvement is cameras. People have definitely noticed that you don't need to carry a camera around because top phone cameras take you all the way up to low end ILCs these days.
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
Haven't they? The iPhone 3G had an 1150 mah battery I believe. A modern battery will have double to quadruple that, and will charge in around the same amount of time.
To the public they have not noticeably improved. They may have improved because the phones use more power, but that is not easily noticeable. The time before a charge is required, and how long it lasts before needing replacement feel very similar to when they first came out. At least the price of a replacement has come right down.
The battery one my iPhone 13 lasts longer than it's predecessor (a 7) and the charging time is reduced, even with a standard charger. And it's much better with the charger designed for it.
Must admit I am slow to update, so not used a 13 yet. Bear in mind that battery life degrades substantially over time, so a 7 towards the end of its life will be much worse than a new 13 but that would not be a fair comparison.
Sunak to go is a really bad bet at 40%. Why would Johnson give another rival the opportunity of being chancellor when he currently has one who did not wield the knife when he both could have done and was relatively popular at the time.
Johnson very rarely sacks anyone anyway. Just remember how hard Gavin Williamson tried to get the boot, how many mistakes he had to make and it still took 2 years.
And then Boris felt so guilty about it he sought forgiveness with a knighthood.
Far more likely, Boris did not want whatever secrets Williamson knew about him and others to see the light of day so bribed him with a knighthood.
As the government does extraordinary U turns on 'conversion therapy' has anyone any idea what in fact it intends to criminalise?
Do we risk ending up with it being lawful for the NHS to perform massive drug, counselling and surgery led changes to a person physically, while at the same time making it doubtful whether a parent or a religious gathering can pray that some bloke will fancy some nice girl rather than some nice boy?
AFAIU they are proposing to ban the sort of conversion therapy which seeks to convince a gay person that they are not gay.
But they are not including in this ban the provision of therapy to children or others who may have gender disorder issues. This is sensible for several reasons:
1. Currently there has been a practice at the Tavistock of affirming any child claiming to be trans without exploring whether this is genuine or whether there may be other causes for the child's distress. As the Cass Report has said this is bad medical practice and the government does not want to include this sort of therapy in any ban. The EHRC has also advised caution. 2. It makes sense to wait for the final Cass Report before deciding what, if anything, should be done. 3. There are already a range of laws which can be used if anything untoward is done to a trans child. The attached thread from Nikki da Costa, a former government advisor, explains this quite well - https://twitter.com/nmdacosta/status/1509576587825627143?s=21&t=8bu9mtPRdOOQglHRyyGCGg.
Thanks. When it comes to drafting legislation making things a crime, almost every significant word of "ban the sort of conversion therapy which seeks to convince a gay person they are not gay" is tricky, slippery and contentious.
It gives me no clue as to what will be lawful and what will be a crime. I suspect this is an impossible task.
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 conservatives seem to be and in around 35% which is remarkable considering the head winds and Rishi's budget
Furthermore labour are not seeing a recovery in local election results so far
You keep saying that. What's pretty clear is that the Ukraine War has an impact. Governments seem to do well at times of conflict. Not a moment that any opposition can land much impact.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the tax rises and energy costs start to bite. It's important to note that the costs have not come in yet.
Beyond that it is also clear that Labour has work to do in recovering from 2019.
During March there were 23 polls according to Wiki
Conservative share as follows
33% x 2 34% x 2 35% x 13 36% x 4 37% x 2
In this climate that is consistent, and labour shares seem to move according to lib dems and green's share
I stand to be corrected but during march there was little evidence of labour performing well in locals but of course the lib dems most certainly did
It must also be remembered that from today the minimum wage rises by 6.5% to £9.50 and benefits increase by 3.1% so most will see an increase in their income, but of course not at a level to match inflation and the energy price crisis
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
Haven't they? The iPhone 3G had an 1150 mah battery I believe. A modern battery will have double to quadruple that, and will charge in around the same amount of time.
To the public they have not noticeably improved. They may have improved because the phones use more power, but that is not easily noticeable. The time before a charge is required, and how long it lasts before needing replacement feel very similar to when they first came out. At least the price of a replacement has come right down.
The battery one my iPhone 13 lasts longer than it's predecessor (a 7) and the charging time is reduced, even with a standard charger. And it's much better with the charger designed for it.
Must admit I am slow to update, so not used a 13 yet. Bear in mind that battery life degrades substantially over time, so a 7 towards the end of its life will be much worse than a new 13 but that would not be a fair comparison.
Tue, but it's still quicker than it was earlier in the 7's life, as we recall.
It’s all looking good for Cons to get credible result in mid term elections just weeks to go. I remember Blair saying losing about 900 councillors was a great mid term result for his government meaning they are on course for general election victory, Tories are not going to lose anything like that on all this polling.
I can also post a MoonRabbit post Felix and Marquee Mark may actually like. They have been pointing out to us the “spring statement” isn’t all that unpopular actually, now I have some anecdotal that agrees. I spoke to a Northern, moderate remain voting Conservative yesterday, my Dad. And he liked the budget. What he particularly liked was it wasn’t a splurge budget but hold the ammo till you see the whites of the problems eyes budget. He said the criticism it wasn’t a splurge is economically illiterate, splurge at this moment makes it worse in long run, if it gets to stagflation, then spend some money you have saved, as stagflation is about demand not supply so you don’t tighten to deal with it but spend.
To qualify this, I’m sure a different type of economic thinker can come allowing to say that’s rubbish 😆 And I’m still a Libdem, so this government never do enough to help and so it was an abysmal budget. 😀
Does make me think, plus when you add how well Tories do at local byelections all year, maybe Labour and Libdems aren’t going to do as well as expectations on May 5th and Tories better than expectations.
PS he also said zero chance of a move against Boris any time soon 😕
Your pont about Blair losing 900 councillors but still being in a very strong position to win the next GE is very key. As I say boringly every week Labour should be doing so much better in Local By Elections and the the Tories should be doing so much worse. Small poll leads are celebrated as a great victory for Labour and a vindication of SKS, but in real election results Labour is doing terribly and has been for the past year with no sign of improvement. So far we have had 2 results from yesterday and in both Labours vote is down, and that has been the case in 90% of Local By Election results over the past year, that simply should not be happening. Things have hardly been going well in the press for the Government in the last 12 months.
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.
Homes will never be heated by solar in the UK. Heating is overwhelmingly needed in winter, when solar energy available is around 90% lower. Homes being cooled by solar is far more likely.
On bird killing by wind turbines I think that complaint is just a red herring and a rounding error, and a soundbite for activists who have no case left. 10-100k per annum in the UK vs an estimated 50 million killed by domestic cats; if you want to save birds, ban pussies. And tens of millions of songbirds caught by hunters especially in southern and eastern europe.
On efficiency, clearly it matters as twice the efficiency, or half the demand, reduces the amount of wind turbines or solar panels or whatever you need by 50%.
One of our aces in the hole as the UK is that our energy demand per pop is low compared to our peer countries.
On wind efficiency, offshore wine is about twice as efficient as onshore wind in the UK - roughly 50%+ vs 25-30%. We should not really need to be doing any onshore wind these days imo.
And solar is for roofs and perhaps airfields, not farms. Unless it can be shown to be combined with other suitable land uses.
It’s all looking good for Cons to get credible result in mid term elections just weeks to go. I remember Blair saying losing about 900 councillors was a great mid term result for his government meaning they are on course for general election victory, Tories are not going to lose anything like that on all this polling.
I can also post a MoonRabbit post Felix and Marquee Mark may actually like. They have been pointing out to us the “spring statement” isn’t all that unpopular actually, now I have some anecdotal that agrees. I spoke to a Northern, moderate remain voting Conservative yesterday, my Dad. And he liked the budget. What he particularly liked was it wasn’t a splurge budget but hold the ammo till you see the whites of the problems eyes budget. He said the criticism it wasn’t a splurge is economically illiterate, splurge at this moment makes it worse in long run, if it gets to stagflation, then spend some money you have saved, as stagflation is about demand not supply so you don’t tighten to deal with it but spend.
To qualify this, I’m sure a different type of economic thinker can come allowing to say that’s rubbish 😆 And I’m still a Libdem, so this government never do enough to help and so it was an abysmal budget. 😀
Does make me think, plus when you add how well Tories do at local byelections all year, maybe Labour and Libdems aren’t going to do as well as expectations on May 5th and Tories better than expectations.
PS he also said zero chance of a move against Boris any time soon 😕
Yes, main story will be Tory resilience in Midlands and Scotland I think (they may even make a modest gain in the latter). I can't read London at all, even if Labour's national standing has increased there.
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?
I follow the aggregate Lab/Lib/Green share. It's important because in our polarized politics, with wedge issues and 'values' trumping more traditional debates around tax & spend, people having to choose a side even if they'd rather not, what we could be looking at at the next election is a bit of an American type 'trads v progs' situation, a binary fight where one of the 2 sides will prevail and form the government, Tories outright or Labour in a loose alliance.
That's the sort of election the Tories have in mind. They'll seek to paint Labour, in an impressionistic way rather than based on official policy positions, as unsafe on traditional values, and other parties on the centre left as enablers of this. This, plus "vote Starmer get Sturgeon" is going to be the Tory pitch. It's unedifying but they have no choice, really, because with their Brexitification, and the man they've embraced as leader, on most substantial issues they've become, not to put too fine a point on it, intellectually vacant.
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.
Homes will never be heated by solar in the UK. Heating is overwhelmingly needed in winter, when solar energy available is around 90% lower. Homes being cooled by solar is far more likely.
On bird killing by wind turbines I think that complaint is just a red herring and a rounding error, and a soundbite for activists who have no case left. 10-100k per annum in the UK vs an estimated 50 million killed by domestic cats; if you want to save birds, ban pussies. And tens of millions of songbirds caught by hunters especially in southern and eastern europe.
On efficiency, clearly it matters as twice the efficiency, or half the demand, reduces the amount of wind turbines or solar panels or whatever you need by 50%.
One of our aces in the hole as the UK is that our energy demand per pop is low compared to our peer countries.
On wind efficiency, offshore wine is about twice as efficient as onshore wind in the UK - roughly 50%+ vs 25-30%. We should not really need to be doing any onshore wind these days imo.
And solar is for roofs and perhaps airfields, not farms. Unless it can be shown to be combined with other suitable land uses.
offshore wine
I thought most was. I know we're making a lot more these days.....
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.
Homes will never be heated by solar in the UK. Heating is overwhelmingly needed in winter, when solar energy available is around 90% lower. Homes being cooled by solar is far more likely.
On bird killing by wind turbines I think that complaint is just a red herring and a rounding error, and a soundbite for activists who have no case left. 10-100k per annum in the UK vs an estimated 50 million killed by domestic cats; if you want to save birds, ban pussies. And tens of millions of songbirds caught by hunters especially in southern and eastern europe.
On efficiency, clearly it matters as twice the efficiency, or half the demand, reduces the amount of wind turbines or solar panels or whatever you need by 50%.
One of our aces in the hole as the UK is that our energy demand per pop is low compared to our peer countries.
On wind efficiency, offshore wine is about twice as efficient as onshore wind in the UK - roughly 50%+ vs 25-30%. We should not really need to be doing any onshore wind these days imo.
And solar is for roofs and perhaps airfields, not farms. Unless it can be shown to be combined with other suitable land uses.
Solar farms can work quite nicely in sunny spacious locations like Australia, Saudi Arabia or California.
Not the UK though. The UK is a wet and windy country needing heating not a dry sunny one needing air conditioning. So water and wind make sense for our energy far, far more than solar ever will - except as a nice toy for some to cut their bills.
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
I can confirm that Ashfield is not one of these 25
The last I heard our local rump * LDs had topped themselves so effectively with their EU obsession that they have been merged with the Mansfield branch.
* The ones who listened to the locals are now called the Ashfield Independents and run the place.
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?
I follow the aggregate Lab/Lib/Green share. It's important because in our polarized politics, with wedge issues and 'values' trumping more traditional debates around tax & spend, people having to choose a side even if they'd rather not, what we could be looking at at the next election is a bit of an American type 'trads v progs' situation, a binary fight where one of the 2 sides will prevail and form the government, Tories outright or Labour in a loose alliance.
That's the sort of election the Tories have in mind. They'll seek to paint Labour, in an impressionistic way rather than based on official policy positions, as unsafe on traditional values, and other parties on the centre left as enablers of this. This, plus "vote Starmer get Sturgeon" is going to be the Tory pitch. It's unedifying but they have no choice, really, because with their Brexitification, and the man they've embraced as leader, on most substantial issues they've become, not to put too fine a point on it, intellectually vacant.
I wonder if, when push comes to shove, a lot of 'Conservative' voters will be 'unable' to vote for the current PM & cabinet and simply stay at home.
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?
I follow the aggregate Lab/Lib/Green share. It's important because in our polarized politics, with wedge issues and 'values' trumping more traditional debates around tax & spend, people having to choose a side even if they'd rather not, what we could be looking at at the next election is a bit of an American type 'trads v progs' situation, a binary fight where one of the 2 sides will prevail and form the government, Tories outright or Labour in a loose alliance.
That's the sort of election the Tories have in mind. They'll seek to paint Labour, in an impressionistic way rather than based on official policy positions, as unsafe on traditional values, and other parties on the centre left as enablers of this. This, plus "vote Starmer get Sturgeon" is going to be the Tory pitch. It's unedifying but they have no choice, really, because with their Brexitification, and the man they've embraced as leader, on most substantial issues they've become, not to put too fine a point on it, intellectually vacant.
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.
Homes will never be heated by solar in the UK. Heating is overwhelmingly needed in winter, when solar energy available is around 90% lower. Homes being cooled by solar is far more likely.
On bird killing by wind turbines I think that complaint is just a red herring and a rounding error, and a soundbite for activists who have no case left. 10-100k per annum in the UK vs an estimated 50 million killed by domestic cats; if you want to save birds, ban pussies. And tens of millions of songbirds caught by hunters especially in southern and eastern europe.
On efficiency, clearly it matters as twice the efficiency, or half the demand, reduces the amount of wind turbines or solar panels or whatever you need by 50%.
One of our aces in the hole as the UK is that our energy demand per pop is low compared to our peer countries.
On wind efficiency, offshore wine is about twice as efficient as onshore wind in the UK - roughly 50%+ vs 25-30%. We should not really need to be doing any onshore wind these days imo.
And solar is for roofs and perhaps airfields, not farms. Unless it can be shown to be combined with other suitable land uses.
Solar farms can work quite nicely in sunny spacious locations like Australia, Saudi Arabia or California.
Not the UK though. The UK is a wet and windy country needing heating not a dry sunny one needing air conditioning. So water and wind make sense for our energy far, far more than solar ever will - except as a nice toy for some to cut their bills.
Solar makes a lot of sense for water heating - in conjunction with energy storage in a battery, heat battery or water tabk, and for car charging The biggest demand on any boiler or heating system is always the water for eg a shower or a bath, not the central heating.
That's why a lot of sensible people think Combi boilers have always been a bad idea, and use a system boiler and a separate water tank.
(As a side-note, I think intra-seasonal energy storage at a domestic scale is now dead, and GSHPs are an anachronism for very unusual circs.)
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.
Homes will never be heated by solar in the UK. Heating is overwhelmingly needed in winter, when solar energy available is around 90% lower. Homes being cooled by solar is far more likely.
On bird killing by wind turbines I think that complaint is just a red herring and a rounding error, and a soundbite for activists who have no case left. 10-100k per annum in the UK vs an estimated 50 million killed by domestic cats; if you want to save birds, ban pussies. And tens of millions of songbirds caught by hunters especially in southern and eastern europe.
On efficiency, clearly it matters as twice the efficiency, or half the demand, reduces the amount of wind turbines or solar panels or whatever you need by 50%.
One of our aces in the hole as the UK is that our energy demand per pop is low compared to our peer countries.
On wind efficiency, offshore wine is about twice as efficient as onshore wind in the UK - roughly 50%+ vs 25-30%. We should not really need to be doing any onshore wind these days imo.
And solar is for roofs and perhaps airfields, not farms. Unless it can be shown to be combined with other suitable land uses.
Solar farms can work quite nicely in sunny spacious locations like Australia, Saudi Arabia or California.
Not the UK though. The UK is a wet and windy country needing heating not a dry sunny one needing air conditioning. So water and wind make sense for our energy far, far more than solar ever will - except as a nice toy for some to cut their bills.
There are proposals for a couple of quite sizeable ones in Suffolk which are stirring up a great deal of energy in themselves! Funny how the objectors in these cases tend to be elderly and have cut-glass accents. Don't sound 'Suffolk' at all.
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.
The LD's are still suffering from being 4th party in Parliament. The PM gets a go, then the LotO, then the leader of the 3rd party. Lib/LD leaders from Jeremy Thorpe onwards were able to exploit their position, and generally. TBH they had a bit charisma than Davey, too. Either that or there was someone in the Press office who could write soundbites, and there isn't now.
Rather harsh I think, Davey gets two questions and has recently used them very well I think. I beginning to suspect they read PB for ideas, so I have been trying to add some sound bites that may help in my posts. 😄
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.
The LD's are still suffering from being 4th party in Parliament. The PM gets a go, then the LotO, then the leader of the 3rd party. Lib/LD leaders from Jeremy Thorpe onwards were able to exploit their position, and generally. TBH they had a bit charisma than Davey, too. Either that or there was someone in the Press office who could write soundbites, and there isn't now.
Rather harsh I think, Davey gets two questions and has recently used them very well I think. I beginning to suspect they read PB for ideas, so I have been trying to add some sound bites that may help in my posts. 😄
Remember national poll shares are not a good indicator of LD general election performances. At GE2019 the party had a net loss of seats even though their national vote share went up 4+% to just below 12%. At GE1997 the party's seat haul increased by 26 even though their national vote share dropped.
Depends what happens to the Tory vote though (even if the LDs are now arguably in a stronger relative position in the SE than 1997) . The Lib Dems really need the Tory vote to fall substantially by about 10%. If the Tory vote recovers to 40-42%, I think they'll struggle to gain many seats apart the lowest hanging fruit like S Cambs, Wimbledon, Guildford etc.
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
An unkind person might say that it is unsurprising you're not interested in matters affecting womens' rights.
But I scroll past endless threads (never mind paragraphs) about Formula 1, cricket, football and rugby.
Let's hope they remember to keep some stockpiled for next time!
There needs to be some thought on this for future epidemics.
The current disposable stuff ends up with staff wearing multiple items, masks, eye shield etc with gaps everywhere. Simply getting it on and off must be a pain.
Against a bug that is truly airborne, this will be less than perfect, as well.
There should be a other look at the modern capabilities of re-usable systems and more integrated systems - as part of package of capabilities.
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.
Homes will never be heated by solar in the UK. Heating is overwhelmingly needed in winter, when solar energy available is around 90% lower. Homes being cooled by solar is far more likely.
On bird killing by wind turbines I think that complaint is just a red herring and a rounding error, and a soundbite for activists who have no case left. 10-100k per annum in the UK vs an estimated 50 million killed by domestic cats; if you want to save birds, ban pussies. And tens of millions of songbirds caught by hunters especially in southern and eastern europe.
On efficiency, clearly it matters as twice the efficiency, or half the demand, reduces the amount of wind turbines or solar panels or whatever you need by 50%.
One of our aces in the hole as the UK is that our energy demand per pop is low compared to our peer countries.
On wind efficiency, offshore wine is about twice as efficient as onshore wind in the UK - roughly 50%+ vs 25-30%. We should not really need to be doing any onshore wind these days imo.
And solar is for roofs and perhaps airfields, not farms. Unless it can be shown to be combined with other suitable land uses.
Solar farms can work quite nicely in sunny spacious locations like Australia, Saudi Arabia or California.
Not the UK though. The UK is a wet and windy country needing heating not a dry sunny one needing air conditioning. So water and wind make sense for our energy far, far more than solar ever will - except as a nice toy for some to cut their bills.
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.
Homes will never be heated by solar in the UK. Heating is overwhelmingly needed in winter, when solar energy available is around 90% lower. Homes being cooled by solar is far more likely.
On bird killing by wind turbines I think that complaint is just a red herring and a rounding error, and a soundbite for activists who have no case left. 10-100k per annum in the UK vs an estimated 50 million killed by domestic cats; if you want to save birds, ban pussies. And tens of millions of songbirds caught by hunters especially in southern and eastern europe.
On efficiency, clearly it matters as twice the efficiency, or half the demand, reduces the amount of wind turbines or solar panels or whatever you need by 50%.
One of our aces in the hole as the UK is that our energy demand per pop is low compared to our peer countries.
On wind efficiency, offshore wine is about twice as efficient as onshore wind in the UK - roughly 50%+ vs 25-30%. We should not really need to be doing any onshore wind these days imo.
And solar is for roofs and perhaps airfields, not farms. Unless it can be shown to be combined with other suitable land uses.
Solar farms can work quite nicely in sunny spacious locations like Australia, Saudi Arabia or California.
Not the UK though. The UK is a wet and windy country needing heating not a dry sunny one needing air conditioning. So water and wind make sense for our energy far, far more than solar ever will - except as a nice toy for some to cut their bills.
There are proposals for a couple of quite sizeable ones in Suffolk which are stirring up a great deal of energy in themselves! Funny how the objectors in these cases tend to be elderly and have cut-glass accents. Don't sound 'Suffolk' at all.
I was told, when on holiday in Cornwall, that a bunch of incomers tried to shut down the china clay processing site at Par. They were apparently surprised by the local reaction.
As the government does extraordinary U turns on 'conversion therapy' has anyone any idea what in fact it intends to criminalise?
Do we risk ending up with it being lawful for the NHS to perform massive drug, counselling and surgery led changes to a person physically, while at the same time making it doubtful whether a parent or a religious gathering can pray that some bloke will fancy some nice girl rather than some nice boy?
AFAIU they are proposing to ban the sort of conversion therapy which seeks to convince a gay person that they are not gay.
But they are not including in this ban the provision of therapy to children or others who may have gender disorder issues. This is sensible for several reasons:
1. Currently there has been a practice at the Tavistock of affirming any child claiming to be trans without exploring whether this is genuine or whether there may be other causes for the child's distress. As the Cass Report has said this is bad medical practice and the government does not want to include this sort of therapy in any ban. The EHRC has also advised caution. 2. It makes sense to wait for the final Cass Report before deciding what, if anything, should be done. 3. There are already a range of laws which can be used if anything untoward is done to a trans child. The attached thread from Nikki da Costa, a former government advisor, explains this quite well - https://twitter.com/nmdacosta/status/1509576587825627143?s=21&t=8bu9mtPRdOOQglHRyyGCGg.
Thanks. When it comes to drafting legislation making things a crime, almost every significant word of "ban the sort of conversion therapy which seeks to convince a gay person they are not gay" is tricky, slippery and contentious.
It gives me no clue as to what will be lawful and what will be a crime. I suspect this is an impossible task.
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.
Homes will never be heated by solar in the UK. Heating is overwhelmingly needed in winter, when solar energy available is around 90% lower. Homes being cooled by solar is far more likely.
On bird killing by wind turbines I think that complaint is just a red herring and a rounding error, and a soundbite for activists who have no case left. 10-100k per annum in the UK vs an estimated 50 million killed by domestic cats; if you want to save birds, ban pussies. And tens of millions of songbirds caught by hunters especially in southern and eastern europe.
On efficiency, clearly it matters as twice the efficiency, or half the demand, reduces the amount of wind turbines or solar panels or whatever you need by 50%.
One of our aces in the hole as the UK is that our energy demand per pop is low compared to our peer countries.
On wind efficiency, offshore wine is about twice as efficient as onshore wind in the UK - roughly 50%+ vs 25-30%. We should not really need to be doing any onshore wind these days imo.
And solar is for roofs and perhaps airfields, not farms. Unless it can be shown to be combined with other suitable land uses.
offshore wine
I thought most was. I know we're making a lot more these days.....
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Heh . I checked the Nyetimber pink fizz recommended by SeanT, and it turned out to be £42 per bottle.
I think we are at approx 50:50 onshore:offshore wind at present.
That will tip decisively this year as there is about £7 billion of offshore wind investment over 10 years joining the grid this year. Plus a similar amount next year, and iirc the year after, and the year after that aiui.
That represents about 7-11 GW of capacity coming on stream by 2026, an increase of 100-150% over 2020. One or two projects are not yet firmed up.
7-11GW of offshore wind capacity is an extra 12-16% of current electricity usage in the UK. Quite something.
Anyway my sore throat has now gone to my chest, which almost invariably happens. Bugger! I am wrapped up with so many layers. The heating has been off for ages now and is not getting switched back on for the foreseeable future.
How will people expected to work from home feel about their employers dumping them with the increased heating and lighting costs, I wonder? I'd be furious. I wonder if will make any change to those coming into the office.
Jesus I come on here, the web's premier political and betting site, and all I find is people talking about politics, the betting implications of various political events, and one of the most pressing political issues of the day - the cost of living crisis.
Where's Will and Chris; the when I was a lad I gave someone a shellacking; the did the cabinet minister want to be addressed as he/she/they...
I'm going back to the DM's sidebar of shame for some proper analysis.
Let's hope they remember to keep some stockpiled for next time!
Who needs stockpiles (or domestic production) when you can 'trade for it'.
With lots of nice profits for the middle men.
Not just men, tbf, as has been asserted lately. Even better for them that the PPE has a fixed life.
I'm also reminded by your point re domestic production to wonder if PB has noticed (forgive me if it has) that HMG is also flogging off the national vaccine centre of excellence about which Mr Johnson et aliis bleated to a great degree - world beating, etc. etc.
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.
Homes will never be heated by solar in the UK. Heating is overwhelmingly needed in winter, when solar energy available is around 90% lower. Homes being cooled by solar is far more likely.
On bird killing by wind turbines I think that complaint is just a red herring and a rounding error, and a soundbite for activists who have no case left. 10-100k per annum in the UK vs an estimated 50 million killed by domestic cats; if you want to save birds, ban pussies. And tens of millions of songbirds caught by hunters especially in southern and eastern europe.
On efficiency, clearly it matters as twice the efficiency, or half the demand, reduces the amount of wind turbines or solar panels or whatever you need by 50%.
One of our aces in the hole as the UK is that our energy demand per pop is low compared to our peer countries.
On wind efficiency, offshore wine is about twice as efficient as onshore wind in the UK - roughly 50%+ vs 25-30%. We should not really need to be doing any onshore wind these days imo.
And solar is for roofs and perhaps airfields, not farms. Unless it can be shown to be combined with other suitable land uses.
offshore wine
I thought most was. I know we're making a lot more these days.....
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Tbf we consumed a lot of offshore wine on our last cruise.
(We also produced a lot of offshore wind but that's another story.)
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
An unkind person might say that it is unsurprising you're not interested in matters affecting womens' rights.
But I scroll past endless threads (never mind paragraphs) about Formula 1, cricket, football and rugby.
So we're evens I think.
In all honesty, I scrolled past it too. It's a subject I am interested in, up to a point, but my goodness your conversation was detailed. But, you know, I was genuinely pleased that two serious minded people were discussing it. Far better that than it not discussed at all or 'discussed' in the twitter sense. Similarly I have no interest in Formula 1 but it genuinely pleases me that to so many people such a (what I consider) niche sport is so important.
We all have our areas of interest. The remarkable thing is that so many do overlap.
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.
Homes will never be heated by solar in the UK. Heating is overwhelmingly needed in winter, when solar energy available is around 90% lower. Homes being cooled by solar is far more likely.
On bird killing by wind turbines I think that complaint is just a red herring and a rounding error, and a soundbite for activists who have no case left. 10-100k per annum in the UK vs an estimated 50 million killed by domestic cats; if you want to save birds, ban pussies. And tens of millions of songbirds caught by hunters especially in southern and eastern europe.
On efficiency, clearly it matters as twice the efficiency, or half the demand, reduces the amount of wind turbines or solar panels or whatever you need by 50%.
One of our aces in the hole as the UK is that our energy demand per pop is low compared to our peer countries.
On wind efficiency, offshore wine is about twice as efficient as onshore wind in the UK - roughly 50%+ vs 25-30%. We should not really need to be doing any onshore wind these days imo.
And solar is for roofs and perhaps airfields, not farms. Unless it can be shown to be combined with other suitable land uses.
On bird-killing, it's nuanced. Overall maybe not so significant, but badly sited windfarms can be very costly. In the US there has been examples of turbines placed on migration routes which have been pretty consequential for some species. And a badly sited windfarm in Norway had a disastrous impact on the local sea eagle population. So care is required.
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.
Homes will never be heated by solar in the UK. Heating is overwhelmingly needed in winter, when solar energy available is around 90% lower. Homes being cooled by solar is far more likely.
On bird killing by wind turbines I think that complaint is just a red herring and a rounding error, and a soundbite for activists who have no case left. 10-100k per annum in the UK vs an estimated 50 million killed by domestic cats; if you want to save birds, ban pussies. And tens of millions of songbirds caught by hunters especially in southern and eastern europe.
On efficiency, clearly it matters as twice the efficiency, or half the demand, reduces the amount of wind turbines or solar panels or whatever you need by 50%.
One of our aces in the hole as the UK is that our energy demand per pop is low compared to our peer countries.
On wind efficiency, offshore wine is about twice as efficient as onshore wind in the UK - roughly 50%+ vs 25-30%. We should not really need to be doing any onshore wind these days imo.
And solar is for roofs and perhaps airfields, not farms. Unless it can be shown to be combined with other suitable land uses.
Solar farms can work quite nicely in sunny spacious locations like Australia, Saudi Arabia or California.
Not the UK though. The UK is a wet and windy country needing heating not a dry sunny one needing air conditioning. So water and wind make sense for our energy far, far more than solar ever will - except as a nice toy for some to cut their bills.
There are proposals for a couple of quite sizeable ones in Suffolk which are stirring up a great deal of energy in themselves! Funny how the objectors in these cases tend to be elderly and have cut-glass accents. Don't sound 'Suffolk' at all.
I was told, when on holiday in Cornwall, that a bunch of incomers tried to shut down the china clay processing site at Par. They were apparently surprised by the local reaction.
Some years ago an elderly relative, who lived near Penzance, wanted to sell the static caravan in which he lived. I thought £2k scrap at max; however the estate agent said £45 'and settle for £40' ! I queried and he said, site value, and it's cheap. I asked how the local farmworkers and fisherfolk managed with those prices. He shrugged.
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
An unkind person might say that it is unsurprising you're not interested in matters affecting womens' rights.
But I scroll past endless threads (never mind paragraphs) about Formula 1, cricket, football and rugby.
So we're evens I think.
Anything from @Leon with 'lab leak' or 'woke' in the first sentence is an instant 'pass' for me.
Anyway my sore throat has now gone to my chest, which almost invariably happens. Bugger! I am wrapped up with so many layers. The heating has been off for ages now and is not getting switched back on for the foreseeable future.
How will people expected to work from home feel about their employers dumping them with the increased heating and lighting costs, I wonder? I'd be furious. I wonder if will make any change to those coming into the office.
Best wishes. If I were you I'd switch the heating back on and sod the expense.
The LD's may struggle to hold on to some of the MPs they already have. Farron, Stone & Chamberlain are all in trouble when the boundary changes are implemented.
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
An unkind person might say that it is unsurprising you're not interested in matters affecting womens' rights.
But I scroll past endless threads (never mind paragraphs) about Formula 1, cricket, football and rugby.
So we're evens I think.
What about Gardening Tips? 🙂
I tried growing dolphins, but I didn’t use multi porpoise compost ☹
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.
Homes will never be heated by solar in the UK. Heating is overwhelmingly needed in winter, when solar energy available is around 90% lower. Homes being cooled by solar is far more likely.
On bird killing by wind turbines I think that complaint is just a red herring and a rounding error, and a soundbite for activists who have no case left. 10-100k per annum in the UK vs an estimated 50 million killed by domestic cats; if you want to save birds, ban pussies. And tens of millions of songbirds caught by hunters especially in southern and eastern europe.
On efficiency, clearly it matters as twice the efficiency, or half the demand, reduces the amount of wind turbines or solar panels or whatever you need by 50%.
One of our aces in the hole as the UK is that our energy demand per pop is low compared to our peer countries.
On wind efficiency, offshore wine is about twice as efficient as onshore wind in the UK - roughly 50%+ vs 25-30%. We should not really need to be doing any onshore wind these days imo.
And solar is for roofs and perhaps airfields, not farms. Unless it can be shown to be combined with other suitable land uses.
Solar farms can work quite nicely in sunny spacious locations like Australia, Saudi Arabia or California.
Not the UK though. The UK is a wet and windy country needing heating not a dry sunny one needing air conditioning. So water and wind make sense for our energy far, far more than solar ever will - except as a nice toy for some to cut their bills.
There are proposals for a couple of quite sizeable ones in Suffolk which are stirring up a great deal of energy in themselves! Funny how the objectors in these cases tend to be elderly and have cut-glass accents. Don't sound 'Suffolk' at all.
I was told, when on holiday in Cornwall, that a bunch of incomers tried to shut down the china clay processing site at Par. They were apparently surprised by the local reaction.
At least that provides ongoing work (also in the pits and transport) - I'm not sure how much work a solar farm provides (cleaning the bird shite off the things?).
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
An unkind person might say that it is unsurprising you're not interested in matters affecting womens' rights.
But I scroll past endless threads (never mind paragraphs) about Formula 1, cricket, football and rugby.
So we're evens I think.
In all honesty, I scrolled past it too. It's a subject I am interested in, up to a point, but my goodness your conversation was detailed. But, you know, I was genuinely pleased that two serious minded people were discussing it. Far better that than it not discussed at all or 'discussed' in the twitter sense. Similarly I have no interest in Formula 1 but it genuinely pleases me that to so many people such a (what I consider) niche sport is so important.
We all have our areas of interest. The remarkable thing is that so many do overlap.
True. And it is what makes this site so interesting.
The subject is a complicated one which does not lend itself to slogans, which is how it is usually discussed and presented. If some realise this and on occasion look past the slogans it will have done some good.
I realised just now that there have been in one year 10 cases coming to court about this topic. Given the costs of doing so and the general difficulties of bringing cases (not just legally and financially but emotionally etc), that suggests to me a lot of discontent and concern brewing under the surface. What the impact will be is much less easy to tell but submarine issues have a way of exploding on the surface in unexpected ways and at unexpected times. Political parties would do well to engage with this a lot better than they have been doing.
Anyway I'm pleased to report that Stonewall's attempt to downgrade the status of Britain's Equalities and Human Rights Commission at the UN has failed.
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.
Homes will never be heated by solar in the UK. Heating is overwhelmingly needed in winter, when solar energy available is around 90% lower. Homes being cooled by solar is far more likely.
On bird killing by wind turbines I think that complaint is just a red herring and a rounding error, and a soundbite for activists who have no case left. 10-100k per annum in the UK vs an estimated 50 million killed by domestic cats; if you want to save birds, ban pussies. And tens of millions of songbirds caught by hunters especially in southern and eastern europe.
On efficiency, clearly it matters as twice the efficiency, or half the demand, reduces the amount of wind turbines or solar panels or whatever you need by 50%.
One of our aces in the hole as the UK is that our energy demand per pop is low compared to our peer countries.
On wind efficiency, offshore wine is about twice as efficient as onshore wind in the UK - roughly 50%+ vs 25-30%. We should not really need to be doing any onshore wind these days imo.
And solar is for roofs and perhaps airfields, not farms. Unless it can be shown to be combined with other suitable land uses.
Wind farm efficiency only really matters if there are ways to make them more efficient, or if they are so inefficient as to be economically unviable or carbon negative.
Given that none of these points are true, their efficiency doesn't really matter. It is what it is.
Having said that I can see no point in further onshore wind turbines when there is so much potential capacity for offshore around Britain.
The next step forward has to be industrialising a way to create hydrocarbon fuels using spare electricity generation capacity on windy days. In the absence of a leap forward in battery technology, I suspect hydrocarbons will become a de facto way of storing spare electricity.
Anecdotage, but the released candidates list for Aberdeenshire council is interesting. There are fewer Tory and SNP candidates than previously - and some other northern councils have not only seen people elected uncontested but some wards have fewer candidates than there are seats.
There does appear to be a real problem, a democratic deficit where councils get stymied by national government and fewer people want to get the grief that comes from cuts to services that you can't avoid.
The LD's may struggle to hold on to some of the MPs they already have. Farron, Stone & Chamberlain are all in trouble when the boundary changes are implemented.
Yes, and those LDs in Scotland listed could have been vulnerable regardless of boundary changes if the SNP just do a little bit better. And a couple of the current crop who won in massive by-election swings won't be easy to hold onto either.
Anyway my sore throat has now gone to my chest, which almost invariably happens. Bugger! I am wrapped up with so many layers. The heating has been off for ages now and is not getting switched back on for the foreseeable future.
How will people expected to work from home feel about their employers dumping them with the increased heating and lighting costs, I wonder? I'd be furious. I wonder if will make any change to those coming into the office.
And hasn't HMG axed the (small) tax relief for working from home?
If you cannot turn the heating on, you could look at those electric throws so you just heat you up, rather than the whole house.
How bloody hilarious that the Russians have been trying to pound Ukraine into submission, without regard for the laws of war or common humanity, for the last five weeks, and yet the moment they're given the smallest dose of their own medicine they start whining like a startled child.
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
An unkind person might say that it is unsurprising you're not interested in matters affecting womens' rights.
But I scroll past endless threads (never mind paragraphs) about Formula 1, cricket, football and rugby.
So we're evens I think.
In all honesty, I scrolled past it too. It's a subject I am interested in, up to a point, but my goodness your conversation was detailed. But, you know, I was genuinely pleased that two serious minded people were discussing it. Far better that than it not discussed at all or 'discussed' in the twitter sense. Similarly I have no interest in Formula 1 but it genuinely pleases me that to so many people such a (what I consider) niche sport is so important.
We all have our areas of interest. The remarkable thing is that so many do overlap.
Excellent post. Twice I have been criticized by HYUFD for banging on about a subject and once for ruining his evening for doing so because he felt compelled to respond. Apart from the obvious pot and kettle response the obvious answer was ignore me then, while I carry on my discussion with others. I read most threads (especially as I am currently laid up). I ignore stuff I'm not interested in. I read stuff I am interested in. I respond to a small subset of that latter group. However I'm glad others can have a discussion in stuff I don't care two hoots about.
How bloody hilarious that the Russians have been trying to pound Ukraine into submission, without regard for the laws of war or common humanity, for the last five weeks, and yet the moment they're given the smallest dose of their own medicine they start whining like a startled child.
There's a suggestion in the Guardian that the raid on the oil depot may actually have been a Russian mistake.
Comments
But they are not including in this ban the provision of therapy to children or others who may have gender disorder issues. This is sensible for several reasons:
1. Currently there has been a practice at the Tavistock of affirming any child claiming to be trans without exploring whether this is genuine or whether there may be other causes for the child's distress. As the Cass Report has said this is bad medical practice and the government does not want to include this sort of therapy in any ban. The EHRC has also advised caution.
2. It makes sense to wait for the final Cass Report before deciding what, if anything, should be done.
3. There are already a range of laws which can be used if anything untoward is done to a trans child. The attached thread from Nikki da Costa, a former government advisor, explains this quite well - https://twitter.com/nmdacosta/status/1509576587825627143?s=21&t=8bu9mtPRdOOQglHRyyGCGg.
TBH they had a bit charisma than Davey, too.
Either that or there was someone in the Press office who could write soundbites, and there isn't now.
Furthermore labour are not seeing a recovery in local election results so far
Tim Farron:
"Excited to announce that I will be hosting a ground-breaking new show on @GBNEWS where politicians will settle their differences by actually having a fight. ‘GBH with Tim Farron’ coming to your TV screens soon!"
Rory Stewart
"It is an honour to have been asked by the PM to serve as Director of Communications for No10 Downing Street. I am looking forward to working with the PM, Ministers and Members of Parliament on the issues that matter most to our country"
Not sure why they bother TBH. (Mebbe I'm just being grumpy?)
Must resist.
If every time you returned to your car it was fully charged, then that would be great.
You can't do that with a modern car, with the requirements for safety structure etc. There isn't enough incident light.
What has been done by a few people, is a solar panel to run the cars air conditioning unit at low power. So you can run the ac to keep your car cool while parked.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the tax rises and energy costs start to bite. It's important to note that the costs have not come in yet.
Beyond that it is also clear that Labour has work to do in recovering from 2019.
And combined Lab Lib Dem and green total is shrinking? 😕
Quite simply, you need to put the solar panels somewhere stationary and charge a battery in the car. This actually works - there are quite a few people in California (for example) who power their daily commute in the their Tesla entirely from solar panels on the their property.
Johnson very rarely sacks anyone anyway. Just remember how hard Gavin Williamson tried to get the boot, how many mistakes he had to make and it still took 2 years.
Even if they are not particularly funny they might welcome a chance to make a silly comment once a year.
I don't recall us wanting security clearances when the Ugandan Asians arrived.
(Although it should be noted the idea was decades old; it took recent improvements in chip tech to allow it to work.)
This should be aided by the onset of Spring and Summer
I am not downplaying this, but it is a serious problem for everyone in Europe, US and elsewhere and I do believe we need to support local charities as they assist in mitigating issues for those less well of, who by the way should have had more help from the chancellor
Davey sometimes gets 1. Sometimes.
I can also post a MoonRabbit post Felix and Marquee Mark may actually like. They have been pointing out to us the “spring statement” isn’t all that unpopular actually, now I have some anecdotal that agrees. I spoke to a Northern, moderate remain voting Conservative yesterday, my Dad. And he liked the budget.
What he particularly liked was it wasn’t a splurge budget but hold the ammo till you see the whites of the problems eyes budget. He said the criticism it wasn’t a splurge is economically illiterate, splurge at this moment makes it worse in long run, if it gets to stagflation, then spend some money you have saved, as stagflation is about demand not supply so you don’t tighten to deal with it but spend.
To qualify this, I’m sure a different type of economic thinker can come allowing to say that’s rubbish 😆
And I’m still a Libdem, so this government never do enough to help and so it was an abysmal budget. 😀
Does make me think, plus when you add how well Tories do at local byelections all year, maybe Labour and Libdems aren’t going to do as well as expectations on May 5th and Tories better than expectations.
PS he also said zero chance of a move against Boris any time soon 😕
I'd expect Labour to benefit if/when a period of 'normal' politics returns. But that is conditional on them setting out clear, attractive and feasible alternatives to the way that the current government is running the show. Frankly, that shouldn't be too difficult.
That countries didn't need to produce anything but could 'trade' for it from places like Russia or China - with the Osborne-Mandelson types getting a very nice commission.
That such things as energy or food were now trivialities compared to the overriding importance of moving money around.
But they don’t seem to be doing as well in local by elections now as before Christmas, nor averaging anywhere near 12% in the GE polls. 😕
Of course the situation would not be improved if someone else was Leader, although getting someone onto some of the chat shows (etc) regularly would help.
But then the full experience kicks in. I use an LG ultrawide monitor with a single USB-C lead connected and more ports on the back of the screen. LG and MS haven't bothered to release drivers (for a monitor FFS) for W11 so when my Surface Pro 8 goes into standby I have unplug and replug the monitor to get the ports to work.
The work-around is tell it not to go into standby when plugged-in. Which I have. It goes into standby anyway sometimes, stays alive as demanded other times. Its the random stupidity that bugs me - always was the problem with Windows and clearly no signs of resolving that.
Up here, they like them local and will keep voting them in mostly forever... Though the SNP rain fell on the just and the unjust alike.
To power daily usage takes a large area of solar panels. Some people in sunny California have done this - the power from their panels is stored in a battery and then used to charge their electric car.
That you can power a phone with 4x the screen size etc but it lasts the same time and doesn't take any longer to charge is a vast improvement.
It gives me no clue as to what will be lawful and what will be a crime. I suspect this is an impossible task.
Conservative share as follows
33% x 2
34% x 2
35% x 13
36% x 4
37% x 2
In this climate that is consistent, and labour shares seem to move according to lib dems and green's share
I stand to be corrected but during march there was little evidence of labour performing well in locals but of course the lib dems most certainly did
It must also be remembered that from today the minimum wage rises by 6.5% to £9.50 and benefits increase by 3.1% so most will see an increase in their income, but of course not at a level to match inflation and the energy price crisis
On bird killing by wind turbines I think that complaint is just a red herring and a rounding error, and a soundbite for activists who have no case left. 10-100k per annum in the UK vs an estimated 50 million killed by domestic cats; if you want to save birds, ban pussies. And tens of millions of songbirds caught by hunters especially in southern and eastern europe.
(https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/how-many-birds-are-killed-by-wind-turbines-in-the-uk/)
(That latter:https://www.komitee.de/en/campaigns-and-operations/international-projects/bird-hunting-bag-statistics-in-europe/)
On efficiency, clearly it matters as twice the efficiency, or half the demand, reduces the amount of wind turbines or solar panels or whatever you need by 50%.
One of our aces in the hole as the UK is that our energy demand per pop is low compared to our peer countries.
On wind efficiency, offshore wine is about twice as efficient as onshore wind in the UK - roughly 50%+ vs 25-30%. We should not really need to be doing any onshore wind these days imo.
And solar is for roofs and perhaps airfields, not farms. Unless it can be shown to be combined with other suitable land uses.
That's the sort of election the Tories have in mind. They'll seek to paint Labour, in an impressionistic way rather than based on official policy positions, as unsafe on traditional values, and other parties on the centre left as enablers of this. This, plus "vote Starmer get Sturgeon" is going to be the Tory pitch. It's unedifying but they have no choice, really, because with their Brexitification, and the man they've embraced as leader, on most substantial issues they've become, not to put too fine a point on it, intellectually vacant.
I thought most was. I know we're making a lot more these days.....
(Sorry, couldn't resist.)
Not the UK though. The UK is a wet and windy country needing heating not a dry sunny one needing air conditioning. So water and wind make sense for our energy far, far more than solar ever will - except as a nice toy for some to cut their bills.
The last I heard our local rump * LDs had topped themselves so effectively with their EU obsession that they have been merged with the Mansfield branch.
* The ones who listened to the locals are now called the Ashfield Independents and run the place.
Con lead in April 63% no 42% yes
So is it dropping then?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dhsc-excess-personal-protective-equipment-ppe-for-sale
Let's hope they remember to keep some stockpiled for next time!
That's why a lot of sensible people think Combi boilers have always been a bad idea, and use a system boiler and a separate water tank.
(As a side-note, I think intra-seasonal energy storage at a domestic scale is now dead, and GSHPs are an anachronism for very unusual circs.)
Funny how the objectors in these cases tend to be elderly and have cut-glass accents. Don't sound 'Suffolk' at all.
Lab: 37% (n/c from 23-24 Mar)
Con: 33% (-2)
Lib Dem: 9% (-1)
Green: 6% (-1)
Reform UK: 5% (+1)
SNP: 6% (+2)
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2022/04/01/voting-intention-con-33-lab-37-29-30-mar?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Website_article&utm_campaign=Voting_intention https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1509827024260677659/photo/1
With lots of nice profits for the middle men.
But I scroll past endless threads (never mind paragraphs) about Formula 1, cricket, football and rugby.
So we're evens I think.
The current disposable stuff ends up with staff wearing multiple items, masks, eye shield etc with gaps everywhere. Simply getting it on and off must be a pain.
Against a bug that is truly airborne, this will be less than perfect, as well.
There should be a other look at the modern capabilities of re-usable systems and more integrated systems - as part of package of capabilities.
The polls average is surely getting closer, it may not even be a rogue poll but a series of con leads from several
I think we are at approx 50:50 onshore:offshore wind at present.
That will tip decisively this year as there is about £7 billion of offshore wind investment over 10 years joining the grid this year. Plus a similar amount next year, and iirc the year after, and the year after that aiui.
That represents about 7-11 GW of capacity coming on stream by 2026, an increase of 100-150% over 2020. One or two projects are not yet firmed up.
7-11GW of offshore wind capacity is an extra 12-16% of current electricity usage in the UK. Quite something.
https://twitter.com/ThomasVLinge/status/1509821677005422594
How will people expected to work from home feel about their employers dumping them with the increased heating and lighting costs, I wonder? I'd be furious. I wonder if will make any change to those coming into the office.
Where's Will and Chris; the when I was a lad I gave someone a shellacking; the did the cabinet minister want to be addressed as he/she/they...
I'm going back to the DM's sidebar of shame for some proper analysis.
I'm also reminded by your point re domestic production to wonder if PB has noticed (forgive me if it has) that HMG is also flogging off the national vaccine centre of excellence about which Mr Johnson et aliis bleated to a great degree - world beating, etc. etc.
https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj-2022-069999
(We also produced a lot of offshore wind but that's another story.)
But, you know, I was genuinely pleased that two serious minded people were discussing it. Far better that than it not discussed at all or 'discussed' in the twitter sense.
Similarly I have no interest in Formula 1 but it genuinely pleases me that to so many people such a (what I consider) niche sport is so important.
We all have our areas of interest. The remarkable thing is that so many do overlap.
I queried and he said, site value, and it's cheap. I asked how the local farmworkers and fisherfolk managed with those prices. He shrugged.
I tried growing dolphins, but I didn’t use multi porpoise compost ☹
The subject is a complicated one which does not lend itself to slogans, which is how it is usually discussed and presented. If some realise this and on occasion look past the slogans it will have done some good.
I realised just now that there have been in one year 10 cases coming to court about this topic. Given the costs of doing so and the general difficulties of bringing cases (not just legally and financially but emotionally etc), that suggests to me a lot of discontent and concern brewing under the surface. What the impact will be is much less easy to tell but submarine issues have a way of exploding on the surface in unexpected ways and at unexpected times. Political parties would do well to engage with this a lot better than they have been doing.
Anyway I'm pleased to report that Stonewall's attempt to downgrade the status of Britain's Equalities and Human Rights Commission at the UN has failed.
Given that none of these points are true, their efficiency doesn't really matter. It is what it is.
Having said that I can see no point in further onshore wind turbines when there is so much potential capacity for offshore around Britain.
The next step forward has to be industrialising a way to create hydrocarbon fuels using spare electricity generation capacity on windy days. In the absence of a leap forward in battery technology, I suspect hydrocarbons will become a de facto way of storing spare electricity.
There does appear to be a real problem, a democratic deficit where councils get stymied by national government and fewer people want to get the grief that comes from cuts to services that you can't avoid.
If you cannot turn the heating on, you could look at those electric throws so you just heat you up, rather than the whole house.