Robert Peston @Peston · 2h Political expediency and economic reality are about to collide in the most painful way for Boris Johnson and his government. It is not hyperbole to say this feels like an emergency.
All these numbers, percentages, etc. are balls. Nobody has any fucking idea what's going to happen.
Went to see Top Gun 2 yesterday. I'd assumed Cruise at 59 would be over the hill but he absolutely isn't. At one juncture he got into an old rustbucket of an F14 and took out 3 Russian state of the art hypersonic fighter planes in a dogfight. He also flew 50 miles at altitude 100 feet at Mach 10. My palms were sweating just sitting there!
Plenty of reviews on the web by Top Guns. All (that I've seen) very positive.
What's interesting with onshore wind is the very differing regional variations for it.
Drive along the M56 and there are a lot of wind turbines available, especially around Runcorn. Along the M58 there is a fair amount too.
Drive along the M6, especially north of Preston, and its much, much rarer in comparison.
Areas that were used to lots of industry seem to have absolutely no qualms with turbines.
For me, I love onshore wind turbines. They're just a part of the background, like power pylons, but they look nice too. Especially compared to the alternative, I used to have to drive past Fiddlers Ferry power station on a daily basis and my car would turn from red to grey due to the amount of emissions from the power station that would land on my car. That can't be good for your breath either, I'd assume. So that area being covered in turbines rather than Fiddlers Ferry operating is a mammoth improvement. 👍
Solve the intermittency problem, and you can build all the wind turbines you want.
Right now you can't.
What intermittency problem?
As it stands 100% of the energy produced is able to be either consumed, stored or exported - and its economically far, far cheaper than either gas or coal. Even before the recent commodity spike in costs it already was, now its even cheaper.
So how is that a problem? If we were generating energy we couldn't use, that'd be a problem, but we're not.
Er....sometimes the wind doesn't blow, and the turbines don't go around. But we still need the electricity.....??
The Telegraph reckons if we get a wind drought of the order of some of the recent ones, then we are looking at blackouts this winter. That's why Kwarteng is leaning on some existing power sources not to shut down.
When the turbines can store some of the energy during windy times, via green ammonia or new battery technology that does not exist yet, then you will have a strong case.
Intermittancy is only a true issue if there's a day when ~100% of generation is being produced by turbines as excess on that day will be 'wasted'. We haven't built enough to run into that issue yet.
Intermittency is a massive issue if we bet the house on wind, and shut down much more reliable sources of energy by fiat. Which is what we are doing. Or what we were doing.
Now we have the spectacle of green warriors like Biden chiding companies for not producing enough energy of a type he wants to phase out.
Imagine vegans in a famine situation chiding farmers for not producing enough lamb and beef to feed people. That's where we are.
The upping of the state pension and the removal of limits on rich bankers' pay seems utterly tone deaf from the Government.
Are they trying to lose?
Pensioners and bankers are the Tory core vote. No real surprise
Then the Tories deserve to lose.
The more you speak for the Tories, the more I think maybe I should actually just vote Labour, if you represent the Tories. And I despise Labour, but not as much as what you want to stand for.
Really? You even voted for Labour in 2001 when I voted Tory
Yes, because I'm a sentient human who has principles and thinks about why I should vote. Those principles generally align with the Tories more, but if they don't, then the Tories don't deserve my vote.
I don't just vote for a monkey with a blue rosette, and I don't put party before country.
Oh, and don't forget, you lost in 2001. 😕
Barty, I can’t stand your ideology, but I do admire your principles.
He changes them more often than his panties.
That's not true, unless he has very poor personal hygiene. He is a remarkably consistent Liberal Libertarian Free Marketeer. If anything I would fault him with being too consistent in his worldview, because reality is more complicated than that.
He is full of mince
Is that a good thing? Like a well-filled pasty, juicy and tasty?
The upping of the state pension and the removal of limits on rich bankers' pay seems utterly tone deaf from the Government.
Are they trying to lose?
Pensioners and bankers are the Tory core vote. No real surprise
Then the Tories deserve to lose.
The more you speak for the Tories, the more I think maybe I should actually just vote Labour, if you represent the Tories. And I despise Labour, but not as much as what you want to stand for.
Really? You even voted for Labour in 2001 when I voted Tory
Yes, because I'm a sentient human who has principles and thinks about why I should vote. Those principles generally align with the Tories more, but if they don't, then the Tories don't deserve my vote.
I don't just vote for a monkey with a blue rosette, and I don't put party before country.
Oh, and don't forget, you lost in 2001. 😕
Still proves you wrong when you said 'I despise Labour' given you even voted for Labour at the 2001 general election
No, it doesn't, since I'm not the same person I was in 2001, Labour isn't the same as it was in 2001, Starmer is not Blair etc
Time's change, and when they do, you need to change with them. Oh, and its possible to despise something, but think the alternative is even worse.
I voted Lab in 97 but in 2001 I could see the warning signs that all the power was turning Tone's head so I sat on my hands.
In 2005 I went for the Lib-Dems (Iraq) and have voted Con in 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019 elections (as well as NO to AV and LEAVE)
Think I have a pretty good record of picking the winning side there lol!
But it's true. I think increasingly people will change their voting patterns from election to election depending on the circumstances of the day. Someone like @HYUFD who will vote for "the party" come what may is increasingly the exception to the norm... As the old left/right divide has broken down post 1989 people are much more expendable with their votes.
In my experience, people vote based on:
- Personal identity (ie: "We're Labour in this house"/"True Blue Tory; always have been") - Habit - Party perceived ideology/stance - Party record and expectation - Party leadership and perceived competence - Expectation as to which party can win - One or two specific policies they like - Keep out the other buggers - The person running for MP/re-election
There's then a long swathe of sunlight down to: - All the specific policies and complete platform
(Not to mean these are to be forgotten about. Voters like to feel that the parties have got a full suite of specific policies and a platform, even if they're not usually front and centre in the mind. This, though, is the bit that parties tend to focus on afterwards in saying they have a mandate for whatever)
Those nine main drivers vary from person to person. In HYUFD, the first is pretty much all. In most other people, their importance can wax and wane over time and different areas become more important and people can change the ideology/stance they're after, their expectations, and so on. And the parties themselves change under ideology/stance, record/expectation and leadersgip/competence especially, and the one or two specific policies they champion. There's absolutely nothing at all wrong with responding to those changes, or to having ones' own priorities and drivers vary in magnitude and direction over the years.
@MattW Gov't needs to go further and faster on offshore wind too, but omitting onshore wind from their plans (As they are generally doing) is an error. I'm not even looking at this from a green perspective tbh.
What's interesting with onshore wind is the very differing regional variations for it.
Drive along the M56 and there are a lot of wind turbines available, especially around Runcorn. Along the M58 there is a fair amount too.
Drive along the M6, especially north of Preston, and its much, much rarer in comparison.
Areas that were used to lots of industry seem to have absolutely no qualms with turbines.
For me, I love onshore wind turbines. They're just a part of the background, like power pylons, but they look nice too. Especially compared to the alternative, I used to have to drive past Fiddlers Ferry power station on a daily basis and my car would turn from red to grey due to the amount of emissions from the power station that would land on my car. That can't be good for your breath either, I'd assume. So that area being covered in turbines rather than Fiddlers Ferry operating is a mammoth improvement. 👍
Solve the intermittency problem, and you can build all the wind turbines you want.
Right now you can't.
What intermittency problem?
As it stands 100% of the energy produced is able to be either consumed, stored or exported - and its economically far, far cheaper than either gas or coal. Even before the recent commodity spike in costs it already was, now its even cheaper.
So how is that a problem? If we were generating energy we couldn't use, that'd be a problem, but we're not.
I agree, this is one of those canards that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Wind is so much cheaper than say nuclear that we could build 5x as much capacity as we have now, and afford to keep the majority of turbines idle during windy days (or more likely, sell the wind to neighbouring countries).
The best solution to intermittency, alongside storage of course, is greater and deeper integration of regional electricity grids and more interconnectors.
Solar is one where local storage makes a lot of economic sense because it's short term storage - maximum a day's worth of charge at a time.
What's interesting with onshore wind is the very differing regional variations for it.
Drive along the M56 and there are a lot of wind turbines available, especially around Runcorn. Along the M58 there is a fair amount too.
Drive along the M6, especially north of Preston, and its much, much rarer in comparison.
Areas that were used to lots of industry seem to have absolutely no qualms with turbines.
For me, I love onshore wind turbines. They're just a part of the background, like power pylons, but they look nice too. Especially compared to the alternative, I used to have to drive past Fiddlers Ferry power station on a daily basis and my car would turn from red to grey due to the amount of emissions from the power station that would land on my car. That can't be good for your breath either, I'd assume. So that area being covered in turbines rather than Fiddlers Ferry operating is a mammoth improvement. 👍
Solve the intermittency problem, and you can build all the wind turbines you want.
Right now you can't.
What intermittency problem?
As it stands 100% of the energy produced is able to be either consumed, stored or exported - and its economically far, far cheaper than either gas or coal. Even before the recent commodity spike in costs it already was, now its even cheaper.
So how is that a problem? If we were generating energy we couldn't use, that'd be a problem, but we're not.
Er....sometimes the wind doesn't blow, and the turbines don't go around. But we still need the electricity.....??
The Telegraph reckons if we get a wind drought of the order of some of the recent ones, then we are looking at blackouts this winter. That's why Kwarteng is leaning on some existing power sources not to shut down.
When the turbines can store some of the energy during windy times, via green ammonia or new battery technology that does not exist yet, then you will have a strong case.
Intermittancy is only a true issue if there's a day when ~100% of generation is being produced by turbines as excess on that day will be 'wasted'. We haven't built enough to run into that issue yet.
Intermittency is a massive issue if we bet the house on wind, and shut down much more reliable sources of energy by fiat. Which is what we are doing. Or what we were doing.
Now we have the spectacle of green warriors like Biden chiding companies for not producing enough energy of a type he wants to phase out.
Imagine vegans in a famine situation chiding farmers for not producing enough lamb and beef to feed people. That's where we are.
There is a meme going around on FB about vegans going to have the time of their lives at Glasto, a working dairy farm.
What's interesting with onshore wind is the very differing regional variations for it.
Drive along the M56 and there are a lot of wind turbines available, especially around Runcorn. Along the M58 there is a fair amount too.
Drive along the M6, especially north of Preston, and its much, much rarer in comparison.
Areas that were used to lots of industry seem to have absolutely no qualms with turbines.
For me, I love onshore wind turbines. They're just a part of the background, like power pylons, but they look nice too. Especially compared to the alternative, I used to have to drive past Fiddlers Ferry power station on a daily basis and my car would turn from red to grey due to the amount of emissions from the power station that would land on my car. That can't be good for your breath either, I'd assume. So that area being covered in turbines rather than Fiddlers Ferry operating is a mammoth improvement. 👍
Once you continue on to the M74/A74(M) in Dumfries and Galloway there are lots of wind turbines again.
Apparently there are parts of the country where you can blight the hills with sheep, but it's completely forbidden to add a few graceful wind turbines.
It's not the turbines that are the issue usually it's the wire wiring them up to the grid...
Interesting. What's the problem? Do pylons not work on hills?
From memory anything new needs to be completely underground if within a National Park - I would check but Mrs Eek is away this week on holiday.
What's interesting with onshore wind is the very differing regional variations for it.
Drive along the M56 and there are a lot of wind turbines available, especially around Runcorn. Along the M58 there is a fair amount too.
Drive along the M6, especially north of Preston, and its much, much rarer in comparison.
Areas that were used to lots of industry seem to have absolutely no qualms with turbines.
For me, I love onshore wind turbines. They're just a part of the background, like power pylons, but they look nice too. Especially compared to the alternative, I used to have to drive past Fiddlers Ferry power station on a daily basis and my car would turn from red to grey due to the amount of emissions from the power station that would land on my car. That can't be good for your breath either, I'd assume. So that area being covered in turbines rather than Fiddlers Ferry operating is a mammoth improvement. 👍
Solve the intermittency problem, and you can build all the wind turbines you want.
Right now you can't.
What intermittency problem?
As it stands 100% of the energy produced is able to be either consumed, stored or exported - and its economically far, far cheaper than either gas or coal. Even before the recent commodity spike in costs it already was, now its even cheaper.
So how is that a problem? If we were generating energy we couldn't use, that'd be a problem, but we're not.
Er....sometimes the wind doesn't blow, and the turbines don't go around. But we still need the electricity.....??
The Telegraph reckons if we get a wind drought of the order of some of the recent ones, then we are looking at blackouts this winter. That's why Kwarteng is leaning on some existing power sources not to shut down.
When the turbines can store some of the energy during windy times, via green ammonia or new battery technology that does not exist yet, then you will have a strong case.
But how is that a problem?
We already have a strong case, because wind is so cheap. When wind is blowing, you can use wind, when wind isn't blowing, you can use gas, but wind is far cheaper than gas.
Having gas etc available as a backup when wind isn't blowing is only logical, but that's not a reason to use the far more expensive gas all the time, rather than using the far cheaper wind when it is blowing now, is it?
In the longer term if you wish to eliminate CCGT's then you'll need a viable alternative, but in the shorter term there is literally no reason not to be using the much cheaper onshore wind.
The government's has a net zero by 2050 target though and that entails having precisely zero gas backup. Or oil backup. Or coal backup. or any backup except solar and nuclear??
Its not going to be anywhere near enough. Its not in the same ballpark as enough.
Robert Peston @Peston · 2h Political expediency and economic reality are about to collide in the most painful way for Boris Johnson and his government. It is not hyperbole to say this feels like an emergency.
All these numbers, percentages, etc. are balls. Nobody has any fucking idea what's going to happen.
Went to see Top Gun 2 yesterday. I'd assumed Cruise at 59 would be over the hill but he absolutely isn't. At one juncture he got into an old rustbucket of an F14 and took out 3 Russian state of the art hypersonic fighter planes in a dogfight. He also flew 50 miles at altitude 100 feet at Mach 10. My palms were sweating just sitting there!
Russian? I thought they were extremely careful not to disclose the nationality of the bad guys. I did like the dark helmets the bad guys were using. Looked pretty cool (and hid their ethnicity). Maybe a bit too dark though, as they didn't seem to be able to see very well to fire at Cruise.
Also. Rooster - WTF? Gosling was right there (and no more lame than Rooster or Goose)
Edit: Or were they Russian-made planes? With undisclosed nationality of owner.
True. They 'felt' Russian to me but it wasn't said that they were.
Yes those "callsigns" - you can't fly a jet without one. Mine would be Bubbles.
"Bubbles, you're leading the way on this one. You ready for that?"
What's interesting with onshore wind is the very differing regional variations for it.
Drive along the M56 and there are a lot of wind turbines available, especially around Runcorn. Along the M58 there is a fair amount too.
Drive along the M6, especially north of Preston, and its much, much rarer in comparison.
Areas that were used to lots of industry seem to have absolutely no qualms with turbines.
For me, I love onshore wind turbines. They're just a part of the background, like power pylons, but they look nice too. Especially compared to the alternative, I used to have to drive past Fiddlers Ferry power station on a daily basis and my car would turn from red to grey due to the amount of emissions from the power station that would land on my car. That can't be good for your breath either, I'd assume. So that area being covered in turbines rather than Fiddlers Ferry operating is a mammoth improvement. 👍
Solve the intermittency problem, and you can build all the wind turbines you want.
Right now you can't.
What intermittency problem?
As it stands 100% of the energy produced is able to be either consumed, stored or exported - and its economically far, far cheaper than either gas or coal. Even before the recent commodity spike in costs it already was, now its even cheaper.
So how is that a problem? If we were generating energy we couldn't use, that'd be a problem, but we're not.
Er....sometimes the wind doesn't blow, and the turbines don't go around. But we still need the electricity.....??
The Telegraph reckons if we get a wind drought of the order of some of the recent ones, then we are looking at blackouts this winter. That's why Kwarteng is leaning on some existing power sources not to shut down.
When the turbines can store some of the energy during windy times, via green ammonia or new battery technology that does not exist yet, then you will have a strong case.
But how is that a problem?
We already have a strong case, because wind is so cheap. When wind is blowing, you can use wind, when wind isn't blowing, you can use gas, but wind is far cheaper than gas.
Having gas etc available as a backup when wind isn't blowing is only logical, but that's not a reason to use the far more expensive gas all the time, rather than using the far cheaper wind when it is blowing now, is it?
In the longer term if you wish to eliminate CCGT's then you'll need a viable alternative, but in the shorter term there is literally no reason not to be using the much cheaper onshore wind.
The government's has a net zero by 2050 target though and that entails having precisely zero gas backup. Or oil backup. Or coal backup. or any backup except solar and nuclear??
Its not going to be anywhere near enough. Its not in the same ballpark as enough.
Is the carbon capture plan dead?
There was a plan for a pipeline from a gas plant here but the idea fell through (too expensive, I suspect).
Interesting situation in Power Supply this morning. In the UK:
Fr has once again maxed out electricity imports from UK at 2GW. Has been the case throughout this year so far. To do with very old nuclear reactors in Fr; half turned off for maintenance.
Also interesting to note that the UK is generating 3% from coal - that is afaik all the coal generation we have left. In addition to 5.5% of supply from UK, Fr also importing 5.2% from De.
Suggests UK currently preferred to De in prevailing conditions, has De has more links available. Impacted by EDF owning UK-Fr links (if they do?)?
This is apparently more to do with gas supply than the French nuclear reactors, or any preference for using British supply over German.
Ever since the start of the war there's been more LNG import into the UK, but we only have limited gas pipeline capacity to send that to Europe. So we're converting it to electricity and sending the electricity to the continent instead, thus displacing continental gas use.
This then means we're more likely to need our leftover coal plants to make up the deficit when the wind isn't blowing.
Variations in French-German supply are mostly driven by variations in German wind generation.
Gas interconnectors carry far greater energy capacity that Electricity Interconnectors, but then I use 6-8x as much energy from gas as I do from electricity in my house.
Our two gas interconnectors to the continent carry about 6-8x as much energy capacity as do our 7.5GW or so of electricity interconnectors. If my approx maths is right.
Interesting situation in Power Supply this morning. In the UK:
Fr has once again maxed out electricity imports from UK at 2GW. Has been the case throughout this year so far. To do with very old nuclear reactors in Fr; half turned off for maintenance.
Also interesting to note that the UK is generating 3% from coal - that is afaik all the coal generation we have left. In addition to 5.5% of supply from UK, Fr also importing 5.2% from De.
Suggests UK currently preferred to De in prevailing conditions, has De has more links available. Impacted by EDF owning UK-Fr links (if they do?)?
This is apparently more to do with gas supply than the French nuclear reactors, or any preference for using British supply over German.
Ever since the start of the war there's been more LNG import into the UK, but we only have limited gas pipeline capacity to send that to Europe. So we're converting it to electricity and sending the electricity to the continent instead, thus displacing continental gas use.
This then means we're more likely to need our leftover coal plants to make up the deficit when the wind isn't blowing.
Variations in French-German supply are mostly driven by variations in German wind generation.
Gas interconnectors carry far greater energy capacity that Electricity Interconnectors, but then I use 6-8x as much energy from gas as I do from electricity in my house.
Our two gas interconnectors to the continent carry about 6-8x as much energy capacity as do our 7.5GW or so of electricity interconnectors. If my approx maths is right.
Why are you talking about gas? The government has a net zero by 2050 policy. That means no gas. No oil. No coal. And soon.
What's interesting with onshore wind is the very differing regional variations for it.
Drive along the M56 and there are a lot of wind turbines available, especially around Runcorn. Along the M58 there is a fair amount too.
Drive along the M6, especially north of Preston, and its much, much rarer in comparison.
Areas that were used to lots of industry seem to have absolutely no qualms with turbines.
For me, I love onshore wind turbines. They're just a part of the background, like power pylons, but they look nice too. Especially compared to the alternative, I used to have to drive past Fiddlers Ferry power station on a daily basis and my car would turn from red to grey due to the amount of emissions from the power station that would land on my car. That can't be good for your breath either, I'd assume. So that area being covered in turbines rather than Fiddlers Ferry operating is a mammoth improvement. 👍
Solve the intermittency problem, and you can build all the wind turbines you want.
Right now you can't.
What intermittency problem?
As it stands 100% of the energy produced is able to be either consumed, stored or exported - and its economically far, far cheaper than either gas or coal. Even before the recent commodity spike in costs it already was, now its even cheaper.
So how is that a problem? If we were generating energy we couldn't use, that'd be a problem, but we're not.
Er....sometimes the wind doesn't blow, and the turbines don't go around. But we still need the electricity.....??
The Telegraph reckons if we get a wind drought of the order of some of the recent ones, then we are looking at blackouts this winter. That's why Kwarteng is leaning on some existing power sources not to shut down.
When the turbines can store some of the energy during windy times, via green ammonia or new battery technology that does not exist yet, then you will have a strong case.
But how is that a problem?
We already have a strong case, because wind is so cheap. When wind is blowing, you can use wind, when wind isn't blowing, you can use gas, but wind is far cheaper than gas.
Having gas etc available as a backup when wind isn't blowing is only logical, but that's not a reason to use the far more expensive gas all the time, rather than using the far cheaper wind when it is blowing now, is it?
In the longer term if you wish to eliminate CCGT's then you'll need a viable alternative, but in the shorter term there is literally no reason not to be using the much cheaper onshore wind.
The government's has a net zero by 2050 target though and that entails having precisely zero gas backup. Or oil backup. Or coal backup. or any backup except solar and nuclear??
Its not going to be anywhere near enough. Its not in the same ballpark as enough.
By 2050, yes. We aren't in 2050, we're in 2022.
By 2050 there will be lots more energy storage, some is already getting built and much more is being developed. There will be TWh of storage from electric vehicles alone, and if homes have their own storage each (increasingly cheap and common, especially if used in conjunction with electric vehicles) then that will expand storage even more. So by 2050 its certainly plausible we can be using wind energy when the wind isn't blowing.
In the meantime though, in 2022, we can use wind instead of gas when the wind is blowing. Agreed?
What's interesting with onshore wind is the very differing regional variations for it.
Drive along the M56 and there are a lot of wind turbines available, especially around Runcorn. Along the M58 there is a fair amount too.
Drive along the M6, especially north of Preston, and its much, much rarer in comparison.
Areas that were used to lots of industry seem to have absolutely no qualms with turbines.
For me, I love onshore wind turbines. They're just a part of the background, like power pylons, but they look nice too. Especially compared to the alternative, I used to have to drive past Fiddlers Ferry power station on a daily basis and my car would turn from red to grey due to the amount of emissions from the power station that would land on my car. That can't be good for your breath either, I'd assume. So that area being covered in turbines rather than Fiddlers Ferry operating is a mammoth improvement. 👍
Solve the intermittency problem, and you can build all the wind turbines you want.
Right now you can't.
What intermittency problem?
As it stands 100% of the energy produced is able to be either consumed, stored or exported - and its economically far, far cheaper than either gas or coal. Even before the recent commodity spike in costs it already was, now its even cheaper.
So how is that a problem? If we were generating energy we couldn't use, that'd be a problem, but we're not.
Er....sometimes the wind doesn't blow, and the turbines don't go around. But we still need the electricity.....??
The Telegraph reckons if we get a wind drought of the order of some of the recent ones, then we are looking at blackouts this winter. That's why Kwarteng is leaning on some existing power sources not to shut down.
When the turbines can store some of the energy during windy times, via green ammonia or new battery technology that does not exist yet, then you will have a strong case.
But how is that a problem?
We already have a strong case, because wind is so cheap. When wind is blowing, you can use wind, when wind isn't blowing, you can use gas, but wind is far cheaper than gas.
Having gas etc available as a backup when wind isn't blowing is only logical, but that's not a reason to use the far more expensive gas all the time, rather than using the far cheaper wind when it is blowing now, is it?
In the longer term if you wish to eliminate CCGT's then you'll need a viable alternative, but in the shorter term there is literally no reason not to be using the much cheaper onshore wind.
The government's has a net zero by 2050 target though and that entails having precisely zero gas backup. Or oil backup. Or coal backup. or any backup except solar and nuclear??
Its not going to be anywhere near enough. Its not in the same ballpark as enough.
The real issue is that governments, the standing bureaucracies, the international organisations are completely wedded to “Net Zero by date X” ideology, to be able to deviate from it even when there’s a war in Europe and petrol is knocking on £2 a litre.
To these people, the more expensive the petrol the better, not properly understanding the effects on society of such high prices.
What's interesting with onshore wind is the very differing regional variations for it.
Drive along the M56 and there are a lot of wind turbines available, especially around Runcorn. Along the M58 there is a fair amount too.
Drive along the M6, especially north of Preston, and its much, much rarer in comparison.
Areas that were used to lots of industry seem to have absolutely no qualms with turbines.
For me, I love onshore wind turbines. They're just a part of the background, like power pylons, but they look nice too. Especially compared to the alternative, I used to have to drive past Fiddlers Ferry power station on a daily basis and my car would turn from red to grey due to the amount of emissions from the power station that would land on my car. That can't be good for your breath either, I'd assume. So that area being covered in turbines rather than Fiddlers Ferry operating is a mammoth improvement. 👍
Solve the intermittency problem, and you can build all the wind turbines you want.
Right now you can't.
What intermittency problem?
As it stands 100% of the energy produced is able to be either consumed, stored or exported - and its economically far, far cheaper than either gas or coal. Even before the recent commodity spike in costs it already was, now its even cheaper.
So how is that a problem? If we were generating energy we couldn't use, that'd be a problem, but we're not.
Er....sometimes the wind doesn't blow, and the turbines don't go around. But we still need the electricity.....??
The Telegraph reckons if we get a wind drought of the order of some of the recent ones, then we are looking at blackouts this winter. That's why Kwarteng is leaning on some existing power sources not to shut down.
When the turbines can store some of the energy during windy times, via green ammonia or new battery technology that does not exist yet, then you will have a strong case.
Intermittancy is only a true issue if there's a day when ~100% of generation is being produced by turbines as excess on that day will be 'wasted'. We haven't built enough to run into that issue yet.
Intermittency is a massive issue if we bet the house on wind, and shut down much more reliable sources of energy by fiat. Which is what we are doing. Or what we were doing.
Now we have the spectacle of green warriors like Biden chiding companies for not producing enough energy of a type he wants to phase out.
Imagine vegans in a famine situation chiding farmers for not producing enough lamb and beef to feed people. That's where we are.
There is a meme going around on FB about vegans going to have the time of their lives at Glasto, a working dairy farm.
I was under the impression that lamb does tend to use grass primarily and on land not much use for other things (or in crop rotation, at least here) whereas beef relies much more on grain etc.
Robert Peston @Peston · 2h Political expediency and economic reality are about to collide in the most painful way for Boris Johnson and his government. It is not hyperbole to say this feels like an emergency.
All these numbers, percentages, etc. are balls. Nobody has any fucking idea what's going to happen.
Went to see Top Gun 2 yesterday. I'd assumed Cruise at 59 would be over the hill but he absolutely isn't. At one juncture he got into an old rustbucket of an F14 and took out 3 Russian state of the art hypersonic fighter planes in a dogfight. He also flew 50 miles at altitude 100 feet at Mach 10. My palms were sweating just sitting there!
Rustbucket! Disrespectful. She was the best.
I have not seen it but everyone on the F-14 crew FB group says it's crap.
For me (and I could be in a minority of one), I feel that Starmer's problem is the lack of an alternative programme for Government. I know that there is a concern that the policies could be nicked, but frankly that isn't going to cut any ice with voters, because we could argue that if Labour genuinely cared, they would want their policy to be nicked, and therefore implemented immediately, in the interests of the country. I don't really see the downside of a policy being stolen anyway. If it works you can claim credit; if it fails it's the Government's fault.
I get no sense that Labour would solve inflation and bring down the cost of living. I have seen nothing from them but vague carping. At the moment, for me, the best chance of things improving is getting a new Tory leader, rather than let Starmer in. The former is a roll of the dice, the latter is just a managerial Government that will do nothing new.
23rd June anyway. That date. The exact same one on which this great country of ours took a wrong turn that will probably see us lost in the weeds for the best part of 50 years. There's nothing you can do to stop it coming around every year - thankfully just the once - so you just have to crack on. Bad memories though.
Had you noticed that the EU Council will be making its decision today on whether to grant candidate status to Ukraine and Moldova?
I'm sure that isn't a mere coincidence. The symbolism of announcing another stage of EU expansion on the sixth anniversary of the lost Brexit referendum is very powerful, particularly when Ukraine is fighting a war in part for the purpose of being able to join the EU.
I don't think the EU have fully grasped the opportunity that Russia's invasion of Ukraine provided for creating a sense of purpose and unity. This is a chance to take that a step forward.
Now you mention it, yes, and I really hope so. People talk about their Remain vote being all dry and pragmatic - "no love for the EU, I just thought on balance bla bla" - but that's not the case with me. It was an instinctive, values-based vote for what I believe in - a Europe of peaceful cooperation and progressive values with the direction of travel being more not less pooling of powers by nation states. I'd have voted Remain even if I'd thought Leave would give us an economic advantage.
What's interesting with onshore wind is the very differing regional variations for it.
Drive along the M56 and there are a lot of wind turbines available, especially around Runcorn. Along the M58 there is a fair amount too.
Drive along the M6, especially north of Preston, and its much, much rarer in comparison.
Areas that were used to lots of industry seem to have absolutely no qualms with turbines.
For me, I love onshore wind turbines. They're just a part of the background, like power pylons, but they look nice too. Especially compared to the alternative, I used to have to drive past Fiddlers Ferry power station on a daily basis and my car would turn from red to grey due to the amount of emissions from the power station that would land on my car. That can't be good for your breath either, I'd assume. So that area being covered in turbines rather than Fiddlers Ferry operating is a mammoth improvement. 👍
Solve the intermittency problem, and you can build all the wind turbines you want.
Right now you can't.
What intermittency problem?
As it stands 100% of the energy produced is able to be either consumed, stored or exported - and its economically far, far cheaper than either gas or coal. Even before the recent commodity spike in costs it already was, now its even cheaper.
So how is that a problem? If we were generating energy we couldn't use, that'd be a problem, but we're not.
Er....sometimes the wind doesn't blow, and the turbines don't go around. But we still need the electricity.....??
The Telegraph reckons if we get a wind drought of the order of some of the recent ones, then we are looking at blackouts this winter. That's why Kwarteng is leaning on some existing power sources not to shut down.
When the turbines can store some of the energy during windy times, via green ammonia or new battery technology that does not exist yet, then you will have a strong case.
But how is that a problem?
We already have a strong case, because wind is so cheap. When wind is blowing, you can use wind, when wind isn't blowing, you can use gas, but wind is far cheaper than gas.
Having gas etc available as a backup when wind isn't blowing is only logical, but that's not a reason to use the far more expensive gas all the time, rather than using the far cheaper wind when it is blowing now, is it?
In the longer term if you wish to eliminate CCGT's then you'll need a viable alternative, but in the shorter term there is literally no reason not to be using the much cheaper onshore wind.
The government's has a net zero by 2050 target though and that entails having precisely zero gas backup. Or oil backup. Or coal backup. or any backup except solar and nuclear??
Its not going to be anywhere near enough. Its not in the same ballpark as enough.
By 2050, yes. We aren't in 2050, we're in 2022.
By 2050 there will be lots more energy storage, some is already getting built and much more is being developed. There will be TWh of storage from electric vehicles alone, and if homes have their own storage each (increasingly cheap and common, especially if used in conjunction with electric vehicles) then that will expand storage even more. So by 2050 its certainly plausible we can be using wind energy when the wind isn't blowing.
In the meantime though, in 2022, we can use wind instead of gas when the wind is blowing. Agreed?
Yes there are promising new technologies. Gravitational batteries (because lithium is pricey and not particularly clean). Iron rust batteries. I saw one the other day where the turbine pumped water in pressurised form into underground rock wells that can be released to drive a turbine when needed. Smart. And if fusion works, well, its game set and match.
I don't want hydrocarbons any more than anybody else. But the technologies have to be there.
The upping of the state pension and the removal of limits on rich bankers' pay seems utterly tone deaf from the Government.
Are they trying to lose?
Pensioners and bankers are the Tory core vote. No real surprise
Then the Tories deserve to lose.
The more you speak for the Tories, the more I think maybe I should actually just vote Labour, if you represent the Tories. And I despise Labour, but not as much as what you want to stand for.
Really? You even voted for Labour in 2001 when I voted Tory
Yes, because I'm a sentient human who has principles and thinks about why I should vote. Those principles generally align with the Tories more, but if they don't, then the Tories don't deserve my vote.
I don't just vote for a monkey with a blue rosette, and I don't put party before country.
Oh, and don't forget, you lost in 2001. 😕
Still proves you wrong when you said 'I despise Labour' given you even voted for Labour at the 2001 general election
No, it doesn't, since I'm not the same person I was in 2001, Labour isn't the same as it was in 2001, Starmer is not Blair etc
Time's change, and when they do, you need to change with them. Oh, and its possible to despise something, but think the alternative is even worse.
I voted Lab in 97 but in 2001 I could see the warning signs that all the power was turning Tone's head so I sat on my hands.
In 2005 I went for the Lib-Dems (Iraq) and have voted Con in 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019 elections (as well as NO to AV and LEAVE)
Think I have a pretty good record of picking the winning side there lol!
But it's true. I think increasingly people will change their voting patterns from election to election depending on the circumstances of the day. Someone like @HYUFD who will vote for "the party" come what may is increasingly the exception to the norm... As the old left/right divide has broken down post 1989 people are much more expendable with their votes.
In my experience, people vote based on:
- Personal identity (ie: "We're Labour in this house"/"True Blue Tory; always have been") - Habit - Party perceived ideology/stance - Party record and expectation - Party leadership and perceived competence - Expectation as to which party can win - One or two specific policies they like - Keep out the other buggers - The person running for MP/re-election
There's then a long swathe of sunlight down to: - All the specific policies and complete platform
(Not to mean these are to be forgotten about. Voters like to feel that the parties have got a full suite of specific policies and a platform, even if they're not usually front and centre in the mind. This, though, is the bit that parties tend to focus on afterwards in saying they have a mandate for whatever)
Those nine main drivers vary from person to person. In HYUFD, the first is pretty much all. In most other people, their importance can wax and wane over time and different areas become more important and people can change the ideology/stance they're after, their expectations, and so on. And the parties themselves change under ideology/stance, record/expectation and leadersgip/competence especially, and the one or two specific policies they champion. There's absolutely nothing at all wrong with responding to those changes, or to having ones' own priorities and drivers vary in magnitude and direction over the years.
Robert Peston @Peston · 2h Political expediency and economic reality are about to collide in the most painful way for Boris Johnson and his government. It is not hyperbole to say this feels like an emergency.
All these numbers, percentages, etc. are balls. Nobody has any fucking idea what's going to happen.
Went to see Top Gun 2 yesterday. I'd assumed Cruise at 59 would be over the hill but he absolutely isn't. At one juncture he got into an old rustbucket of an F14 and took out 3 Russian state of the art hypersonic fighter planes in a dogfight. He also flew 50 miles at altitude 100 feet at Mach 10. My palms were sweating just sitting there!
Russian? I thought they were extremely careful not to disclose the nationality of the bad guys. I did like the dark helmets the bad guys were using. Looked pretty cool (and hid their ethnicity). Maybe a bit too dark though, as they didn't seem to be able to see very well to fire at Cruise.
Also. Rooster - WTF? Gosling was right there (and no more lame than Rooster or Goose)
Edit: Or were they Russian-made planes? With undisclosed nationality of owner.
True. They 'felt' Russian to me but it wasn't said that they were.
Yes those "callsigns" - you can't fly a jet without one. Mine would be Bubbles.
"Bubbles, you're leading the way on this one. You ready for that?"
"Yep. I'm ready."
You don't get to choose. It's handed out by the instructors when you finish RAG. Hard luck if you don't care for it because you're stuck with it for the entirety of your time in the fleet.
Mine was Lothar. Loser Of THe American Revolution.
What's interesting with onshore wind is the very differing regional variations for it.
Drive along the M56 and there are a lot of wind turbines available, especially around Runcorn. Along the M58 there is a fair amount too.
Drive along the M6, especially north of Preston, and its much, much rarer in comparison.
Areas that were used to lots of industry seem to have absolutely no qualms with turbines.
For me, I love onshore wind turbines. They're just a part of the background, like power pylons, but they look nice too. Especially compared to the alternative, I used to have to drive past Fiddlers Ferry power station on a daily basis and my car would turn from red to grey due to the amount of emissions from the power station that would land on my car. That can't be good for your breath either, I'd assume. So that area being covered in turbines rather than Fiddlers Ferry operating is a mammoth improvement. 👍
Solve the intermittency problem, and you can build all the wind turbines you want.
Right now you can't.
What intermittency problem?
As it stands 100% of the energy produced is able to be either consumed, stored or exported - and its economically far, far cheaper than either gas or coal. Even before the recent commodity spike in costs it already was, now its even cheaper.
So how is that a problem? If we were generating energy we couldn't use, that'd be a problem, but we're not.
Er....sometimes the wind doesn't blow, and the turbines don't go around. But we still need the electricity.....??
The Telegraph reckons if we get a wind drought of the order of some of the recent ones, then we are looking at blackouts this winter. That's why Kwarteng is leaning on some existing power sources not to shut down.
When the turbines can store some of the energy during windy times, via green ammonia or new battery technology that does not exist yet, then you will have a strong case.
The more practical near term solution is Europe wide high voltage DC interconnects. It wouldn't remove the intermittency or 'wind drought' problems (and Europe is the region most vulnerable to the latter once we rely on a lot of renewables), but it would massively reduce them.
There are plenty of studies - and practical plans - for this. It would make sense to bring them forward as rapidly as possible, as they will pay for themselves. That's one of the things both we and Europe should be spending big money on now. And including very large solar schemes in North Africa, if possible.
Energy storage is part of the equation. There are some practical and economic systems ready now (see Highview Power, for example), but as you say, it will take considerably longer. And of course the ongoing electrification of transport will contribute a substantial distributed storage capacity as well.
What's interesting with onshore wind is the very differing regional variations for it.
Drive along the M56 and there are a lot of wind turbines available, especially around Runcorn. Along the M58 there is a fair amount too.
Drive along the M6, especially north of Preston, and its much, much rarer in comparison.
Areas that were used to lots of industry seem to have absolutely no qualms with turbines.
For me, I love onshore wind turbines. They're just a part of the background, like power pylons, but they look nice too. Especially compared to the alternative, I used to have to drive past Fiddlers Ferry power station on a daily basis and my car would turn from red to grey due to the amount of emissions from the power station that would land on my car. That can't be good for your breath either, I'd assume. So that area being covered in turbines rather than Fiddlers Ferry operating is a mammoth improvement. 👍
Solve the intermittency problem, and you can build all the wind turbines you want.
Right now you can't.
What intermittency problem?
As it stands 100% of the energy produced is able to be either consumed, stored or exported - and its economically far, far cheaper than either gas or coal. Even before the recent commodity spike in costs it already was, now its even cheaper.
So how is that a problem? If we were generating energy we couldn't use, that'd be a problem, but we're not.
Er....sometimes the wind doesn't blow, and the turbines don't go around. But we still need the electricity.....??
The Telegraph reckons if we get a wind drought of the order of some of the recent ones, then we are looking at blackouts this winter. That's why Kwarteng is leaning on some existing power sources not to shut down.
When the turbines can store some of the energy during windy times, via green ammonia or new battery technology that does not exist yet, then you will have a strong case.
But how is that a problem?
We already have a strong case, because wind is so cheap. When wind is blowing, you can use wind, when wind isn't blowing, you can use gas, but wind is far cheaper than gas.
Having gas etc available as a backup when wind isn't blowing is only logical, but that's not a reason to use the far more expensive gas all the time, rather than using the far cheaper wind when it is blowing now, is it?
In the longer term if you wish to eliminate CCGT's then you'll need a viable alternative, but in the shorter term there is literally no reason not to be using the much cheaper onshore wind.
The government's has a net zero by 2050 target though and that entails having precisely zero gas backup. Or oil backup. Or coal backup. or any backup except solar and nuclear??
Its not going to be anywhere near enough. Its not in the same ballpark as enough.
By 2050, yes. We aren't in 2050, we're in 2022.
By 2050 there will be lots more energy storage, some is already getting built and much more is being developed. There will be TWh of storage from electric vehicles alone, and if homes have their own storage each (increasingly cheap and common, especially if used in conjunction with electric vehicles) then that will expand storage even more. So by 2050 its certainly plausible we can be using wind energy when the wind isn't blowing.
In the meantime though, in 2022, we can use wind instead of gas when the wind is blowing. Agreed?
How frequently do you need to turn the gas power stations on and off to deal with the wind or lack of it?
🥱 I already have. The problem isn’t the explaining, but some just arn’t listening. This poll points to about 6% labour win, which is more than enough to bury the ghosts of Corbyn and Johnson.
Robert Peston @Peston · 2h Political expediency and economic reality are about to collide in the most painful way for Boris Johnson and his government. It is not hyperbole to say this feels like an emergency.
All these numbers, percentages, etc. are balls. Nobody has any fucking idea what's going to happen.
Went to see Top Gun 2 yesterday. I'd assumed Cruise at 59 would be over the hill but he absolutely isn't. At one juncture he got into an old rustbucket of an F14 and took out 3 Russian state of the art hypersonic fighter planes in a dogfight. He also flew 50 miles at altitude 100 feet at Mach 10. My palms were sweating just sitting there!
Plenty of reviews on the web by Top Guns. All (that I've seen) very positive.
23rd June anyway. That date. The exact same one on which this great country of ours took a wrong turn that will probably see us lost in the weeds for the best part of 50 years. There's nothing you can do to stop it coming around every year - thankfully just the once - so you just have to crack on. Bad memories though.
Had you noticed that the EU Council will be making its decision today on whether to grant candidate status to Ukraine and Moldova?
I'm sure that isn't a mere coincidence. The symbolism of announcing another stage of EU expansion on the sixth anniversary of the lost Brexit referendum is very powerful, particularly when Ukraine is fighting a war in part for the purpose of being able to join the EU.
I don't think the EU have fully grasped the opportunity that Russia's invasion of Ukraine provided for creating a sense of purpose and unity. This is a chance to take that a step forward.
Now you mention it, yes, and I really hope so. People talk about their Remain vote being all dry and pragmatic - "no love for the EU, I just thought on balance bla bla" - but that's not the case with me. It was an instinctive, values-based vote for what I believe in - a Europe of peaceful cooperation and progressive values with the direction of travel being more not less pooling of powers by nation states. I'd have voted Remain even if I'd thought Leave would give us an economic advantage.
Funny. Your reasons for voting Remain were almost exactly the same as my reasons for voting Leave - except from a different perspective. I would have voted Leave even if I thought it would do long term economic harm to the country. Some things are more important than numbers.
What's interesting with onshore wind is the very differing regional variations for it.
Drive along the M56 and there are a lot of wind turbines available, especially around Runcorn. Along the M58 there is a fair amount too.
Drive along the M6, especially north of Preston, and its much, much rarer in comparison.
Areas that were used to lots of industry seem to have absolutely no qualms with turbines.
For me, I love onshore wind turbines. They're just a part of the background, like power pylons, but they look nice too. Especially compared to the alternative, I used to have to drive past Fiddlers Ferry power station on a daily basis and my car would turn from red to grey due to the amount of emissions from the power station that would land on my car. That can't be good for your breath either, I'd assume. So that area being covered in turbines rather than Fiddlers Ferry operating is a mammoth improvement. 👍
Once you continue on to the M74/A74(M) in Dumfries and Galloway there are lots of wind turbines again.
Apparently there are parts of the country where you can blight the hills with sheep, but it's completely forbidden to add a few graceful wind turbines.
It's not the turbines that are the issue usually it's the wire wiring them up to the grid...
Round Runcorn where the electricity network was historically designed to carry large amounts of electricity connecting wind turbines to the network is easy and relatively cheap.
Further north there isn't much historic connectivity capacity / spare capacity and once it's been grabbed it's expensive to add more items.
It's a while since I've been to the West of the Lake District but I do seem to remember a number of wind turbines there.
That's true. They maxed out the grid capacity some time ago in West Cork, and they've been working on adding an extra high-voltage line that would enable more capacity for more wind turbines when it's done.
What's interesting with onshore wind is the very differing regional variations for it.
Drive along the M56 and there are a lot of wind turbines available, especially around Runcorn. Along the M58 there is a fair amount too.
Drive along the M6, especially north of Preston, and its much, much rarer in comparison.
Areas that were used to lots of industry seem to have absolutely no qualms with turbines.
For me, I love onshore wind turbines. They're just a part of the background, like power pylons, but they look nice too. Especially compared to the alternative, I used to have to drive past Fiddlers Ferry power station on a daily basis and my car would turn from red to grey due to the amount of emissions from the power station that would land on my car. That can't be good for your breath either, I'd assume. So that area being covered in turbines rather than Fiddlers Ferry operating is a mammoth improvement. 👍
Solve the intermittency problem, and you can build all the wind turbines you want.
Right now you can't.
What intermittency problem?
As it stands 100% of the energy produced is able to be either consumed, stored or exported - and its economically far, far cheaper than either gas or coal. Even before the recent commodity spike in costs it already was, now its even cheaper.
So how is that a problem? If we were generating energy we couldn't use, that'd be a problem, but we're not.
Er....sometimes the wind doesn't blow, and the turbines don't go around. But we still need the electricity.....??
The Telegraph reckons if we get a wind drought of the order of some of the recent ones, then we are looking at blackouts this winter. That's why Kwarteng is leaning on some existing power sources not to shut down.
When the turbines can store some of the energy during windy times, via green ammonia or new battery technology that does not exist yet, then you will have a strong case.
The more practical near term solution is Europe wide high voltage DC interconnects. It wouldn't remove the intermittency or 'wind drought' problems (and Europe is the region most vulnerable to the latter once we rely on a lot of renewables), but it would massively reduce them.
There are plenty of studies - and practical plans - for this. It would make sense to bring them forward as rapidly as possible, as they will pay for themselves. That's one of the things both we and Europe should be spending big money on now. And including very large solar schemes in North Africa, if possible.
Energy storage is part of the equation. There are some practical and economic systems ready now (see Highview Power, for example), but as you say, it will take considerably longer. And of course the ongoing electrification of transport will contribute a substantial distributed storage capacity as well.
I understand that, going forward, providers of fast charging sites (think petrol station replacements) are planning on excess capacity in onsite storage.
This will be used to smooth demand from the grid, purchase power when the prices are low and offer storage/time shifting to interested parties.
What is interesting in these proposals is that you could end up with a more resilient grid. Relatively local storage at hundreds of sites.
Robert Peston @Peston · 2h Political expediency and economic reality are about to collide in the most painful way for Boris Johnson and his government. It is not hyperbole to say this feels like an emergency.
All these numbers, percentages, etc. are balls. Nobody has any fucking idea what's going to happen.
Went to see Top Gun 2 yesterday. I'd assumed Cruise at 59 would be over the hill but he absolutely isn't. At one juncture he got into an old rustbucket of an F14 and took out 3 Russian state of the art hypersonic fighter planes in a dogfight. He also flew 50 miles at altitude 100 feet at Mach 10. My palms were sweating just sitting there!
Russian? I thought they were extremely careful not to disclose the nationality of the bad guys. I did like the dark helmets the bad guys were using. Looked pretty cool (and hid their ethnicity). Maybe a bit too dark though, as they didn't seem to be able to see very well to fire at Cruise.
Also. Rooster - WTF? Gosling was right there (and no more lame than Rooster or Goose)
Edit: Or were they Russian-made planes? With undisclosed nationality of owner.
True. They 'felt' Russian to me but it wasn't said that they were.
Yes those "callsigns" - you can't fly a jet without one. Mine would be Bubbles.
"Bubbles, you're leading the way on this one. You ready for that?"
"Yep. I'm ready."
You don't get to choose. It's handed out by the instructors when you finish RAG. Hard luck if you don't care for it because you're stuck with it for the entirety of your time in the fleet.
Mine was Lothar. Loser Of THe American Revolution.
Could have been worse. Much worse.
Really? No right of appeal? That's a VERY big moment, then, when you get it. I presume they do stay away from cringy ones though. You wouldn't want to hurt someone's morale like that when you're expecting them to fly in danger zones.
The upping of the state pension and the removal of limits on rich bankers' pay seems utterly tone deaf from the Government.
Are they trying to lose?
Pensioners and bankers are the Tory core vote. No real surprise
Then the Tories deserve to lose.
The more you speak for the Tories, the more I think maybe I should actually just vote Labour, if you represent the Tories. And I despise Labour, but not as much as what you want to stand for.
Really? You even voted for Labour in 2001 when I voted Tory
Yes, because I'm a sentient human who has principles and thinks about why I should vote. Those principles generally align with the Tories more, but if they don't, then the Tories don't deserve my vote.
I don't just vote for a monkey with a blue rosette, and I don't put party before country.
Oh, and don't forget, you lost in 2001. 😕
Barty, I can’t stand your ideology, but I do admire your principles.
He changes them more often than his panties.
That's not true, unless he has very poor personal hygiene. He is a remarkably consistent Liberal Libertarian Free Marketeer. If anything I would fault him with being too consistent in his worldview, because reality is more complicated than that.
He is full of mince
Is that a good thing? Like a well-filled pasty, juicy and tasty?
Make what you will..........mince ... nonsense, rubbish: 'Yer heid's full a mince', 'He talks a lot a mince.' ... Extremes of denseness are also measured by it: 'He's as thick as mince ... @bondegezou
23rd June anyway. That date. The exact same one on which this great country of ours took a wrong turn that will probably see us lost in the weeds for the best part of 50 years. There's nothing you can do to stop it coming around every year - thankfully just the once - so you just have to crack on. Bad memories though.
Had you noticed that the EU Council will be making its decision today on whether to grant candidate status to Ukraine and Moldova?
I'm sure that isn't a mere coincidence. The symbolism of announcing another stage of EU expansion on the sixth anniversary of the lost Brexit referendum is very powerful, particularly when Ukraine is fighting a war in part for the purpose of being able to join the EU.
I don't think the EU have fully grasped the opportunity that Russia's invasion of Ukraine provided for creating a sense of purpose and unity. This is a chance to take that a step forward.
Now you mention it, yes, and I really hope so. People talk about their Remain vote being all dry and pragmatic - "no love for the EU, I just thought on balance bla bla" - but that's not the case with me. It was an instinctive, values-based vote for what I believe in - a Europe of peaceful cooperation and progressive values with the direction of travel being more not less pooling of powers by nation states. I'd have voted Remain even if I'd thought Leave would give us an economic advantage.
Funny. Your reasons for voting Remain were almost exactly the same as my reasons for voting Leave - except from a different perspective. I would have voted Leave even if I thought it would do long term economic harm to the country. Some things are more important than numbers.
Well, in that case then at least you'll be enjoying a certain equanimity at the position we find ourselves in now. Wish I was.
What's interesting with onshore wind is the very differing regional variations for it.
Drive along the M56 and there are a lot of wind turbines available, especially around Runcorn. Along the M58 there is a fair amount too.
Drive along the M6, especially north of Preston, and its much, much rarer in comparison.
Areas that were used to lots of industry seem to have absolutely no qualms with turbines.
For me, I love onshore wind turbines. They're just a part of the background, like power pylons, but they look nice too. Especially compared to the alternative, I used to have to drive past Fiddlers Ferry power station on a daily basis and my car would turn from red to grey due to the amount of emissions from the power station that would land on my car. That can't be good for your breath either, I'd assume. So that area being covered in turbines rather than Fiddlers Ferry operating is a mammoth improvement. 👍
Solve the intermittency problem, and you can build all the wind turbines you want.
Right now you can't.
What intermittency problem?
As it stands 100% of the energy produced is able to be either consumed, stored or exported - and its economically far, far cheaper than either gas or coal. Even before the recent commodity spike in costs it already was, now its even cheaper.
So how is that a problem? If we were generating energy we couldn't use, that'd be a problem, but we're not.
Er....sometimes the wind doesn't blow, and the turbines don't go around. But we still need the electricity.....??
The Telegraph reckons if we get a wind drought of the order of some of the recent ones, then we are looking at blackouts this winter. That's why Kwarteng is leaning on some existing power sources not to shut down.
When the turbines can store some of the energy during windy times, via green ammonia or new battery technology that does not exist yet, then you will have a strong case.
Intermittancy is only a true issue if there's a day when ~100% of generation is being produced by turbines as excess on that day will be 'wasted'. We haven't built enough to run into that issue yet.
Intermittency is a massive issue if we bet the house on wind, and shut down much more reliable sources of energy by fiat. Which is what we are doing. Or what we were doing.
Now we have the spectacle of green warriors like Biden chiding companies for not producing enough energy of a type he wants to phase out.
Imagine vegans in a famine situation chiding farmers for not producing enough lamb and beef to feed people. That's where we are.
There is a meme going around on FB about vegans going to have the time of their lives at Glasto, a working dairy farm.
The point being that they shouldn't, or shouldn't be allowed to? I'm sure lots of vegans shop in places that sell meat and dairy too. What if they walk through a field with sheep in? I don't think I get this one.
https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1539898423071195136 Lord Frost on Boris Johnson refusing to correct claims that there are more people in employment than pre pandemic. "I wish he wouldn't say things like that, they're obviously not true. I'm not gonna defend, making factually incorrect statements"
Not willing to defend incorrect statements? No wonder he couldn't hack it in Cabinet.
Comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5tJA9pluxY
Now we have the spectacle of green warriors like Biden chiding companies for not producing enough energy of a type he wants to phase out.
Imagine vegans in a famine situation chiding farmers for not producing enough lamb and beef to feed people. That's where we are.
- Personal identity (ie: "We're Labour in this house"/"True Blue Tory; always have been")
- Habit
- Party perceived ideology/stance
- Party record and expectation
- Party leadership and perceived competence
- Expectation as to which party can win
- One or two specific policies they like
- Keep out the other buggers
- The person running for MP/re-election
There's then a long swathe of sunlight down to:
- All the specific policies and complete platform
(Not to mean these are to be forgotten about. Voters like to feel that the parties have got a full suite of specific policies and a platform, even if they're not usually front and centre in the mind. This, though, is the bit that parties tend to focus on afterwards in saying they have a mandate for whatever)
Those nine main drivers vary from person to person. In HYUFD, the first is pretty much all. In most other people, their importance can wax and wane over time and different areas become more important and people can change the ideology/stance they're after, their expectations, and so on. And the parties themselves change under ideology/stance, record/expectation and leadersgip/competence especially, and the one or two specific policies they champion. There's absolutely nothing at all wrong with responding to those changes, or to having ones' own priorities and drivers vary in magnitude and direction over the years.
The best solution to intermittency, alongside storage of course, is greater and deeper integration of regional electricity grids and more interconnectors.
Solar is one where local storage makes a lot of economic sense because it's short term storage - maximum a day's worth of charge at a time.
Its not going to be anywhere near enough. Its not in the same ballpark as enough.
Yes those "callsigns" - you can't fly a jet without one. Mine would be Bubbles.
"Bubbles, you're leading the way on this one. You ready for that?"
"Yep. I'm ready."
There was a plan for a pipeline from a gas plant here but the idea fell through (too expensive, I suspect).
Our two gas interconnectors to the continent carry about 6-8x as much energy capacity as do our 7.5GW or so of electricity interconnectors. If my approx maths is right.
New thread
By 2050 there will be lots more energy storage, some is already getting built and much more is being developed. There will be TWh of storage from electric vehicles alone, and if homes have their own storage each (increasingly cheap and common, especially if used in conjunction with electric vehicles) then that will expand storage even more. So by 2050 its certainly plausible we can be using wind energy when the wind isn't blowing.
In the meantime though, in 2022, we can use wind instead of gas when the wind is blowing. Agreed?
“Net Zero by date X” ideology, to be able to deviate from it even when there’s a war in Europe and petrol is knocking on £2 a litre.
To these people, the more expensive the petrol the better, not properly understanding the effects on society of such high prices.
I have not seen it but everyone on the F-14 crew FB group says it's crap.
I get no sense that Labour would solve inflation and bring down the cost of living. I have seen nothing from them but vague carping. At the moment, for me, the best chance of things improving is getting a new Tory leader, rather than let Starmer in. The former is a roll of the dice, the latter is just a managerial Government that will do nothing new.
I don't want hydrocarbons any more than anybody else. But the technologies have to be there.
Mine was Lothar. Loser Of THe American Revolution.
Could have been worse. Much worse.
There are plenty of studies - and practical plans - for this. It would make sense to bring them forward as rapidly as possible, as they will pay for themselves. That's one of the things both we and Europe should be spending big money on now.
And including very large solar schemes in North Africa, if possible.
Energy storage is part of the equation. There are some practical and economic systems ready now (see Highview Power, for example), but as you say, it will take considerably longer.
And of course the ongoing electrification of transport will contribute a substantial distributed storage capacity as well.
This will be used to smooth demand from the grid, purchase power when the prices are low and offer storage/time shifting to interested parties.
What is interesting in these proposals is that you could end up with a more resilient grid. Relatively local storage at hundreds of sites.
"I shall fight on, I shall fight to win."
Boris Johnson rules out ‘crazy’ idea of quitting if Tories lose byelections
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/23/boris-johnson-rules-out-crazy-idea-of-quitting-if-tories-lose-byelections
That is, they don't know their arses from their elbows.