Haven't they decided they'll probably divert it to Germany instead?
I was wondering about the energy loss from a cable over such a long distance.
From Kagi I find:
… the total estimated energy loss for transmitting electricity over the 4,000 km distance from Morocco to the UK would be in the range of 12-14%.
This level of energy loss is considered relatively low for such a long-distance transmission project and makes the Morocco-UK link technically feasible.
If it was transmitted in an aluminium core in an insulated pipe filled with liquid hydrogen there would be zero energy loss - and a supply of liquid hydrogen as a bonus.
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
You’ve only just realised?
Economically, the UK has run itself as a wholly owned U.S. subsidiary since at least the 90s. Vast amounts of economic rent disappear into US hands. Half of the Premiership is owned by US interests. And so on. Each year the balance of trade remorselessly delivers more British wealth into foreign, chiefly U.S., hands. The FTSE is now a laughing stock. Nobody wants to list there anymore.
Not at all, I've been saying the same things here for years, but it's handy to have it crystalised here. Also, my objections to US dominance are often on matters of political influence, and they are usually as popular as a cup of cold sick here, because they are perceived as an attack on 'PB morale'. This is the other side of that coin, and is presented cogently by three men with no track record of antipathy to the US.
Maybe you have, but you’re also a big Truss fan. Yet she would simply exacerbate this problem. Indeed she would refuse to recognise it as a problem.
I disagree. A lot of Truss's reforms were aimed at helping UK companies to grow faster, and producing more food and particularly energy at home, which would have displaced imports and improved the balance of payments.
She is a doctinaire free marketeer, but I disagreed with the podcast contributor here who blamed the takeover issue on UK power-brokers being addicted to Hayek. They certainly don't show much of their free market predelictions in any other decisions they make. I think it's simple US-subservience. And whatever else Truss was or wasn't, she was actually the least US-subservient PM we've had, probably since Thatcher.
*Edit - it should also go without saying that I don't swallow the gospel of Truss wholesale - I tend to defend her a lot here because of the degree to which I feel she's attacked unfairly.
Truss today is the most US-subservient ex-PM, prostituting herself at MAGA events, nodding along when they praise Yaxley-Lennon, kowtowing to Trump.
Haven't they decided they'll probably divert it to Germany instead?
I was wondering about the energy loss from a cable over such a long distance.
From Kagi I find:
… the total estimated energy loss for transmitting electricity over the 4,000 km distance from Morocco to the UK would be in the range of 12-14%.
This level of energy loss is considered relatively low for such a long-distance transmission project and makes the Morocco-UK link technically feasible.
If it was transmitted in an aluminium core in an insulated pipe filled with liquid hydrogen there would be zero energy loss - and a supply of liquid hydrogen as a bonus.
Apart from the hilarious loses of hydrogen. And energy lost in liquifying the hydrogen.
Haven't they decided they'll probably divert it to Germany instead?
I was wondering about the energy loss from a cable over such a long distance.
From Kagi I find:
… the total estimated energy loss for transmitting electricity over the 4,000 km distance from Morocco to the UK would be in the range of 12-14%.
This level of energy loss is considered relatively low for such a long-distance transmission project and makes the Morocco-UK link technically feasible.
If it was transmitted in an aluminium core in an insulated pipe filled with liquid hydrogen there would be zero energy loss - and a supply of liquid hydrogen as a bonus.
Apart from the hilarious loses of hydrogen. And energy lost in liquifying the hydrogen.
You'd need a very good insulator. The energy lost in liquifying the hydrogen would be mostly recovered in the hydrogen powered cars. And airships.
Haven't they decided they'll probably divert it to Germany instead?
I was wondering about the energy loss from a cable over such a long distance.
From Kagi I find:
… the total estimated energy loss for transmitting electricity over the 4,000 km distance from Morocco to the UK would be in the range of 12-14%.
This level of energy loss is considered relatively low for such a long-distance transmission project and makes the Morocco-UK link technically feasible.
If it was transmitted in an aluminium core in an insulated pipe filled with liquid hydrogen there would be zero energy loss - and a supply of liquid hydrogen as a bonus.
Apart from the hilarious loses of hydrogen. And energy lost in liquifying the hydrogen.
Hydrogen could be the future - or perhaps could be A future, but you're right it's quite hard to deal with. On the other hand we know that hydrogen will always be around and so working out how to deal with it seems like a good long-term plan.
Haven't they decided they'll probably divert it to Germany instead?
I was wondering about the energy loss from a cable over such a long distance.
From Kagi I find:
… the total estimated energy loss for transmitting electricity over the 4,000 km distance from Morocco to the UK would be in the range of 12-14%.
This level of energy loss is considered relatively low for such a long-distance transmission project and makes the Morocco-UK link technically feasible.
If it was transmitted in an aluminium core in an insulated pipe filled with liquid hydrogen there would be zero energy loss - and a supply of liquid hydrogen as a bonus.
Apart from the hilarious loses of hydrogen. And energy lost in liquifying the hydrogen.
Hydrogen could be the future - or perhaps could be A future, but you're right it's quite hard to deal with. On the other hand we know that hydrogen will always be around and so working out how to deal with it seems like a good long-term plan.
Hydrogen may be a rather good long-term storage solution for places that have loads of surplus green energy away from customers - say, Australia. Or for things that are movable but require vast energy - say, ships or muck-movers. But it will be part of the 'solution', not *the* solution.
Haven't they decided they'll probably divert it to Germany instead?
I was wondering about the energy loss from a cable over such a long distance.
From Kagi I find:
… the total estimated energy loss for transmitting electricity over the 4,000 km distance from Morocco to the UK would be in the range of 12-14%.
This level of energy loss is considered relatively low for such a long-distance transmission project and makes the Morocco-UK link technically feasible.
If it was transmitted in an aluminium core in an insulated pipe filled with liquid hydrogen there would be zero energy loss - and a supply of liquid hydrogen as a bonus.
Apart from the hilarious loses of hydrogen. And energy lost in liquifying the hydrogen.
Hydrogen could be the future - or perhaps could be A future, but you're right it's quite hard to deal with. On the other hand we know that hydrogen will always be around and so working out how to deal with it seems like a good long-term plan.
The boiler we installed a couple of years ago is supposed to be 'hydrogen ready'. I think it means a mixture of hydrogen and hydrocarbon
There are several inter-related issues, but one is that British institutional investors refuse to invest in British business to a degree seemingly unparalleled in a modern economy.
As long as the UK government insists on kicking the UK economy in the nuts my pension will remain invested elsewhere. Blaming UK investors for UK plc under-performance is a bit rich: UK plc underperforms because a) UK management is appalling and b) the UK government persistently refuses to invest in national UK infrastructure at every level.
The UK government apparently doesn’t believe in the future of the UK economy enough to actually invest in infrastructure anywhere except London (and even then the Treasury had to be dragged kicking & screaming), so why should anyone else?
I agree that the UK government - raddled for years with Treasury brain - adds insult to injury by refusing to invest in the British economy itself.
That’s definitely one of the reasons why British investors (reductively, pension funds) won’t invest in British stocks. But I don’t think it’s the only reason.
By the way, why do you think British management is poor? This seems to be accepted as one of the issues behind poor productivity, but I haven’t seen a good reason cited.
This might just be another name for the question, but what is it about British conditions that doesn't incentivise better management?
One (predictable) guess is the rentier economy we currently have. Why bother going to the trouble of being a good manager when you can make so much so easily by buying a house and renting it out?
I wonder also if the steepness of the UK's reward gradient doesn't help. To get the mega rewards, you need to be good and lucky; being good isn't enough. Perhaps something less vertiginous is better for rewarding mass-market good.
(And perhaps linked to those two, not enough people who are both the owners and the managers.)
Poor management has been a problem in the UK economy since at least the 19th century. One issue is the failure of firms' founders to surrender control to professional managers. Another is small firm size. Another is a low propensity to export - since firms who export tend to become better run. I wonder too whether the City might tend to siphon off talent that in other economies would end up in non financial corporates. And our hierarchical class ridden society perhaps prevents us adopting the flatter organisational structures that seem to work well elsewhere (although perhaps I am making the common mistake of blaming things I don't like here).
Are UK organisational structures unduly hierarchical? I don’t believe so. In fact, one of the great appeals of British (or maybe London?) jobs to Europeans was the relative promise of quicker career progression and mobility.
International surveys agree that British management is relatively poorer. But I do wonder whether this actually is a proxy for or somehow masks other institutional issues like access to capital and the dominance of the City (a kind of Dutch disease).
I think "poor British management" is a myth that is hard to banish, which has its origins many decades ago, but for which evidence is rarely cited. Since the UK's long-run growth path has been similar to that of other rich countries in western Europe, that stands as a serious challenge to the idea it's better in France or Germany.
Watch The Hotel Inspector or one of Gordon Ramsey's shows and you see the British management of family-run SMEs in action. It is not a pretty sight.
Well, they're not going to make a series where they say: these particular businesses are great, Gordon can clock off early.
There are several inter-related issues, but one is that British institutional investors refuse to invest in British business to a degree seemingly unparalleled in a modern economy.
As long as the UK government insists on kicking the UK economy in the nuts my pension will remain invested elsewhere. Blaming UK investors for UK plc under-performance is a bit rich: UK plc underperforms because a) UK management is appalling and b) the UK government persistently refuses to invest in national UK infrastructure at every level.
The UK government apparently doesn’t believe in the future of the UK economy enough to actually invest in infrastructure anywhere except London (and even then the Treasury had to be dragged kicking & screaming), so why should anyone else?
I agree that the UK government - raddled for years with Treasury brain - adds insult to injury by refusing to invest in the British economy itself.
That’s definitely one of the reasons why British investors (reductively, pension funds) won’t invest in British stocks. But I don’t think it’s the only reason.
By the way, why do you think British management is poor? This seems to be accepted as one of the issues behind poor productivity, but I haven’t seen a good reason cited.
This might just be another name for the question, but what is it about British conditions that doesn't incentivise better management?
One (predictable) guess is the rentier economy we currently have. Why bother going to the trouble of being a good manager when you can make so much so easily by buying a house and renting it out?
I wonder also if the steepness of the UK's reward gradient doesn't help. To get the mega rewards, you need to be good and lucky; being good isn't enough. Perhaps something less vertiginous is better for rewarding mass-market good.
(And perhaps linked to those two, not enough people who are both the owners and the managers.)
Poor management has been a problem in the UK economy since at least the 19th century. One issue is the failure of firms' founders to surrender control to professional managers. Another is small firm size. Another is a low propensity to export - since firms who export tend to become better run. I wonder too whether the City might tend to siphon off talent that in other economies would end up in non financial corporates. And our hierarchical class ridden society perhaps prevents us adopting the flatter organisational structures that seem to work well elsewhere (although perhaps I am making the common mistake of blaming things I don't like here).
Are UK organisational structures unduly hierarchical? I don’t believe so. In fact, one of the great appeals of British (or maybe London?) jobs to Europeans was the relative promise of quicker career progression and mobility.
International surveys agree that British management is relatively poorer. But I do wonder whether this actually is a proxy for or somehow masks other institutional issues like access to capital and the dominance of the City (a kind of Dutch disease).
I think "poor British management" is a myth that is hard to banish, which has its origins many decades ago, but for which evidence is rarely cited. Since the UK's long-run growth path has been similar to that of other rich countries in western Europe, that stands as a serious challenge to the idea it's better in France or Germany.
Watch The Hotel Inspector or one of Gordon Ramsey's shows and you see the British management of family-run SMEs in action. It is not a pretty sight.
The management team of the Post Office waves from the corner.
Most of the Tories have shown themselves to be a lower form of life.Rayner is far from perfect but has never stooped to their levels of dehumanisation.
Most of the Tories have shown themselves to be a lower form of life.Rayner is far from perfect but has never stooped to their levels of dehumanisation.
Surely you mean an upper form of life - scum rises to the top (like cream)
Most of the Tories have shown themselves to be a lower form of life.Rayner is far from perfect but has never stooped to their levels of dehumanisation.
Most of the Tories have shown themselves to be a lower form of life.Rayner is far from perfect but has never stooped to their levels of dehumanisation.
Quite a sweeping generalisation there.
I know someone who has opted out of organ donation on the basis that he did not wish to risk helping a Tory voter.
Most of the Tories have shown themselves to be a lower form of life.Rayner is far from perfect but has never stooped to their levels of dehumanisation.
Do you regard defending the borders of the country as an example of dehumanisation?
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
UK worried for years about the destruction of the nation state, but believed that leaving the EU would cure that. Now we have left, we are discovering that it was only the foothills.
Leaving the EU has made it worse, since it's depressed the value of UK assets, making them more attractive targets, and deprived UK firms of a large domestic market, making it harder for them to grow and meaning that they are much more likely to be swallowed up by large US firms than the other way round. I think the UK economy is an awkward size - too small to have a large competitive home market with a diversified set of firms, but too large to be nimble and specialise in a few niche areas. I do wonder sometimes if we shouldn't consider becoming part of the US, if we're unwilling to be part of the EU. On our own I suspect we are going to grow ever poorer and more irrelevant to the global economy. I spent a week in DC and NYC last week attending the IMF's Spring Meetings and ancillary events and the only time the UK was mentioned was a few derisory comments about the Truss episode.
Err, we're the sixth biggest economy in the world. I think that is a pretty large domestic market....
Not really. There are essentially three large economies in the world - the US, China and the EU single market (and the last is incomplete, putting Europe at a disadvantage). The UK is what economists class a small open economy.
Your economic analysis is that of a 15 year old. South Korea is not dissimilar to us. Birthrate aside it does pretty bloody well. It is also a major wielder of soft power through its mighty creative industries - like us. No one says South Korea MUST join China
Britain is beating a new path. This may well become irrelevant and overwhelmed by the revolution of AI (where we are, btw, doing better than the absurd EU) but there is no reason we must fail because “we are the wrong size”. It’s asinine
We have Brexited. It’s now up to us for good or ill. That’s the point of Brexit. What is Brexit? It is Brexit
Most of the Tories have shown themselves to be a lower form of life.Rayner is far from perfect but has never stooped to their levels of dehumanisation.
Quite a sweeping generalisation there.
I know someone who has opted out of organ donation on the basis that he did not wish to risk helping a Tory voter.
Most of the Tories have shown themselves to be a lower form of life.Rayner is far from perfect but has never stooped to their levels of dehumanisation.
Quite a sweeping generalisation there.
I know someone who has opted out of organ donation on the basis that he did not wish to risk helping a Tory voter.
I know somebody who has done the same but they didn't want their organs helping a Labour supporter given Labour's mass murder of brown people in India/Pakistan and latterly in Iraq.
Labour's dehumanisation is quite sick from Attlee to Blair.
Most of the Tories have shown themselves to be a lower form of life.Rayner is far from perfect but has never stooped to their levels of dehumanisation.
Do you regard defending the borders of the country as an example of dehumanisation?
She probably is not - at least more than most of us. She probably (and hopefully...) has a very poor filter between brain and mouth. As most of us do. The chances are she does not think enough about what she says, and therefore says some stupid things she does not really mean.
But a counter to that was *that* apology, and her doubling-down on her original comment beforehand. It was either a sign of a really nasty mindset; a refreshing honesty; or utter stupidity. Or all three at once...
Or the fact that PMQs is essentially scripted, and she would have had plenty of time to think of what she wa saying.
I wonder what proportion of the petty criminal brigade now bother with physical theft? Its pretty low margin, high risk.
For the organised I would suggest creating ltd companies and bankrupting them. For the less organised just petty online fraud.
You would have to be extremely unlucky to get jailed for either, and probably pays better than typical physical theft.
Whilst I'm not a liquidator, I see what you've described almost every week. Actually nicking stuff is amateur. Far better to do as you say. No one cares, and no one investigates. There are vast swathes of laws against it, but none of them are enforced. The government decided that to put a stop to this, they'd then require accountants and solicitors to report misdeeds. In my experience, we very rarely do (why would we? We'd lose the client) and when they ARE reported (SAR) they are ignored by the authorities anyway.
Too complicated, too much like hard work, having to look at bank statements and try and be accountants, so the police just don't bother.
I've sat in ethics courses where the speaker has put forward a scenario (alledgely real) where the accountant was banged up for 1,000 years for failing to report or some such rubbish. I just roll my eyes. It never happens.
The only thing the regulators do is issue fines to large accountancy firms; not because they've been naughty but because ICAEW want the income stream. Actually getting chucked out of the ICAEW is virtually impossible as long as you pay the fines and the fees.
No one cares and no one investigates. As long as the people you are ripping off are HMRC or large banks that can take the loss, nothing will happen.
The question is payback time. This will be used for grid smoothing.
Similar systems have paid for themselves in months of operation in Australia.
£75 million in the context of grid scale power is peanuts.
That's not actually *that* much les cost efficient than Dinorwig, based on storage capacity per £ invested. And the prices of grid scale batteries have much further to fall.
Cottingham stores 196MWh for £75m in (I assume) 2023 money. Dinorwig stores 9.1GWh for £450m in 1974 money. Apply inflation 1974-2023 and that is £3700m to £4000m.
(Approximately)
Yet another thing that the Boomers invested in for the benefit of future generations.
Haven't they decided they'll probably divert it to Germany instead?
I was wondering about the energy loss from a cable over such a long distance.
From Kagi I find:
… the total estimated energy loss for transmitting electricity over the 4,000 km distance from Morocco to the UK would be in the range of 12-14%.
This level of energy loss is considered relatively low for such a long-distance transmission project and makes the Morocco-UK link technically feasible.
If it was transmitted in an aluminium core in an insulated pipe filled with liquid hydrogen there would be zero energy loss - and a supply of liquid hydrogen as a bonus.
Apart from the hilarious loses of hydrogen. And energy lost in liquifying the hydrogen.
Hydrogen could be the future - or perhaps could be A future, but you're right it's quite hard to deal with. On the other hand we know that hydrogen will always be around and so working out how to deal with it seems like a good long-term plan.
Hydrogen may be a rather good long-term storage solution for places that have loads of surplus green energy away from customers - say, Australia. Or for things that are movable but require vast energy - say, ships or muck-movers. But it will be part of the 'solution', not *the* solution.
Yes, but I didn't mean that - potentially hydrogen could be a replacement for all hydrocarbon energy needs. I don't think it's likely, but not impossible.
Most of the Tories have shown themselves to be a lower form of life.Rayner is far from perfect but has never stooped to their levels of dehumanisation.
Quite a sweeping generalisation there.
I know someone who has opted out of organ donation on the basis that he did not wish to risk helping a Tory voter.
Most of the Tories have shown themselves to be a lower form of life.Rayner is far from perfect but has never stooped to their levels of dehumanisation.
Quite a sweeping generalisation there.
I know someone who has opted out of organ donation on the basis that he did not wish to risk helping a Tory voter.
I know somebody who has done the same but they didn't want their organs helping a Labour supporter given Labour's mass murder of brown people in India/Pakistan and latterly in Iraq.
Labour's dehumanisation is quite sick from Attlee to Blair.
Most of the Tories have shown themselves to be a lower form of life.Rayner is far from perfect but has never stooped to their levels of dehumanisation.
Quite a sweeping generalisation there.
I know someone who has opted out of organ donation on the basis that he did not wish to risk helping a Tory voter.
I know somebody who has done the same but they didn't want their organs helping a Labour supporter given Labour's mass murder of brown people in India/Pakistan and latterly in Iraq.
Labour's dehumanisation is quite sick from Attlee to Blair.
That I can understand despite the Tories being the party of Empire. In more recent years we have seen Tory MPs supporting Apartheid South Africa and Ian Smith's regime in Rhodesia. Quite a few Tories were happy to promote - and openly wear - 'Hang Nelson Mandela' Tshirts.
Never thought I would find myself saying something nice about the Moggster but I think was a good response to the protests against him at Cardiff University (my old alma mater) yesterday.
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
UK worried for years about the destruction of the nation state, but believed that leaving the EU would cure that. Now we have left, we are discovering that it was only the foothills.
Leaving the EU has made it worse, since it's depressed the value of UK assets, making them more attractive targets, and deprived UK firms of a large domestic market, making it harder for them to grow and meaning that they are much more likely to be swallowed up by large US firms than the other way round. I think the UK economy is an awkward size - too small to have a large competitive home market with a diversified set of firms, but too large to be nimble and specialise in a few niche areas. I do wonder sometimes if we shouldn't consider becoming part of the US, if we're unwilling to be part of the EU. On our own I suspect we are going to grow ever poorer and more irrelevant to the global economy. I spent a week in DC and NYC last week attending the IMF's Spring Meetings and ancillary events and the only time the UK was mentioned was a few derisory comments about the Truss episode.
Err, we're the sixth biggest economy in the world. I think that is a pretty large domestic market....
Not really. There are essentially three large economies in the world - the US, China and the EU single market (and the last is incomplete, putting Europe at a disadvantage). The UK is what economists class a small open economy.
Your economic analysis is that of a 15 year old. South Korea is not dissimilar to us. Birthrate aside it does pretty bloody well. It is also a major wielder of soft power through its mighty creative industries - like us. No one says South Korea MUST join China
Britain is beating a new path. This may well become irrelevant and overwhelmed by the revolution of AI (where we are, btw, doing better than the absurd EU) but there is no reason we must fail because “we are the wrong size”. It’s asinine
We have Brexited. It’s now up to us for good or ill. That’s the point of Brexit. What is Brexit? It is Brexit
Lol I'm not sure I'll be taking economics lessons from someone who whose idea of insightful analysis is "what is Brexit? It is Brexit". That's hardly the Wealth of Nations. Clearly we have a number of advantages as an economy - the English language, our legal system, a convenient time zone, strength in creative and cultural industries. That might be enough if we were a small economy, but we have 65mn-odd people and I don't think our economic base is large and diversified enough to deliver prosperity for all of them right now.
I’m not sure our legal system is as highly thought of as it once was. Willing to be convinced I’m wrong; indeed I hope I can be.
One measure of that would be comparatively how many contracts by two international parties are written "under English Law", perhaps comparing 1990 with 2023.
Most of the Tories have shown themselves to be a lower form of life.Rayner is far from perfect but has never stooped to their levels of dehumanisation.
Do you regard defending the borders of the country as an example of dehumanisation?
Which Tories have defended the borders of the country? The Sunak administration has overseen record high total immigration and record high small boat crossings.
Or do you mean Penny Mordaunt’s service in the RNR?
Most of the Tories have shown themselves to be a lower form of life.Rayner is far from perfect but has never stooped to their levels of dehumanisation.
Quite a sweeping generalisation there.
I know someone who has opted out of organ donation on the basis that he did not wish to risk helping a Tory voter.
I know somebody who has done the same but they didn't want their organs helping a Labour supporter given Labour's mass murder of brown people in India/Pakistan and latterly in Iraq.
Labour's dehumanisation is quite sick from Attlee to Blair.
Are you back in the Tory camp for the GE, TSE? I think we should be told as it has obvious implications for betting.
Haven't they decided they'll probably divert it to Germany instead?
I was wondering about the energy loss from a cable over such a long distance.
From Kagi I find:
… the total estimated energy loss for transmitting electricity over the 4,000 km distance from Morocco to the UK would be in the range of 12-14%.
This level of energy loss is considered relatively low for such a long-distance transmission project and makes the Morocco-UK link technically feasible.
If it was transmitted in an aluminium core in an insulated pipe filled with liquid hydrogen there would be zero energy loss - and a supply of liquid hydrogen as a bonus.
Apart from the hilarious loses of hydrogen. And energy lost in liquifying the hydrogen.
You'd need a very good insulator. The energy lost in liquifying the hydrogen would be mostly recovered in the hydrogen powered cars. And airships.
NASA/ULA look at 1% boil off per day as good going, with exotic insulation tech. That’s in a volume tank, not a thin pipeline.
The energy lost in liquefaction is not recovered. This is one of the reasons the hydrogen cycle has such loses.
Airships like to be chucked around by the wind. See the fate of the American helium filled rigids.
I wonder what proportion of the petty criminal brigade now bother with physical theft? Its pretty low margin, high risk.
For the organised I would suggest creating ltd companies and bankrupting them. For the less organised just petty online fraud.
You would have to be extremely unlucky to get jailed for either, and probably pays better than typical physical theft.
Whilst I'm not a liquidator, I see what you've described almost every week. Actually nicking stuff is amateur. Far better to do as you say. No one cares, and no one investigates. There are vast swathes of laws against it, but none of them are enforced. The government decided that to put a stop to this, they'd then require accountants and solicitors to report misdeeds. In my experience, we very rarely do (why would we? We'd lose the client) and when they ARE reported (SAR) they are ignored by the authorities anyway.
Too complicated, too much like hard work, having to look at bank statements and try and be accountants, so the police just don't bother.
I've sat in ethics courses where the speaker has put forward a scenario (alledgely real) where the accountant was banged up for 1,000 years for failing to report or some such rubbish. I just roll my eyes. It never happens.
The only thing the regulators do is issue fines to large accountancy firms; not because they've been naughty but because ICAEW want the income stream. Actually getting chucked out of the ICAEW is virtually impossible as long as you pay the fines and the fees.
No one cares and no one investigates. As long as the people you are ripping off are HMRC or large banks that can take the loss, nothing will happen.
Professor Murphaloon flounced from the ICAEW three weeks ago.
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
UK worried for years about the destruction of the nation state, but believed that leaving the EU would cure that. Now we have left, we are discovering that it was only the foothills.
Leaving the EU has made it worse, since it's depressed the value of UK assets, making them more attractive targets, and deprived UK firms of a large domestic market, making it harder for them to grow and meaning that they are much more likely to be swallowed up by large US firms than the other way round. I think the UK economy is an awkward size - too small to have a large competitive home market with a diversified set of firms, but too large to be nimble and specialise in a few niche areas. I do wonder sometimes if we shouldn't consider becoming part of the US, if we're unwilling to be part of the EU. On our own I suspect we are going to grow ever poorer and more irrelevant to the global economy. I spent a week in DC and NYC last week attending the IMF's Spring Meetings and ancillary events and the only time the UK was mentioned was a few derisory comments about the Truss episode.
Err, we're the sixth biggest economy in the world. I think that is a pretty large domestic market....
Not really. There are essentially three large economies in the world - the US, China and the EU single market (and the last is incomplete, putting Europe at a disadvantage). The UK is what economists class a small open economy.
Your economic analysis is that of a 15 year old. South Korea is not dissimilar to us. Birthrate aside it does pretty bloody well. It is also a major wielder of soft power through its mighty creative industries - like us. No one says South Korea MUST join China
Britain is beating a new path. This may well become irrelevant and overwhelmed by the revolution of AI (where we are, btw, doing better than the absurd EU) but there is no reason we must fail because “we are the wrong size”. It’s asinine
We have Brexited. It’s now up to us for good or ill. That’s the point of Brexit. What is Brexit? It is Brexit
Lol I'm not sure I'll be taking economics lessons from someone who whose idea of insightful analysis is "what is Brexit? It is Brexit". That's hardly the Wealth of Nations. Clearly we have a number of advantages as an economy - the English language, our legal system, a convenient time zone, strength in creative and cultural industries. That might be enough if we were a small economy, but we have 65mn-odd people and I don't think our economic base is large and diversified enough to deliver prosperity for all of them right now.
I’m not sure our legal system is as highly thought of as it once was. Willing to be convinced I’m wrong; indeed I hope I can be.
One measure of that would be comparatively how many contracts by two international parties are written "under English Law", perhaps comparing 1990 with 2023.
Does anyone have any relevant numbers?
No. Kagi: "… in summary, the available information suggests that the use of English law in international commercial contracts between parties has remained common and important, though the exact quantitative trends between 1990 and 2023 are not clearly specified. "
Their stupid oversweet tooth cracking “koogy ammo” cake might be disgusting, but I have fallen in love with Breton cider in all its forms, thanks to the good advice of @Cookie who is wise in many things
As a Kir Breton it is a great aperitif. Just the right mix of tartness and sweetness to sharpen the appetite. And the added punch of the kir/crème de cassis gives it a lovely kick
Haven't they decided they'll probably divert it to Germany instead?
I was wondering about the energy loss from a cable over such a long distance.
From Kagi I find:
… the total estimated energy loss for transmitting electricity over the 4,000 km distance from Morocco to the UK would be in the range of 12-14%.
This level of energy loss is considered relatively low for such a long-distance transmission project and makes the Morocco-UK link technically feasible.
If it was transmitted in an aluminium core in an insulated pipe filled with liquid hydrogen there would be zero energy loss - and a supply of liquid hydrogen as a bonus.
Apart from the hilarious loses of hydrogen. And energy lost in liquifying the hydrogen.
You'd need a very good insulator. The energy lost in liquifying the hydrogen would be mostly recovered in the hydrogen powered cars. And airships.
NASA/ULA look at 1% boil off per day as good going, with exotic insulation tech. That’s in a volume tank, not a thin pipeline.
The energy lost in liquefaction is not recovered. This is one of the reasons the hydrogen cycle has such loses.
Airships like to be chucked around by the wind. See the fate of the American helium filled rigids.
In this instance the 'boil off' is actually hydrogen permeating the containing vessel isn't it?
EXCLUSIVE in tomorrow’s Observer: Conservative MP Dan Poulter defects to Labour saying Tories have become “nationalist party of the right” - by @tobyhelm
Haven't they decided they'll probably divert it to Germany instead?
I was wondering about the energy loss from a cable over such a long distance.
From Kagi I find:
… the total estimated energy loss for transmitting electricity over the 4,000 km distance from Morocco to the UK would be in the range of 12-14%.
This level of energy loss is considered relatively low for such a long-distance transmission project and makes the Morocco-UK link technically feasible.
If it was transmitted in an aluminium core in an insulated pipe filled with liquid hydrogen there would be zero energy loss - and a supply of liquid hydrogen as a bonus.
Apart from the hilarious loses of hydrogen. And energy lost in liquifying the hydrogen.
Hydrogen could be the future - or perhaps could be A future, but you're right it's quite hard to deal with. On the other hand we know that hydrogen will always be around and so working out how to deal with it seems like a good long-term plan.
Hydrogen may be a rather good long-term storage solution for places that have loads of surplus green energy away from customers - say, Australia. Or for things that are movable but require vast energy - say, ships or muck-movers. But it will be part of the 'solution', not *the* solution.
Yes, but I didn't mean that - potentially hydrogen could be a replacement for all hydrocarbon energy needs. I don't think it's likely, but not impossible.
The telling bit, for me, is how many times the technology pitch includes relaxing the safety rules for handling hydrogen.
I did like the guy who proposed storing hydrogen at 50,000 psi. In a vehicle. In a carbon fibre wrapped tank, IIRC.
Most of the Tories have shown themselves to be a lower form of life.Rayner is far from perfect but has never stooped to their levels of dehumanisation.
Quite a sweeping generalisation there.
I know someone who has opted out of organ donation on the basis that he did not wish to risk helping a Tory voter.
I know somebody who has done the same but they didn't want their organs helping a Labour supporter given Labour's mass murder of brown people in India/Pakistan and latterly in Iraq.
Labour's dehumanisation is quite sick from Attlee to Blair.
That I can understand despite the Tories being the party of Empire. In more recent years we have seen Tory MPs supporting Apartheid South Africa and Ian Smith's regime in Rhodesia. Quite a few Tories were happy to promote - and openly wear - 'Hang Nelson Mandela' Tshirts.
Don't forget the treatment of Kenyans in the rebellion and Thatcher's dalliance with her 'true friend'.
There's a somewhat depressing but interesting podcast from the team of the Speccie on the extent to which Britain is now owned (not run-politically, just owned financially) by the US. It's not done with an anti-US bias (all three contributors are pro-USA), but it does explore why we haven't been more French or German and attempted to maintain a little more of the family silver.
I wasn't aware that US digital companies pay more tax on their UK turnover in the US than they do in the UK. Ye Gods.
You’ve only just realised?
Economically, the UK has run itself as a wholly owned U.S. subsidiary since at least the 90s. Vast amounts of economic rent disappear into US hands. Half of the Premiership is owned by US interests. And so on. Each year the balance of trade remorselessly delivers more British wealth into foreign, chiefly U.S., hands. The FTSE is now a laughing stock. Nobody wants to list there anymore.
Not at all, I've been saying the same things here for years, but it's handy to have it crystalised here. Also, my objections to US dominance are often on matters of political influence, and they are usually as popular as a cup of cold sick here, because they are perceived as an attack on 'PB morale'. This is the other side of that coin, and is presented cogently by three men with no track record of antipathy to the US.
Maybe you have, but you’re also a big Truss fan. Yet she would simply exacerbate this problem. Indeed she would refuse to recognise it as a problem.
I disagree. A lot of Truss's reforms were aimed at helping UK companies to grow faster, and producing more food and particularly energy at home, which would have displaced imports and improved the balance of payments.
She is a doctinaire free marketeer, but I disagreed with the podcast contributor here who blamed the takeover issue on UK power-brokers being addicted to Hayek. They certainly don't show much of their free market predelictions in any other decisions they make. I think it's simple US-subservience. And whatever else Truss was or wasn't, she was actually the least US-subservient PM we've had, probably since Thatcher.
*Edit - it should also go without saying that I don't swallow the gospel of Truss wholesale - I tend to defend her a lot here because of the degree to which I feel she's attacked unfairly.
Truss today is the most US-subservient ex-PM, prostituting herself at MAGA events, nodding along when they praise Yaxley-Lennon, kowtowing to Trump.
You're confusing doing the media rounds to promote a book with actual subservience that is far more damaging - making unnecessary decisions in favour of US corporations and against UK interests whilst in power, and benefiting from nice quiet sinecures and patronage afterwards. See Tony Blair's foundation and its relationship with Oracle. See Rishi and Hunt confirming that countless billions will continue to be poured into the epically useless and irrelevant Trident system.
Never thought I would find myself saying something nice about the Moggster but I think was a good response to the protests against him at Cardiff University (my old alma mater) yesterday.
Haven't they decided they'll probably divert it to Germany instead?
I was wondering about the energy loss from a cable over such a long distance.
From Kagi I find:
… the total estimated energy loss for transmitting electricity over the 4,000 km distance from Morocco to the UK would be in the range of 12-14%.
This level of energy loss is considered relatively low for such a long-distance transmission project and makes the Morocco-UK link technically feasible.
If it was transmitted in an aluminium core in an insulated pipe filled with liquid hydrogen there would be zero energy loss - and a supply of liquid hydrogen as a bonus.
Apart from the hilarious loses of hydrogen. And energy lost in liquifying the hydrogen.
You'd need a very good insulator. The energy lost in liquifying the hydrogen would be mostly recovered in the hydrogen powered cars. And airships.
NASA/ULA look at 1% boil off per day as good going, with exotic insulation tech. That’s in a volume tank, not a thin pipeline.
The energy lost in liquefaction is not recovered. This is one of the reasons the hydrogen cycle has such loses.
Airships like to be chucked around by the wind. See the fate of the American helium filled rigids.
Not just being chucked around, with hydrogen in them ...
Comments
PS I'm a swifty too.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ftse-100-on-course-for-best-week-since-the-summer-x6cw5h6j0
Looks?
Character?
Intellect?
Politics?
Labour's dehumanisation is quite sick from Attlee to Blair.
Owen Jones
@OwenJones84
·
2h
I quit Labour last month, and said I'd vote for candidates on a case by case basis.
So in that spirit I'm voting
@SadiqKhan
for London mayor.
Unlike a general election, there's a huge risk with turnout, and just imagine Susan Hall becomes mayor 😱
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84
But a counter to that was *that* apology, and her doubling-down on her original comment beforehand. It was either a sign of a really nasty mindset; a refreshing honesty; or utter stupidity. Or all three at once...
Or the fact that PMQs is essentially scripted, and she would have had plenty of time to think of what she wa saying.
Actually nicking stuff is amateur. Far better to do as you say. No one cares, and no one investigates. There are vast swathes of laws against it, but none of them are enforced. The government decided that to put a stop to this, they'd then require accountants and solicitors to report misdeeds. In my experience, we very rarely do (why would we? We'd lose the client) and when they ARE reported (SAR) they are ignored by the authorities anyway.
Too complicated, too much like hard work, having to look at bank statements and try and be accountants, so the police just don't bother.
I've sat in ethics courses where the speaker has put forward a scenario (alledgely real) where the accountant was banged up for 1,000 years for failing to report or some such rubbish. I just roll my eyes. It never happens.
The only thing the regulators do is issue fines to large accountancy firms; not because they've been naughty but because ICAEW want the income stream. Actually getting chucked out of the ICAEW is virtually impossible as long as you pay the fines and the fees.
No one cares and no one investigates. As long as the people you are ripping off are HMRC or large banks that can take the loss, nothing will happen.
Cottingham stores 196MWh for £75m in (I assume) 2023 money.
Dinorwig stores 9.1GWh for £450m in 1974 money. Apply inflation 1974-2023 and that is £3700m to £4000m.
(Approximately)
Yet another thing that the Boomers invested in for the benefit of future generations.
In more recent years we have seen Tory MPs supporting Apartheid South Africa and Ian Smith's regime in Rhodesia. Quite a few Tories were happy to promote - and openly wear - 'Hang Nelson Mandela' Tshirts.
https://news.sky.com/story/jacob-rees-mogg-says-protest-was-legitimate-after-he-was-chased-by-demonstrators-13123952
Does anyone have any relevant numbers?
Or do you mean Penny Mordaunt’s service in the RNR?
The energy lost in liquefaction is not recovered. This is one of the reasons the hydrogen cycle has such loses.
Airships like to be chucked around by the wind. See the fate of the American helium filled rigids.
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/04/09/farewell-to-the-icaew/
"… in summary, the available information suggests that the use of English law in international commercial contracts between parties has remained common and important, though the exact quantitative trends between 1990 and 2023 are not clearly specified. "
I'm minded to reward their chutzpah by voting for them on Thursday.
As a Kir Breton it is a great aperitif. Just the right mix of tartness and sweetness to sharpen the appetite. And the added punch of the kir/crème de cassis gives it a lovely kick
And I love the colour
https://x.com/soniasodha/status/1784254241302864282
NEW THREAD
I did like the guy who proposed storing hydrogen at 50,000 psi. In a vehicle. In a carbon fibre wrapped tank, IIRC.
In more recent years we have seen Tory MPs supporting Apartheid South Africa and Ian Smith's regime in Rhodesia. Quite a few Tories were happy to promote - and openly wear - 'Hang Nelson Mandela' Tshirts.
Don't forget the treatment of Kenyans in the rebellion and Thatcher's dalliance with her 'true friend'.
By their actions, the protestors were trying to intimidate, not debate.