Starmer’s big tent politics just keeps getting bigger and bigger – politicalbetting.com

System

Starmer’s big tent politics just keeps getting bigger and bigger – politicalbetting.com

?The shocking moment it's revealed Dover MP Natalie Elphicke has defected to Labour moments before #PMQs ?That's two MPs defecting to Labour in less than 2 weeks pic.twitter.com/CMBEsUOJKd

Read the full story here

Pulpstar

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

Sunil_Prasannan

MoonRabbit said:

Mexicanpete said:

MoonRabbit said:

Anabobazina said:

Andy_JS said:

Tories down to 344 MPs.

Working hard all day and missed all the drama.

LOL. The Tories really are an utter embarrassment, aren’t they?

Today it’s Labour who are the utter embarrassment.

Getting the Tories out is not a message that works, by letting all the Tories in starting with the most mouthy right wing baggarts.

It will damage Starmer with those who already disliked Starmer.

The absurdity was probably worth the risk.

No it wasn’t. This afternoon every voter now hasn’t a scooby what Starmer’s Labour stands for. Where or what is its soul?

Today has been one of the most hugely damaging to Labour since the 1980s.

And as is obvious from Todays PMQs, Sunak’s Team has been preparing him well for PMQs, they are writing great things for him, and he has raised his delivery and game and form considerably. Today’s PMQs was another in sequence of wins for Sunak, despite the armoury Starmer had at his disposal.

We are all Tories now

eek

As Alistair Meeks pointed out last week

I don't think the scope of Sir Keir Starmer's ambition has been properly appreciated. He is doing nothing to give the Tories a USP, everything to cause apathy in their base. Working backwards from his tactics, his primary goal must be to eviscerate the Tories in the next Parliament.

Me

SKS had a slight problem with small boats but the MP for the area most impacted regards him and Labour as having better solutions than the Tory party she was a member of until today

So another possible USP for the Tory party is lost

Nigelb

She might actually be useful if they used her to red team policy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_team#History

TOPPING

fpt

Nigelb said:

.

TOPPING said:

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

LostPassword said:

TOPPING said:

On the climate it's very simple. Humanity (you and me, baby) don't want to do anything dramatic to mitigate any changes we may or may not be seeing as a result of our using fossil fuels beyond what we are already doing.

So we are just going to have to live with it.

Most of what we need to do is invisible to most people - e.g. using one type of machine to generate electricity rather than another. The people who have done most to delay the transition are - surprise - the people who made money out of using the old machines instead of the new ones.

It's got nothing to do with normal people being inconvenienced by having their electricity generated by a wind turbine instead of coal combustion.

If inconvenienced = more expensive then yes it does.

Power is more expensive today because Russia has been largely removed from the European energy mix.

Yeah whatever. I don't care I'm just saying that people care if any particular green enterprise is more expensive. If not then they are neutral and couldn't care less. Look at ESG in the US.

People don't care much about the cost of any particular generating capacity. Otherwise we wouldn't still be building the large nuclear power plants - or have so long delayed their construction that financing costs went through the roof.

And it was obvious a decade back that the renewable price trend would only be in one direction, over time.

We had all the facts we needed to make much greater investments quite some time back - and had we done so, it might have saved us billions during the first year of the Ukraine invasion.

Shoulda, woulda, coulda. One reason we didn't was because no government thought that voters would approve of such a spend.

148grss

Is it getting bigger, or have the tent pegs been moved? He refuses to let Dianne Abbott back into the party, he suspended an MP for saying a genocide is happening in Gaza. This is just more evidence of his moving Labour to the right. He is taking the space left by Cameroonism - clearly to the right of centre - as the mainstream Conservative party decide to waddle further and further right.

Northern_Al

Big tent? More like Glastonbury-scale campsite (but without Jezza).

EPG

A damning header from TSE. What's the odds she does nothing to embarrass her new party in the next 6-9 months?

wooliedyed

148grss said:

Is it getting bigger, or have the tent pegs been moved? He refuses to let Dianne Abbott back into the party, he suspended an MP for saying a genocide is happening in Gaza. This is just more evidence of his moving Labour to the right. He is taking the space left by Cameroonism - clearly to the right of centre - as the mainstream Conservative party decide to waddle further and further right.

Kate Osamor of the genocide comment has been readmitted today

eek

148grss said:

Is it getting bigger, or have the tent pegs been moved? He refuses to let Dianne Abbott back into the party, he suspended an MP for saying a genocide is happening in Gaza. This is just more evidence of his moving Labour to the right. He is taking the space left by Cameroonism - clearly to the right of centre - as the mainstream Conservative party decide to waddle further and further right.

Yep towards the Centre ground as the Tories move right which leaves the Tories few places / policies where they can shift toward the middle ground

As posted above the whole point is to remove any reason for a Tory voter to go out and vote on a cold wet winter night

Scott_xP

148grss said:

Is it getting bigger, or have the tent pegs been moved? He refuses to let Dianne Abbott back into the party, he suspended an MP for saying a genocide is happening in Gaza. This is just more evidence of his moving Labour to the right. He is taking the space left by Cameroonism - clearly to the right of centre - as the mainstream Conservative party decide to waddle further and further right.

Filling the overton window...

DM_Andy

It's okay, Sunak's only losing 1 MP every 11 days. With a working majority currently at 44, that means he can survive till January 2025.

148grss

wooliedyed said:

148grss said:

Is it getting bigger, or have the tent pegs been moved? He refuses to let Dianne Abbott back into the party, he suspended an MP for saying a genocide is happening in Gaza. This is just more evidence of his moving Labour to the right. He is taking the space left by Cameroonism - clearly to the right of centre - as the mainstream Conservative party decide to waddle further and further right.

Kate Osamor of the genocide comment has been readmitted today

I mean, literally just now has been readmitted.

squareroot2

I see Monty Panesar has left George Galloways WPB. A wise decision. Didn't take him long to realise it was a loony party.

Scott_xP

Parody Rishi Sunak
@Parody_PM

Very worrying to see Natalie Elphicke defect to Labour. What is to become of the Tory Party if Labour are now the natural home for morally bankrupt, immigration-hating, hard right entitled fuckwits?
#PMQs

rcs1000

Pulpstar said:

rcs1000 said:

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

david_herdson said:

TimS said:

david_herdson said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

david_herdson said:

148grss said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature

“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”

Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.

As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.

If you want to sort global warming, take on Beijing, not Brighton or Bristol.

Given Chinese emissions now, and into the foreseeable future, our best bet in Britain is (1) strategic independence, or at least, co-dependence with Europe, on energy and security, and (2) mitigation of the inevitable effects that will result from large regimes that have no interest in cutting emissions and can't be pressured into it. Reducing our reliance on carbon is sensible on that count - and helpfully plays a part on global heating too - but Britain's contribution either way is pretty minimal and while setting an example is useful, more important is anticipating and reacting to the hostile actions of others.

As an island nation, the UK ultimately has more than most to lose from a failure to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. If humanity goes ahead and burns all the fossil fuels that can be exploited, then the resulting rise in global temperature will eventually melt almost all of the surface ice and raise the sea level by around 60 m. This will take a long time - hundreds of years - but once started is very difficult to stop, even if the global will can be found to do so. We need to do everything in our power to persuade the big emitters to wind down their emissions, and I doubt that backtracking on our own commitments is going to do much to bolster our arguments.

Considering that the UK has cut emissions more than any G20 member, I think we're in a pretty decent place from which to make the case.

But the reality of it is that the big emitters - and China especially: by *far* the biggest emitter - isn't interested in listening. Nor India. Nor the US, particularly, Nor Russia. Nor the Middle East. Electing Greens or anyone else in the UK isn't going to make a difference to that. What we can do is prepare for a hotter, wetter, stormier climate and higher sea levels (though not by 60m - Antarctica isn't going to melt to that extent).

david_herdson said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

david_herdson said:

148grss said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature

“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”

Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.

As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.

If you want to sort global warming, take on Beijing, not Brighton or Bristol.

Given Chinese emissions now, and into the foreseeable future, our best bet in Britain is (1) strategic independence, or at least, co-dependence with Europe, on energy and security, and (2) mitigation of the inevitable effects that will result from large regimes that have no interest in cutting emissions and can't be pressured into it. Reducing our reliance on carbon is sensible on that count - and helpfully plays a part on global heating too - but Britain's contribution either way is pretty minimal and while setting an example is useful, more important is anticipating and reacting to the hostile actions of others.

As an island nation, the UK ultimately has more than most to lose from a failure to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. If humanity goes ahead and burns all the fossil fuels that can be exploited, then the resulting rise in global temperature will eventually melt almost all of the surface ice and raise the sea level by around 60 m. This will take a long time - hundreds of years - but once started is very difficult to stop, even if the global will can be found to do so. We need to do everything in our power to persuade the big emitters to wind down their emissions, and I doubt that backtracking on our own commitments is going to do much to bolster our arguments.

Considering that the UK has cut emissions more than any G20 member, I think we're in a pretty decent place from which to make the case.

But the reality of it is that the big emitters - and China especially: by *far* the biggest emitter - isn't interested in listening. Nor India. Nor the US, particularly, Nor Russia. Nor the Middle East. Electing Greens or anyone else in the UK isn't going to make a difference to that. What we can do is prepare for a hotter, wetter, stormier climate and higher sea levels (though not by 60m - Antarctica isn't going to melt to that extent).

Oh the US get it, and so do China. The US is spending upwards of a trillion dollars on tax incentives for green energy investment under the inflation reduction act and China is flooding the European market with cheap green tech. Unlike us and our European neighbours they actually understand the economic opportunities available from net zero.

As for the Middle East and Russia, the sooner we all get free from energy dependency on that lot (and we've already largely managed with Russia), the better.

Parts of the US gets it; others resolutely refuse to. China is a mixed bag but is on a mercantalist mission to leverage trade dependencies into political influence. But it emits more CO2 per head than all but 3 members of the EU (Lux, Poland, Czech) and close to twice as much as the UK - for a far lower GDP per capita.

Those coal fired power stations are powering the crucibles which create the silicon ingots for nearly 90% of the world's solar panel production.
It's far from the ideal way to get where we need to be, but until Biden got into the White House, the U.S. had pretty well abandoned the industry.

At some point that coal will be replaced by renewable power, and the virtuous circle will have extraordinary momentum.

The US could be doing that in Texas now, had the political will been there. (Note that the oil state is already building renewables faster than any of the other 49 - because it makes economic sense even in the short term.)

In related news it's the best day of the year so far for solar generation. Over 8gw currently in GB, the largest single source. Not often that happens.

Nuclear is doing OK at the moment too (5.3gw) and has been for a month or two. Presumably a favourable phase in their maintenance schedule.

Did you read the NY Times article about battery backup in the US: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/07/climate/battery-electricity-solar-california-texas.html

In just three years, battery backup has completely transformed the California electricity supply market. In 2021 they were irrelevant. Now batteries are supplying around 20% of evening demand.

There's a similar story in Texas, where batteries are working to smooth out the wind supply (and completely without subsidy or even government encouragement.) There, they are pumping out 2GW of electrical power - on average - at 8pm every evening when demand peaks.

As battery production capacity continues to grow worldwide, they're coming to the UK. And that's a disaster for gas peaking plants.

California's batteries will charge from solar all year round though with their 3348 hours of sunlight per year (Nicely distributed) to get through the night. The UK has ~ 1400 or so and it's much more seasonal than LA.

https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-hours-Sunshine,Los-Angeles,United-States-of-America

https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-hours-Sunshine,London,United-Kingdom

Unsure of the wind battery situation though. Perhaps that's more favourable ?

The article addresses wind too, because while California's renewable energy mix is largely about solar, Texas is all about wind.

And there the Republican government has been very hands off: there's been very little economic support for solar or wind. And none at all for batteries.

But it turns out that economics trumps all. In Texas, batteries charge most of the day and night, and then discharge in the evenings. It's a more spread out chart than the California one, but they are definitely playing their role. (Fwiw, that peak 2GW of battery production at 8pm on Thursday 28th is equivalent to half of all the nuclear production in the UK.)

The UK's power mix will look more like Texas's. And - fwiw - the cost of new wind turbines, while it is falling, is coming down nowhere near as quickly as solar.

But the thing is the price of declines. Solar was wildly uneconomic in the UK when it was $1 watt for panel prices - perhaps 10x the cost of alternative generation. But we're now at $0.16. We're now only at 60% more than alternative generation sources. The price will go to $0.10. And then $0.05.

But lower panel prices are the inexorable consequence of technological progress. Solar will, eventually, be the cheapest form of electricity generation in the UK. And it will (eventually) make economic sense to have panels everywhere, and batteries to store the reserve overnight.

LostPassword

As I pointed out on the last thread, in terms of housing policy she might end up being to the left of a cautious Starmer.

And he's managed to get her to defect without promising her a safe seat or a peerage, so she basically disappears after fulfilling her purpose of making Sunak look weak, making Labour look moderate and disarming attacks on Labour as weak in immigration - that's now a no score draw.

What policy area should we anticipate another defection in relation to?

AlsoLei

Pulpstar said:

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

This is the equivalent chart for the UK in December 2023:



blue is gas, green is wind, grey is nuclear

(from https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical)

rcs1000

Pulpstar said:

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

Let me see what I can dig out.

TOPPING

148grss said:

Is it getting bigger, or have the tent pegs been moved? He refuses to let Dianne Abbott back into the party, he suspended an MP for saying a genocide is happening in Gaza. This is just more evidence of his moving Labour to the right. He is taking the space left by Cameroonism - clearly to the right of centre - as the mainstream Conservative party decide to waddle further and further right.

Why is suspending an MP for saying a genocide is happening in Gaza "moving to the right"?

LostPassword

EPG said:

A damning header from TSE. What's the odds she does nothing to embarrass her new party in the next 6-9 months?

She's not standing for re-election, so the potential for embarrassment is much reduced.

Carnyx

Sunil_Prasannan said:

MoonRabbit said:

Mexicanpete said:

MoonRabbit said:

Anabobazina said:

Andy_JS said:

Tories down to 344 MPs.

Working hard all day and missed all the drama.

LOL. The Tories really are an utter embarrassment, aren’t they?

Today it’s Labour who are the utter embarrassment.

Getting the Tories out is not a message that works, by letting all the Tories in starting with the most mouthy right wing baggarts.

It will damage Starmer with those who already disliked Starmer.

The absurdity was probably worth the risk.

No it wasn’t. This afternoon every voter now hasn’t a scooby what Starmer’s Labour stands for. Where or what is its soul?

Today has been one of the most hugely damaging to Labour since the 1980s.

And as is obvious from Todays PMQs, Sunak’s Team has been preparing him well for PMQs, they are writing great things for him, and he has raised his delivery and game and form considerably. Today’s PMQs was another in sequence of wins for Sunak, despite the armoury Starmer had at his disposal.

We are all Tories now

Some of us aren't - but this sort of tortoise crawl by SKS will have interesting effects in Scotland, most of all on Scottish Labour.

Carnyx

LostPassword said:

As I pointed out on the last thread, in terms of housing policy she might end up being to the left of a cautious Starmer.

And he's managed to get her to defect without promising her a safe seat or a peerage, so she basically disappears after fulfilling her purpose of making Sunak look weak, making Labour look moderate and disarming attacks on Labour as weak in immigration - that's now a no score draw.

What policy area should we anticipate another defection in relation to?

Defence and spending thereupon (which could be to do with efficacy and efficiency as well as total at the bottom of the debit column).

eek

rcs1000 said:

Pulpstar said:

rcs1000 said:

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

david_herdson said:

TimS said:

david_herdson said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

david_herdson said:

148grss said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature

“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”

Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.

As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.

If you want to sort global warming, take on Beijing, not Brighton or Bristol.

Given Chinese emissions now, and into the foreseeable future, our best bet in Britain is (1) strategic independence, or at least, co-dependence with Europe, on energy and security, and (2) mitigation of the inevitable effects that will result from large regimes that have no interest in cutting emissions and can't be pressured into it. Reducing our reliance on carbon is sensible on that count - and helpfully plays a part on global heating too - but Britain's contribution either way is pretty minimal and while setting an example is useful, more important is anticipating and reacting to the hostile actions of others.

As an island nation, the UK ultimately has more than most to lose from a failure to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. If humanity goes ahead and burns all the fossil fuels that can be exploited, then the resulting rise in global temperature will eventually melt almost all of the surface ice and raise the sea level by around 60 m. This will take a long time - hundreds of years - but once started is very difficult to stop, even if the global will can be found to do so. We need to do everything in our power to persuade the big emitters to wind down their emissions, and I doubt that backtracking on our own commitments is going to do much to bolster our arguments.

Considering that the UK has cut emissions more than any G20 member, I think we're in a pretty decent place from which to make the case.

But the reality of it is that the big emitters - and China especially: by *far* the biggest emitter - isn't interested in listening. Nor India. Nor the US, particularly, Nor Russia. Nor the Middle East. Electing Greens or anyone else in the UK isn't going to make a difference to that. What we can do is prepare for a hotter, wetter, stormier climate and higher sea levels (though not by 60m - Antarctica isn't going to melt to that extent).

david_herdson said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

david_herdson said:

148grss said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature

“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”

Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.

As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.

If you want to sort global warming, take on Beijing, not Brighton or Bristol.

Given Chinese emissions now, and into the foreseeable future, our best bet in Britain is (1) strategic independence, or at least, co-dependence with Europe, on energy and security, and (2) mitigation of the inevitable effects that will result from large regimes that have no interest in cutting emissions and can't be pressured into it. Reducing our reliance on carbon is sensible on that count - and helpfully plays a part on global heating too - but Britain's contribution either way is pretty minimal and while setting an example is useful, more important is anticipating and reacting to the hostile actions of others.

As an island nation, the UK ultimately has more than most to lose from a failure to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. If humanity goes ahead and burns all the fossil fuels that can be exploited, then the resulting rise in global temperature will eventually melt almost all of the surface ice and raise the sea level by around 60 m. This will take a long time - hundreds of years - but once started is very difficult to stop, even if the global will can be found to do so. We need to do everything in our power to persuade the big emitters to wind down their emissions, and I doubt that backtracking on our own commitments is going to do much to bolster our arguments.

Considering that the UK has cut emissions more than any G20 member, I think we're in a pretty decent place from which to make the case.

But the reality of it is that the big emitters - and China especially: by *far* the biggest emitter - isn't interested in listening. Nor India. Nor the US, particularly, Nor Russia. Nor the Middle East. Electing Greens or anyone else in the UK isn't going to make a difference to that. What we can do is prepare for a hotter, wetter, stormier climate and higher sea levels (though not by 60m - Antarctica isn't going to melt to that extent).

Oh the US get it, and so do China. The US is spending upwards of a trillion dollars on tax incentives for green energy investment under the inflation reduction act and China is flooding the European market with cheap green tech. Unlike us and our European neighbours they actually understand the economic opportunities available from net zero.

As for the Middle East and Russia, the sooner we all get free from energy dependency on that lot (and we've already largely managed with Russia), the better.

Parts of the US gets it; others resolutely refuse to. China is a mixed bag but is on a mercantalist mission to leverage trade dependencies into political influence. But it emits more CO2 per head than all but 3 members of the EU (Lux, Poland, Czech) and close to twice as much as the UK - for a far lower GDP per capita.

Those coal fired power stations are powering the crucibles which create the silicon ingots for nearly 90% of the world's solar panel production.
It's far from the ideal way to get where we need to be, but until Biden got into the White House, the U.S. had pretty well abandoned the industry.

At some point that coal will be replaced by renewable power, and the virtuous circle will have extraordinary momentum.

The US could be doing that in Texas now, had the political will been there. (Note that the oil state is already building renewables faster than any of the other 49 - because it makes economic sense even in the short term.)

In related news it's the best day of the year so far for solar generation. Over 8gw currently in GB, the largest single source. Not often that happens.

Nuclear is doing OK at the moment too (5.3gw) and has been for a month or two. Presumably a favourable phase in their maintenance schedule.

Did you read the NY Times article about battery backup in the US: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/07/climate/battery-electricity-solar-california-texas.html

In just three years, battery backup has completely transformed the California electricity supply market. In 2021 they were irrelevant. Now batteries are supplying around 20% of evening demand.

There's a similar story in Texas, where batteries are working to smooth out the wind supply (and completely without subsidy or even government encouragement.) There, they are pumping out 2GW of electrical power - on average - at 8pm every evening when demand peaks.

As battery production capacity continues to grow worldwide, they're coming to the UK. And that's a disaster for gas peaking plants.

California's batteries will charge from solar all year round though with their 3348 hours of sunlight per year (Nicely distributed) to get through the night. The UK has ~ 1400 or so and it's much more seasonal than LA.

https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-hours-Sunshine,Los-Angeles,United-States-of-America

https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-hours-Sunshine,London,United-Kingdom

Unsure of the wind battery situation though. Perhaps that's more favourable ?

The article addresses wind too, because while California's renewable energy mix is largely about solar, Texas is all about wind.

And there the Republican government has been very hands off: there's been very little economic support for solar or wind. And none at all for batteries.

But it turns out that economics trumps all. In Texas, batteries charge most of the day and night, and then discharge in the evenings. It's a more spread out chart than the California one, but they are definitely playing their role. (Fwiw, that peak 2GW of battery production at 8pm on Thursday 28th is equivalent to half of all the nuclear production in the UK.)

The UK's power mix will look more like Texas's. And - fwiw - the cost of new wind turbines, while it is falling, is coming down nowhere near as quickly as solar.

But the thing is the price of declines. Solar was wildly uneconomic in the UK when it was $1 watt for panel prices - perhaps 10x the cost of alternative generation. But we're now at $0.16. We're now only at 60% more than alternative generation sources. The price will go to $0.10. And then $0.05.

But lower panel prices are the inexorable consequence of technological progress. Solar will, eventually, be the cheapest form of electricity generation in the UK. And it will (eventually) make economic sense to have panels everywhere, and batteries to store the reserve overnight.

I'm not sure - currently the cost of installing Solar for me is 20% for the panels, 80% labour costs..

Now the maths just about works but it's 40% of the return on just getting batteries and buying all my energy at the offpeak EV rates (pay back point for batteries is 4 years, solar is 10).

wooliedyed

I think Keir and Rachel think Nats a bit of a pussy willow wet but they've concluded they can toughen her up and get her further right

FeersumEnjineeya

AlsoLei said:

Pulpstar said:

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

This is the equivalent chart for the UK in December 2023:



blue is gas, green is wind, grey is nuclear

(from https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical)

That is of course electricity generation. Obviously total energy use includes commercial and domestic gas as well as fuel for vehicles. These could be a rather tougher nut to crack than electricity.

rcs1000

@Pulpstar

This is the UK over the last 24 hours



If you go back to the darkest day (boom boom) of December, you would probably find UK generating around 1-1.5GW, because solar plants do work (albeit at much lower efficiency) even when the sun is occluded.

Fortunately, the times of year when the sun is shining least tend to have decent amounts of wind. And, similarly, when the sun is shining, it is likely due to a high pressure formation, and therefore wind levels are lower.

So there is some natural offsetting that takes place.

But I think the obsession with net zero is an error. We should keep gas plants for those days when the sun isn't shining and the wing isn't blowing.

We can get to net down 80% really easily, simply by continuing to build out solar and wind, and by the natural increase in the penetration of electric cars. The last 20% will be much harder.

But better to get the easy 80% done, and done without affecting living standards, than to die on the hill of net zero and end up with net nothing. Because when you demand hair shirts, you get a backlash.

Let's lock in the 80%, and then we can worry about the next 20%. And it may well come from places - like lab grown meat rather than farm reared- that we never even thought about.

rcs1000

FeersumEnjineeya said:

AlsoLei said:

Pulpstar said:

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

This is the equivalent chart for the UK in December 2023:



blue is gas, green is wind, grey is nuclear

(from https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical)

That is of course electricity generation. Obviously total energy use includes commercial and domestic gas as well as fuel for vehicles. These could be a rather tougher nut to crack than electricity.

The share of total energy usage coming from electricity is inexorably rising, thanks to (a) increased electrical heating of homes, (b) the move to electrical appliances in kitchens, and (c) electric vehicles.

And this isn't a small change, it's a massive one.

Andy_JS

Guess who Natalie Elphicke supported at the 2022 Tory leadership election?

TRUSS.

https://twitter.com/NatalieElphicke/status/1556195356358180866

148grss

Scott_xP said:

148grss said:

Is it getting bigger, or have the tent pegs been moved? He refuses to let Dianne Abbott back into the party, he suspended an MP for saying a genocide is happening in Gaza. This is just more evidence of his moving Labour to the right. He is taking the space left by Cameroonism - clearly to the right of centre - as the mainstream Conservative party decide to waddle further and further right.

Filling the overton window...

But it isn't like left wing politics is unpopular - again Corbyn almost won against May because how unpopular her policies were and how popular the Labour manifesto was, and I still stand by the position that Johnson's overperformance was not just getting Brexit done but promising to spend money again. Truss wanted to go Galt, which was massively unpopular and spooked the markets, and Sunak has responded with further tax cuts and refusal to spend. Like, seeing my wages go up a bit this month did not fill me (or my colleagues) with much delight - one person I worked with talked about how their school was asking someone to donate a laminator because they didn't have the funds to purchase one and how he'd prefer not to have had the money himself if it meant stuff like that was paid for.

This is the problem the UK faces. We have a media that is so right wing and has a grasp on those >50+ that political parties feel the need to pander to it despite the fact that we are in fucking ruin because of the last decade and a half of real time cuts to services and wages.

Casino_Royale

It's the strategy he's been working on to try and spike the Government over Rwanda. Your MP for Dover backs our plan, not yours.

Clever.

Cookie

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

AlsoLei said:

Pulpstar said:

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

This is the equivalent chart for the UK in December 2023:



blue is gas, green is wind, grey is nuclear

(from https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical)

That is of course electricity generation. Obviously total energy use includes commercial and domestic gas as well as fuel for vehicles. These could be a rather tougher nut to crack than electricity.

The share of total energy usage coming from electricity is inexorably rising, thanks to (a) increased electrical heating of homes, (b) the move to electrical appliances in kitchens, and (c) electric vehicles.

And this isn't a small change, it's a massive one.

Coming soon to Channel 5: "How Air Fryers are keeping Yorkshire green".

rcs1000

eek said:

rcs1000 said:

Pulpstar said:

rcs1000 said:

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

david_herdson said:

TimS said:

david_herdson said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

david_herdson said:

148grss said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature

“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”

Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.

As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.

If you want to sort global warming, take on Beijing, not Brighton or Bristol.

Given Chinese emissions now, and into the foreseeable future, our best bet in Britain is (1) strategic independence, or at least, co-dependence with Europe, on energy and security, and (2) mitigation of the inevitable effects that will result from large regimes that have no interest in cutting emissions and can't be pressured into it. Reducing our reliance on carbon is sensible on that count - and helpfully plays a part on global heating too - but Britain's contribution either way is pretty minimal and while setting an example is useful, more important is anticipating and reacting to the hostile actions of others.

As an island nation, the UK ultimately has more than most to lose from a failure to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. If humanity goes ahead and burns all the fossil fuels that can be exploited, then the resulting rise in global temperature will eventually melt almost all of the surface ice and raise the sea level by around 60 m. This will take a long time - hundreds of years - but once started is very difficult to stop, even if the global will can be found to do so. We need to do everything in our power to persuade the big emitters to wind down their emissions, and I doubt that backtracking on our own commitments is going to do much to bolster our arguments.

Considering that the UK has cut emissions more than any G20 member, I think we're in a pretty decent place from which to make the case.

But the reality of it is that the big emitters - and China especially: by *far* the biggest emitter - isn't interested in listening. Nor India. Nor the US, particularly, Nor Russia. Nor the Middle East. Electing Greens or anyone else in the UK isn't going to make a difference to that. What we can do is prepare for a hotter, wetter, stormier climate and higher sea levels (though not by 60m - Antarctica isn't going to melt to that extent).

david_herdson said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

david_herdson said:

148grss said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature

“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”

Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.

As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.

If you want to sort global warming, take on Beijing, not Brighton or Bristol.

Given Chinese emissions now, and into the foreseeable future, our best bet in Britain is (1) strategic independence, or at least, co-dependence with Europe, on energy and security, and (2) mitigation of the inevitable effects that will result from large regimes that have no interest in cutting emissions and can't be pressured into it. Reducing our reliance on carbon is sensible on that count - and helpfully plays a part on global heating too - but Britain's contribution either way is pretty minimal and while setting an example is useful, more important is anticipating and reacting to the hostile actions of others.

As an island nation, the UK ultimately has more than most to lose from a failure to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. If humanity goes ahead and burns all the fossil fuels that can be exploited, then the resulting rise in global temperature will eventually melt almost all of the surface ice and raise the sea level by around 60 m. This will take a long time - hundreds of years - but once started is very difficult to stop, even if the global will can be found to do so. We need to do everything in our power to persuade the big emitters to wind down their emissions, and I doubt that backtracking on our own commitments is going to do much to bolster our arguments.

Considering that the UK has cut emissions more than any G20 member, I think we're in a pretty decent place from which to make the case.

But the reality of it is that the big emitters - and China especially: by *far* the biggest emitter - isn't interested in listening. Nor India. Nor the US, particularly, Nor Russia. Nor the Middle East. Electing Greens or anyone else in the UK isn't going to make a difference to that. What we can do is prepare for a hotter, wetter, stormier climate and higher sea levels (though not by 60m - Antarctica isn't going to melt to that extent).

Oh the US get it, and so do China. The US is spending upwards of a trillion dollars on tax incentives for green energy investment under the inflation reduction act and China is flooding the European market with cheap green tech. Unlike us and our European neighbours they actually understand the economic opportunities available from net zero.

As for the Middle East and Russia, the sooner we all get free from energy dependency on that lot (and we've already largely managed with Russia), the better.

Parts of the US gets it; others resolutely refuse to. China is a mixed bag but is on a mercantalist mission to leverage trade dependencies into political influence. But it emits more CO2 per head than all but 3 members of the EU (Lux, Poland, Czech) and close to twice as much as the UK - for a far lower GDP per capita.

Those coal fired power stations are powering the crucibles which create the silicon ingots for nearly 90% of the world's solar panel production.
It's far from the ideal way to get where we need to be, but until Biden got into the White House, the U.S. had pretty well abandoned the industry.

At some point that coal will be replaced by renewable power, and the virtuous circle will have extraordinary momentum.

The US could be doing that in Texas now, had the political will been there. (Note that the oil state is already building renewables faster than any of the other 49 - because it makes economic sense even in the short term.)

In related news it's the best day of the year so far for solar generation. Over 8gw currently in GB, the largest single source. Not often that happens.

Nuclear is doing OK at the moment too (5.3gw) and has been for a month or two. Presumably a favourable phase in their maintenance schedule.

Did you read the NY Times article about battery backup in the US: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/07/climate/battery-electricity-solar-california-texas.html

In just three years, battery backup has completely transformed the California electricity supply market. In 2021 they were irrelevant. Now batteries are supplying around 20% of evening demand.

There's a similar story in Texas, where batteries are working to smooth out the wind supply (and completely without subsidy or even government encouragement.) There, they are pumping out 2GW of electrical power - on average - at 8pm every evening when demand peaks.

As battery production capacity continues to grow worldwide, they're coming to the UK. And that's a disaster for gas peaking plants.

California's batteries will charge from solar all year round though with their 3348 hours of sunlight per year (Nicely distributed) to get through the night. The UK has ~ 1400 or so and it's much more seasonal than LA.

https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-hours-Sunshine,Los-Angeles,United-States-of-America

https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-hours-Sunshine,London,United-Kingdom

Unsure of the wind battery situation though. Perhaps that's more favourable ?

The article addresses wind too, because while California's renewable energy mix is largely about solar, Texas is all about wind.

And there the Republican government has been very hands off: there's been very little economic support for solar or wind. And none at all for batteries.

But it turns out that economics trumps all. In Texas, batteries charge most of the day and night, and then discharge in the evenings. It's a more spread out chart than the California one, but they are definitely playing their role. (Fwiw, that peak 2GW of battery production at 8pm on Thursday 28th is equivalent to half of all the nuclear production in the UK.)

The UK's power mix will look more like Texas's. And - fwiw - the cost of new wind turbines, while it is falling, is coming down nowhere near as quickly as solar.

But the thing is the price of declines. Solar was wildly uneconomic in the UK when it was $1 watt for panel prices - perhaps 10x the cost of alternative generation. But we're now at $0.16. We're now only at 60% more than alternative generation sources. The price will go to $0.10. And then $0.05.

But lower panel prices are the inexorable consequence of technological progress. Solar will, eventually, be the cheapest form of electricity generation in the UK. And it will (eventually) make economic sense to have panels everywhere, and batteries to store the reserve overnight.

I'm not sure - currently the cost of installing Solar for me is 20% for the panels, 80% labour costs..

Now the maths just about works but it's 40% of the return on just getting batteries and buying all my energy at the offpeak EV rates (pay back point for batteries is 4 years, solar is 10).

The labour costs for industrial scale solar are a much lower percentage than for residential.

Plus that's why I've focused on building integrated solar: if you're building a house or shopping center or parking garage or office today, then the labour increase is negligible, given you're building a roof in the first place.

The other massive thing that's coming is solar roof tiles that are entirely compatible with existing tiles. You simply replace your slate or tiles with ones that connect to each other on the edges and generate power. There is no additional installation cost, beyond connecting them at the edge to an inverter.

FeersumEnjineeya

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

AlsoLei said:

Pulpstar said:

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

This is the equivalent chart for the UK in December 2023:



blue is gas, green is wind, grey is nuclear

(from https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical)

That is of course electricity generation. Obviously total energy use includes commercial and domestic gas as well as fuel for vehicles. These could be a rather tougher nut to crack than electricity.

The share of total energy usage coming from electricity is inexorably rising, thanks to (a) increased electrical heating of homes, (b) the move to electrical appliances in kitchens, and (c) electric vehicles.

And this isn't a small change, it's a massive one.

But, given the news this morning that private new EV sales are down 14% (IIRC) on last year in the UK, a change that may be stalling.

EPG

148grss said:

Scott_xP said:

148grss said:

Is it getting bigger, or have the tent pegs been moved? He refuses to let Dianne Abbott back into the party, he suspended an MP for saying a genocide is happening in Gaza. This is just more evidence of his moving Labour to the right. He is taking the space left by Cameroonism - clearly to the right of centre - as the mainstream Conservative party decide to waddle further and further right.

Filling the overton window...

But it isn't like left wing politics is unpopular - again Corbyn almost won against May because how unpopular her policies were and how popular the Labour manifesto was, and I still stand by the position that Johnson's overperformance was not just getting Brexit done but promising to spend money again. Truss wanted to go Galt, which was massively unpopular and spooked the markets, and Sunak has responded with further tax cuts and refusal to spend. Like, seeing my wages go up a bit this month did not fill me (or my colleagues) with much delight - one person I worked with talked about how their school was asking someone to donate a laminator because they didn't have the funds to purchase one and how he'd prefer not to have had the money himself if it meant stuff like that was paid for.

This is the problem the UK faces. We have a media that is so right wing and has a grasp on those >50+ that political parties feel the need to pander to it despite the fact that we are in fucking ruin because of the last decade and a half of real time cuts to services and wages.

Almost won, of course, translates to English as lost.

NickyBreakspear

rcs1000 said:

@Pulpstar

This is the UK over the last 24 hours



If you go back to the darkest day (boom boom) of December, you would probably find UK generating around 1-1.5GW, because solar plants do work (albeit at much lower efficiency) even when the sun is occluded.

Fortunately, the times of year when the sun is shining least tend to have decent amounts of wind. And, similarly, when the sun is shining, it is likely due to a high pressure formation, and therefore wind levels are lower.

So there is some natural offsetting that takes place.

But I think the obsession with net zero is an error. We should keep gas plants for those days when the sun isn't shining and the wing isn't blowing.

We can get to net down 80% really easily, simply by continuing to build out solar and wind, and by the natural increase in the penetration of electric cars. The last 20% will be much harder.

But better to get the easy 80% done, and done without affecting living standards, than to die on the hill of net zero and end up with net nothing. Because when you demand hair shirts, you get a backlash.

Let's lock in the 80%, and then we can worry about the next 20%. And it may well come from places - like lab grown meat rather than farm reared- that we never even thought about.

After 7am the sun has come out in the UK and is currently around 20% of generation https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/live

TOPPING

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

AlsoLei said:

Pulpstar said:

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

This is the equivalent chart for the UK in December 2023:



blue is gas, green is wind, grey is nuclear

(from https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical)

That is of course electricity generation. Obviously total energy use includes commercial and domestic gas as well as fuel for vehicles. These could be a rather tougher nut to crack than electricity.

The share of total energy usage coming from electricity is inexorably rising, thanks to (a) increased electrical heating of homes, (b) the move to electrical appliances in kitchens, and (c) electric vehicles.

And this isn't a small change, it's a massive one.

But, given the news this morning that private new EV sales are down 14% (IIRC) on last year in the UK, a change that may be stalling.

They are too expensive. All those people who can afford them have bought them. That leaves quite a gap between the purchase price and the price at which the bulk of people can afford them.

Edit: and someone will now say you can by a Nissan Teeny Weeny for ten grand which fits you and your miniature Schnauzer in and that's it.

rcs1000

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

AlsoLei said:

Pulpstar said:

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

This is the equivalent chart for the UK in December 2023:



blue is gas, green is wind, grey is nuclear

(from https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical)

That is of course electricity generation. Obviously total energy use includes commercial and domestic gas as well as fuel for vehicles. These could be a rather tougher nut to crack than electricity.

The share of total energy usage coming from electricity is inexorably rising, thanks to (a) increased electrical heating of homes, (b) the move to electrical appliances in kitchens, and (c) electric vehicles.

And this isn't a small change, it's a massive one.

But, given the news this morning that private new EV sales are down 14% (IIRC) on last year in the UK, a change that may be stalling.

Adoption of any new technology goes through fits and starts. In 2020, world mobile phone shipments fell 20% on 1999. Yet - within a few years - everyone in the world still had a mobile phone.

bigjohnowls

Andy_JS said:

Guess who Natalie Elphicke supported at the 2022 Tory leadership election?

TRUSS.

https://twitter.com/NatalieElphicke/status/1556195356358180866

Well exactly SKS Labour is happy to admit any old right wing racist dross to the PLP in Elphick

On the same day it readmits Kate Osamor (that wouldnt have happened without the NOM voteshare at LE2024)

rcs1000

TOPPING said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

AlsoLei said:

Pulpstar said:

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

This is the equivalent chart for the UK in December 2023:



blue is gas, green is wind, grey is nuclear

(from https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical)

That is of course electricity generation. Obviously total energy use includes commercial and domestic gas as well as fuel for vehicles. These could be a rather tougher nut to crack than electricity.

The share of total energy usage coming from electricity is inexorably rising, thanks to (a) increased electrical heating of homes, (b) the move to electrical appliances in kitchens, and (c) electric vehicles.

And this isn't a small change, it's a massive one.

But, given the news this morning that private new EV sales are down 14% (IIRC) on last year in the UK, a change that may be stalling.

They are too expensive. All those people who can afford them have bought them. That leaves quite a gap between the purchase price and the price at which the bulk of people can afford them.

Edit: and someone will now say you can by a Nissan Teeny Weeny for ten grand which fits you and your miniature Schnauzer in and that's it.

That's true, but that's changing. BYD in China is selling a new $10k electric car that would suitable for the majority of families. That will come to the UK.

And we also shouldn't focus just on the number of new cars being sold. The proportion of the vehicle fleet that is electric is continuing to rise.

Theuniondivvie

Northern_Al said:

Big tent? More like Glastonbury-scale campsite (but without Jezza).

Portaloos beginning to whiff a bit..

Scott_xP

@kateferguson4

Common Sense group have their weekly drinks tonight, so they are calling it ‘leaving drinks’ 🍹

FeersumEnjineeya

TOPPING said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

AlsoLei said:

Pulpstar said:

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

This is the equivalent chart for the UK in December 2023:



blue is gas, green is wind, grey is nuclear

(from https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical)

That is of course electricity generation. Obviously total energy use includes commercial and domestic gas as well as fuel for vehicles. These could be a rather tougher nut to crack than electricity.

The share of total energy usage coming from electricity is inexorably rising, thanks to (a) increased electrical heating of homes, (b) the move to electrical appliances in kitchens, and (c) electric vehicles.

And this isn't a small change, it's a massive one.

But, given the news this morning that private new EV sales are down 14% (IIRC) on last year in the UK, a change that may be stalling.

They are too expensive. All those people who can afford them have bought them. That leaves quite a gap between the purchase price and the price at which the bulk of people can afford them.

Edit: and someone will now say you can by a Nissan Teeny Weeny for ten grand which fits you and your miniature Schnauzer in and that's it.

The relentless right-wing media campaign against EVs doesn't help either. It's like they actively desire both environmental destruction and petrostate dependency.

boulay

Casino_Royale said:

It's the strategy he's been working on to try and spike the Government over Rwanda. Your MP for Dover backs our plan, not yours.

Clever.

Until Rishi says that “this is an example of lefties undermining attempts to stop the boats where they pretend to be Tories to get elected then reveal their true colours. Only by weeding out the blob and the traitors can we stop the boats.

You, the noble people of Dover, gatekeepers to our country for centuries, have been hoodwinked in a despicable Labour plot to stop us stopping the boats on your very own doorstep, selected in your own polling stations.”

Etc.

williamglenn

This kind of policy has been floated by the Labour party for application here:

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-jfk-airport-construction-sets-record-mwbe-participation-23-billion

Governor Kathy Hochul today announced a historic milestone in the ongoing transformation of JFK International Airport, where a record $2.3 billion in contracts have been awarded to Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprises (MWBE).

To increase MWBE participation at the JFK Redevelopment Program, and across the agency, the Port Authority and its private terminal partners at JFK hosted a variety of capacity-building and technical training programs that prepared firms to be successful in navigating what can at times be complex airport-related procurements. These programs include an academy for principals at architecture and engineering firms, contractor coaching programs that train firms to apply for contracts and construction mentoring programs that recruit, train and mentor MWBE firms to bid on large public construction projects, and project readiness bootcamps. The redevelopment team has also sponsored hundreds of seminars, webinars and forums to help firms become MWBE certified, meet and network with prime contractors, and build the skill sets needed to be successful in the field.

Big_G_NorthWales

TOPPING said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

AlsoLei said:

Pulpstar said:

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

This is the equivalent chart for the UK in December 2023:



blue is gas, green is wind, grey is nuclear

(from https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical)

That is of course electricity generation. Obviously total energy use includes commercial and domestic gas as well as fuel for vehicles. These could be a rather tougher nut to crack than electricity.

The share of total energy usage coming from electricity is inexorably rising, thanks to (a) increased electrical heating of homes, (b) the move to electrical appliances in kitchens, and (c) electric vehicles.

And this isn't a small change, it's a massive one.

But, given the news this morning that private new EV sales are down 14% (IIRC) on last year in the UK, a change that may be stalling.

They are too expensive. All those people who can afford them have bought them. That leaves quite a gap between the purchase price and the price at which the bulk of people can afford them.

Edit: and someone will now say you can by a Nissan Teeny Weeny for ten grand which fits you and your miniature Schnauzer in and that's it.

The problem with EVs is not just they are expensive and unaffordable to many but the insurance and repair costs are prohibitive and as for replacing their batteries then forget it

kinabalu

squareroot2 said:

I see Monty Panesar has left George Galloways WPB. A wise decision. Didn't take him long to realise it was a loony party.

Yes, pleased to see that. GG exploits people with good intentions and little nous.

Scott_xP

We can argue about whether defecting to a different party might have been more appropriate, but without doubt this defection was the best way for her to kick Richi in the nuts

LostPassword

rcs1000 said:

But better to get the easy 80% done, and done without affecting living standards, than to die on the hill of net zero and end up with net nothing. Because when you demand hair shirts, you get a backlash.

Let's lock in the 80%, and then we can worry about the next 20%. And it may well come from places - like lab grown meat rather than farm reared- that we never even thought about.

The sooner we can get the easy 80% done, the longer we have to work out how to do the hard 20%. So anything we can do to increase the pace of the transition is important.

rcs1000

TOPPING said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

AlsoLei said:

Pulpstar said:

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

This is the equivalent chart for the UK in December 2023:



blue is gas, green is wind, grey is nuclear

(from https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical)

That is of course electricity generation. Obviously total energy use includes commercial and domestic gas as well as fuel for vehicles. These could be a rather tougher nut to crack than electricity.

The share of total energy usage coming from electricity is inexorably rising, thanks to (a) increased electrical heating of homes, (b) the move to electrical appliances in kitchens, and (c) electric vehicles.

And this isn't a small change, it's a massive one.

But, given the news this morning that private new EV sales are down 14% (IIRC) on last year in the UK, a change that may be stalling.

They are too expensive. All those people who can afford them have bought them. That leaves quite a gap between the purchase price and the price at which the bulk of people can afford them.

Edit: and someone will now say you can by a Nissan Teeny Weeny for ten grand which fits you and your miniature Schnauzer in and that's it.

@TOPPING

Just as there's a curve for solar panel prices, there's a curve for EV batteries. Every year the components that make up electric cars get cheaper. That's simply not true - or at least not to the same extent - with traditional ICE cars.

That means that - sure - today *new* electric cars are not competitive for 60% of the UK market for new cars. But next year the price of a new electric car of specification x will have fallen 10%, while the equivalent petrol powered car will only be down 2%.

Every year the proportion of people for whom electric cars are appropriate rises. And eventually it will be close to 100%. Because that is the nature of technological change.

FeersumEnjineeya

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

AlsoLei said:

Pulpstar said:

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

This is the equivalent chart for the UK in December 2023:



blue is gas, green is wind, grey is nuclear

(from https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical)

That is of course electricity generation. Obviously total energy use includes commercial and domestic gas as well as fuel for vehicles. These could be a rather tougher nut to crack than electricity.

The share of total energy usage coming from electricity is inexorably rising, thanks to (a) increased electrical heating of homes, (b) the move to electrical appliances in kitchens, and (c) electric vehicles.

And this isn't a small change, it's a massive one.

But, given the news this morning that private new EV sales are down 14% (IIRC) on last year in the UK, a change that may be stalling.

They are too expensive. All those people who can afford them have bought them. That leaves quite a gap between the purchase price and the price at which the bulk of people can afford them.

Edit: and someone will now say you can by a Nissan Teeny Weeny for ten grand which fits you and your miniature Schnauzer in and that's it.

The problem with EVs is not just they are expensive and unaffordable to many but the insurance and repair costs are prohibitive and as for replacing their batteries then forget it

Don't believe everything you read in the papers. My Leaf is only marginally more expensive to insure than my old petrol car and costs far less to run and maintain. As for replacing the battery, yes, forget it because you're very unlikely to have to do it.

rcs1000

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

AlsoLei said:

Pulpstar said:

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

This is the equivalent chart for the UK in December 2023:



blue is gas, green is wind, grey is nuclear

(from https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical)

That is of course electricity generation. Obviously total energy use includes commercial and domestic gas as well as fuel for vehicles. These could be a rather tougher nut to crack than electricity.

The share of total energy usage coming from electricity is inexorably rising, thanks to (a) increased electrical heating of homes, (b) the move to electrical appliances in kitchens, and (c) electric vehicles.

And this isn't a small change, it's a massive one.

But, given the news this morning that private new EV sales are down 14% (IIRC) on last year in the UK, a change that may be stalling.

They are too expensive. All those people who can afford them have bought them. That leaves quite a gap between the purchase price and the price at which the bulk of people can afford them.

Edit: and someone will now say you can by a Nissan Teeny Weeny for ten grand which fits you and your miniature Schnauzer in and that's it.

The problem with EVs is not just they are expensive and unaffordable to many but the insurance and repair costs are prohibitive and as for replacing their batteries then forget it

That's all a part of the growing pains of electric cars. Not all repair shops know how to deal with them, and spare parts are rare. That means that the cost of repairs is higher.

But that will change.

kinabalu

boulay said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's the strategy he's been working on to try and spike the Government over Rwanda. Your MP for Dover backs our plan, not yours.

Clever.

Until Rishi says that “this is an example of lefties undermining attempts to stop the boats where they pretend to be Tories to get elected then reveal their true colours. Only by weeding out the blob and the traitors can we stop the boats.

You, the noble people of Dover, gatekeepers to our country for centuries, have been hoodwinked in a despicable Labour plot to stop us stopping the boats on your very own doorstep, selected in your own polling stations.”

Etc.

If it drives him off the deep end like that it'll be even cleverer!

rcs1000

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

AlsoLei said:

Pulpstar said:

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

This is the equivalent chart for the UK in December 2023:



blue is gas, green is wind, grey is nuclear

(from https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical)

That is of course electricity generation. Obviously total energy use includes commercial and domestic gas as well as fuel for vehicles. These could be a rather tougher nut to crack than electricity.

The share of total energy usage coming from electricity is inexorably rising, thanks to (a) increased electrical heating of homes, (b) the move to electrical appliances in kitchens, and (c) electric vehicles.

And this isn't a small change, it's a massive one.

But, given the news this morning that private new EV sales are down 14% (IIRC) on last year in the UK, a change that may be stalling.

They are too expensive. All those people who can afford them have bought them. That leaves quite a gap between the purchase price and the price at which the bulk of people can afford them.

Edit: and someone will now say you can by a Nissan Teeny Weeny for ten grand which fits you and your miniature Schnauzer in and that's it.

The problem with EVs is not just they are expensive and unaffordable to many but the insurance and repair costs are prohibitive and as for replacing their batteries then forget it

Don't believe everything you read in the papers. My Leaf is only marginally more expensive to insure than my old petrol car and costs far less to run and maintain. As for replacing the battery, yes, forget it because you're very unlikely to have to do it.

And that battery from that Nissan Leaf: Nissan recycles them! They get turned in home battery backup systems because that is a place where the fact that they've lost 20% of their capacity is of no import whatsoever.

williamglenn

Scott_xP said:

We can argue about whether defecting to a different party might have been more appropriate, but without doubt this defection was the best way for her to kick Richi in the nuts

Sunak should just say it's part of a plan to inflitrate the Labour party.

Malmesbury

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

AlsoLei said:

Pulpstar said:

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

This is the equivalent chart for the UK in December 2023:



blue is gas, green is wind, grey is nuclear

(from https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical)

That is of course electricity generation. Obviously total energy use includes commercial and domestic gas as well as fuel for vehicles. These could be a rather tougher nut to crack than electricity.

The share of total energy usage coming from electricity is inexorably rising, thanks to (a) increased electrical heating of homes, (b) the move to electrical appliances in kitchens, and (c) electric vehicles.

And this isn't a small change, it's a massive one.

But, given the news this morning that private new EV sales are down 14% (IIRC) on last year in the UK, a change that may be stalling.

They are too expensive. All those people who can afford them have bought them. That leaves quite a gap between the purchase price and the price at which the bulk of people can afford them.

Edit: and someone will now say you can by a Nissan Teeny Weeny for ten grand which fits you and your miniature Schnauzer in and that's it.

The problem with EVs is not just they are expensive and unaffordable to many but the insurance and repair costs are prohibitive and as for replacing their batteries then forget it

Battery replacement is generally not needed and the cost has dropped. A lot

https://bookmygarage.com/electric-vehicles/how-much-does-an-electric-battery-cost-uk/

squareroot2

Andy_JS said:

Guess who Natalie Elphicke supported at the 2022 Tory leadership election?

TRUSS.

https://twitter.com/NatalieElphicke/status/1556195356358180866

Cookie said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

AlsoLei said:

Pulpstar said:

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

This is the equivalent chart for the UK in December 2023:



blue is gas, green is wind, grey is nuclear

(from https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical)

That is of course electricity generation. Obviously total energy use includes commercial and domestic gas as well as fuel for vehicles. These could be a rather tougher nut to crack than electricity.

The share of total energy usage coming from electricity is inexorably rising, thanks to (a) increased electrical heating of homes, (b) the move to electrical appliances in kitchens, and (c) electric vehicles.

And this isn't a small change, it's a massive one.

Coming soon to Channel 5: "How Air Fryers are keeping Yorkshire green".

Not sure it's on C4 or C5 but there is an excellent programme about the guy from the Great Pottery throwdown buying a Welsh chapel and turning it into a home. He's a really nice guy and it's a
v interesting programme.

DecrepiterJohnL

williamglenn said:

This kind of policy has been floated by the Labour party for application here:

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-jfk-airport-construction-sets-record-mwbe-participation-23-billion

Governor Kathy Hochul today announced a historic milestone in the ongoing transformation of JFK International Airport, where a record $2.3 billion in contracts have been awarded to Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprises (MWBE).

To increase MWBE participation at the JFK Redevelopment Program, and across the agency, the Port Authority and its private terminal partners at JFK hosted a variety of capacity-building and technical training programs that prepared firms to be successful in navigating what can at times be complex airport-related procurements. These programs include an academy for principals at architecture and engineering firms, contractor coaching programs that train firms to apply for contracts and construction mentoring programs that recruit, train and mentor MWBE firms to bid on large public construction projects, and project readiness bootcamps. The redevelopment team has also sponsored hundreds of seminars, webinars and forums to help firms become MWBE certified, meet and network with prime contractors, and build the skill sets needed to be successful in the field.

Looks OK on skim-reading. Our own government publicly listing contracts is a baby step in the same direction. Widening the pool of companies that can bid seems like a good idea, whatever anyone thinks of the woke stuff around their being female or minority-led. One reason the usual suspects like Capita or Group 4 get so many contracts is that they bid for them. Another is that so many have an unnecessarily wide scope that can only be met by large companies but do we really need national contracts?

OldKingCole

My thoughts on this afternoon’s political news; there is more joy in heaven over one sinner which repenteth………


And as someone who has just ordered an electric mobility scooter, I’m tempted by a Leaf!

eek

squareroot2 said:

Andy_JS said:

Guess who Natalie Elphicke supported at the 2022 Tory leadership election?

TRUSS.

https://twitter.com/NatalieElphicke/status/1556195356358180866

Cookie said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

AlsoLei said:

Pulpstar said:

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

This is the equivalent chart for the UK in December 2023:



blue is gas, green is wind, grey is nuclear

(from https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical)

That is of course electricity generation. Obviously total energy use includes commercial and domestic gas as well as fuel for vehicles. These could be a rather tougher nut to crack than electricity.

The share of total energy usage coming from electricity is inexorably rising, thanks to (a) increased electrical heating of homes, (b) the move to electrical appliances in kitchens, and (c) electric vehicles.

And this isn't a small change, it's a massive one.

Coming soon to Channel 5: "How Air Fryers are keeping Yorkshire green".

Not sure it's on C4 or C5 but there is an excellent programme about the guy from the Great Pottery throwdown buying a Welsh chapel and turning it into a home. He's a really nice guy and it's a
v interesting programme.

C4 and I suspect it’s designed to replace the chateau renovation series because C4 ran out of companies willing to work with the couple

kyf_100

Malmesbury said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

AlsoLei said:

Pulpstar said:

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

This is the equivalent chart for the UK in December 2023:



blue is gas, green is wind, grey is nuclear

(from https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical)

That is of course electricity generation. Obviously total energy use includes commercial and domestic gas as well as fuel for vehicles. These could be a rather tougher nut to crack than electricity.

The share of total energy usage coming from electricity is inexorably rising, thanks to (a) increased electrical heating of homes, (b) the move to electrical appliances in kitchens, and (c) electric vehicles.

And this isn't a small change, it's a massive one.

But, given the news this morning that private new EV sales are down 14% (IIRC) on last year in the UK, a change that may be stalling.

They are too expensive. All those people who can afford them have bought them. That leaves quite a gap between the purchase price and the price at which the bulk of people can afford them.

Edit: and someone will now say you can by a Nissan Teeny Weeny for ten grand which fits you and your miniature Schnauzer in and that's it.

The problem with EVs is not just they are expensive and unaffordable to many but the insurance and repair costs are prohibitive and as for replacing their batteries then forget it

Battery replacement is generally not needed and the cost has dropped. A lot

https://bookmygarage.com/electric-vehicles/how-much-does-an-electric-battery-cost-uk/

8 or so grand is a lot - My second hand ICE vehicle cost less than that in total and does what I need. Consequently running costs and depreciation are minimal.

I think the problem is more that you have more or less no idea of the battery's actual health when you buy a used EV, so most people don't want to buy a used EV, lest they be lumped with an 8k bill a year into purchase. Which means resale values are through the floor, which means people aren't choosing to purchase them new.

Carnyx

OldKingCole said:

My thoughts on this afternoon’s political news; there is more joy in heaven over one sinner which repenteth………

And supposedly (sisters and) brothers who are complaining.

Scott_xP

The UK motor trade has sharply cut its forecast sales of electric cars this year as private motorists continue to shun the zero-emission vehicle market.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) had forecast at the start of the year that 24 per cent of all new cars registered would be zero-emission vehicles.

The SMMT now believes less than one fifth, or 19.8 per cent, of new sales this year will be electric cars.

The zero-emission vehicle mandate has already led to some manufacturers offering discounts. Notably Stellantis, the company behind Vauxhall, Peugeot, Citroen and Fiat, slashed prices by up to 20 per cent to boost sales and hit their targets.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-motor-trade-slashes-sales-forecasts-for-electric-cars-vxgz0707z

Wulfrun_Phil

rcs1000 said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

TOPPING said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

AlsoLei said:

Pulpstar said:

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

This is the equivalent chart for the UK in December 2023:



blue is gas, green is wind, grey is nuclear

(from https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical)

That is of course electricity generation. Obviously total energy use includes commercial and domestic gas as well as fuel for vehicles. These could be a rather tougher nut to crack than electricity.

The share of total energy usage coming from electricity is inexorably rising, thanks to (a) increased electrical heating of homes, (b) the move to electrical appliances in kitchens, and (c) electric vehicles.

And this isn't a small change, it's a massive one.

But, given the news this morning that private new EV sales are down 14% (IIRC) on last year in the UK, a change that may be stalling.

They are too expensive. All those people who can afford them have bought them. That leaves quite a gap between the purchase price and the price at which the bulk of people can afford them.

Edit: and someone will now say you can by a Nissan Teeny Weeny for ten grand which fits you and your miniature Schnauzer in and that's it.

The problem with EVs is not just they are expensive and unaffordable to many but the insurance and repair costs are prohibitive and as for replacing their batteries then forget it

That's all a part of the growing pains of electric cars. Not all repair shops know how to deal with them, and spare parts are rare. That means that the cost of repairs is higher.

But that will change.

In normal circumstances I would probably have already bought an electric car to replace my current one. The only problem - I tow a caravan which halves the normal fuel consumption. So the effective range between 80%-20% recharges would be at best 100 miles, and when you're doing long journeys into the countryside that is nowhere near enough. For the moment I'm just running my reliable 13 year old diesel into the ground. Since that delays the environmental cost of building a new car and as it does 65mpg on long journeys that's not that bad an environmental choice (at least in terms of CO2). The only real alternative is to eventually get a hybrid.

Benpointer

boulay said:

Casino_Royale said:

It's the strategy he's been working on to try and spike the Government over Rwanda. Your MP for Dover backs our plan, not yours.

Clever.

Until Rishi says that “this is an example of lefties undermining attempts to stop the boats where they pretend to be Tories to get elected then reveal their true colours. Only by weeding out the blob and the traitors can we stop the boats.

You, the noble people of Dover, gatekeepers to our country for centuries, have been hoodwinked in a despicable Labour plot to stop us stopping the boats on your very own doorstep, selected in your own polling stations.”

Etc.

Yes, Rishi might be daft enough to say that. No one will have any fecking idea what he's on about, mind.

MoonRabbit

Anabobazina said:

MoonRabbit said:

williamglenn said:

MoonRabbit said:

williamglenn said:

Wildcard: what if Jeremy Corbyn defected to the Greens?

Team Starmer has some very best Krug in the fridge for just this very occurrence.

They should be careful what they wish for.

Yes. But not in this particular case. If Corbyn tales activists with him to Greens, it both strengthens Starmer’s SDP tribe in Labour and undermines how the Greens have been getting away with being thought of. Corbyn was actually pals with Hamas leadership, hanging out with them in their Gazan eyrie.

Explain your thinking in case we are missing something.

You are missing something: A couple of rabbits short of a warren.

No, you are missing something about the current state of UK politics Anabob. Over recent decades Corbyn and many other members at all levels in Labour have lost the plot over Middle East politics, that it made them act and sound like anti semites. If it looks and sounds like anti semite, it is an anti semite, isn’t it? The social, democratic, and ideological values of Hamas is no different than ISIS, and huge contrast to the liberal and democratic values of Israel. But there is Corbyn’s Labour shaking hands with Hamas and calling it friend. It was actually a Labour MP on record that corbyn has shaken hands with more people who have murdered Israelis, than Israelis.

At what point in your opinion are people behaving like this merely acting as democratic politicians? Has Labour really done enough to cut this cancer out of its party and claim a changed party, merely by suspending Corbyn and Abbott to not stand for them at next General Election 🤷‍♀️

I’m clearly not as dopey as many other posters!

Chris

Dirty old business, politics.

isam

Service watch

Such a strange, affected thing to say

Welcome, @NatalieElphicke, Labour’s new MP for Dover and Deal.

I am proud to lead a changed Labour Party that is back in service of working people.

https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1788214011005182092?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

TimS

Scott_xP said:

The UK motor trade has sharply cut its forecast sales of electric cars this year as private motorists continue to shun the zero-emission vehicle market.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) had forecast at the start of the year that 24 per cent of all new cars registered would be zero-emission vehicles.

The SMMT now believes less than one fifth, or 19.8 per cent, of new sales this year will be electric cars.

The zero-emission vehicle mandate has already led to some manufacturers offering discounts. Notably Stellantis, the company behind Vauxhall, Peugeot, Citroen and Fiat, slashed prices by up to 20 per cent to boost sales and hit their targets.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-motor-trade-slashes-sales-forecasts-for-electric-cars-vxgz0707z

I think a factor in that was the electricity price surge in 2022, followed by a decline in petrol prices. It made the relative economy of charging an EV vs filling up with fuel much less attractive.

That's now started to unwind: electricity per KWh is down substantially and forecourt prices are rising.

There are also many people - myself included, with my now quite old Zoe - who are waiting for the next wave of EVs to come onstream so there's more choice and higher range.

TOPPING

rcs1000 said:

TOPPING said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

AlsoLei said:

Pulpstar said:

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

This is the equivalent chart for the UK in December 2023:



blue is gas, green is wind, grey is nuclear

(from https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical)

That is of course electricity generation. Obviously total energy use includes commercial and domestic gas as well as fuel for vehicles. These could be a rather tougher nut to crack than electricity.

The share of total energy usage coming from electricity is inexorably rising, thanks to (a) increased electrical heating of homes, (b) the move to electrical appliances in kitchens, and (c) electric vehicles.

And this isn't a small change, it's a massive one.

But, given the news this morning that private new EV sales are down 14% (IIRC) on last year in the UK, a change that may be stalling.

They are too expensive. All those people who can afford them have bought them. That leaves quite a gap between the purchase price and the price at which the bulk of people can afford them.

Edit: and someone will now say you can by a Nissan Teeny Weeny for ten grand which fits you and your miniature Schnauzer in and that's it.

@TOPPING

Just as there's a curve for solar panel prices, there's a curve for EV batteries. Every year the components that make up electric cars get cheaper. That's simply not true - or at least not to the same extent - with traditional ICE cars.

That means that - sure - today *new* electric cars are not competitive for 60% of the UK market for new cars. But next year the price of a new electric car of specification x will have fallen 10%, while the equivalent petrol powered car will only be down 2%.

Every year the proportion of people for whom electric cars are appropriate rises. And eventually it will be close to 100%. Because that is the nature of technological change.

Of course. I'm not disputing technological progress. My point was that atm we are doing all we can and want to in the interests of "the planet". As new enhancements arrive we will embrace them. But as you rightly say, push too hard and you will get backlash. And as I noted earlier, look at the ESG backlash in the US and Fink's recent comments.

Wulfrun_Phil

Newly elected Labour WM mayor comes out in favour of an arms embargo on Israel.
Marr: "... you would like to see an arms embargo in due course?"
Parker: "Absolutely."

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/rafah-border-crossing-israel-richard-parker-labour/

Scott_xP

I think my next car will be a plug-in hybrid, but only because they no longer sell the non-hybrid version

JohnLilburne

Scott_xP said:

The UK motor trade has sharply cut its forecast sales of electric cars this year as private motorists continue to shun the zero-emission vehicle market.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) had forecast at the start of the year that 24 per cent of all new cars registered would be zero-emission vehicles.

The SMMT now believes less than one fifth, or 19.8 per cent, of new sales this year will be electric cars.

The zero-emission vehicle mandate has already led to some manufacturers offering discounts. Notably Stellantis, the company behind Vauxhall, Peugeot, Citroen and Fiat, slashed prices by up to 20 per cent to boost sales and hit their targets.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-motor-trade-slashes-sales-forecasts-for-electric-cars-vxgz0707z

Or "we tried to get on the bandwagon and screw our customers. But they noticed. So we had to cut prices to something more reasonable."

Pagan2

148grss said:

Scott_xP said:

148grss said:

Is it getting bigger, or have the tent pegs been moved? He refuses to let Dianne Abbott back into the party, he suspended an MP for saying a genocide is happening in Gaza. This is just more evidence of his moving Labour to the right. He is taking the space left by Cameroonism - clearly to the right of centre - as the mainstream Conservative party decide to waddle further and further right.

Filling the overton window...

But it isn't like left wing politics is unpopular - again Corbyn almost won against May because how unpopular her policies were and how popular the Labour manifesto was, and I still stand by the position that Johnson's overperformance was not just getting Brexit done but promising to spend money again. Truss wanted to go Galt, which was massively unpopular and spooked the markets, and Sunak has responded with further tax cuts and refusal to spend. Like, seeing my wages go up a bit this month did not fill me (or my colleagues) with much delight - one person I worked with talked about how their school was asking someone to donate a laminator because they didn't have the funds to purchase one and how he'd prefer not to have had the money himself if it meant stuff like that was paid for.

This is the problem the UK faces. We have a media that is so right wing and has a grasp on those >50+ that political parties feel the need to pander to it despite the fact that we are in fucking ruin because of the last decade and a half of real time cuts to services and wages.

Left wing politics is not unpopular, then again neither is McDonalds

BatteryCorrectHorse

MoonRabbit said:

Anabobazina said:

MoonRabbit said:

williamglenn said:

MoonRabbit said:

williamglenn said:

Wildcard: what if Jeremy Corbyn defected to the Greens?

Team Starmer has some very best Krug in the fridge for just this very occurrence.

They should be careful what they wish for.

Yes. But not in this particular case. If Corbyn tales activists with him to Greens, it both strengthens Starmer’s SDP tribe in Labour and undermines how the Greens have been getting away with being thought of. Corbyn was actually pals with Hamas leadership, hanging out with them in their Gazan eyrie.

Explain your thinking in case we are missing something.

You are missing something: A couple of rabbits short of a warren.

No, you are missing something about the current state of UK politics Anabob. Over recent decades Corbyn and many other members at all levels in Labour have lost the plot over Middle East politics, that it made them act and sound like anti semites. If it looks and sounds like anti semite, it is an anti semite, isn’t it? The social, democratic, and ideological values of Hamas is no different than ISIS, and huge contrast to the liberal and democratic values of Israel. But there is Corbyn’s Labour shaking hands with Hamas and calling it friend. It was actually a Labour MP on record that corbyn has shaken hands with more people who have murdered Israelis, than Israelis.

At what point in your opinion are people behaving like this merely acting as democratic politicians? Has Labour really done enough to cut this cancer out of its party and claim a changed party, merely by suspending Corbyn and Abbott to not stand for them at next General Election 🤷‍♀️

I’m clearly not as dopey as many other posters!

You've just doxxed yourself! If you didn't mean to, I am sure you can edit the post or get PB mods to delete the image?

Scott_xP

@Political_AlanS

The First Minister speaking about his cabinet outside Bute House

He’s also addressing the concerns of the LGBT community following the appointment of Kate Forbes as Deputy First Minister

MoonRabbit

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Newly elected Labour WM mayor comes out in favour of an arms embargo on Israel.
Marr: "... you would like to see an arms embargo in due course?"
Parker: "Absolutely."

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/rafah-border-crossing-israel-richard-parker-labour/

Add this to Khans comments which bloodied Starmer at PMQs, and Labours claim to be a changed party is in complete meltdown today!

numbertwelve

So. I do have to be honest here, and admit that I am getting quite discomforted by the growing feeling that I am not really sure what I am going to get when I vote in a Labour government.

I still strongly believe that Labour are the only realistic choice for the country now, and I cannot support the Tories. But in moves like the defection I do fear that Starmer is starting to look like the same boss as before, his pitch simply being that he’ll manage things a bit more competently.

Starmer is not going to be able to be all things to all people eventually. To govern is to choose. Will we get any kind of idea what choice that will be before we vote, or is that choice going to be made after the event? I do not really relish the idea of voting and not knowing what flavour of government I am going to get.

BatteryCorrectHorse

MoonRabbit said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Newly elected Labour WM mayor comes out in favour of an arms embargo on Israel.
Marr: "... you would like to see an arms embargo in due course?"
Parker: "Absolutely."

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/rafah-border-crossing-israel-richard-parker-labour/

Add this to Khans comments which bloodied Starmer at PMQs, and Labours claim to be a changed party is in complete meltdown today!

Do you think this makes a July election more or less likely?

LDLF

Sunak's best hope is that Starmer fumbles as May did in the 2017 campaign, preventing an overwhelming Labour victory. There seem to be a few similarities between Starmer's 2024 Labour and May's 2017 Conservatives - an extremely broad church; a party apparently ready to sweep all before it; MPs (including serial rebels) pledging loyalty to the leader (at least in public); and more than a hint of hubris. All we are missing is a 'Starmer more popular than Churchill' headline somewhere.

Of course, May's Conservatives still won.. sort of, and so will Starmer. Sunak's best case scenario is a small Labour majority rather than a large one.

Nevertheless, a coalition of voters this diverse will splinter at some point. May's gradually withered during the long 2017 General Election campaign, but I think Starmer's voter coalition will stay unified and strong ('strong and stable'?) at least until the votes are counted in the next General Election. There is also no guarantee that, when it eventually splinters, this is the benefit of the Conservatives over certain other parties.

rcs1000

TimS said:

Scott_xP said:

The UK motor trade has sharply cut its forecast sales of electric cars this year as private motorists continue to shun the zero-emission vehicle market.

The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) had forecast at the start of the year that 24 per cent of all new cars registered would be zero-emission vehicles.

The SMMT now believes less than one fifth, or 19.8 per cent, of new sales this year will be electric cars.

The zero-emission vehicle mandate has already led to some manufacturers offering discounts. Notably Stellantis, the company behind Vauxhall, Peugeot, Citroen and Fiat, slashed prices by up to 20 per cent to boost sales and hit their targets.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/uk-motor-trade-slashes-sales-forecasts-for-electric-cars-vxgz0707z

I think a factor in that was the electricity price surge in 2022, followed by a decline in petrol prices. It made the relative economy of charging an EV vs filling up with fuel much less attractive.

That's now started to unwind: electricity per KWh is down substantially and forecourt prices are rising.

There are also many people - myself included, with my now quite old Zoe - who are waiting for the next wave of EVs to come onstream so there's more choice and higher range.

This is spot on: electricity costs surged due (due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine). And while they've come back a long way, they're still 25% higher than before the invasion.

That said... given we're now under £70/MWh, the electricity retailers need to start reducing their prices. They are going to be making out like total banditos this year.

Malmesbury

DecrepiterJohnL said:

williamglenn said:

This kind of policy has been floated by the Labour party for application here:

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-hochul-announces-jfk-airport-construction-sets-record-mwbe-participation-23-billion

Governor Kathy Hochul today announced a historic milestone in the ongoing transformation of JFK International Airport, where a record $2.3 billion in contracts have been awarded to Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprises (MWBE).

To increase MWBE participation at the JFK Redevelopment Program, and across the agency, the Port Authority and its private terminal partners at JFK hosted a variety of capacity-building and technical training programs that prepared firms to be successful in navigating what can at times be complex airport-related procurements. These programs include an academy for principals at architecture and engineering firms, contractor coaching programs that train firms to apply for contracts and construction mentoring programs that recruit, train and mentor MWBE firms to bid on large public construction projects, and project readiness bootcamps. The redevelopment team has also sponsored hundreds of seminars, webinars and forums to help firms become MWBE certified, meet and network with prime contractors, and build the skill sets needed to be successful in the field.

Looks OK on skim-reading. Our own government publicly listing contracts is a baby step in the same direction. Widening the pool of companies that can bid seems like a good idea, whatever anyone thinks of the woke stuff around their being female or minority-led. One reason the usual suspects like Capita or Group 4 get so many contracts is that they bid for them. Another is that so many have an unnecessarily wide scope that can only be met by large companies but do we really need national contracts?

In the US this kind of preferential contracting has become a scam in many areas.

A minority owned business gets the work - but all the actual work and money gets funnelled through it to the usual suspects, via contracting the actual work out.

It does help with building the pyramid of contracts that are contracted out to other contractors who contract out - which helps increase costs and reduce accountability.

The reason that the contracts go to big companies is that the preference by government for One Big Contract and needing a contractor that can survive the financial problems of dealing with government.

DecrepiterJohnL

isam said:

Service watch

Such a strange, affected thing to say

Welcome, @NatalieElphicke, Labour’s new MP for Dover and Deal.

I am proud to lead a changed Labour Party that is back in service of working people.

https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1788214011005182092?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

This new (well, newish) "changed Labour Party" slogan sounds like it might have come from Lord Mandelson except it sounds so naff. Starmer used it twice at PMQs and Rishi three times. Neither man wants to say much about policy.

rcs1000

Scott_xP said:

I think my next car will be a plug-in hybrid, but only because they no longer sell the non-hybrid version

We used to have a plugin hybrid: it was very effective at reducing our petrol usage, because 90% of the time the car was doing the school run, and that was about it. It was also pretty convenient for long drives, because - well - then it was just a regular car.

But at the same time, it didn't have the big advantages of an electric car. There was no additional storage space. Acceleration was meh. Maintenance costs were just as high as a petrol powered car.

We sold it, and went all electric.

kinabalu

Scott_xP said:

I think my next car will be a plug-in hybrid, but only because they no longer sell the non-hybrid version

I'm still petrol. It isn't cost that's stopping me doing a Dylan Newport 65 it's the recharging landscape.

DecrepiterJohnL

MoonRabbit said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Newly elected Labour WM mayor comes out in favour of an arms embargo on Israel.
Marr: "... you would like to see an arms embargo in due course?"
Parker: "Absolutely."

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/rafah-border-crossing-israel-richard-parker-labour/

Add this to Khans comments which bloodied Starmer at PMQs, and Labours claim to be a changed party is in complete meltdown today!

@MoonRabbit did you see CorrectHorseBattery's note about doxxing yourself?

kinabalu

numbertwelve said:

So. I do have to be honest here, and admit that I am getting quite discomforted by the growing feeling that I am not really sure what I am going to get when I vote in a Labour government.

I still strongly believe that Labour are the only realistic choice for the country now, and I cannot support the Tories. But in moves like the defection I do fear that Starmer is starting to look like the same boss as before, his pitch simply being that he’ll manage things a bit more competently.

Starmer is not going to be able to be all things to all people eventually. To govern is to choose. Will we get any kind of idea what choice that will be before we vote, or is that choice going to be made after the event? I do not really relish the idea of voting and not knowing what flavour of government I am going to get.

Is there a policy that if it's adopted would reassure you on this front? Or is it more of a 'tone' thing?

Cyclefree

If Starmer's Labour Party is going to accept dross like Natalie Elphicke what really is the point?

Anyway, I notice that as long ago as November 2016 - 15 November to be precise - I wrote a header about robots and A* (sorry @TSE). And the implications, especially for middle class professionals.

https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/11/15/the-robots-are-coming/

I only mention it to tease @Leon, to boast and will now shut up about it.

kinabalu

MoonRabbit said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Newly elected Labour WM mayor comes out in favour of an arms embargo on Israel.
Marr: "... you would like to see an arms embargo in due course?"
Parker: "Absolutely."

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/rafah-border-crossing-israel-richard-parker-labour/

Add this to Khans comments which bloodied Starmer at PMQs, and Labours claim to be a changed party is in complete meltdown today!

C'mon it's a very different party to the one he took over. You think the fury on the hard left is for show?

numbertwelve

kinabalu said:

numbertwelve said:

So. I do have to be honest here, and admit that I am getting quite discomforted by the growing feeling that I am not really sure what I am going to get when I vote in a Labour government.

I still strongly believe that Labour are the only realistic choice for the country now, and I cannot support the Tories. But in moves like the defection I do fear that Starmer is starting to look like the same boss as before, his pitch simply being that he’ll manage things a bit more competently.

Starmer is not going to be able to be all things to all people eventually. To govern is to choose. Will we get any kind of idea what choice that will be before we vote, or is that choice going to be made after the event? I do not really relish the idea of voting and not knowing what flavour of government I am going to get.

Is there a policy that if it's adopted would reassure you on this front? Or is it more of a 'tone' thing?

A very good question. I suspect more the latter. I think what I really want to see is Labour having an ambitious and hopeful plan for government that changes things. I get that they are worried about overcommitting, but I want to see that recognition that things aren’t working and that if they want to avoid continuing the decline they will have to put steps in place (even if they are baby steps) to start the recovery.

The country’s problems will not be fixed overnight simply by planning reform, as good a policy as that might be. We need some more meat on the bones, but also a real understanding that we need change. It’s what the country wants and needs, it’s time to emphasise that. It’s not just about the Tories being useless at governing, it’s the fact that their policies don’t work, and won’t work.

Benpointer

Er... wtf?

Robert F Kennedy Jr says health issue caused by dead worm in his brain

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/08/robert-f-kennedy-jr-worm-brain

BatteryCorrectHorse

LDLF said:

Sunak's best hope is that Starmer fumbles as May did in the 2017 campaign, preventing an overwhelming Labour victory. There seem to be a few similarities between Starmer's 2024 Labour and May's 2017 Conservatives - an extremely broad church; a party apparently ready to sweep all before it; MPs (including serial rebels) pledging loyalty to the leader (at least in public); and more than a hint of hubris. All we are missing is a 'Starmer more popular than Churchill' headline somewhere.

Of course, May's Conservatives still won.. sort of, and so will Starmer. Sunak's best case scenario is a small Labour majority rather than a large one.

Nevertheless, a coalition of voters this diverse will splinter at some point. May's gradually withered during the long 2017 General Election campaign, but I think Starmer's voter coalition will stay unified and strong ('strong and stable'?) at least until the votes are counted in the next General Election. There is also no guarantee that, when it eventually splinters, this is the benefit of the Conservatives over certain other parties.

Why must this happen? We all assume Labour will inevitably fail but what if he's PM for a decade?

Benpointer

I can't say I'm impressed by Labour taking Elphicke but as she's not standing again Starmer probably thought 'wtf, why not?'

Benpointer

At this rate (a defection every 11 days) Sunak runs out of a majority on 3 December. If the rate picks up, his later GE possibilities will cease to be options.

SeaShantyIrish2

rcs1000 said:

Pulpstar said:

rcs1000 said:

TimS said:

Nigelb said:

david_herdson said:

TimS said:

david_herdson said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

david_herdson said:

148grss said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature

“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”

Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.

As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.

If you want to sort global warming, take on Beijing, not Brighton or Bristol.

Given Chinese emissions now, and into the foreseeable future, our best bet in Britain is (1) strategic independence, or at least, co-dependence with Europe, on energy and security, and (2) mitigation of the inevitable effects that will result from large regimes that have no interest in cutting emissions and can't be pressured into it. Reducing our reliance on carbon is sensible on that count - and helpfully plays a part on global heating too - but Britain's contribution either way is pretty minimal and while setting an example is useful, more important is anticipating and reacting to the hostile actions of others.

As an island nation, the UK ultimately has more than most to lose from a failure to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. If humanity goes ahead and burns all the fossil fuels that can be exploited, then the resulting rise in global temperature will eventually melt almost all of the surface ice and raise the sea level by around 60 m. This will take a long time - hundreds of years - but once started is very difficult to stop, even if the global will can be found to do so. We need to do everything in our power to persuade the big emitters to wind down their emissions, and I doubt that backtracking on our own commitments is going to do much to bolster our arguments.

Considering that the UK has cut emissions more than any G20 member, I think we're in a pretty decent place from which to make the case.

But the reality of it is that the big emitters - and China especially: by *far* the biggest emitter - isn't interested in listening. Nor India. Nor the US, particularly, Nor Russia. Nor the Middle East. Electing Greens or anyone else in the UK isn't going to make a difference to that. What we can do is prepare for a hotter, wetter, stormier climate and higher sea levels (though not by 60m - Antarctica isn't going to melt to that extent).

david_herdson said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

david_herdson said:

148grss said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/08/world-scientists-climate-failure-survey-global-temperature

“I expect a semi-dystopian future with substantial pain and suffering for the people of the global south,” said a South African scientist, who chose not to be named. “The world’s response to date is reprehensible – we live in an age of fools.”

Maybe I am just naïve, but I think part of why the Greens are growing (slowly) is because it is clear that the current consensus is not going to provide a safely habitable planet in the near or long term future. We have seen more fossil fuel usage since 2008 then prior to it. It is not a byproduct of the current system we live under that the environment is being destroyed - it is the only outcome. There is a saying in engineering "the purpose of a system is what it does". Well, if that's the case, the purpose of modern states is to destroy the world.

As for Sian Berry - this hardly seems to rank in the cynical moves of politicians, in my view. The entire point of a list system is that you aren't voting for individuals - you're voting for a party and, sure, you know who you're likely to get based on the vote, but at the end of the day you also know who will replace people in the event they drop out. Is it a good look? Of course not. But I wouldn't call it antidemocratic, nor would I compare it to the cynical actions of politicians who do material harm to people to progress their own careers. In two weeks no one will care; yet we will still have a government trying to put human beings seeking refuge in ships or on planes to Rwanda in the hope they can up their vote share by 2-3%.

If you want to sort global warming, take on Beijing, not Brighton or Bristol.

Given Chinese emissions now, and into the foreseeable future, our best bet in Britain is (1) strategic independence, or at least, co-dependence with Europe, on energy and security, and (2) mitigation of the inevitable effects that will result from large regimes that have no interest in cutting emissions and can't be pressured into it. Reducing our reliance on carbon is sensible on that count - and helpfully plays a part on global heating too - but Britain's contribution either way is pretty minimal and while setting an example is useful, more important is anticipating and reacting to the hostile actions of others.

As an island nation, the UK ultimately has more than most to lose from a failure to curb global greenhouse gas emissions. If humanity goes ahead and burns all the fossil fuels that can be exploited, then the resulting rise in global temperature will eventually melt almost all of the surface ice and raise the sea level by around 60 m. This will take a long time - hundreds of years - but once started is very difficult to stop, even if the global will can be found to do so. We need to do everything in our power to persuade the big emitters to wind down their emissions, and I doubt that backtracking on our own commitments is going to do much to bolster our arguments.

Considering that the UK has cut emissions more than any G20 member, I think we're in a pretty decent place from which to make the case.

But the reality of it is that the big emitters - and China especially: by *far* the biggest emitter - isn't interested in listening. Nor India. Nor the US, particularly, Nor Russia. Nor the Middle East. Electing Greens or anyone else in the UK isn't going to make a difference to that. What we can do is prepare for a hotter, wetter, stormier climate and higher sea levels (though not by 60m - Antarctica isn't going to melt to that extent).

Oh the US get it, and so do China. The US is spending upwards of a trillion dollars on tax incentives for green energy investment under the inflation reduction act and China is flooding the European market with cheap green tech. Unlike us and our European neighbours they actually understand the economic opportunities available from net zero.

As for the Middle East and Russia, the sooner we all get free from energy dependency on that lot (and we've already largely managed with Russia), the better.

Parts of the US gets it; others resolutely refuse to. China is a mixed bag but is on a mercantalist mission to leverage trade dependencies into political influence. But it emits more CO2 per head than all but 3 members of the EU (Lux, Poland, Czech) and close to twice as much as the UK - for a far lower GDP per capita.

Those coal fired power stations are powering the crucibles which create the silicon ingots for nearly 90% of the world's solar panel production.
It's far from the ideal way to get where we need to be, but until Biden got into the White House, the U.S. had pretty well abandoned the industry.

At some point that coal will be replaced by renewable power, and the virtuous circle will have extraordinary momentum.

The US could be doing that in Texas now, had the political will been there. (Note that the oil state is already building renewables faster than any of the other 49 - because it makes economic sense even in the short term.)

In related news it's the best day of the year so far for solar generation. Over 8gw currently in GB, the largest single source. Not often that happens.

Nuclear is doing OK at the moment too (5.3gw) and has been for a month or two. Presumably a favourable phase in their maintenance schedule.

Did you read the NY Times article about battery backup in the US: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/07/climate/battery-electricity-solar-california-texas.html

In just three years, battery backup has completely transformed the California electricity supply market. In 2021 they were irrelevant. Now batteries are supplying around 20% of evening demand.

There's a similar story in Texas, where batteries are working to smooth out the wind supply (and completely without subsidy or even government encouragement.) There, they are pumping out 2GW of electrical power - on average - at 8pm every evening when demand peaks.

As battery production capacity continues to grow worldwide, they're coming to the UK. And that's a disaster for gas peaking plants.

California's batteries will charge from solar all year round though with their 3348 hours of sunlight per year (Nicely distributed) to get through the night. The UK has ~ 1400 or so and it's much more seasonal than LA.

https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-hours-Sunshine,Los-Angeles,United-States-of-America

https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-hours-Sunshine,London,United-Kingdom

Unsure of the wind battery situation though. Perhaps that's more favourable ?

The article addresses wind too, because while California's renewable energy mix is largely about solar, Texas is all about wind.

And there the Republican government has been very hands off: there's been very little economic support for solar or wind. And none at all for batteries.

But it turns out that economics trumps all. In Texas, batteries charge most of the day and night, and then discharge in the evenings. It's a more spread out chart than the California one, but they are definitely playing their role. (Fwiw, that peak 2GW of battery production at 8pm on Thursday 28th is equivalent to half of all the nuclear production in the UK.)

The UK's power mix will look more like Texas's. And - fwiw - the cost of new wind turbines, while it is falling, is coming down nowhere near as quickly as solar.

But the thing is the price of declines. Solar was wildly uneconomic in the UK when it was $1 watt for panel prices - perhaps 10x the cost of alternative generation. But we're now at $0.16. We're now only at 60% more than alternative generation sources. The price will go to $0.10. And then $0.05.

But lower panel prices are the inexorable consequence of technological progress. Solar will, eventually, be the cheapest form of electricity generation in the UK. And it will (eventually) make economic sense to have panels everywhere, and batteries to store the reserve overnight.

"Texas is all about wind."

Hence US Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Cancun).

wooliedyed

Lord Kinnock not incredibly impressed by the defection
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1788244974535897233?s=19

ydoethur

Benpointer said:

Er... wtf?

Robert F Kennedy Jr says health issue caused by dead worm in his brain

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/08/robert-f-kennedy-jr-worm-brain

Stupid old fool, to come up with such a daft lie.

As if anyone will believe he has a brain.

squareroot2

eek said:

squareroot2 said:

Andy_JS said:

Guess who Natalie Elphicke supported at the 2022 Tory leadership election?

TRUSS.

https://twitter.com/NatalieElphicke/status/1556195356358180866

Cookie said:

rcs1000 said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

AlsoLei said:

Pulpstar said:

FPT @rcs1000

Daily energy generation

This is the equivalent chart for the UK in December 2023:



blue is gas, green is wind, grey is nuclear

(from https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/historical)

That is of course electricity generation. Obviously total energy use includes commercial and domestic gas as well as fuel for vehicles. These could be a rather tougher nut to crack than electricity.

The share of total energy usage coming from electricity is inexorably rising, thanks to (a) increased electrical heating of homes, (b) the move to electrical appliances in kitchens, and (c) electric vehicles.

And this isn't a small change, it's a massive one.

Coming soon to Channel 5: "How Air Fryers are keeping Yorkshire green".

Not sure it's on C4 or C5 but there is an excellent programme about the guy from the Great Pottery throwdown buying a Welsh chapel and turning it into a home. He's a really nice guy and it's a
v interesting programme.

C4 and I suspect it’s designed to replace the chateau renovation series because C4 ran out of companies willing to work with the couple

Not sure that's completely true. After nearly 10 yrs there's bound to be tension.. all good things come to an end.

nico679

Benpointer said:

I can't say I'm impressed by Labour taking Elphicke but as she's not standing again Starmer probably thought 'wtf, why not?'

I’m shocked but it was probably worth it for Starmer as her statement was pure gold in terms of criticisms of Sunak .

squareroot2

wooliedyed said:

Lord Kinnock not incredibly impressed by the defection
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1788244974535897233?s=19

I am not impressed by the Welsh Windbag... I think that's a draw then