To add to the debate. One of the main arguments offered in favour of Israel is that it is “the only democracy in the region”
Which is true to an extent but that so-called democracy has now delivered 18 years - 18 years! - of the corrupt and contemptible Bibi Netanyahu as prime minister and that same democracy has now introduced an overtly race-based death penalty aimed at one minority, something even apartheid South Africa never quite managed
So what’s the fucking big deal about Israel being democratic if democracy produces this?
It's a point. Donald Trump is also duly elected and in a sense this only adds to the horror of him. Because it reflects on the people. They'd be more mitigation if he was there via military coup. But the upside is the people (we hope) can rectify their error and this at the end of the day is the biggest USP of democracy. It doesn't prevent power being abused but it provides the best mechanism to stop it happening too overtly for too long.
But voters are getting stupider and stupider. This is a real thing. IQs are speedily declining and smart phones and other tech are only accelerating this
At what point does the wisdom of crowds become the idiocy or madness of crowds? Or the bigotry of the majority, as in Israel?
The you have to add in the way democratic social media makes a political life deeply unappealing to all but the most inane, banal and/or power obsessed which is how Britain ended up with a serious of ridiculous losers culminating in Skyr Toolmakersson
One of the good things about a constitutional monarchy is that we can reinvent the system without ripping everything down.
We could revert to having the PM appointed by the king, similar to the way the England football manager is appointed. Maybe even shop abroad to find a political Sven-Göran Eriksson to run the government.
Da, there's this experienced Russian manager without much of an offramp from his current job who might be interested.
Meanwhile the astronauts are filling contingency urine bags with water because of a water valve issue. Being an astronaut doesn't seem to be as glamorous in reality as advertised.
That also shows you just how much Russia has fucked Ukraine.
Trump was embarrassed that "no cards" Zelenskyy was offering assistance in the Gulf because the reality is that they have developed a low cost defence structure that actually works (most of the time).
US assistance is not only thin on the ground in Ukraine, it is of ever less utility. Japan and Ukraine have developed another new anti drone missile that costs $2000 a shot. This, not American or indeed British high tech, is the future of warfare in my opinion. More expensive systems are simply swamped with cheap mass attacks otherwise.
Guys, is it good when you fire the head of the army in the middle of a war ahead of a possible controversial ground invasion? It's a thing you do if you're winning, right?
Meanwhile the astronauts are filling contingency urine bags with water because of a water valve issue. Being an astronaut doesn't seem to be as glamorous in reality as advertised.
The toilet failed again. Space toilets seem to be one of the last unconquered tech frontiers.
Meanwhile the astronauts are filling contingency urine bags with water because of a water valve issue. Being an astronaut doesn't seem to be as glamorous in reality as advertised.
Better than filling their water supply with urine.
Hegseth just overruled the Army on suspending and investigating a partisan stunt by some pilots. Now the Army CoS is fired. No idea if they're related - did George protest this intervention in Army process? - but wouldn't surprise me if they were.
Moulton: I know active duty Marines who now refer to Pete Hegseth’s department as the department of war crimes. That's because they do things like this, destroy civilian infrastructure, which, just to be clear, is a war crime. It's meant to hurt civilians.
This is the same stuff that we criticize Vladimir Putin for doing in Ukraine.
I cannot find the post, but @Eabhal made a point earlier that he agreed with me about solar farms harvesting constraint subsidies by positioning themselves in areas of poor grid connectivity, and that I should 'focus my attack on renewables' there (or words to that effect).
I think it's important to clarify that I am not against renewable energy in principle - that would be absurd. If we can use modern technology to harness nature and provide abundant cheap energy, how could anyone object to that?
My argument is against the UK's specific journey to Net Zero, and the green industrial complex that has grown up around it. We have imposed arbitrary green targets, companies (mostly overseas ones) know this, lobbyists get their noses into the trough, the entire push is sold to the public as a moral mission, and the chosen instruments for the transition are by their nature the most wasteful and inefficient, because on the other side of waste, there is someone making a shit tonne of money. That is the nature of waste.
I support tidal - very old idea, very reliable tech, would last centuries with little repair - hence no vast profits to be made, so little to no interest from corporations, or policy-makers.
It's a corrupt system, and it is quite deliberately pushing up the price of energy, with global investment funds the main beneficiaries, and the poor the main victims, all wrapped in hypocritical cant about saving the planet.
I don't think they do it maliciously. Just that the government shouldn't allow them to be built on CfD contracts unless there is sufficient local demand, sufficient transmission, or sufficient approved transmission. That rules out much of the Highlands, unless you set up nodal pricing so you get massive steelworks in Fort William or something.
I don't think any firm should be expected to the "right thing". It's up to government to regulate, tax, to ensure we get a good outcome. That goes for fossil fuels and renewables equally. If that's not happening now then we are right to complain.
(On tidal, I've never really understood what the benefits are. Intermittent, and none of the schemes contain sufficient storage in design to mitigate that. If it's cheaper than the alternatives then fair enough.)
Intermittent but very predictable unlike solar and wind. Useful in the mix, surely?
I am not sure why predictable is advantageous?
On demand, like gas, is advantageous. Lagoons can be used for storage but not in volume and not competitive to batteries realistically.
But predictability? How does that help? If I can predict that output is troughing just as demand peaks then what can we usefully do with that information that we would not do with unpredictable troughs in output?
An array of tidal schemes around Britain would provide a constant and consistent baseline capacity.
Like a lot of stuff, probably overtaken by events. Chemicals in batteries are just a better energy store, and the cost has come down far more than most people expected even relatively recently. Same goes for solar.
It’s a very cool idea - but it doesn’t solve the spring/neap cycle, and so the baseline power would be a couple of GW at an absolute maximum (guessing), and you’d have to build them all around the UK.
Severn neap is 1GW, spring 8GW - that’s a range similar to wind. The pond required to sustain 1GW in a neap would be enormous, something like 8 Diwornigs, filled during a spring, at 5m depth that’s what 1/10th of the size of Wales?
We should do it just because working out the maths is so fun.
People have done the maths, and I seem to remember that the fundamental issue with tidal power is that it would only be able to supply a small proportion of the UK's energy needs. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it's not worth doing, but it can only ever be a small part of the solution, not a silver bullet.
I cannot find the post, but @Eabhal made a point earlier that he agreed with me about solar farms harvesting constraint subsidies by positioning themselves in areas of poor grid connectivity, and that I should 'focus my attack on renewables' there (or words to that effect).
I think it's important to clarify that I am not against renewable energy in principle - that would be absurd. If we can use modern technology to harness nature and provide abundant cheap energy, how could anyone object to that?
My argument is against the UK's specific journey to Net Zero, and the green industrial complex that has grown up around it. We have imposed arbitrary green targets, companies (mostly overseas ones) know this, lobbyists get their noses into the trough, the entire push is sold to the public as a moral mission, and the chosen instruments for the transition are by their nature the most wasteful and inefficient, because on the other side of waste, there is someone making a shit tonne of money. That is the nature of waste.
I support tidal - very old idea, very reliable tech, would last centuries with little repair - hence no vast profits to be made, so little to no interest from corporations, or policy-makers.
It's a corrupt system, and it is quite deliberately pushing up the price of energy, with global investment funds the main beneficiaries, and the poor the main victims, all wrapped in hypocritical cant about saving the planet.
I don't think they do it maliciously. Just that the government shouldn't allow them to be built on CfD contracts unless there is sufficient local demand, sufficient transmission, or sufficient approved transmission. That rules out much of the Highlands, unless you set up nodal pricing so you get massive steelworks in Fort William or something.
I don't think any firm should be expected to the "right thing". It's up to government to regulate, tax, to ensure we get a good outcome. That goes for fossil fuels and renewables equally. If that's not happening now then we are right to complain.
(On tidal, I've never really understood what the benefits are. Intermittent, and none of the schemes contain sufficient storage in design to mitigate that. If it's cheaper than the alternatives then fair enough.)
Intermittent but very predictable unlike solar and wind. Useful in the mix, surely?
I am not sure why predictable is advantageous?
On demand, like gas, is advantageous. Lagoons can be used for storage but not in volume and not competitive to batteries realistically.
But predictability? How does that help? If I can predict that output is troughing just as demand peaks then what can we usefully do with that information that we would not do with unpredictable troughs in output?
Tidewater predictably offset as you move round the coast of the U.K.
If you site your lagoons correctly, the peaks are at different times. The individual lagoons spread the peak power, at each location. This adds up to continuous power delivered to the grid 24/7.
While that's true... not all parts of the UK are equally suitable for large tidal barrages. So, you probably couldn't replicate a large baseload plant that easily.
That said: the promoters say it's pretty inexpensive, so let's try it.
The lagoons would allow you to avoid having to perfectly synchronise on tides.
The problem is that they would never get built. The opposition to them would be too fierce.
Solar and batteries is much harder to stop. Because they scale from a large garden upward. Rather than starting at gigawatts.
Planning is no issue. The timeline is only three or so years - much of that to undertake the environmental studies.
The only opposition is from nuclear. Build one tidal lagoon and you never build another nuclear power station. The economics would make no sense.
I cannot find the post, but @Eabhal made a point earlier that he agreed with me about solar farms harvesting constraint subsidies by positioning themselves in areas of poor grid connectivity, and that I should 'focus my attack on renewables' there (or words to that effect).
I think it's important to clarify that I am not against renewable energy in principle - that would be absurd. If we can use modern technology to harness nature and provide abundant cheap energy, how could anyone object to that?
My argument is against the UK's specific journey to Net Zero, and the green industrial complex that has grown up around it. We have imposed arbitrary green targets, companies (mostly overseas ones) know this, lobbyists get their noses into the trough, the entire push is sold to the public as a moral mission, and the chosen instruments for the transition are by their nature the most wasteful and inefficient, because on the other side of waste, there is someone making a shit tonne of money. That is the nature of waste.
I support tidal - very old idea, very reliable tech, would last centuries with little repair - hence no vast profits to be made, so little to no interest from corporations, or policy-makers.
It's a corrupt system, and it is quite deliberately pushing up the price of energy, with global investment funds the main beneficiaries, and the poor the main victims, all wrapped in hypocritical cant about saving the planet.
I don't think they do it maliciously. Just that the government shouldn't allow them to be built on CfD contracts unless there is sufficient local demand, sufficient transmission, or sufficient approved transmission. That rules out much of the Highlands, unless you set up nodal pricing so you get massive steelworks in Fort William or something.
I don't think any firm should be expected to the "right thing". It's up to government to regulate, tax, to ensure we get a good outcome. That goes for fossil fuels and renewables equally. If that's not happening now then we are right to complain.
(On tidal, I've never really understood what the benefits are. Intermittent, and none of the schemes contain sufficient storage in design to mitigate that. If it's cheaper than the alternatives then fair enough.)
Intermittent but very predictable unlike solar and wind. Useful in the mix, surely?
I am not sure why predictable is advantageous?
On demand, like gas, is advantageous. Lagoons can be used for storage but not in volume and not competitive to batteries realistically.
But predictability? How does that help? If I can predict that output is troughing just as demand peaks then what can we usefully do with that information that we would not do with unpredictable troughs in output?
An array of tidal schemes around Britain would provide a constant and consistent baseline capacity.
Like a lot of stuff, probably overtaken by events. Chemicals in batteries are just a better energy store, and the cost has come down far more than most people expected even relatively recently. Same goes for solar.
It’s a very cool idea - but it doesn’t solve the spring/neap cycle, and so the baseline power would be a couple of GW at an absolute maximum (guessing), and you’d have to build them all around the UK.
Severn neap is 1GW, spring 8GW - that’s a range similar to wind. The pond required to sustain 1GW in a neap would be enormous, something like 8 Diwornigs, filled during a spring, at 5m depth that’s what 1/10th of the size of Wales?
We should do it just because working out the maths is so fun.
People have done the maths, and I seem to remember that the fundamental issue with tidal power is that it would only be able to supply a small proportion of the UK's energy needs. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it's not worth doing, but it can only ever be a small part of the solution, not a silver bullet.
Moulton: I know active duty Marines who now refer to Pete Hegseth’s department as the department of war crimes. That's because they do things like this, destroy civilian infrastructure, which, just to be clear, is a war crime. It's meant to hurt civilians.
The USMC are the most reliably anti-MAGA of all the armed services because Trump disrespected Jim Mattis who is the tutelary deity of the warrior cult.
Attempting to send ICE to the boot camp graduation ceremony at Parris Island to check the immigration status of the families didn't endear him to the Corps either. I can't imagine what would happen if ICE had put hands on some Devil Dog's mother.
All right, sweethearts, what are you waiting for? Breakfast in bed? It's another glorious day in the Corps. A day in the Marine Corps is like a day on the farm: Every meal's a banquet. Every paycheck's a fortune! Every formation's a parade! I love the Corps!
"The Marines don't have any race problems. They treat everybody like they're black." -- Gen Daniel James, USAF
That also shows you just how much Russia has fucked Ukraine.
Trump was embarrassed that "no cards" Zelenskyy was offering assistance in the Gulf because the reality is that they have developed a low cost defence structure that actually works (most of the time).
US assistance is not only thin on the ground in Ukraine, it is of ever less utility. Japan and Ukraine have developed another new anti drone missile that costs $2000 a shot. This, not American or indeed British high tech, is the future of warfare in my opinion. More expensive systems are simply swamped with cheap mass attacks otherwise.
The UK has some fairly low cost options of its own, and is working on more and cheaper ones. That will probably go a lot faster than most defence stuff here, as the upfront cost isn't enormous.
Anti ballistic missile systems like Patriot* still have a very important place in air defence, but you're entirely correct that mass production at the low end is essential.
* We don't really have anything at the high end either.
I cannot find the post, but @Eabhal made a point earlier that he agreed with me about solar farms harvesting constraint subsidies by positioning themselves in areas of poor grid connectivity, and that I should 'focus my attack on renewables' there (or words to that effect).
I think it's important to clarify that I am not against renewable energy in principle - that would be absurd. If we can use modern technology to harness nature and provide abundant cheap energy, how could anyone object to that?
My argument is against the UK's specific journey to Net Zero, and the green industrial complex that has grown up around it. We have imposed arbitrary green targets, companies (mostly overseas ones) know this, lobbyists get their noses into the trough, the entire push is sold to the public as a moral mission, and the chosen instruments for the transition are by their nature the most wasteful and inefficient, because on the other side of waste, there is someone making a shit tonne of money. That is the nature of waste.
I support tidal - very old idea, very reliable tech, would last centuries with little repair - hence no vast profits to be made, so little to no interest from corporations, or policy-makers.
It's a corrupt system, and it is quite deliberately pushing up the price of energy, with global investment funds the main beneficiaries, and the poor the main victims, all wrapped in hypocritical cant about saving the planet.
I don't think they do it maliciously. Just that the government shouldn't allow them to be built on CfD contracts unless there is sufficient local demand, sufficient transmission, or sufficient approved transmission. That rules out much of the Highlands, unless you set up nodal pricing so you get massive steelworks in Fort William or something.
I don't think any firm should be expected to the "right thing". It's up to government to regulate, tax, to ensure we get a good outcome. That goes for fossil fuels and renewables equally. If that's not happening now then we are right to complain.
(On tidal, I've never really understood what the benefits are. Intermittent, and none of the schemes contain sufficient storage in design to mitigate that. If it's cheaper than the alternatives then fair enough.)
Intermittent but very predictable unlike solar and wind. Useful in the mix, surely?
I am not sure why predictable is advantageous?
On demand, like gas, is advantageous. Lagoons can be used for storage but not in volume and not competitive to batteries realistically.
But predictability? How does that help? If I can predict that output is troughing just as demand peaks then what can we usefully do with that information that we would not do with unpredictable troughs in output?
An array of tidal schemes around Britain would provide a constant and consistent baseline capacity.
Like a lot of stuff, probably overtaken by events. Chemicals in batteries are just a better energy store, and the cost has come down far more than most people expected even relatively recently. Same goes for solar.
It’s a very cool idea - but it doesn’t solve the spring/neap cycle, and so the baseline power would be a couple of GW at an absolute maximum (guessing), and you’d have to build them all around the UK.
Severn neap is 1GW, spring 8GW - that’s a range similar to wind. The pond required to sustain 1GW in a neap would be enormous, something like 8 Diwornigs, filled during a spring, at 5m depth that’s what 1/10th of the size of Wales?
We should do it just because working out the maths is so fun.
People have done the maths, and I seem to remember that the fundamental issue with tidal power is that it would only be able to supply a small proportion of the UK's energy needs. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it's not worth doing, but it can only ever be a small part of the solution, not a silver bullet.
Every big thing is made of many little things. The desire to choose just one perfect option is something that often holds people back.
Here’s a question for PBers. I’ve been arguing it with my brother but it might interest the forum
Has the west. - as in, the entire west - ever been so badly governed? Everywhere you look there is total mediocrity at best, or asinine stupidity. Keir Starmer is a vain, thick, footling and treacherous wanker who thinks he’s smart. Trump is much worse. Metz lol. Macron at least is clever but his home life IS fucking disturbing and he’s barely achieved anything
Carney shows some spine and brains but it’s far too early to tell
And is democracy finished if this is what it produces?
As Churchill once said:
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
It’s a great quote I’m just not sure it’s true any more. Technocracy might be better. Especially in an age when people are very quickly getting stupider, with IQs plunging around the world and technology likely to accelerate this process
Can't help feeling we'd be better off going back to 19thC form of governance. Restrict the franchise and bring back the hereditaries to the Lords.
Then we might get PMs of the quality of Palmerston, Disraeli, Gladstone and Salisbury (who also quite happily ran the world's biggest empire on the side.)
Just discovered, as I put liberon mahogany black bison wax on my William IV writing table, that Chopin wrote the 2nd movement of his first piano concerto when he was NINETEEN
Leon, do you regret getting rid of all of those books, as you wrote in the Telegraph article a couple of years ago?
I cannot find the post, but @Eabhal made a point earlier that he agreed with me about solar farms harvesting constraint subsidies by positioning themselves in areas of poor grid connectivity, and that I should 'focus my attack on renewables' there (or words to that effect).
I think it's important to clarify that I am not against renewable energy in principle - that would be absurd. If we can use modern technology to harness nature and provide abundant cheap energy, how could anyone object to that?
My argument is against the UK's specific journey to Net Zero, and the green industrial complex that has grown up around it. We have imposed arbitrary green targets, companies (mostly overseas ones) know this, lobbyists get their noses into the trough, the entire push is sold to the public as a moral mission, and the chosen instruments for the transition are by their nature the most wasteful and inefficient, because on the other side of waste, there is someone making a shit tonne of money. That is the nature of waste.
I support tidal - very old idea, very reliable tech, would last centuries with little repair - hence no vast profits to be made, so little to no interest from corporations, or policy-makers.
It's a corrupt system, and it is quite deliberately pushing up the price of energy, with global investment funds the main beneficiaries, and the poor the main victims, all wrapped in hypocritical cant about saving the planet.
I don't think they do it maliciously. Just that the government shouldn't allow them to be built on CfD contracts unless there is sufficient local demand, sufficient transmission, or sufficient approved transmission. That rules out much of the Highlands, unless you set up nodal pricing so you get massive steelworks in Fort William or something.
I don't think any firm should be expected to the "right thing". It's up to government to regulate, tax, to ensure we get a good outcome. That goes for fossil fuels and renewables equally. If that's not happening now then we are right to complain.
(On tidal, I've never really understood what the benefits are. Intermittent, and none of the schemes contain sufficient storage in design to mitigate that. If it's cheaper than the alternatives then fair enough.)
Intermittent but very predictable unlike solar and wind. Useful in the mix, surely?
I am not sure why predictable is advantageous?
On demand, like gas, is advantageous. Lagoons can be used for storage but not in volume and not competitive to batteries realistically.
But predictability? How does that help? If I can predict that output is troughing just as demand peaks then what can we usefully do with that information that we would not do with unpredictable troughs in output?
An array of tidal schemes around Britain would provide a constant and consistent baseline capacity.
Like a lot of stuff, probably overtaken by events. Chemicals in batteries are just a better energy store, and the cost has come down far more than most people expected even relatively recently. Same goes for solar.
It’s a very cool idea - but it doesn’t solve the spring/neap cycle, and so the baseline power would be a couple of GW at an absolute maximum (guessing), and you’d have to build them all around the UK.
Severn neap is 1GW, spring 8GW - that’s a range similar to wind. The pond required to sustain 1GW in a neap would be enormous, something like 8 Diwornigs, filled during a spring, at 5m depth that’s what 1/10th of the size of Wales?
We should do it just because working out the maths is so fun.
People have done the maths, and I seem to remember that the fundamental issue with tidal power is that it would only be able to supply a small proportion of the UK's energy needs. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it's not worth doing, but it can only ever be a small part of the solution, not a silver bullet.
Every big thing is made of many little things. The desire to choose just one perfect option is something that often holds people back.
Again, I'm not saying it's not worth doing, just that it's something to be done alongside and not instead of other solutions (wind, solar, nuclear, etc) if, and it's a big if, it can be made commercially viable.
I cannot find the post, but @Eabhal made a point earlier that he agreed with me about solar farms harvesting constraint subsidies by positioning themselves in areas of poor grid connectivity, and that I should 'focus my attack on renewables' there (or words to that effect).
I think it's important to clarify that I am not against renewable energy in principle - that would be absurd. If we can use modern technology to harness nature and provide abundant cheap energy, how could anyone object to that?
My argument is against the UK's specific journey to Net Zero, and the green industrial complex that has grown up around it. We have imposed arbitrary green targets, companies (mostly overseas ones) know this, lobbyists get their noses into the trough, the entire push is sold to the public as a moral mission, and the chosen instruments for the transition are by their nature the most wasteful and inefficient, because on the other side of waste, there is someone making a shit tonne of money. That is the nature of waste.
I support tidal - very old idea, very reliable tech, would last centuries with little repair - hence no vast profits to be made, so little to no interest from corporations, or policy-makers.
It's a corrupt system, and it is quite deliberately pushing up the price of energy, with global investment funds the main beneficiaries, and the poor the main victims, all wrapped in hypocritical cant about saving the planet.
I don't think they do it maliciously. Just that the government shouldn't allow them to be built on CfD contracts unless there is sufficient local demand, sufficient transmission, or sufficient approved transmission. That rules out much of the Highlands, unless you set up nodal pricing so you get massive steelworks in Fort William or something.
I don't think any firm should be expected to the "right thing". It's up to government to regulate, tax, to ensure we get a good outcome. That goes for fossil fuels and renewables equally. If that's not happening now then we are right to complain.
(On tidal, I've never really understood what the benefits are. Intermittent, and none of the schemes contain sufficient storage in design to mitigate that. If it's cheaper than the alternatives then fair enough.)
Intermittent but very predictable unlike solar and wind. Useful in the mix, surely?
I am not sure why predictable is advantageous?
On demand, like gas, is advantageous. Lagoons can be used for storage but not in volume and not competitive to batteries realistically.
But predictability? How does that help? If I can predict that output is troughing just as demand peaks then what can we usefully do with that information that we would not do with unpredictable troughs in output?
Tidewater predictably offset as you move round the coast of the U.K.
If you site your lagoons correctly, the peaks are at different times. The individual lagoons spread the peak power, at each location. This adds up to continuous power delivered to the grid 24/7.
While that's true... not all parts of the UK are equally suitable for large tidal barrages. So, you probably couldn't replicate a large baseload plant that easily.
That said: the promoters say it's pretty inexpensive, so let's try it.
The lagoons would allow you to avoid having to perfectly synchronise on tides.
The problem is that they would never get built. The opposition to them would be too fierce.
Solar and batteries is much harder to stop. Because they scale from a large garden upward. Rather than starting at gigawatts.
Planning is no issue. The timeline is only three or so years - much of that to undertake the environmental studies.
The only opposition is from nuclear. Build one tidal lagoon and you never build another nuclear power station. The economics would make no sense.
France built a tidal power station in 1966. They haven't built another one, but they have built lots of nuclear.
Hegseth just overruled the Army on suspending and investigating a partisan stunt by some pilots. Now the Army CoS is fired. No idea if they're related - did George protest this intervention in Army process? - but wouldn't surprise me if they were.
It might be the insane plan to seize the uranium, which apparently involves bringing in excavators, building a runway, having civilian experts search the facility, and taking maybe weeks to get the uranium out. You can well imagine that some of the things being discussed are highly contentious, and neither Hegseth or Trump are the sort of person who wants to be told some hard truths by people with way more expertise than them.
"The tragedy is that we have a golden opportunity to do just this due to demographic collapse"
Demographic collapse seems like a bit of an exaggeration when the population is just about to reach 70 million.
Not many of school age is the point, as school rolls are falling. Particularly so if we crack down on immigration, as most migrants are young and have families.
Guys, is it good when you fire the head of the army in the middle of a war ahead of a possible controversial ground invasion? It's a thing you do if you're winning, right?
I cannot find the post, but @Eabhal made a point earlier that he agreed with me about solar farms harvesting constraint subsidies by positioning themselves in areas of poor grid connectivity, and that I should 'focus my attack on renewables' there (or words to that effect).
I think it's important to clarify that I am not against renewable energy in principle - that would be absurd. If we can use modern technology to harness nature and provide abundant cheap energy, how could anyone object to that?
My argument is against the UK's specific journey to Net Zero, and the green industrial complex that has grown up around it. We have imposed arbitrary green targets, companies (mostly overseas ones) know this, lobbyists get their noses into the trough, the entire push is sold to the public as a moral mission, and the chosen instruments for the transition are by their nature the most wasteful and inefficient, because on the other side of waste, there is someone making a shit tonne of money. That is the nature of waste.
I support tidal - very old idea, very reliable tech, would last centuries with little repair - hence no vast profits to be made, so little to no interest from corporations, or policy-makers.
It's a corrupt system, and it is quite deliberately pushing up the price of energy, with global investment funds the main beneficiaries, and the poor the main victims, all wrapped in hypocritical cant about saving the planet.
I don't think they do it maliciously. Just that the government shouldn't allow them to be built on CfD contracts unless there is sufficient local demand, sufficient transmission, or sufficient approved transmission. That rules out much of the Highlands, unless you set up nodal pricing so you get massive steelworks in Fort William or something.
I don't think any firm should be expected to the "right thing". It's up to government to regulate, tax, to ensure we get a good outcome. That goes for fossil fuels and renewables equally. If that's not happening now then we are right to complain.
(On tidal, I've never really understood what the benefits are. Intermittent, and none of the schemes contain sufficient storage in design to mitigate that. If it's cheaper than the alternatives then fair enough.)
Intermittent but very predictable unlike solar and wind. Useful in the mix, surely?
I am not sure why predictable is advantageous?
On demand, like gas, is advantageous. Lagoons can be used for storage but not in volume and not competitive to batteries realistically.
But predictability? How does that help? If I can predict that output is troughing just as demand peaks then what can we usefully do with that information that we would not do with unpredictable troughs in output?
Tidewater predictably offset as you move round the coast of the U.K.
If you site your lagoons correctly, the peaks are at different times. The individual lagoons spread the peak power, at each location. This adds up to continuous power delivered to the grid 24/7.
While that's true... not all parts of the UK are equally suitable for large tidal barrages. So, you probably couldn't replicate a large baseload plant that easily.
That said: the promoters say it's pretty inexpensive, so let's try it.
The lagoons would allow you to avoid having to perfectly synchronise on tides.
The problem is that they would never get built. The opposition to them would be too fierce.
Solar and batteries is much harder to stop. Because they scale from a large garden upward. Rather than starting at gigawatts.
Planning is no issue. The timeline is only three or so years - much of that to undertake the environmental studies.
The only opposition is from nuclear. Build one tidal lagoon and you never build another nuclear power station. The economics would make no sense.
France built a tidal power station in 1966. They haven't built another one, but they have built lots of nuclear.
Yes, La Rance in Brittany. It produces the cheapest power in France.
Here’s a question for PBers. I’ve been arguing it with my brother but it might interest the forum
Has the west. - as in, the entire west - ever been so badly governed? Everywhere you look there is total mediocrity at best, or asinine stupidity. Keir Starmer is a vain, thick, footling and treacherous wanker who thinks he’s smart. Trump is much worse. Metz lol. Macron at least is clever but his home life IS fucking disturbing and he’s barely achieved anything
Carney shows some spine and brains but it’s far too early to tell
And is democracy finished if this is what it produces?
As Churchill once said:
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
It’s a great quote I’m just not sure it’s true any more. Technocracy might be better. Especially in an age when people are very quickly getting stupider, with IQs plunging around the world and technology likely to accelerate this process
Can't help feeling we'd be better off going back to 19thC form of governance. Restrict the franchise and bring back the hereditaries to the Lords.
Then we might get PMs of the quality of Palmerston, Disraeli, Gladstone and Salisbury (who also quite happily ran the world's biggest empire on the side.)
I cannot find the post, but @Eabhal made a point earlier that he agreed with me about solar farms harvesting constraint subsidies by positioning themselves in areas of poor grid connectivity, and that I should 'focus my attack on renewables' there (or words to that effect).
I think it's important to clarify that I am not against renewable energy in principle - that would be absurd. If we can use modern technology to harness nature and provide abundant cheap energy, how could anyone object to that?
My argument is against the UK's specific journey to Net Zero, and the green industrial complex that has grown up around it. We have imposed arbitrary green targets, companies (mostly overseas ones) know this, lobbyists get their noses into the trough, the entire push is sold to the public as a moral mission, and the chosen instruments for the transition are by their nature the most wasteful and inefficient, because on the other side of waste, there is someone making a shit tonne of money. That is the nature of waste.
I support tidal - very old idea, very reliable tech, would last centuries with little repair - hence no vast profits to be made, so little to no interest from corporations, or policy-makers.
It's a corrupt system, and it is quite deliberately pushing up the price of energy, with global investment funds the main beneficiaries, and the poor the main victims, all wrapped in hypocritical cant about saving the planet.
I don't think they do it maliciously. Just that the government shouldn't allow them to be built on CfD contracts unless there is sufficient local demand, sufficient transmission, or sufficient approved transmission. That rules out much of the Highlands, unless you set up nodal pricing so you get massive steelworks in Fort William or something.
I don't think any firm should be expected to the "right thing". It's up to government to regulate, tax, to ensure we get a good outcome. That goes for fossil fuels and renewables equally. If that's not happening now then we are right to complain.
(On tidal, I've never really understood what the benefits are. Intermittent, and none of the schemes contain sufficient storage in design to mitigate that. If it's cheaper than the alternatives then fair enough.)
Intermittent but very predictable unlike solar and wind. Useful in the mix, surely?
I am not sure why predictable is advantageous?
On demand, like gas, is advantageous. Lagoons can be used for storage but not in volume and not competitive to batteries realistically.
But predictability? How does that help? If I can predict that output is troughing just as demand peaks then what can we usefully do with that information that we would not do with unpredictable troughs in output?
Tidewater predictably offset as you move round the coast of the U.K.
If you site your lagoons correctly, the peaks are at different times. The individual lagoons spread the peak power, at each location. This adds up to continuous power delivered to the grid 24/7.
While that's true... not all parts of the UK are equally suitable for large tidal barrages. So, you probably couldn't replicate a large baseload plant that easily.
That said: the promoters say it's pretty inexpensive, so let's try it.
The lagoons would allow you to avoid having to perfectly synchronise on tides.
The problem is that they would never get built. The opposition to them would be too fierce.
Solar and batteries is much harder to stop. Because they scale from a large garden upward. Rather than starting at gigawatts.
Planning is no issue. The timeline is only three or so years - much of that to undertake the environmental studies.
The only opposition is from nuclear. Build one tidal lagoon and you never build another nuclear power station. The economics would make no sense.
France built a tidal power station in 1966. They haven't built another one, but they have built lots of nuclear.
Yes, La Rance in Brittany. It produces the cheapest power in France.
I hear the electrons from there are a bit scruffy; they're not the kind of electricity you'd want in your neighbourhood.
Here’s a question for PBers. I’ve been arguing it with my brother but it might interest the forum
Has the west. - as in, the entire west - ever been so badly governed? Everywhere you look there is total mediocrity at best, or asinine stupidity. Keir Starmer is a vain, thick, footling and treacherous wanker who thinks he’s smart. Trump is much worse. Metz lol. Macron at least is clever but his home life IS fucking disturbing and he’s barely achieved anything
Carney shows some spine and brains but it’s far too early to tell
And is democracy finished if this is what it produces?
As Churchill once said:
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
It’s a great quote I’m just not sure it’s true any more. Technocracy might be better. Especially in an age when people are very quickly getting stupider, with IQs plunging around the world and technology likely to accelerate this process
Can't help feeling we'd be better off going back to 19thC form of governance. Restrict the franchise and bring back the hereditaries to the Lords.
Then we might get PMs of the quality of Palmerston, Disraeli, Gladstone and Salisbury (who also quite happily ran the world's biggest empire on the side.)
I can't help but think that if we had them now then we'd brand Disraeli an amoral rake like Boris and Gladstone a pious bore like Starmer.
I cannot find the post, but @Eabhal made a point earlier that he agreed with me about solar farms harvesting constraint subsidies by positioning themselves in areas of poor grid connectivity, and that I should 'focus my attack on renewables' there (or words to that effect).
I think it's important to clarify that I am not against renewable energy in principle - that would be absurd. If we can use modern technology to harness nature and provide abundant cheap energy, how could anyone object to that?
My argument is against the UK's specific journey to Net Zero, and the green industrial complex that has grown up around it. We have imposed arbitrary green targets, companies (mostly overseas ones) know this, lobbyists get their noses into the trough, the entire push is sold to the public as a moral mission, and the chosen instruments for the transition are by their nature the most wasteful and inefficient, because on the other side of waste, there is someone making a shit tonne of money. That is the nature of waste.
I support tidal - very old idea, very reliable tech, would last centuries with little repair - hence no vast profits to be made, so little to no interest from corporations, or policy-makers.
It's a corrupt system, and it is quite deliberately pushing up the price of energy, with global investment funds the main beneficiaries, and the poor the main victims, all wrapped in hypocritical cant about saving the planet.
I don't think they do it maliciously. Just that the government shouldn't allow them to be built on CfD contracts unless there is sufficient local demand, sufficient transmission, or sufficient approved transmission. That rules out much of the Highlands, unless you set up nodal pricing so you get massive steelworks in Fort William or something.
I don't think any firm should be expected to the "right thing". It's up to government to regulate, tax, to ensure we get a good outcome. That goes for fossil fuels and renewables equally. If that's not happening now then we are right to complain.
(On tidal, I've never really understood what the benefits are. Intermittent, and none of the schemes contain sufficient storage in design to mitigate that. If it's cheaper than the alternatives then fair enough.)
Intermittent but very predictable unlike solar and wind. Useful in the mix, surely?
I am not sure why predictable is advantageous?
On demand, like gas, is advantageous. Lagoons can be used for storage but not in volume and not competitive to batteries realistically.
But predictability? How does that help? If I can predict that output is troughing just as demand peaks then what can we usefully do with that information that we would not do with unpredictable troughs in output?
Tidewater predictably offset as you move round the coast of the U.K.
If you site your lagoons correctly, the peaks are at different times. The individual lagoons spread the peak power, at each location. This adds up to continuous power delivered to the grid 24/7.
While that's true... not all parts of the UK are equally suitable for large tidal barrages. So, you probably couldn't replicate a large baseload plant that easily.
That said: the promoters say it's pretty inexpensive, so let's try it.
The lagoons would allow you to avoid having to perfectly synchronise on tides.
The problem is that they would never get built. The opposition to them would be too fierce.
Solar and batteries is much harder to stop. Because they scale from a large garden upward. Rather than starting at gigawatts.
Planning is no issue. The timeline is only three or so years - much of that to undertake the environmental studies.
The only opposition is from nuclear. Build one tidal lagoon and you never build another nuclear power station. The economics would make no sense.
France built a tidal power station in 1966. They haven't built another one, but they have built lots of nuclear.
Yes, La Rance in Brittany. It produces the cheapest power in France.
I hear the electrons from there are a bit scruffy; they're not the kind of electricity you'd want in your neighbourhood.
Hey, they don't worry about that - they sell those scruffy electrons to the UK when we most need power. At top price.
Guys, is it good when you fire the head of the army in the middle of a war ahead of a possible controversial ground invasion? It's a thing you do if you're winning, right?
I cannot find the post, but @Eabhal made a point earlier that he agreed with me about solar farms harvesting constraint subsidies by positioning themselves in areas of poor grid connectivity, and that I should 'focus my attack on renewables' there (or words to that effect).
I think it's important to clarify that I am not against renewable energy in principle - that would be absurd. If we can use modern technology to harness nature and provide abundant cheap energy, how could anyone object to that?
My argument is against the UK's specific journey to Net Zero, and the green industrial complex that has grown up around it. We have imposed arbitrary green targets, companies (mostly overseas ones) know this, lobbyists get their noses into the trough, the entire push is sold to the public as a moral mission, and the chosen instruments for the transition are by their nature the most wasteful and inefficient, because on the other side of waste, there is someone making a shit tonne of money. That is the nature of waste.
I support tidal - very old idea, very reliable tech, would last centuries with little repair - hence no vast profits to be made, so little to no interest from corporations, or policy-makers.
It's a corrupt system, and it is quite deliberately pushing up the price of energy, with global investment funds the main beneficiaries, and the poor the main victims, all wrapped in hypocritical cant about saving the planet.
I don't think they do it maliciously. Just that the government shouldn't allow them to be built on CfD contracts unless there is sufficient local demand, sufficient transmission, or sufficient approved transmission. That rules out much of the Highlands, unless you set up nodal pricing so you get massive steelworks in Fort William or something.
I don't think any firm should be expected to the "right thing". It's up to government to regulate, tax, to ensure we get a good outcome. That goes for fossil fuels and renewables equally. If that's not happening now then we are right to complain.
(On tidal, I've never really understood what the benefits are. Intermittent, and none of the schemes contain sufficient storage in design to mitigate that. If it's cheaper than the alternatives then fair enough.)
Intermittent but very predictable unlike solar and wind. Useful in the mix, surely?
I am not sure why predictable is advantageous?
On demand, like gas, is advantageous. Lagoons can be used for storage but not in volume and not competitive to batteries realistically.
But predictability? How does that help? If I can predict that output is troughing just as demand peaks then what can we usefully do with that information that we would not do with unpredictable troughs in output?
Tidewater predictably offset as you move round the coast of the U.K.
If you site your lagoons correctly, the peaks are at different times. The individual lagoons spread the peak power, at each location. This adds up to continuous power delivered to the grid 24/7.
While that's true... not all parts of the UK are equally suitable for large tidal barrages. So, you probably couldn't replicate a large baseload plant that easily.
That said: the promoters say it's pretty inexpensive, so let's try it.
The lagoons would allow you to avoid having to perfectly synchronise on tides.
The problem is that they would never get built. The opposition to them would be too fierce.
Solar and batteries is much harder to stop. Because they scale from a large garden upward. Rather than starting at gigawatts.
Planning is no issue. The timeline is only three or so years - much of that to undertake the environmental studies.
The only opposition is from nuclear. Build one tidal lagoon and you never build another nuclear power station. The economics would make no sense.
France built a tidal power station in 1966. They haven't built another one, but they have built lots of nuclear.
Yes, La Rance in Brittany. It produces the cheapest power in France.
I'm guessing that the main problem with tidal power is similar to that for hydroelectric power: there are simply not that many suitable locations for it. Otherwise, why would more not have been built, in France and elsewhere?
“Did you know: all five of the US flags planted by the Apollo missions have been bleached white by the UV rays which means now the moon technically belongs to France”
Not that there's any point to it in Trump's america.
"Fury in France as Trump insults Macron" angles appearing in UK and US media
Not really. General attitude here more that of the wonderful French proverb "La bave du crapaud n'atteint pas la blanche colombe" The toad's slime does not reach the white dove https://x.com/AlexTaylorNews/status/2039738384642388164
Trump is however well qualified to talk about being married to hookers.
To add to the debate. One of the main arguments offered in favour of Israel is that it is “the only democracy in the region”
Which is true to an extent but that so-called democracy has now delivered 18 years - 18 years! - of the corrupt and contemptible Bibi Netanyahu as prime minister and that same democracy has now introduced an overtly race-based death penalty aimed at one minority, something even apartheid South Africa never quite managed
So what’s the fucking big deal about Israel being democratic if democracy produces this?
It's a point. Donald Trump is also duly elected and in a sense this only adds to the horror of him. Because it reflects on the people. They'd be more mitigation if he was there via military coup. But the upside is the people (we hope) can rectify their error and this at the end of the day is the biggest USP of democracy. It doesn't prevent power being abused but it provides the best mechanism to stop it happening too overtly for too long.
But voters are getting stupider and stupider. This is a real thing. IQs are speedily declining and smart phones and other tech are only accelerating this
At what point does the wisdom of crowds become the idiocy or madness of crowds? Or the bigotry of the majority, as in Israel?
The you have to add in the way democratic social media makes a political life deeply unappealing to all but the most inane, banal and/or power obsessed which is how Britain ended up with a serious of ridiculous losers culminating in Skyr Toolmakersson
One of the good things about a constitutional monarchy is that we can reinvent the system without ripping everything down.
We could revert to having the PM appointed by the king, similar to the way the England football manager is appointed. Maybe even shop abroad to find a political Sven-Göran Eriksson to run the government.
Da, there's this experienced Russian manager without much of an offramp from his current job who might be interested.
As Tuchel is about to prove, the most successful managers of the English national team are English. Apart from the likelihood that the FA is shit at recruitment, I don't know why that is.
@ariehkovler.com Guys, is it good when you fire the head of the army in the middle of a war ahead of a possible controversial ground invasion? It's a thing you do if you're winning, right?
I cannot find the post, but @Eabhal made a point earlier that he agreed with me about solar farms harvesting constraint subsidies by positioning themselves in areas of poor grid connectivity, and that I should 'focus my attack on renewables' there (or words to that effect).
I think it's important to clarify that I am not against renewable energy in principle - that would be absurd. If we can use modern technology to harness nature and provide abundant cheap energy, how could anyone object to that?
My argument is against the UK's specific journey to Net Zero, and the green industrial complex that has grown up around it. We have imposed arbitrary green targets, companies (mostly overseas ones) know this, lobbyists get their noses into the trough, the entire push is sold to the public as a moral mission, and the chosen instruments for the transition are by their nature the most wasteful and inefficient, because on the other side of waste, there is someone making a shit tonne of money. That is the nature of waste.
I support tidal - very old idea, very reliable tech, would last centuries with little repair - hence no vast profits to be made, so little to no interest from corporations, or policy-makers.
It's a corrupt system, and it is quite deliberately pushing up the price of energy, with global investment funds the main beneficiaries, and the poor the main victims, all wrapped in hypocritical cant about saving the planet.
I don't think they do it maliciously. Just that the government shouldn't allow them to be built on CfD contracts unless there is sufficient local demand, sufficient transmission, or sufficient approved transmission. That rules out much of the Highlands, unless you set up nodal pricing so you get massive steelworks in Fort William or something.
I don't think any firm should be expected to the "right thing". It's up to government to regulate, tax, to ensure we get a good outcome. That goes for fossil fuels and renewables equally. If that's not happening now then we are right to complain.
(On tidal, I've never really understood what the benefits are. Intermittent, and none of the schemes contain sufficient storage in design to mitigate that. If it's cheaper than the alternatives then fair enough.)
Intermittent but very predictable unlike solar and wind. Useful in the mix, surely?
I am not sure why predictable is advantageous?
On demand, like gas, is advantageous. Lagoons can be used for storage but not in volume and not competitive to batteries realistically.
But predictability? How does that help? If I can predict that output is troughing just as demand peaks then what can we usefully do with that information that we would not do with unpredictable troughs in output?
Tidewater predictably offset as you move round the coast of the U.K.
If you site your lagoons correctly, the peaks are at different times. The individual lagoons spread the peak power, at each location. This adds up to continuous power delivered to the grid 24/7.
While that's true... not all parts of the UK are equally suitable for large tidal barrages. So, you probably couldn't replicate a large baseload plant that easily.
That said: the promoters say it's pretty inexpensive, so let's try it.
The lagoons would allow you to avoid having to perfectly synchronise on tides.
The problem is that they would never get built. The opposition to them would be too fierce.
Solar and batteries is much harder to stop. Because they scale from a large garden upward. Rather than starting at gigawatts.
Planning is no issue. The timeline is only three or so years - much of that to undertake the environmental studies.
The only opposition is from nuclear. Build one tidal lagoon and you never build another nuclear power station. The economics would make no sense.
Ummm: the economics of HPC don't make sense even without tidal.
I cannot find the post, but @Eabhal made a point earlier that he agreed with me about solar farms harvesting constraint subsidies by positioning themselves in areas of poor grid connectivity, and that I should 'focus my attack on renewables' there (or words to that effect).
I think it's important to clarify that I am not against renewable energy in principle - that would be absurd. If we can use modern technology to harness nature and provide abundant cheap energy, how could anyone object to that?
My argument is against the UK's specific journey to Net Zero, and the green industrial complex that has grown up around it. We have imposed arbitrary green targets, companies (mostly overseas ones) know this, lobbyists get their noses into the trough, the entire push is sold to the public as a moral mission, and the chosen instruments for the transition are by their nature the most wasteful and inefficient, because on the other side of waste, there is someone making a shit tonne of money. That is the nature of waste.
I support tidal - very old idea, very reliable tech, would last centuries with little repair - hence no vast profits to be made, so little to no interest from corporations, or policy-makers.
It's a corrupt system, and it is quite deliberately pushing up the price of energy, with global investment funds the main beneficiaries, and the poor the main victims, all wrapped in hypocritical cant about saving the planet.
I don't think they do it maliciously. Just that the government shouldn't allow them to be built on CfD contracts unless there is sufficient local demand, sufficient transmission, or sufficient approved transmission. That rules out much of the Highlands, unless you set up nodal pricing so you get massive steelworks in Fort William or something.
I don't think any firm should be expected to the "right thing". It's up to government to regulate, tax, to ensure we get a good outcome. That goes for fossil fuels and renewables equally. If that's not happening now then we are right to complain.
(On tidal, I've never really understood what the benefits are. Intermittent, and none of the schemes contain sufficient storage in design to mitigate that. If it's cheaper than the alternatives then fair enough.)
Intermittent but very predictable unlike solar and wind. Useful in the mix, surely?
I am not sure why predictable is advantageous?
On demand, like gas, is advantageous. Lagoons can be used for storage but not in volume and not competitive to batteries realistically.
But predictability? How does that help? If I can predict that output is troughing just as demand peaks then what can we usefully do with that information that we would not do with unpredictable troughs in output?
Tidewater predictably offset as you move round the coast of the U.K.
If you site your lagoons correctly, the peaks are at different times. The individual lagoons spread the peak power, at each location. This adds up to continuous power delivered to the grid 24/7.
While that's true... not all parts of the UK are equally suitable for large tidal barrages. So, you probably couldn't replicate a large baseload plant that easily.
That said: the promoters say it's pretty inexpensive, so let's try it.
The lagoons would allow you to avoid having to perfectly synchronise on tides.
The problem is that they would never get built. The opposition to them would be too fierce.
Solar and batteries is much harder to stop. Because they scale from a large garden upward. Rather than starting at gigawatts.
Planning is no issue. The timeline is only three or so years - much of that to undertake the environmental studies.
The only opposition is from nuclear. Build one tidal lagoon and you never build another nuclear power station. The economics would make no sense.
France built a tidal power station in 1966. They haven't built another one, but they have built lots of nuclear.
Yes, La Rance in Brittany. It produces the cheapest power in France.
I'm guessing that the main problem with tidal power is similar to that for hydroelectric power: there are simply not that many suitable locations for it. Otherwise, why would more not have been built, in France and elsewhere?
Maybe it doesn't provide enough opportunities for grift for managers of the big power companies.
Given the alternative is JD Vance, I'm a reluctant Trumper for the next couple of years!
Vance would be a lot better than Trump
For far right Christian ethno-nationalists who hate western society, sure.
Hysterical bedwetting
Vance is not a far right Christian ethno nationalist. His wife is bloody Indian!
He’s bent in the wind to accommodate the hurricane that is Trump but I suspect he’d be quite a capable president. He’s clever and he thinks ahead. He would not have done Iran. Certainly not in the way Trump has done it
He wouldn’t be to your taste, he is firmly right wing. But he’s not mad and he’s not compromised by Epstein
Very reluctantly, because he is an outsize c*** and far too close to Putin (which is probably the real reason why he's opposed to Iran) I have to agree. Better somebody malign and sane than somebody malign and manifestly insane.
I cannot find the post, but @Eabhal made a point earlier that he agreed with me about solar farms harvesting constraint subsidies by positioning themselves in areas of poor grid connectivity, and that I should 'focus my attack on renewables' there (or words to that effect).
I think it's important to clarify that I am not against renewable energy in principle - that would be absurd. If we can use modern technology to harness nature and provide abundant cheap energy, how could anyone object to that?
My argument is against the UK's specific journey to Net Zero, and the green industrial complex that has grown up around it. We have imposed arbitrary green targets, companies (mostly overseas ones) know this, lobbyists get their noses into the trough, the entire push is sold to the public as a moral mission, and the chosen instruments for the transition are by their nature the most wasteful and inefficient, because on the other side of waste, there is someone making a shit tonne of money. That is the nature of waste.
I support tidal - very old idea, very reliable tech, would last centuries with little repair - hence no vast profits to be made, so little to no interest from corporations, or policy-makers.
It's a corrupt system, and it is quite deliberately pushing up the price of energy, with global investment funds the main beneficiaries, and the poor the main victims, all wrapped in hypocritical cant about saving the planet.
I don't think they do it maliciously. Just that the government shouldn't allow them to be built on CfD contracts unless there is sufficient local demand, sufficient transmission, or sufficient approved transmission. That rules out much of the Highlands, unless you set up nodal pricing so you get massive steelworks in Fort William or something.
I don't think any firm should be expected to the "right thing". It's up to government to regulate, tax, to ensure we get a good outcome. That goes for fossil fuels and renewables equally. If that's not happening now then we are right to complain.
(On tidal, I've never really understood what the benefits are. Intermittent, and none of the schemes contain sufficient storage in design to mitigate that. If it's cheaper than the alternatives then fair enough.)
Intermittent but very predictable unlike solar and wind. Useful in the mix, surely?
I am not sure why predictable is advantageous?
On demand, like gas, is advantageous. Lagoons can be used for storage but not in volume and not competitive to batteries realistically.
But predictability? How does that help? If I can predict that output is troughing just as demand peaks then what can we usefully do with that information that we would not do with unpredictable troughs in output?
Tidewater predictably offset as you move round the coast of the U.K.
If you site your lagoons correctly, the peaks are at different times. The individual lagoons spread the peak power, at each location. This adds up to continuous power delivered to the grid 24/7.
While that's true... not all parts of the UK are equally suitable for large tidal barrages. So, you probably couldn't replicate a large baseload plant that easily.
That said: the promoters say it's pretty inexpensive, so let's try it.
The lagoons would allow you to avoid having to perfectly synchronise on tides.
The problem is that they would never get built. The opposition to them would be too fierce.
Solar and batteries is much harder to stop. Because they scale from a large garden upward. Rather than starting at gigawatts.
Planning is no issue. The timeline is only three or so years - much of that to undertake the environmental studies.
The only opposition is from nuclear. Build one tidal lagoon and you never build another nuclear power station. The economics would make no sense.
France built a tidal power station in 1966. They haven't built another one, but they have built lots of nuclear.
Yes, La Rance in Brittany. It produces the cheapest power in France.
I'm guessing that the main problem with tidal power is similar to that for hydroelectric power: there are simply not that many suitable locations for it. Otherwise, why would more not have been built, in France and elsewhere?
The UK has over 50% of the wave power that hits Europe. It is very much focussed on the west coast of England and Wales. The Severn has the second highest tidal range in the world (only Canada has a gretaer difference between high and low tide markers). Scotland generally does not have suitable sites; they would be very much second tier at best. The more lagoons you build, the more you risk taking that wave power from one at the cost of another. But there are still at least half a dozen locations that could be built - quickly and cheaply (when compared to nuclear).
Trump will have to invade Greenland to put the EU back in its box...
Iran looks to be running rings around Trump and Hesketh.
It looks like our defence budget will have to rise to deliver enough capability to fight Russia and America at the same time. Tough on the public finances. Perhaps if we abolish the triple lock?
BREAKING: Russia, China, and France are blocking an Arab-backed push at the UN Security Council to authorize military action against Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, per NYT.
According to diplomats, the three veto powers oppose any resolution language that would permit the use of force.
"The tragedy is that we have a golden opportunity to do just this due to demographic collapse"
Demographic collapse seems like a bit of an exaggeration when the population is just about to reach 70 million.
I think you're confusing population and demography.
Population is the number of people in a country.
Demographics is the makeup of the population.
At this moment, the number of children in the country is dropping. In some places, especially London, it's absolutely cratering - down around 2% a year every year and has been that way for the last ten years. There have been 90 school closures since 2019.
BREAKING: Russia, China, and France are blocking an Arab-backed push at the UN Security Council to authorize military action against Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, per NYT.
According to diplomats, the three veto powers oppose any resolution language that would permit the use of force.
There's already a ton of military action against Iran.
I cannot find the post, but @Eabhal made a point earlier that he agreed with me about solar farms harvesting constraint subsidies by positioning themselves in areas of poor grid connectivity, and that I should 'focus my attack on renewables' there (or words to that effect).
I think it's important to clarify that I am not against renewable energy in principle - that would be absurd. If we can use modern technology to harness nature and provide abundant cheap energy, how could anyone object to that?
My argument is against the UK's specific journey to Net Zero, and the green industrial complex that has grown up around it. We have imposed arbitrary green targets, companies (mostly overseas ones) know this, lobbyists get their noses into the trough, the entire push is sold to the public as a moral mission, and the chosen instruments for the transition are by their nature the most wasteful and inefficient, because on the other side of waste, there is someone making a shit tonne of money. That is the nature of waste.
I support tidal - very old idea, very reliable tech, would last centuries with little repair - hence no vast profits to be made, so little to no interest from corporations, or policy-makers.
It's a corrupt system, and it is quite deliberately pushing up the price of energy, with global investment funds the main beneficiaries, and the poor the main victims, all wrapped in hypocritical cant about saving the planet.
I don't think they do it maliciously. Just that the government shouldn't allow them to be built on CfD contracts unless there is sufficient local demand, sufficient transmission, or sufficient approved transmission. That rules out much of the Highlands, unless you set up nodal pricing so you get massive steelworks in Fort William or something.
I don't think any firm should be expected to the "right thing". It's up to government to regulate, tax, to ensure we get a good outcome. That goes for fossil fuels and renewables equally. If that's not happening now then we are right to complain.
(On tidal, I've never really understood what the benefits are. Intermittent, and none of the schemes contain sufficient storage in design to mitigate that. If it's cheaper than the alternatives then fair enough.)
Intermittent but very predictable unlike solar and wind. Useful in the mix, surely?
I am not sure why predictable is advantageous?
On demand, like gas, is advantageous. Lagoons can be used for storage but not in volume and not competitive to batteries realistically.
But predictability? How does that help? If I can predict that output is troughing just as demand peaks then what can we usefully do with that information that we would not do with unpredictable troughs in output?
Tidewater predictably offset as you move round the coast of the U.K.
If you site your lagoons correctly, the peaks are at different times. The individual lagoons spread the peak power, at each location. This adds up to continuous power delivered to the grid 24/7.
While that's true... not all parts of the UK are equally suitable for large tidal barrages. So, you probably couldn't replicate a large baseload plant that easily.
That said: the promoters say it's pretty inexpensive, so let's try it.
The lagoons would allow you to avoid having to perfectly synchronise on tides.
The problem is that they would never get built. The opposition to them would be too fierce.
Solar and batteries is much harder to stop. Because they scale from a large garden upward. Rather than starting at gigawatts.
Planning is no issue. The timeline is only three or so years - much of that to undertake the environmental studies.
The only opposition is from nuclear. Build one tidal lagoon and you never build another nuclear power station. The economics would make no sense.
Ummm: the economics of HPC don't make sense even without tidal.
And yet, we built it. And are lined up to build Sizewell C.
Somebody really should be asking why South Korea's nuclear energy costs a fifth of ours...
BREAKING: Russia, China, and France are blocking an Arab-backed push at the UN Security Council to authorize military action against Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, per NYT.
According to diplomats, the three veto powers oppose any resolution language that would permit the use of force.
Russia and China see it in their long term interests to keep the Strait closed.
France has presumably made the (incidentally correct) calculation that military action will not only not reopen the strait but make it harder to reopen through diplomacy.
BREAKING: Russia, China, and France are blocking an Arab-backed push at the UN Security Council to authorize military action against Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, per NYT.
According to diplomats, the three veto powers oppose any resolution language that would permit the use of force.
BREAKING: Russia, China, and France are blocking an Arab-backed push at the UN Security Council to authorize military action against Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, per NYT.
According to diplomats, the three veto powers oppose any resolution language that would permit the use of force.
Russia and China see it in their long term interests to keep the Strait closed.
France has presumably made the (incidentally correct) calculation that military action will not only not reopen the strait but make it harder to reopen through diplomacy.
Not often you see Russia , China and France on the same side .
I cannot find the post, but @Eabhal made a point earlier that he agreed with me about solar farms harvesting constraint subsidies by positioning themselves in areas of poor grid connectivity, and that I should 'focus my attack on renewables' there (or words to that effect).
I think it's important to clarify that I am not against renewable energy in principle - that would be absurd. If we can use modern technology to harness nature and provide abundant cheap energy, how could anyone object to that?
My argument is against the UK's specific journey to Net Zero, and the green industrial complex that has grown up around it. We have imposed arbitrary green targets, companies (mostly overseas ones) know this, lobbyists get their noses into the trough, the entire push is sold to the public as a moral mission, and the chosen instruments for the transition are by their nature the most wasteful and inefficient, because on the other side of waste, there is someone making a shit tonne of money. That is the nature of waste.
I support tidal - very old idea, very reliable tech, would last centuries with little repair - hence no vast profits to be made, so little to no interest from corporations, or policy-makers.
It's a corrupt system, and it is quite deliberately pushing up the price of energy, with global investment funds the main beneficiaries, and the poor the main victims, all wrapped in hypocritical cant about saving the planet.
I don't think they do it maliciously. Just that the government shouldn't allow them to be built on CfD contracts unless there is sufficient local demand, sufficient transmission, or sufficient approved transmission. That rules out much of the Highlands, unless you set up nodal pricing so you get massive steelworks in Fort William or something.
I don't think any firm should be expected to the "right thing". It's up to government to regulate, tax, to ensure we get a good outcome. That goes for fossil fuels and renewables equally. If that's not happening now then we are right to complain.
(On tidal, I've never really understood what the benefits are. Intermittent, and none of the schemes contain sufficient storage in design to mitigate that. If it's cheaper than the alternatives then fair enough.)
Intermittent but very predictable unlike solar and wind. Useful in the mix, surely?
I am not sure why predictable is advantageous?
On demand, like gas, is advantageous. Lagoons can be used for storage but not in volume and not competitive to batteries realistically.
But predictability? How does that help? If I can predict that output is troughing just as demand peaks then what can we usefully do with that information that we would not do with unpredictable troughs in output?
Tidewater predictably offset as you move round the coast of the U.K.
If you site your lagoons correctly, the peaks are at different times. The individual lagoons spread the peak power, at each location. This adds up to continuous power delivered to the grid 24/7.
While that's true... not all parts of the UK are equally suitable for large tidal barrages. So, you probably couldn't replicate a large baseload plant that easily.
That said: the promoters say it's pretty inexpensive, so let's try it.
The lagoons would allow you to avoid having to perfectly synchronise on tides.
The problem is that they would never get built. The opposition to them would be too fierce.
Solar and batteries is much harder to stop. Because they scale from a large garden upward. Rather than starting at gigawatts.
Planning is no issue. The timeline is only three or so years - much of that to undertake the environmental studies.
The only opposition is from nuclear. Build one tidal lagoon and you never build another nuclear power station. The economics would make no sense.
Ummm: the economics of HPC don't make sense even without tidal.
And yet, we built it. And are lined up to build Sizewell C.
Somebody really should be asking why South Korea's nuclear energy costs a fifth of ours...
Lots of people have. This government is actually taking baby steps towards addressing that.
BREAKING: Russia, China, and France are blocking an Arab-backed push at the UN Security Council to authorize military action against Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, per NYT.
According to diplomats, the three veto powers oppose any resolution language that would permit the use of force.
Russia and China see it in their long term interests to keep the Strait closed.
France has presumably made the (incidentally correct) calculation that military action will not only not reopen the strait but make it harder to reopen through diplomacy.
Not often you see Russia , China and France on the same side .
Iraq?
Edit - just because they all oppose military action doesn't necessarily mean they're on the same size. Different calculations may come into play.
Oddly, there could be significant benefits for Russia and China in prolonged military action but they don't want to upset the Iranians by saying so.
The Justice Department said that a federal law enacted in the wake of the Watergate scandal that requires the president to preserve certain documents and turn them over to the National Archives at the end of his administration is unconstitutional. https://x.com/CBSNews/status/2039779903147487633
I cannot find the post, but @Eabhal made a point earlier that he agreed with me about solar farms harvesting constraint subsidies by positioning themselves in areas of poor grid connectivity, and that I should 'focus my attack on renewables' there (or words to that effect).
I think it's important to clarify that I am not against renewable energy in principle - that would be absurd. If we can use modern technology to harness nature and provide abundant cheap energy, how could anyone object to that?
My argument is against the UK's specific journey to Net Zero, and the green industrial complex that has grown up around it. We have imposed arbitrary green targets, companies (mostly overseas ones) know this, lobbyists get their noses into the trough, the entire push is sold to the public as a moral mission, and the chosen instruments for the transition are by their nature the most wasteful and inefficient, because on the other side of waste, there is someone making a shit tonne of money. That is the nature of waste.
I support tidal - very old idea, very reliable tech, would last centuries with little repair - hence no vast profits to be made, so little to no interest from corporations, or policy-makers.
It's a corrupt system, and it is quite deliberately pushing up the price of energy, with global investment funds the main beneficiaries, and the poor the main victims, all wrapped in hypocritical cant about saving the planet.
I don't think they do it maliciously. Just that the government shouldn't allow them to be built on CfD contracts unless there is sufficient local demand, sufficient transmission, or sufficient approved transmission. That rules out much of the Highlands, unless you set up nodal pricing so you get massive steelworks in Fort William or something.
I don't think any firm should be expected to the "right thing". It's up to government to regulate, tax, to ensure we get a good outcome. That goes for fossil fuels and renewables equally. If that's not happening now then we are right to complain.
(On tidal, I've never really understood what the benefits are. Intermittent, and none of the schemes contain sufficient storage in design to mitigate that. If it's cheaper than the alternatives then fair enough.)
Intermittent but very predictable unlike solar and wind. Useful in the mix, surely?
I am not sure why predictable is advantageous?
On demand, like gas, is advantageous. Lagoons can be used for storage but not in volume and not competitive to batteries realistically.
But predictability? How does that help? If I can predict that output is troughing just as demand peaks then what can we usefully do with that information that we would not do with unpredictable troughs in output?
Tidewater predictably offset as you move round the coast of the U.K.
If you site your lagoons correctly, the peaks are at different times. The individual lagoons spread the peak power, at each location. This adds up to continuous power delivered to the grid 24/7.
While that's true... not all parts of the UK are equally suitable for large tidal barrages. So, you probably couldn't replicate a large baseload plant that easily.
That said: the promoters say it's pretty inexpensive, so let's try it.
The lagoons would allow you to avoid having to perfectly synchronise on tides.
The problem is that they would never get built. The opposition to them would be too fierce.
Solar and batteries is much harder to stop. Because they scale from a large garden upward. Rather than starting at gigawatts.
Planning is no issue. The timeline is only three or so years - much of that to undertake the environmental studies.
The only opposition is from nuclear. Build one tidal lagoon and you never build another nuclear power station. The economics would make no sense.
Ummm: the economics of HPC don't make sense even without tidal.
And yet, we built it. And are lined up to build Sizewell C.
Somebody really should be asking why South Korea's nuclear energy costs a fifth of ours...
You want to get yourself in a room with Kemi Badenoch. Tidal is a very 'we have a clever thought out plan' Kemi thing to push. Yes, she's doing oil and gas, but it would be good for her to have tidal to pivot to. Makes Reform seem more old-fashioned.
I cannot find the post, but @Eabhal made a point earlier that he agreed with me about solar farms harvesting constraint subsidies by positioning themselves in areas of poor grid connectivity, and that I should 'focus my attack on renewables' there (or words to that effect).
I think it's important to clarify that I am not against renewable energy in principle - that would be absurd. If we can use modern technology to harness nature and provide abundant cheap energy, how could anyone object to that?
My argument is against the UK's specific journey to Net Zero, and the green industrial complex that has grown up around it. We have imposed arbitrary green targets, companies (mostly overseas ones) know this, lobbyists get their noses into the trough, the entire push is sold to the public as a moral mission, and the chosen instruments for the transition are by their nature the most wasteful and inefficient, because on the other side of waste, there is someone making a shit tonne of money. That is the nature of waste.
I support tidal - very old idea, very reliable tech, would last centuries with little repair - hence no vast profits to be made, so little to no interest from corporations, or policy-makers.
It's a corrupt system, and it is quite deliberately pushing up the price of energy, with global investment funds the main beneficiaries, and the poor the main victims, all wrapped in hypocritical cant about saving the planet.
I don't think they do it maliciously. Just that the government shouldn't allow them to be built on CfD contracts unless there is sufficient local demand, sufficient transmission, or sufficient approved transmission. That rules out much of the Highlands, unless you set up nodal pricing so you get massive steelworks in Fort William or something.
I don't think any firm should be expected to the "right thing". It's up to government to regulate, tax, to ensure we get a good outcome. That goes for fossil fuels and renewables equally. If that's not happening now then we are right to complain.
(On tidal, I've never really understood what the benefits are. Intermittent, and none of the schemes contain sufficient storage in design to mitigate that. If it's cheaper than the alternatives then fair enough.)
Intermittent but very predictable unlike solar and wind. Useful in the mix, surely?
I am not sure why predictable is advantageous?
On demand, like gas, is advantageous. Lagoons can be used for storage but not in volume and not competitive to batteries realistically.
But predictability? How does that help? If I can predict that output is troughing just as demand peaks then what can we usefully do with that information that we would not do with unpredictable troughs in output?
Tidewater predictably offset as you move round the coast of the U.K.
If you site your lagoons correctly, the peaks are at different times. The individual lagoons spread the peak power, at each location. This adds up to continuous power delivered to the grid 24/7.
While that's true... not all parts of the UK are equally suitable for large tidal barrages. So, you probably couldn't replicate a large baseload plant that easily.
That said: the promoters say it's pretty inexpensive, so let's try it.
The lagoons would allow you to avoid having to perfectly synchronise on tides.
The problem is that they would never get built. The opposition to them would be too fierce.
Solar and batteries is much harder to stop. Because they scale from a large garden upward. Rather than starting at gigawatts.
Planning is no issue. The timeline is only three or so years - much of that to undertake the environmental studies.
The only opposition is from nuclear. Build one tidal lagoon and you never build another nuclear power station. The economics would make no sense.
Ummm: the economics of HPC don't make sense even without tidal.
And yet, we built it. And are lined up to build Sizewell C.
Somebody really should be asking why South Korea's nuclear energy costs a fifth of ours...
Lots of people have. This government is actually taking baby steps towards addressing that.
So in a few decades South Korea's nuclear power will only cost a quarter of ours?
Here’s a question for PBers. I’ve been arguing it with my brother but it might interest the forum
Has the west. - as in, the entire west - ever been so badly governed? Everywhere you look there is total mediocrity at best, or asinine stupidity. Keir Starmer is a vain, thick, footling and treacherous wanker who thinks he’s smart. Trump is much worse. Metz lol. Macron at least is clever but his home life IS fucking disturbing and he’s barely achieved anything
Carney shows some spine and brains but it’s far too early to tell
And is democracy finished if this is what it produces?
As Churchill once said:
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
It’s a great quote I’m just not sure it’s true any more. Technocracy might be better. Especially in an age when people are very quickly getting stupider, with IQs plunging around the world and technology likely to accelerate this process
Can't help feeling we'd be better off going back to 19thC form of governance. Restrict the franchise and bring back the hereditaries to the Lords.
Then we might get PMs of the quality of Palmerston, Disraeli, Gladstone and Salisbury (who also quite happily ran the world's biggest empire on the side.)
It all went tits up when women got the vote, huh?
40% of male householders over the age of 21 did not get the vote until 1918, never mind women.
The Labour Party only really overtook the Liberals once they did, in the 19th century it was still mainly middle class men who could vote, indeed until 1832 it was only really the male landed gentry and rich male freemen in towns and cities who could vote
I cannot find the post, but @Eabhal made a point earlier that he agreed with me about solar farms harvesting constraint subsidies by positioning themselves in areas of poor grid connectivity, and that I should 'focus my attack on renewables' there (or words to that effect).
I think it's important to clarify that I am not against renewable energy in principle - that would be absurd. If we can use modern technology to harness nature and provide abundant cheap energy, how could anyone object to that?
My argument is against the UK's specific journey to Net Zero, and the green industrial complex that has grown up around it. We have imposed arbitrary green targets, companies (mostly overseas ones) know this, lobbyists get their noses into the trough, the entire push is sold to the public as a moral mission, and the chosen instruments for the transition are by their nature the most wasteful and inefficient, because on the other side of waste, there is someone making a shit tonne of money. That is the nature of waste.
I support tidal - very old idea, very reliable tech, would last centuries with little repair - hence no vast profits to be made, so little to no interest from corporations, or policy-makers.
It's a corrupt system, and it is quite deliberately pushing up the price of energy, with global investment funds the main beneficiaries, and the poor the main victims, all wrapped in hypocritical cant about saving the planet.
I don't think they do it maliciously. Just that the government shouldn't allow them to be built on CfD contracts unless there is sufficient local demand, sufficient transmission, or sufficient approved transmission. That rules out much of the Highlands, unless you set up nodal pricing so you get massive steelworks in Fort William or something.
I don't think any firm should be expected to the "right thing". It's up to government to regulate, tax, to ensure we get a good outcome. That goes for fossil fuels and renewables equally. If that's not happening now then we are right to complain.
(On tidal, I've never really understood what the benefits are. Intermittent, and none of the schemes contain sufficient storage in design to mitigate that. If it's cheaper than the alternatives then fair enough.)
Intermittent but very predictable unlike solar and wind. Useful in the mix, surely?
I am not sure why predictable is advantageous?
On demand, like gas, is advantageous. Lagoons can be used for storage but not in volume and not competitive to batteries realistically.
But predictability? How does that help? If I can predict that output is troughing just as demand peaks then what can we usefully do with that information that we would not do with unpredictable troughs in output?
Tidewater predictably offset as you move round the coast of the U.K.
If you site your lagoons correctly, the peaks are at different times. The individual lagoons spread the peak power, at each location. This adds up to continuous power delivered to the grid 24/7.
While that's true... not all parts of the UK are equally suitable for large tidal barrages. So, you probably couldn't replicate a large baseload plant that easily.
That said: the promoters say it's pretty inexpensive, so let's try it.
The lagoons would allow you to avoid having to perfectly synchronise on tides.
The problem is that they would never get built. The opposition to them would be too fierce.
Solar and batteries is much harder to stop. Because they scale from a large garden upward. Rather than starting at gigawatts.
Planning is no issue. The timeline is only three or so years - much of that to undertake the environmental studies.
The only opposition is from nuclear. Build one tidal lagoon and you never build another nuclear power station. The economics would make no sense.
Ummm: the economics of HPC don't make sense even without tidal.
And yet, we built it. And are lined up to build Sizewell C.
Somebody really should be asking why South Korea's nuclear energy costs a fifth of ours...
You want to get yourself in a room with Kemi Badenoch. Tidal is a very 'we have a clever thought out plan' Kemi thing to push. Yes, she's doing oil and gas, but it would be good for her to have tidal to pivot to. Makes Reform seem more old-fashioned.
BREAKING: Russia, China, and France are blocking an Arab-backed push at the UN Security Council to authorize military action against Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, per NYT.
According to diplomats, the three veto powers oppose any resolution language that would permit the use of force.
Russia and China see it in their long term interests to keep the Strait closed.
France has presumably made the (incidentally correct) calculation that military action will not only not reopen the strait but make it harder to reopen through diplomacy.
Not often you see Russia , China and France on the same side .
BREAKING: Russia, China, and France are blocking an Arab-backed push at the UN Security Council to authorize military action against Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, per NYT.
According to diplomats, the three veto powers oppose any resolution language that would permit the use of force.
Russia and China see it in their long term interests to keep the Strait closed.
France has presumably made the (incidentally correct) calculation that military action will not only not reopen the strait but make it harder to reopen through diplomacy.
Not often you see Russia , China and France on the same side .
2003, pre-Iraq war.
The French back to being 'cheese eating surrender monkeys' then
I cannot find the post, but @Eabhal made a point earlier that he agreed with me about solar farms harvesting constraint subsidies by positioning themselves in areas of poor grid connectivity, and that I should 'focus my attack on renewables' there (or words to that effect).
I think it's important to clarify that I am not against renewable energy in principle - that would be absurd. If we can use modern technology to harness nature and provide abundant cheap energy, how could anyone object to that?
My argument is against the UK's specific journey to Net Zero, and the green industrial complex that has grown up around it. We have imposed arbitrary green targets, companies (mostly overseas ones) know this, lobbyists get their noses into the trough, the entire push is sold to the public as a moral mission, and the chosen instruments for the transition are by their nature the most wasteful and inefficient, because on the other side of waste, there is someone making a shit tonne of money. That is the nature of waste.
I support tidal - very old idea, very reliable tech, would last centuries with little repair - hence no vast profits to be made, so little to no interest from corporations, or policy-makers.
It's a corrupt system, and it is quite deliberately pushing up the price of energy, with global investment funds the main beneficiaries, and the poor the main victims, all wrapped in hypocritical cant about saving the planet.
I don't think they do it maliciously. Just that the government shouldn't allow them to be built on CfD contracts unless there is sufficient local demand, sufficient transmission, or sufficient approved transmission. That rules out much of the Highlands, unless you set up nodal pricing so you get massive steelworks in Fort William or something.
I don't think any firm should be expected to the "right thing". It's up to government to regulate, tax, to ensure we get a good outcome. That goes for fossil fuels and renewables equally. If that's not happening now then we are right to complain.
(On tidal, I've never really understood what the benefits are. Intermittent, and none of the schemes contain sufficient storage in design to mitigate that. If it's cheaper than the alternatives then fair enough.)
Intermittent but very predictable unlike solar and wind. Useful in the mix, surely?
I am not sure why predictable is advantageous?
On demand, like gas, is advantageous. Lagoons can be used for storage but not in volume and not competitive to batteries realistically.
But predictability? How does that help? If I can predict that output is troughing just as demand peaks then what can we usefully do with that information that we would not do with unpredictable troughs in output?
Tidewater predictably offset as you move round the coast of the U.K.
If you site your lagoons correctly, the peaks are at different times. The individual lagoons spread the peak power, at each location. This adds up to continuous power delivered to the grid 24/7.
While that's true... not all parts of the UK are equally suitable for large tidal barrages. So, you probably couldn't replicate a large baseload plant that easily.
That said: the promoters say it's pretty inexpensive, so let's try it.
The lagoons would allow you to avoid having to perfectly synchronise on tides.
The problem is that they would never get built. The opposition to them would be too fierce.
Solar and batteries is much harder to stop. Because they scale from a large garden upward. Rather than starting at gigawatts.
Planning is no issue. The timeline is only three or so years - much of that to undertake the environmental studies.
The only opposition is from nuclear. Build one tidal lagoon and you never build another nuclear power station. The economics would make no sense.
Ummm: the economics of HPC don't make sense even without tidal.
And yet, we built it. And are lined up to build Sizewell C.
Somebody really should be asking why South Korea's nuclear energy costs a fifth of ours...
You want to get yourself in a room with Kemi Badenoch. Tidal is a very 'we have a clever thought out plan' Kemi thing to push. Yes, she's doing oil and gas, but it would be good for her to have tidal to pivot to. Makes Reform seem more old-fashioned.
It would certainly make waves.
Ah, my dressing gown.
Good night.
Would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity for one of the great quotes, from Brutus:
There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life Is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat, And we must take the current when it serves, Or lose our ventures
And the trouble is, that is very often the case. But sometimes it’s not, as both Putin in 2022 and Trump in 2026 (and Xi in 2027?) have discovered. Or as Macbeth put it:
I have no spur To prick the sides of my intent, but only Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself And falls on the other.
"The great Martin Amis was once asked to describe Las Vegas in one word. Superbly, he answered: “Un-Islamic”. I cannot match that, but if forced to sum up Heathrow airport, once again the subject of rows over expansion, in a single word, I’d go for: schizophrenic."
BREAKING: Russia, China, and France are blocking an Arab-backed push at the UN Security Council to authorize military action against Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, per NYT.
According to diplomats, the three veto powers oppose any resolution language that would permit the use of force.
Russia and China see it in their long term interests to keep the Strait closed.
France has presumably made the (incidentally correct) calculation that military action will not only not reopen the strait but make it harder to reopen through diplomacy.
Not often you see Russia , China and France on the same side .
2003, pre-Iraq war.
Iraq's three largest trading partners. Pure principle, of course.
"The great Martin Amis was once asked to describe Las Vegas in one word. Superbly, he answered: “Un-Islamic”. I cannot match that, but if forced to sum up Heathrow airport, once again the subject of rows over expansion, in a single word, I’d go for: schizophrenic."
BREAKING: Russia, China, and France are blocking an Arab-backed push at the UN Security Council to authorize military action against Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, per NYT.
According to diplomats, the three veto powers oppose any resolution language that would permit the use of force.
Russia and China see it in their long term interests to keep the Strait closed.
France has presumably made the (incidentally correct) calculation that military action will not only not reopen the strait but make it harder to reopen through diplomacy.
The one thing that should be obvious from Ukraine is that the military might and hardware of the 20th century won't last 5 minutes against a determined enemy with a lot of drones...
So France is utterly right in saying that trying to keep the Strait open if Iran wants it closed is going to be impossible.
Just discovered, as I put liberon mahogany black bison wax on my William IV writing table, that Chopin wrote the 2nd movement of his first piano concerto when he was NINETEEN
Leon, do you regret getting rid of all of those books, as you wrote in the Telegraph article a couple of years ago?
No, not for a second. I’ve kept about 100 books that really MEAN something. Absolute favourites, first editions, written by dear friends (or family), some eccentric loves and souvenirs. That’s it. My flat feels much better and purer without thousands of acres of dusty dead tree
My digital library is large
I’m very glad I had the discipline to kick them out
Comments
Meanwhile the astronauts are filling contingency urine bags with water because of a water valve issue. Being an astronaut doesn't seem to be as glamorous in reality as advertised.
@RpsAgainstTrump
Pam Bondi “begged” Donald Trump not to fire her in an “explosive showdown” at the White House.
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/2039783357098463481
US assistance is not only thin on the ground in Ukraine, it is of ever less utility. Japan and Ukraine have developed another new anti drone missile that costs $2000 a shot. This, not American or indeed British high tech, is the future of warfare in my opinion. More expensive systems are simply swamped with cheap mass attacks otherwise.
Space toilets seem to be one of the last unconquered tech frontiers.
Tom Nichols
@RadioFreeTom
·
8m
Hegseth just overruled the Army on suspending and investigating a partisan stunt by some pilots. Now the Army CoS is fired. No idea if they're related - did George protest this intervention in Army process? - but wouldn't surprise me if they were.
https://x.com/RadioFreeTom/status/2039804391872409917
“Sources say that if Cobra Commander does accept the position, it will be the hooded version, which is obviously dumber and worse.”
https://bsky.app/profile/grantbrisbee.bsky.social/post/3mik2c6l3tc2v
The only opposition is from nuclear. Build one tidal lagoon and you never build another nuclear power station. The economics would make no sense.
Reuters: ‘STRAIT OF HORMUZ WILL BE CLOSED 'LONG TERM' TO U.S. AND ISRAEL, IRANIAN MILITARY SPOKESPERSON SHEKARCHI SAYS’
Demographic collapse seems like a bit of an exaggeration when the population is just about to reach 70 million.
Anti ballistic missile systems like Patriot* still have a very important place in air defence, but you're entirely correct that mass production at the low end is essential.
* We don't really have anything at the high end either.
In the meantime we've had to sign a very short term contract to keep GCAP alive as the government has yet to publish the long overdue defence funding plan.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2026/04/02/money-starts-flowing-for-new-gcap-fighter-as-britain-sorts-out-finances/
Then we might get PMs of the quality of Palmerston, Disraeli, Gladstone and Salisbury (who also quite happily ran the world's biggest empire on the side.)
Is this confirmed ?
Iran has offered the European Union an agreement for transit through the Strait of Hormuz.
https://x.com/_GlobeObserver/status/2039726933663981828
The US are spending over 3bn quid/year on F-47. We are kidding ourselves if we think we can do it cheaper.
BREAKING:
- Trump to impose 100% TARIFF on patented drugs
- Trump to impose a 25% TARIFF on Copper, Aluminum and steel derivatives..
https://x.com/krassenstein/status/2039787992131219900
@moist.dad
How long between enacting this policy and the first drunken barracks firearm murder?
I say six months but some have called me an optimist.
https://bsky.app/profile/moist.dad/post/3mik463eesc2j
Iran looks to be running rings around Trump and Hesketh.
CENTCOM denied reports on Wednesday that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps shot down a U.S. fighter jet.
BREAKING: Russia, China, and France are blocking an Arab-backed push at the UN Security Council to authorize military action against Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, per NYT.
According to diplomats, the three veto powers oppose any resolution language that would permit the use of force.
Population is the number of people in a country.
Demographics is the makeup of the population.
At this moment, the number of children in the country is dropping. In some places, especially London, it's absolutely cratering - down around 2% a year every year and has been that way for the last ten years. There have been 90 school closures since 2019.
Somebody really should be asking why South Korea's nuclear energy costs a fifth of ours...
France has presumably made the (incidentally correct) calculation that military action will not only not reopen the strait but make it harder to reopen through diplomacy.
This government is actually taking baby steps towards addressing that.
Edit - just because they all oppose military action doesn't necessarily mean they're on the same size. Different calculations may come into play.
Oddly, there could be significant benefits for Russia and China in prolonged military action but they don't want to upset the Iranians by saying so.
The Justice Department said that a federal law enacted in the wake of the Watergate scandal that requires the president to preserve certain documents and turn them over to the National Archives at the end of his administration is unconstitutional.
https://x.com/CBSNews/status/2039779903147487633
The Labour Party only really overtook the Liberals once they did, in the 19th century it was still mainly middle class men who could vote, indeed until 1832 it was only really the male landed gentry and rich male freemen in towns and cities who could vote
Ah, my dressing gown.
Good night.
What if Pam Bondi’s husband has even bigger tits
There is a tide in the affairs of men,
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures
And the trouble is, that is very often the case. But sometimes it’s not, as both Putin in 2022 and Trump in 2026 (and Xi in 2027?) have discovered. Or as Macbeth put it:
I have no spur
To prick the sides of my intent, but only
Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself
And falls on the other.
Iran's Armed Forces spokesperson: “The Strait of Hormuz will remain closed to America and Israel for a long time.”
"The great Martin Amis was once asked to describe Las Vegas in one word. Superbly, he answered: “Un-Islamic”. I cannot match that, but if forced to sum up Heathrow airport, once again the subject of rows over expansion, in a single word, I’d go for: schizophrenic."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/01/i-have-seen-a-vision-of-hell-heathrow-terminal-3/
So France is utterly right in saying that trying to keep the Strait open if Iran wants it closed is going to be impossible.
My digital library is large
I’m very glad I had the discipline to kick them out