Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn had Cameron struggling on tax credits at PMQs – but

13

Comments

  • weejonnieweejonnie Posts: 3,820
    surbiton said:

    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    Scott_P said:

    @IanDunt: Has George Osborne lured the House of Lords into a trap? https://t.co/H1AD1SPZ60

    That point was first made by me in a post four days ago when I suggested that this was a plot to undermine the Lords.

    It is a double-edged sword. If the second chamber cannot challenge the HoC , then why have it ?

    If the argument is that the HoC is elected, then we should elect the second chamber too ! 108 countries cannot be wrong.
    The point is that it should be a revising chamber, but should always bow to the will of the elected chamber.

    As soon as it is elected then it has its own democratic legitimacy and that can lead to deadlock.
    So, what's the f*cking point ?

    At least, then 37% can't do whatever they want. They should have called Osborne's bluff. The Tax credit changes was not included in a Finance Bill nor was it in the manifesto.
    What is the difference between 37% (Tories have no mandate) and 39.5% - a 'stunning victory' for the Canadian Liberals (The people have spoken) - answer hypocrisy.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    surbiton said:

    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    Scott_P said:

    @IanDunt: Has George Osborne lured the House of Lords into a trap? https://t.co/H1AD1SPZ60

    That point was first made by me in a post four days ago when I suggested that this was a plot to undermine the Lords.

    It is a double-edged sword. If the second chamber cannot challenge the HoC , then why have it ?

    If the argument is that the HoC is elected, then we should elect the second chamber too ! 108 countries cannot be wrong.
    The point is that it should be a revising chamber, but should always bow to the will of the elected chamber.

    As soon as it is elected then it has its own democratic legitimacy and that can lead to deadlock.
    So, what's the f*cking point ?

    At least, then 37% can't do whatever they want. They should have called Osborne's bluff. The Tax credit changes was not included in a Finance Bill nor was it in the manifesto.
    The point, as you elegantly put it, is that legislation requires detailed scrutiny and there are plenty of ways that a revising house can add value without being party political.

    I'm sure that there are lots of ways the tax credits legisltation could be improved - tweaks here and there, tightening up the wording, addressing small special cases etc. But the MPs elected by the voters want to implement the broad thrust of the changes and it is not the remit of unelected peers to contest that.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,687

    Mr. JEO, I'd guess it's because Labour dicked about doing nothing on energy, and the Coalition was very nearly as bad. We need to build rapidly, and the Chinese aren't muppets.

    It really isn't that.

    The problem is that the prevailing price of baseload electricity is £44/MW.

    And no-one - anywhere in the world - will build a new nuclear plant without being guaranteed twice that price.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,980
    edited October 2015
    Mr. 1000, on the plus side, it does work on a serene, overcast day :p

    Edited extra bit: Mr. 1000, I stand corrected [on the pricing, I'm entirely right on governments dicking about].
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,422

    turned on very quickly when renewables generation plummets.

    Cold & high pressure winter nights I'm guessing will be when this extra capacity is needed.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,687
    @Morris_Dancer

    We can add new gas capacity relatively quickly. The lead-time for a new CCGT is probably five years, but you can get an OCGT up and running in about 18 months.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,687

    Mr. 1000, on the plus side, it does work on a serene, overcast day :p

    Reliability rates for nuclear rarely exceed 75%. Unplanned downtime is just as much an issue for nuclear as it is for wind.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,980
    Mr. 1000, what are the meanings of your acronyms?

    Also, please stop disturbing my firmly held beliefs with factual statements to the contrary. This is the internet, there's no place for evidence-based conclusions here :p
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,422
    @rcs1000 Why aren't CCGT or OCGT plants being built right now if they seem like such a good idea ^^; ?
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    WTF?
    'It's difficult because that's his ex-wife who is apparently an ex-prostitute': Who WERE Jeremy Corbyn and David Cameron gossiping about as they waited for President Xi's speech?

    Jeremy Corbyn chatted to PM about ex-sex worker ahead of China speech
    He said: 'It was difficult because, erm, that’s his ex-wife who is, erm, apparently an ex-prostitute'
    Mr Cameron replied: 'Oh!' before moving chat on to self-employment
    Labour leader also told a joke about losing glasses at a school party
    Mr Corbyn later wore white tie to meet the Queen but may not have bowed
    See our full news coverage of David Cameron gossiping in Parliament

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3282441/It-s-difficult-s-ex-wife-apparently-ex-prostitute-Jeremy-Corbyn-David-Cameron-gossiping-waited-President-Xi-s-speech.html#ixzz3pDHBHZd4
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,842
    rcs1000 said:

    isam said:

    isam said:

    They've been voting for a left wing labour candidate for 30 odd years, don't see why it should change now Corbo is in charge... Big Asian and Muslim area, split UKIP and Tory vote...

    Surely a walkover for lab? 1/50?

    The Labour price at the Bradford West by election of 2012 would have been something like that.
    Yeah fair enough... If Galloway stands he might win? But he wants to be Mayor of London at the mo
    If Galloway stands, then UKIP could slip through the middle and win:

    UKIP 30
    Galloway 25
    Labour 25
    Tories 15
    The Field 5%
    When Galloway won in Bradford, it was with a lot of support from ex-Tory voters who were disillusioned with the Conservatives, wanted to give Labour a bloody nose and didn't care too much about how to do it. They returned home this year. If Galloway did stand then I don't see anything like that kind of split. Either he'll make little impact and it's something close to an 'as normal' by-election, or he does and sweeps up all the rest of the anti-Labour votes. UKIP and Galloway won't both take a quarter of the vote.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064
    JEO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    JEO said:

    Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.

    The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?
    I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.
    You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.
    On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.

    Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
    Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.

    We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.

    Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,980
    Mr. Herdson, was it?

    I thought it was because Bradford was very well-suited to Galloway's particular political proclivities.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,687
    Pulpstar said:

    @rcs1000 Why aren't CCGT or OCGT plants being built right now if they seem like such a good idea ^^; ?

    See my piece earlier. The building of HPB makes it uneconomic to build new CCGTs.

    (Some new OCGTs have been ordered to take advantage of the government capacity charging scheme. Effectively you could get a 4% yield with an option on the price of electricity spiking.)
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    "Gas is clean. Gas is available. Gas is cheap. Gas is reliable. Gas works at £44/MW. "

    But burning gas releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere it is therefore an inherently evil fuel. Its use must be phased out and quickly otherwise the UK will not meet its mandated target of reducing filthy polluting emissions by at least 80% from 1990 levels. If we carry on burning gas all the baby polar bears will die. Will no one think of the polar bears.

    Old fashioned nuclear plants of the sort EDF are trying to flog us are not only horrendously expensive but carry their own pollution risk with the dreadful waste products that need to be safely stored for thousands of years.

    No the only answer, gentlemen, is wind and tidal. We may destroy irreplaceable wildlife habitats and cause ecological disasters, especially with the latter. It may be that at certain times of day there may not be enough electricity. These are prices we must be prepared to pay in order to ensure that the UK shows leadership internationally by highlighting the role it would take in contributing to urgent collective action to tackle climate change under the Kyoto Protocol.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,538
    MaxPB said:

    JEO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    JEO said:

    Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.

    The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?
    I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.
    You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.
    On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.

    Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
    Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.

    We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.

    Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.
    Molten salt reactors have been the future for fifty years, and will remain in the future for large-scale generation for another fifty.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,687
    edited October 2015
    @Morris_Dancer

    OCGTs are Open Cycle Gas Turbines - basically just jet engines that take gas and use it to directly spin a turbine. Capital costs are modest (£250-350/KW), but they are ineffiecient relative to modern CCGTSs.

    CCGTs are Combined Cycle Gas Turbines. These combine the jet engine part with a boiler. Essentially the exhaust fumes of the jet engine are used to heat water, which gives you secondary energy recovery. These cost £500/KW capital cost, and require a lot, lot more land and are difficult to get planning permission for (on the basis they have cooling tower and the like). But they have much higher efficiencies.

    Edit to add: the nice thing about OCGTs is that you can order a 25MW today and get it in - what - 18 months time.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    rcs1000 said:

    Mr. JEO, I'd guess it's because Labour dicked about doing nothing on energy, and the Coalition was very nearly as bad. We need to build rapidly, and the Chinese aren't muppets.

    It really isn't that.

    The problem is that the prevailing price of baseload electricity is £44/MW.

    And no-one - anywhere in the world - will build a new nuclear plant without being guaranteed twice that price.
    Why not?

    And if that's the case, why on Earth are we willing to pay it when onshore wind and gas are both cheaper? Even if you disagree, there must be some rationale.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,687
    MaxPB said:

    JEO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    JEO said:

    Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.

    The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?
    I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.
    You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.
    On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.

    Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
    Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.

    We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.

    Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.
    The Japanese have had AWFUL problems with their molten salt reactors.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,980
    Mr. 1000, cheers.

    Mr. Llama, that's sarkier than a Japanese drunkard.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064

    MaxPB said:

    JEO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    JEO said:

    Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.

    The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?
    I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.
    You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.
    On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.

    Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
    Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.

    We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.

    Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.
    Molten salt reactors have been the future for fifty years, and will remain in the future for large-scale generation for another fifty.
    That's the kind of thinking which leads to £24bn spent on generating just 7% of power requirements and £34bn on cutting journey times to Birmingham by 15mins. Make do and mend is why our infrastructure is so badly behind the times. Look at the Heathrow decision, while we agonise over another runway, rival EU nations are adding capacity at a massive rate.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,422
    @rcs1000 If 'the option' is worth enough people will invest I am guessing. You should totally crowdsource the finance for one :D
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064
    rcs1000 said:

    MaxPB said:

    JEO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    JEO said:

    Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.

    The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?
    I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.
    You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.
    On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.

    Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
    Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.

    We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.

    Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.
    The Japanese have had AWFUL problems with their molten salt reactors.
    Japan have had worse problems with their PWRs. I wouldn't use Japan as a good example of anything at this point in time. Dying industries, lack of innovation, zombie companies and an insane government.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,687
    JEO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mr. JEO, I'd guess it's because Labour dicked about doing nothing on energy, and the Coalition was very nearly as bad. We need to build rapidly, and the Chinese aren't muppets.

    It really isn't that.

    The problem is that the prevailing price of baseload electricity is £44/MW.

    And no-one - anywhere in the world - will build a new nuclear plant without being guaranteed twice that price.
    Why not?

    And if that's the case, why on Earth are we willing to pay it when onshore wind and gas are both cheaper? Even if you disagree, there must be some rationale.
    There are three reasons:

    1. Until recently, it was assumed that UK gas production was in permanent decline, and worldwide gas was going to become more expensive.
    2. Energy security.
    3. "Low carbon".

    We now know the world (and the UK) has much, much more gas than previously realised, and that we can source it from lots of friendly countries (like the US, Norway and Australia). Longer-term, we have shale gas reserves that will probably be exploited.

    Which leaves 3. Which is not a good enough reason (to my mind) on its own.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 2,138

    perdix said:

    OGH seems very keen to see Corbyn become a success now that his LibDem favourites are almost extinct.

    Lib Dems almost extinct and now keen on Corbyn, I can see a pattern emerging here.
    The only pattern that you can see, Mr England, is a load of excitable Tories, who always think precisely the same, telling one another that their wishes have been granted.

    This is a realistic betting site, not a dream factory.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,422
    edited October 2015
    @rcs1000 When the facts change, the Gov't should change it's mind. Sunk costs are sunk costs and there won't be anything we can do about those - but has a spade been laid in anger at Hinkley yet (Or a paper committing to the Chinese been signed) ?
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    MaxPB said:

    JEO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    JEO said:

    Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.

    The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?
    I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.
    You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.
    On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.

    Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
    Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.

    We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.

    Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.
    Molten salt reactors have been the future for fifty years, and will remain in the future for large-scale generation for another fifty.
    What has caused that? Is it a fundamental problem with the science, the engineering needed or perhaps non-technical reasons. I am old enough and cynical enough to know that the best technical solution is not always the one that goes forward, especially when there are big vested interests that stand to lose out.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,687
    Pulpstar said:

    @rcs1000 When the facts change, the Gov't should change it's mind. Sunk costs are sunk costs and there won't be anything we can do about those - but has a spade been laid in anger at Hinkley yet (Or a paper committing to the Chinese been signed) ?

    We should abandon HPB today, and remove all subsidies for building new wind capacity.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,842

    Mr. Herdson, was it?

    I thought it was because Bradford was very well-suited to Galloway's particular political proclivities.

    But that section of the electorate wouldn't have been enough to secure him the win (as indeed it wasn't in May); what not only gave him the win but a stonking majority to boot was the support he won from elsewhere:

    Con: 2010 - 31.1%; 2012 - 8.4%
    LD: 2010 - 11.7%; 2012 - 4.6%
    Grn: 2010 - 2.3%; 2012 - 1.5%

    It's true that UKIP went up slightly but they still lost their deposit, which was a far worse result for them than other by-elections at the time. Fact is that at the by-election, Galloway hoovered up the anti-Labour vote, as well as a sizable chunk of the 2010 Labour vote.
  • blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Galloway must have the biggest ego in politics in what is a pretty strong field, he's addicted to the limelight. Heaven knows where the money comes from to fund all his campaigns.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I'm always amazed at what crap liars senior police officers are at HASCs.

    They're so scared of saying something they waffle, try to answer another question, ask for stupid clarifications that provoke laughter and claim everything they did was right despite being in front of Parly for doing a poor job.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 21,633
    taffys said:

    One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.

    It can but batteries are expensive.

    As is wind power.

  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098

    Mr. 1000, cheers.

    Mr. Llama, that's sarkier than a Japanese drunkard.

    Sarky it may be, but factually accurate I think. The last phrase was a direct lift from the Committee on Climate Change (which is why it is ungrammatical).
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,538
    MaxPB said:


    That's the kind of thinking which leads to £24bn spent on generating just 7% of power requirements and £34bn on cutting journey times to Birmingham by 15mins. Make do and mend is why our infrastructure is so badly behind the times. Look at the Heathrow decision, while we agonise over another runway, rival EU nations are adding capacity at a massive rate.

    I'm all for careful investment in long-shots (*). But you don't bet the house on them. MSR's are several decades away: we should look at investing in research into them, but if they can be made to work safely and economically, they'll only be ready in time to replace the reactors we are planning at the moment.

    We need stuff built now, not dreams. It's quite possible that MSR's will never reach the safety, economics or capacity that proponents state for them. I'm very cynical about them because the current small research projects are not going too well, and they've been trying for fifty years.

    The same goes for tidal: invest relatively small sums in the research and development, but don't assume the tech will mature.

    BTW, you are evidently pretty clueless on HS2. Its about much more than time savings.

    (*) I've suggested the government invests a certain amount each year in carefully-selected long-shots.
  • That was a really rude question from Laura Keunssberg to David Cameron - "how would you feel if you were a steel worker and had just lost your job?" He is not a bloody steel worker and has to govern for the whole country. These reporters are so far up themselves. Now SKY will be throwing their toys out of the pram because they weren't allowed a question.
  • JonathanDJonathanD Posts: 2,400
    TGOHF said:

    taffys said:

    One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.

    It can but batteries are expensive.

    As is wind power.

    Completely impractical on any large scale but interesting to see what can be done.

    "El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores more than 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW. "

    http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/03/03/how-small-spanish-island-became-renewable-energy-pioneer-el-hierro

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,687
    taffys said:

    One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.

    The capital cost of batteries is huge and they only have a certain number of cycles before they need to be replaced.
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @rcs1000 When the facts change, the Gov't should change it's mind. Sunk costs are sunk costs and there won't be anything we can do about those - but has a spade been laid in anger at Hinkley yet (Or a paper committing to the Chinese been signed) ?

    We should abandon HPB today, and remove all subsidies for building new wind capacity.
    Can't be done Mr. 1000, at least not until some administration has the balls to repeal the Climate Change Act. Can you see Cameron doing that?
  • runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    You really couldn't get more direct proof that this is a politically-motivated witchhunt.

    Indeed, but Witchfinder Watson can't order police officers to do anything, only huff and puff. A senior officer must have done so, and presumably should now be sacked forthwith.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,003
    PClipp said:

    perdix said:

    OGH seems very keen to see Corbyn become a success now that his LibDem favourites are almost extinct.

    Lib Dems almost extinct and now keen on Corbyn, I can see a pattern emerging here.
    The only pattern that you can see, Mr England, is a load of excitable Tories, who always think precisely the same, telling one another that their wishes have been granted.

    This is a realistic betting site, not a dream factory.
    Who made more money betting on the strength or otherwise of the LibDem vote in May - you, or "excitable Tories who always think precisely the same, telling each other that their wishes have been granted?"
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    TBH, I doubt DAC Rodehouse's career is going anywhere after this.

    DCI Settle now has Chair of HASC to use for his.
    runnymede said:

    You really couldn't get more direct proof that this is a politically-motivated witchhunt.

    Indeed, but Witchfinder Watson can't order police officers to do anything, only huff and puff. A senior officer must have done so, and presumably should now be sacked forthwith.

  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,538
    rcs1000 said:

    taffys said:

    One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.

    The capital cost of batteries is huge and they only have a certain number of cycles before they need to be replaced.
    I'm quite interested in the use of flywheels for storing energy. It seems relatively scaleable and could, I guess, be distributed (e.g. each windfarm could have a small area of flywheels) rather than big plants.

    If it can be made cheap and reliable enough. ;)

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/08/new-energy-storage-plant-could-revolutionise-renewable-sector
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    taffys said:

    One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.

    Or Flywheels. There are quite a few being installed in massive Data Centres.
  • Not sure which country is spending £34bn to make trains go faster between London and Brum but this country is spending £42bn to make massive increases in track capacity to allow for far more freight and commuter services into cities like Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and to vastly improve connectivity outside the south east by rail.
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    JEO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    JEO said:

    Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.

    The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?
    I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.
    You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.
    On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.

    Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
    Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.

    We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.

    Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.
    Molten salt reactors have been the future for fifty years, and will remain in the future for large-scale generation for another fifty.
    That's the kind of thinking which leads to £24bn spent on generating just 7% of power requirements and £34bn on cutting journey times to Birmingham by 15mins. Make do and mend is why our infrastructure is so badly behind the times. Look at the Heathrow decision, while we agonise over another runway, rival EU nations are adding capacity at a massive rate.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @rcs1000 When the facts change, the Gov't should change it's mind. Sunk costs are sunk costs and there won't be anything we can do about those - but has a spade been laid in anger at Hinkley yet (Or a paper committing to the Chinese been signed) ?

    We should abandon HPB today, and remove all subsidies for building new wind capacity.
    Can't be done Mr. 1000, at least not until some administration has the balls to repeal the Climate Change Act. Can you see Cameron doing that?
    How much has tbe Climate Change Act punished the Steel Industry in Redcar and similar?
  • HurstLlamaHurstLlama Posts: 9,098
    JonathanD said:

    TGOHF said:

    taffys said:

    One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.

    It can but batteries are expensive.

    As is wind power.

    Completely impractical on any large scale but interesting to see what can be done.

    "El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores more than 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW. "

    http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/03/03/how-small-spanish-island-became-renewable-energy-pioneer-el-hierro

    Very nice, but what happens when the wind doesn't blow the water is released and still the wind isn't blowing?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,687

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    @rcs1000 When the facts change, the Gov't should change it's mind. Sunk costs are sunk costs and there won't be anything we can do about those - but has a spade been laid in anger at Hinkley yet (Or a paper committing to the Chinese been signed) ?

    We should abandon HPB today, and remove all subsidies for building new wind capacity.
    Can't be done Mr. 1000, at least not until some administration has the balls to repeal the Climate Change Act. Can you see Cameron doing that?
    The great irony is that if we abandoned the CCA, then much more gas capacity would be built, displacing more polluting coal.

    Abandoning HPB and offering no new subsidies would probably actually reduce our carbon footprint.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,687

    rcs1000 said:

    taffys said:

    One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.

    The capital cost of batteries is huge and they only have a certain number of cycles before they need to be replaced.
    I'm quite interested in the use of flywheels for storing energy. It seems relatively scaleable and could, I guess, be distributed (e.g. each windfarm could have a small area of flywheels) rather than big plants.

    If it can be made cheap and reliable enough. ;)

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/08/new-energy-storage-plant-could-revolutionise-renewable-sector
    I don't know enough about flywheels, but they are certainly very interesting. I've also done some work on Compressed Air Energy Storage, which looks quite interesting - especially when combined with gas generation.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,538
    JonathanD said:

    TGOHF said:

    taffys said:

    One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.

    It can but batteries are expensive.

    As is wind power.

    Completely impractical on any large scale but interesting to see what can be done.

    "El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores more than 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW. "

    http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/03/03/how-small-spanish-island-became-renewable-energy-pioneer-el-hierro

    That's pump-storage. There's a fair few schemes here in the UK, including a big one at Dinorwig.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

    The problem is the number of suitable sites is limited: you need room for a large reservoir as high up as possible, with a lower area nearby so they are cheap to connect. Unfortunately whilst we have lots of hilly areas, the areas where suitable upper reservoirs can be built are limited.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,538
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    taffys said:

    One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.

    The capital cost of batteries is huge and they only have a certain number of cycles before they need to be replaced.
    I'm quite interested in the use of flywheels for storing energy. It seems relatively scaleable and could, I guess, be distributed (e.g. each windfarm could have a small area of flywheels) rather than big plants.

    If it can be made cheap and reliable enough. ;)

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/08/new-energy-storage-plant-could-revolutionise-renewable-sector
    I don't know enough about flywheels, but they are certainly very interesting. I've also done some work on Compressed Air Energy Storage, which looks quite interesting - especially when combined with gas generation.
    Ah, I'd forgotten about that - I've not seen much about it recently.
  • watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited October 2015
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    taffys said:

    One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.

    The capital cost of batteries is huge and they only have a certain number of cycles before they need to be replaced.
    I'm quite interested in the use of flywheels for storing energy. It seems relatively scaleable and could, I guess, be distributed (e.g. each windfarm could have a small area of flywheels) rather than big plants.

    If it can be made cheap and reliable enough. ;)

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/08/new-energy-storage-plant-could-revolutionise-renewable-sector
    I don't know enough about flywheels, but they are certainly very interesting. I've also done some work on Compressed Air Energy Storage, which looks quite interesting - especially when combined with gas generation.

    Scale up these things.

    //www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD_3QnUPvF0
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,687

    JonathanD said:

    TGOHF said:

    taffys said:

    One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.

    It can but batteries are expensive.

    As is wind power.

    Completely impractical on any large scale but interesting to see what can be done.

    "El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores more than 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW. "

    http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/03/03/how-small-spanish-island-became-renewable-energy-pioneer-el-hierro

    That's pump-storage. There's a fair few schemes here in the UK, including a big one at Dinorwig.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

    The problem is the number of suitable sites is limited: you need room for a large reservoir as high up as possible, with a lower area nearby so they are cheap to connect. Unfortunately whilst we have lots of hilly areas, the areas where suitable upper reservoirs can be built are limited.
    Surely we can just build new mountains? They could double as ski slopes, and would certainly be cheaper than HPB.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,687
    watford30 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    taffys said:

    One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.

    The capital cost of batteries is huge and they only have a certain number of cycles before they need to be replaced.
    I'm quite interested in the use of flywheels for storing energy. It seems relatively scaleable and could, I guess, be distributed (e.g. each windfarm could have a small area of flywheels) rather than big plants.

    If it can be made cheap and reliable enough. ;)

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/08/new-energy-storage-plant-could-revolutionise-renewable-sector
    I don't know enough about flywheels, but they are certainly very interesting. I've also done some work on Compressed Air Energy Storage, which looks quite interesting - especially when combined with gas generation.

    Scale up these things.

    //www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD_3QnUPvF0
    Cool :-)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,003
    Those last two coppers sounded more slippery and weaselly than a sack full of greased-up weasels....
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I didn't believe a word they said - DCI Settle was 100% credible as a witness in comparison.

    Those last two coppers sounded more slippery and weaselly than a sack full of greased-up weasels....
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Vaz "You're not Sherlock Holmes are you?" to Watson
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,538
    watford30 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    taffys said:

    One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.

    The capital cost of batteries is huge and they only have a certain number of cycles before they need to be replaced.
    I'm quite interested in the use of flywheels for storing energy. It seems relatively scaleable and could, I guess, be distributed (e.g. each windfarm could have a small area of flywheels) rather than big plants.

    If it can be made cheap and reliable enough. ;)

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/08/new-energy-storage-plant-could-revolutionise-renewable-sector
    I don't know enough about flywheels, but they are certainly very interesting. I've also done some work on Compressed Air Energy Storage, which looks quite interesting - especially when combined with gas generation.

    Scale up these things.

    //www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD_3QnUPvF0
    I wonder if they have bulletproof casings?

    There's a story - possibly apocryphal - about the early days of computing. Early disc drives had very large, heavy platters that spun very fast. One of these was in an office, and the cabinet door had been left open. The read or write head hit the platter, which disintegrated, and a piece spun out and killed a secretary.
  • runnymederunnymede Posts: 2,536
    What was it someone said the other day? Abolish the police? Great idea. They are starting to resemble the corrupted shambles of an organisation you might expect to find somewhere in central America.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,538
    People might have to put their tinfoil hats away:
    No other parties were involved in the death of a British woman at an Istanbul airport, her family believes.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34597393
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,003
    Lord Prescott gets a bollocking for chatting in the gallery....
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,003

    Vaz "You're not Sherlock Holmes are you?" to Watson

    He's not even Watson....
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    weejonnie said:

    surbiton said:

    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    Scott_P said:

    @IanDunt: Has George Osborne lured the House of Lords into a trap? https://t.co/H1AD1SPZ60

    That point was first made by me in a post four days ago when I suggested that this was a plot to undermine the Lords.

    It is a double-edged sword. If the second chamber cannot challenge the HoC , then why have it ?

    If the argument is that the HoC is elected, then we should elect the second chamber too ! 108 countries cannot be wrong.
    The point is that it should be a revising chamber, but should always bow to the will of the elected chamber.

    As soon as it is elected then it has its own democratic legitimacy and that can lead to deadlock.
    So, what's the f*cking point ?

    At least, then 37% can't do whatever they want. They should have called Osborne's bluff. The Tax credit changes was not included in a Finance Bill nor was it in the manifesto.
    What is the difference between 37% (Tories have no mandate) and 39.5% - a 'stunning victory' for the Canadian Liberals (The people have spoken) - answer hypocrisy.
    2.5 percentage points, or is this a trick question,
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,933
    rcs1000 said:

    JonathanD said:

    TGOHF said:

    taffys said:

    One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.

    It can but batteries are expensive.

    As is wind power.

    Completely impractical on any large scale but interesting to see what can be done.

    "El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores more than 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW. "

    http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/03/03/how-small-spanish-island-became-renewable-energy-pioneer-el-hierro

    That's pump-storage. There's a fair few schemes here in the UK, including a big one at Dinorwig.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

    The problem is the number of suitable sites is limited: you need room for a large reservoir as high up as possible, with a lower area nearby so they are cheap to connect. Unfortunately whilst we have lots of hilly areas, the areas where suitable upper reservoirs can be built are limited.
    Surely we can just build new mountains? They could double as ski slopes, and would certainly be cheaper than HPB.
    More on Grid Storage
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage
  • runnymede said:

    What was it someone said the other day? Abolish the police? Great idea. They are starting to resemble the corrupted shambles of an organisation you might expect to find somewhere in central America.

    It's been going on for decades.

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    MaxPB said:

    JEO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    JEO said:

    Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.

    The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?
    I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.
    You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.
    On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.

    Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
    Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.

    We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.

    Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.
    Molten Salt reactors have the problem of a lot of incredibly hot, radioactive, incredibly corrosive and reactive salts flowing around. Boosters of the tech tend to gloss over the "dealing with the molten salts" is not a solved problem.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,422
    Alistair said:

    weejonnie said:

    surbiton said:

    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    Scott_P said:

    @IanDunt: Has George Osborne lured the House of Lords into a trap? https://t.co/H1AD1SPZ60

    That point was first made by me in a post four days ago when I suggested that this was a plot to undermine the Lords.

    It is a double-edged sword. If the second chamber cannot challenge the HoC , then why have it ?

    If the argument is that the HoC is elected, then we should elect the second chamber too ! 108 countries cannot be wrong.
    The point is that it should be a revising chamber, but should always bow to the will of the elected chamber.

    As soon as it is elected then it has its own democratic legitimacy and that can lead to deadlock.
    So, what's the f*cking point ?

    At least, then 37% can't do whatever they want. They should have called Osborne's bluff. The Tax credit changes was not included in a Finance Bill nor was it in the manifesto.
    What is the difference between 37% (Tories have no mandate) and 39.5% - a 'stunning victory' for the Canadian Liberals (The people have spoken) - answer hypocrisy.
    2.5 percentage points, or is this a trick question,
    For your second question, what's the difference between 9,347,304 and 9,552,436 :D ?
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    David Winnock is batting for Watson today. He shutdown Settle earlier and now spinning most obviously.

    My respect for him is approaching zero.
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656
    rcs1000 said:

    JEO said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Mr. JEO, I'd guess it's because Labour dicked about doing nothing on energy, and the Coalition was very nearly as bad. We need to build rapidly, and the Chinese aren't muppets.

    It really isn't that.

    The problem is that the prevailing price of baseload electricity is £44/MW.

    And no-one - anywhere in the world - will build a new nuclear plant without being guaranteed twice that price.
    Why not?

    And if that's the case, why on Earth are we willing to pay it when onshore wind and gas are both cheaper? Even if you disagree, there must be some rationale.
    There are three reasons:

    1. Until recently, it was assumed that UK gas production was in permanent decline, and worldwide gas was going to become more expensive.
    2. Energy security.
    3. "Low carbon".

    We now know the world (and the UK) has much, much more gas than previously realised, and that we can source it from lots of friendly countries (like the US, Norway and Australia). Longer-term, we have shale gas reserves that will probably be exploited.

    Which leaves 3. Which is not a good enough reason (to my mind) on its own.
    For the sake of argument, if we made the assumption that gas was too carbon pollutant (I know, I know, but I just won't want to rehash that argument here), what would be the best strategy? Onshore wind? Solar? Nuclear?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,003
    Sorry Mr. Watson, I don't believe a fecking word you are saying.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    I'm your ever so 'umble servant...

    Sorry Mr. Watson, I don't believe a fecking word you are saying.

  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670

    JonathanD said:

    TGOHF said:

    taffys said:

    One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.

    It can but batteries are expensive.

    As is wind power.

    Completely impractical on any large scale but interesting to see what can be done.

    "El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores more than 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW. "

    http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/03/03/how-small-spanish-island-became-renewable-energy-pioneer-el-hierro

    That's pump-storage. There's a fair few schemes here in the UK, including a big one at Dinorwig.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

    The problem is the number of suitable sites is limited: you need room for a large reservoir as high up as possible, with a lower area nearby so they are cheap to connect. Unfortunately whilst we have lots of hilly areas, the areas where suitable upper reservoirs can be built are limited.
    As far as I'm aware there aren't any suitable sites left in the UK for economical pumped storage.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,003

    I'm your ever so 'umble servant...

    Sorry Mr. Watson, I don't believe a fecking word you are saying.

    He'd make Uriah Heep vomit...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,980
    BBC says BBC does not crowd out competitors:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34591308
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    At least he's had a good scrub, and decided looking like a Mafia don isn't a good idea today.

    I'm your ever so 'umble servant...

    Sorry Mr. Watson, I don't believe a fecking word you are saying.

    He'd make Uriah Heep vomit...
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Who's the MP in pink?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758

    BBC says BBC does not crowd out competitors:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34591308

    I'm guessing no one got any space to disagree?
  • JEOJEO Posts: 3,656

    BBC says BBC does not crowd out competitors:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34591308

    In fact they hired an expensive consultancy with taxpayer money to make subjective judgment calls that happen to align with what their client wants to hear.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,980
    Mr. Charles, to be fair, it was the BBC Trust.

    They hired KPMG to assess whether government fears the BBC was crowding out others was true.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,049
    nice point.

    So his website enquiry form leads nowhere apart from to Watson's office (who needed special training to handle requests).
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    edited October 2015
    Victoria Atkins is pretty forensic too - another one to watch.

    Has Watson gone red here? I think he has.
  • Watson just skewered there by Victoria Atkins.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,003

    Victoria Atkins is pretty forensic too - another one to watch.

    Has Watson gone red here? I think he has.

    Go girl!!
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,933
    Alistair said:

    JonathanD said:

    TGOHF said:

    taffys said:

    One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.

    It can but batteries are expensive.

    As is wind power.

    Completely impractical on any large scale but interesting to see what can be done.

    "El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores more than 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW. "

    http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/03/03/how-small-spanish-island-became-renewable-energy-pioneer-el-hierro

    That's pump-storage. There's a fair few schemes here in the UK, including a big one at Dinorwig.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

    The problem is the number of suitable sites is limited: you need room for a large reservoir as high up as possible, with a lower area nearby so they are cheap to connect. Unfortunately whilst we have lots of hilly areas, the areas where suitable upper reservoirs can be built are limited.
    As far as I'm aware there aren't any suitable sites left in the UK for economical pumped storage.
    It's worth visiting Dinowig if you're in North Wales, very impressive.
    I don't know whether you are right or not but this may be of interest:
    http://www.withouthotair.com/c26/page_192.shtml
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 43,049
    what's happening with this bloke's eyebrows?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 39,064

    MaxPB said:


    That's the kind of thinking which leads to £24bn spent on generating just 7% of power requirements and £34bn on cutting journey times to Birmingham by 15mins. Make do and mend is why our infrastructure is so badly behind the times. Look at the Heathrow decision, while we agonise over another runway, rival EU nations are adding capacity at a massive rate.

    I'm all for careful investment in long-shots (*). But you don't bet the house on them. MSR's are several decades away: we should look at investing in research into them, but if they can be made to work safely and economically, they'll only be ready in time to replace the reactors we are planning at the moment.

    We need stuff built now, not dreams. It's quite possible that MSR's will never reach the safety, economics or capacity that proponents state for them. I'm very cynical about them because the current small research projects are not going too well, and they've been trying for fifty years.

    The same goes for tidal: invest relatively small sums in the research and development, but don't assume the tech will mature.

    BTW, you are evidently pretty clueless on HS2. Its about much more than time savings.

    (*) I've suggested the government invests a certain amount each year in carefully-selected long-shots.
    I don't disagree with a lot of that, but I don't see any mileage in buying in technology that is well past it for such a huge amount of money. We should be investing in CCGTs today and researching new technologies for tomorrow. Today and for the foreseeable future CCGTs are more stable, cheaper and less risky than PWRs, plus it won't involve us whoring ourselves out to the Chinese.

    Tidal has a lot to prove but certain projects may be viable, barrages are more likely than lagoons though IMO. The Incheon lagoon is an interesting one and we should let the Koreans have a stab at it instead of going ahead with Swansea and finding we are not able to deal with the corrosion and maintenance issues.

    As for HS2, as you know my issue is with scope and ambition. The current proposals are inadequate in both respects. For example, we have 8 TBMs from the Crossrail project and the crown owns all underground assets. Why are we not doing the whole of HS2 underground where noise, bridges and land purchases are no longer an issue. The scope is also far too narrow, why are we spending billions on electrifying the GWML when we should be looking at high speed rail, again underground, from London to Swansea and from Swansea to Birmingham via Cardiff. If we are going to do this, we should do it once and do it right. We did 26 miles of tunneling for Crossrail, London to Birmingha, is about 100 miles as the crow flies, add about 20 for additional stops and detours, it must be possible to make it happen, what we lack is not technical ability, but ambition.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 53,003
    So who told you he had left the police, Mr Watson???
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,746
    Alistair said:

    weejonnie said:

    surbiton said:

    Charles said:

    surbiton said:

    Scott_P said:

    @IanDunt: Has George Osborne lured the House of Lords into a trap? https://t.co/H1AD1SPZ60

    That point was first made by me in a post four days ago when I suggested that this was a plot to undermine the Lords.

    It is a double-edged sword. If the second chamber cannot challenge the HoC , then why have it ?

    If the argument is that the HoC is elected, then we should elect the second chamber too ! 108 countries cannot be wrong.
    The point is that it should be a revising chamber, but should always bow to the will of the elected chamber.

    As soon as it is elected then it has its own democratic legitimacy and that can lead to deadlock.
    So, what's the f*cking point ?

    At least, then 37% can't do whatever they want. They should have called Osborne's bluff. The Tax credit changes was not included in a Finance Bill nor was it in the manifesto.
    What is the difference between 37% (Tories have no mandate) and 39.5% - a 'stunning victory' for the Canadian Liberals (The people have spoken) - answer hypocrisy.
    2.5 percentage points, or is this a trick question,
    FPTP leads to this sort of thing. Candain Libs have Electoral Reform in the manifesto. Hopefully they'll take action.
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    Well indeed. If DCI Settle wants evidence that his career is parked...

    So who told you he had left the police, Mr Watson???

  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @BBCJLandale: The plot thickens! Lib Dems to table their own "fatal motion" against tax credit cuts. Lord Kirkwood withdraws his softer "regret motion"
  • Plato_SaysPlato_Says Posts: 11,822
    DPP lady seems pretty straight batting.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,980
    Mr. P, Farron probably regards it as win-win, as it'll either discredit the Lords or defeat the Conservatives, or both.

    Or it could make the Lib Dems appear an annoying irrelevance, when they should be seeking the mantle of responsible leftyness.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 43,538
    MaxPB said:


    I don't disagree with a lot of that, but I don't see any mileage in buying in technology that is well past it for such a huge amount of money. We should be investing in CCGTs today and researching new technologies for tomorrow. Today and for the foreseeable future CCGTs are more stable, cheaper and less risky than PWRs, plus it won't involve us whoring ourselves out to the Chinese.

    Tidal has a lot to prove but certain projects may be viable, barrages are more likely than lagoons though IMO. The Incheon lagoon is an interesting one and we should let the Koreans have a stab at it instead of going ahead with Swansea and finding we are not able to deal with the corrosion and maintenance issues.

    As for HS2, as you know my issue is with scope and ambition. The current proposals are inadequate in both respects. For example, we have 8 TBMs from the Crossrail project and the crown owns all underground assets. Why are we not doing the whole of HS2 underground where noise, bridges and land purchases are no longer an issue. The scope is also far too narrow, why are we spending billions on electrifying the GWML when we should be looking at high speed rail, again underground, from London to Swansea and from Swansea to Birmingham via Cardiff. If we are going to do this, we should do it once and do it right. We did 26 miles of tunneling for Crossrail, London to Birmingha, is about 100 miles as the crow flies, add about 20 for additional stops and detours, it must be possible to make it happen, what we lack is not technical ability, but ambition.

    That's quite a staggering proposal, and one I haven't seen seriously proposed before. The cost of tunnelling is massive, and very much depends on ground conditions. Also, what are your plans for the city-centre termini, where costs multiply massively and room (particularly in London) is limited?

    The following might be of interest:
    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/434516/HS2_Guide_to_Tunnelling_Costs.pdf
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,746

    Mr. P, Farron probably regards it as win-win, as it'll either discredit the Lords or defeat the Conservatives, or both.

    Or it could make the Lib Dems appear an annoying irrelevance, when they should be seeking the mantle of responsible leftyness.

    To be fair Mr D, whatever someone called Tim does, you're not going to like it!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,980
    King Cole, the zebraphile of the same name (not seen for a while, actually) and the two American posters of that name seem fine fellows. 'tis an outrageous and inaccurate slur against me.
  • I think we can take it DCI Settle's career is over. He must curse the day he ever set eyes on the sleaze-ball that is Tom Watson.

    It's time David Winnick retired. Like Denis Skinner he only sits in the HoC for novelty value.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,746

    King Cole, the zebraphile of the same name (not seen for a while, actually) and the two American posters of that name seem fine fellows. 'tis an outrageous and inaccurate slur against me.

    I apologise for the inaccuracy. Outrageous....... that's different!
Sign In or Register to comment.