If that is possible then it would be madness to back Hinckley Point, and I was in favour of it.
Do we think this is the nuclear equivalent of vaporware or is it seriously plausible?
Most claims for 'new' nuclear power - whether fission, fusion or unobtainum - are based on hope and fiddlesticks. If they get the funding for a prototype, it doesn't match theory, and then the prototype doesn't scale well to production. Unforeseen safety issues arise, pushing up costs.
The hope for many claimants is they get such a large amount of experimental funding that they get so far down the rabbithole that it is hard for that funding to be cut off.
We see this with thorium - there are lots of claims for it, but massive issues and unknowns that are largely unacknowleged by the proponents.
Having said all that, it is definitely worth pursuing some avenues, though I doubt any of those should be fission based. Fission techs all rely on the steam cycle and the complexities, inefficiencies and safety issues that arise from that.
As I've wittered on about in the past, aneutronic fusion *should* be a gamechanger. Unfortunately it's incredibly difficult to do, and the above probably applies to it as well ...
And when the scientist making the claim is a biochemist with apparently no experience in the industry...
But the majority of any major steps forward in most fields come from someone outside of the mainstream in the field.
Wanting Single Market access is tantamount to ignoring the referendum result.
Hardly, just 26% of voters polled want no single market access at all, the referendum result was to leave the EU not to end all free trade with the EU and start a trade and tariff war
And what, pray, does 'single market access' mean?
'Access' as we have now?
As Norway has?
As Turkey has?
As the US has ?
As Burkina Faso has?
As North Korea has?
It is a term devoid of meaning.
We will not get Norway access, if hard BREXIT fanatics get their way we may not get Swiss or even Canada access. If we withdraw from the single market completely the EU will impose tariffs on our services and goods and there will be no financial services passport and we will respond with tariffs on German cars and French wine i.e. could well be a full-scale trade war
Ok so it's clear you are pretty muddled (to say the least) on this subject also, despite posting on it constantly. Please do some reading.
Well it is true, if we have no membership of the single market at all inevitably some tariffs will be imposed on our goods and services by the EU and we will do the same to theirs
''If you thought Ed Miliband had it tough in 2015 the Jezza demolition show of 2020 will be a barnstormer. ''
As much as Jezz himself, its his fellow travellers. And his supporters. Imagine them in campaigning in your constituency. Talk about voter repellent.
Jezbollah insist that Corbyn has been conspired against. That the mainstram media have lied about him. That all these Tory Labour MPs have been plotting against him from day 1 aided and abetted by MI5 Portland Murdoch Lord Sainsbury etc.
All people need to do is to listen to the Facts. That their views are Wrong. They have been Lied To. Their Labour MP who they voted for repeatedly is actually a Tory. Once they hear this then they too will support He who is known as JC.
But they won't be campaigning. The world has changed. No need to door knock. Collect Voter ID data. Have a Get Out The Vote operation. No, all that is needed is Facebook and the Canary. Thats how all these non Voters will vote for Corbyn.
BTW I am not making any of this shit up. I've been told it repeatedly by acolytes of Jezbollah
Incidentally I haven't as yet received either my email or postal ballot paper. Perhaps I have been suspended for referring to zealots as "Jezbollah". If so, I haven't had an email to that effect either...
Incidentally I haven't as yet received either my email or postal ballot paper. Perhaps I have been suspended for referring to zealots as "Jezbollah". If so, I haven't had an email to that effect either...
You didn't like the foo fighters on Facebook did you?
I am interested in the latest results and the 2016 election will not be the same as the 2012 election, some Romney voters will vote for Hillary, some non-voters for Trump, some Obama voters will not vote. Nate Silver's 538 is also no crystal ball, Silver got the 2014 mid-terms wrong, the 2015 UK general election wrong and EU ref wrong
Nate's POTUS record is outstanding .... much like my own ....
You seem to wish to find any succor for Trump. The fact is presently he is losing badly and then some. If that situation changes I will change my position and so will 538.
Hillary's poll rating has almost halved in the RCP poll average over the last month and as for Nate's POTUS record being outstanding, he dismissed the chances of Trump getting the GOP nomination for months
He said that at the beginning AGAINST the polls which showed Trump ahead. He thought the polls would tighten, and that Trump was just another Herman Cain. He has since admitted his mistake.
He expects the polls to tighten now, but if he is wrong like he was in the primaries, it would be a Clinton washout
Wrong conclusion as he bet against the high turnout of Trump supporters
I thought Nate's mea culpa was that he allowed political analysis to enter into his thinking, rather than relying solely on the polls. But relying solely on the polls his how he got EURef so wrong.
Frankly, I don't think he has an infallible model yet. He is more right than most other political predictors most of the time because he is better at statistics than they are and the polls are reasonably good most of the time. When the polls are wrong, Nate performs at least as badly if not worse than the political pundits.
So if you suspect that it is not politics as normal and that the polls may have difficulty reading the political tectonics, treat Nate's predictions with a large grain of salt.
Silver has a sharp, analytical mind but relies on his models being right, as you say if his models prove wrong so do his results
Another strong set of payroll figures in the US. Yellen may be backed into a corner on rate rises now.
Hopefully the strong data here will get the BoE to reverse the rate cut.
Don't hold your breath. I get the sense, from his public pronouncements, that Carney would be undistressed by GBP falling below $1.30 for a while; a widening spread between the Fed and the Old Lady would do that nicely.
I am interested in the latest results and the 2016 election will not be the same as the 2012 election, some Romney voters will vote for Hillary, some non-voters for Trump, some Obama voters will not vote. Nate Silver's 538 is also no crystal ball, Silver got the 2014 mid-terms wrong, the 2015 UK general election wrong and EU ref wrong
Nate's POTUS record is outstanding .... much like my own ....
You seem to wish to find any succor for Trump. The fact is presently he is losing badly and then some. If that situation changes I will change my position and so will 538.
Hillary's poll rating has almost halved in the RCP poll average over the last month and as for Nate's POTUS record being outstanding, he dismissed the chances of Trump getting the GOP nomination for months
He said that at the beginning AGAINST the polls which showed Trump ahead. He thought the polls would tighten, and that Trump was just another Herman Cain. He has since admitted his mistake.
He expects the polls to tighten now, but if he is wrong like he was in the primaries, it would be a Clinton washout
Wrong conclusion as he bet against the high turnout of Trump supporters
I thought Nate's mea culpa was that he allowed political analysis to enter into his thinking, rather than relying solely on the polls. But relying solely on the polls his how he got EURef so wrong.
Frankly, I don't think he has an infallible model yet. He is more right than most other political predictors most of the time because he is better at statistics than they are and the polls are reasonably good most of the time. When the polls are wrong, Nate performs at least as badly if not worse than the political pundits.
So if you suspect that it is not politics as normal and that the polls may have difficulty reading the political tectonics, treat Nate's predictions with a large grain of salt.
Silver has a sharp, analytical mind but relies on his models being right, as you say if his models prove wrong so do his results
No indications that the polls are wrong. they were right on Trump for the primaries, they are probably right now.
I am interested in the latest results and the 2016 election will not be the same as the 2012 election, some Romney voters will vote for Hillary, some non-voters for Trump, some Obama voters will not vote. Nate Silver's 538 is also no crystal ball, Silver got the 2014 mid-terms wrong, the 2015 UK general election wrong and EU ref wrong
Nate's POTUS record is outstanding .... much like my own ....
You seem to wish to find any succor for Trump. The fact is presently he is losing badly and then some. If that situation changes I will change my position and so will 538.
Hillary's poll rating has almost halved in the RCP poll average over the last month and as for Nate's POTUS record being outstanding, he dismissed the chances of Trump getting the GOP nomination for months
He said that at the beginning AGAINST the polls which showed Trump ahead. He thought the polls would tighten, and that Trump was just another Herman Cain. He has since admitted his mistake.
He expects the polls to tighten now, but if he is wrong like he was in the primaries, it would be a Clinton washout
Wrong conclusion as he bet against the high turnout of Trump supporters
I thought Nate's mea culpa was that he allowed political analysis to enter into his thinking, rather than relying solely on the polls. But relying solely on the polls his how he got EURef so wrong.
Frankly, I don't think he has an infallible model yet. He is more right than most other political predictors most of the time because he is better at statistics than they are and the polls are reasonably good most of the time. When the polls are wrong, Nate performs at least as badly if not worse than the political pundits.
So if you suspect that it is not politics as normal and that the polls may have difficulty reading the political tectonics, treat Nate's predictions with a large grain of salt.
Silver has a sharp, analytical mind but relies on his models being right, as you say if his models prove wrong so do his results
No indications that the polls are wrong. they were right on Trump for the primaries, they are probably right now.
A few polls now show Trump ahead but at the moment Hillary would probably win narrowly, if Trump wins the debates all bets are off
The Labour party membership is unrecognisable from only a year ago, if Corbyn wins, as is likely imho, the PLP and NEC rule book will also be changed beyond recognition from what it is today. - Labour’s travails remind me of Benjamin Franklin’s ditty ‘For the want of a nail’ with the party lost to an unelectable far left all for the want of a big tent. – Oh dear Ma Beckett, what have you done?
Don't blame Margaret Beckett - Harriet Harman is responsible for Labour's mess.
Beckett, yes (along with others) for nominating Corbyn.
Harman, yes for the vote on the welfare bill.
And Burnham, for failing to resign over the welfare bill vote.
And Ed Miliband, for the rule changes. And Tom Watson, for the mess in Falkirk that led to the rule changes.
In fact, it's a perfect storm. Without the contribution of a single one of them, Corbyn wouldn't be where he is.
F1: Ladbrokes still only has the winner's market up for Italy. Interestingly, Vettel's odds have lengthened from 15 to 17. Each way, that's worthy of consideration.
TSE is waiting for me to make an incisive, acute, yet droll post about something or other on this thread, moments before which, yet after I have pressed the "Post Comment" button, the new post will appear.
Allowing for the superior Tory ground game and them outperforming UNS at GE 2015 we'd be looking at a 100 seat plus majority
That cannot be relied upon though - new Labour MPs elected in 2015 will have first time incumbency. Also Tories do not always outperform in marginals - eg 1992 - 1997 - 2001.
What Labour should be worrying about is not whether they are going to lose in 2020 but whether they are at risk of losing so badly that 2025 is also beyond their grasp.
But they'll vote for Corbyn anyway.
He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy voting losing machine.
F1: put a tiny sum on Vettel, and even less on Raikkonen [to equalise profit] on them to win each way at 17 and 29 respectively [Ladbrokes]. That's top 2.
In the races so far, Mercedes have a surprisingly low three occasions of 1-2 finishes. Vettel has been 2nd three times (thirteen races so far). Monza should be better for Ferrari, and they were basically a match for Red Bull at Spa, so they should be directly behind Mercedes in case anything goes wrong.
My main concern is that Vettel's been rubbish at wheel-to-wheel stuff at the start. Against that, Mercedes have started a bit ropily too.
Anyway, tiny sums, do at your own risk, etc and so forth. Won't count in my weekly records, of course. Unless I also tip it in the weekend articles.
At its root, the Commission’s case is not about how much Apple pays in taxes. It is about which government collects the money.
If you read The Commission's press release, the issue seems to be whether it's the government of Ireland or the government of nowhere.
It is a well-argued letter from Apple. For those who don't bother to read the Commission's decision or do their own research, I think it will be persuasive.
I am interested in the latest results and the 2016 election will not be the same as the 2012 election, some Romney voters will vote for Hillary, some non-voters for Trump, some Obama voters will not vote. Nate Silver's 538 is also no crystal ball, Silver got the 2014 mid-terms wrong, the 2015 UK general election wrong and EU ref wrong
Nate's POTUS record is outstanding .... much like my own ....
You seem to wish to find any succor for Trump. The fact is presently he is losing badly and then some. If that situation changes I will change my position and so will 538.
Hillary's poll rating has almost halved in the RCP poll average over the last month and as for Nate's POTUS record being outstanding, he dismissed the chances of Trump getting the GOP nomination for months
He said that at the beginning AGAINST the polls which showed Trump ahead. He thought the polls would tighten, and that Trump was just another Herman Cain. He has since admitted his mistake.
He expects the polls to tighten now, but if he is wrong like he was in the primaries, it would be a Clinton washout
Wrong conclusion as he bet against the high turnout of Trump supporters
I thought Nate's mea culpa was that he allowed political analysis to enter into his thinking, rather than relying solely on the polls. But relying solely on the polls his how he got EURef so wrong.
Frankly, I don't think he has an infallible model yet. He is more right than most other political predictors most of the time because he is better at statistics than they are and the polls are reasonably good most of the time. When the polls are wrong, Nate performs at least as badly if not worse than the political pundits.
So if you suspect that it is not politics as normal and that the polls may have difficulty reading the political tectonics, treat Nate's predictions with a large grain of salt.
Anyone who relied solely on polls was either predicting a Leave win or said it was too close to call. It was only people who tried to do a political analysis who thought Remain would win.
I am interested in the latest results and the 2016 election will not be the same as the 2012 election, some Romney voters will vote for Hillary, some non-voters for Trump, some Obama voters will not vote. Nate Silver's 538 is also no crystal ball, Silver got the 2014 mid-terms wrong, the 2015 UK general election wrong and EU ref wrong
Nate's POTUS record is outstanding .... much like my own ....
You seem to wish to find any succor for Trump. The fact is presently he is losing badly and then some. If that situation changes I will change my position and so will 538.
Hillary's poll rating has almost halved in the RCP poll average over the last month and as for Nate's POTUS record being outstanding, he dismissed the chances of Trump getting the GOP nomination for months
He said that at the beginning AGAINST the polls which showed Trump ahead. He thought the polls would tighten, and that Trump was just another Herman Cain. He has since admitted his mistake.
He expects the polls to tighten now, but if he is wrong like he was in the primaries, it would be a Clinton washout
Wrong conclusion as he bet against the high turnout of Trump supporters
I thought Nate's mea culpa was that he allowed political analysis to enter into his thinking, rather than relying solely on the polls. But relying solely on the polls his how he got EURef so wrong.
Frankly, I don't think he has an infallible model yet. He is more right than most other political predictors most of the time because he is better at statistics than they are and the polls are reasonably good most of the time. When the polls are wrong, Nate performs at least as badly if not worse than the political pundits.
So if you suspect that it is not politics as normal and that the polls may have difficulty reading the political tectonics, treat Nate's predictions with a large grain of salt.
Anyone who relied solely on polls was either predicting a Leave win or said it was too close to call. It was only people who tried to do a political analysis who thought Remain would win.
I thought the polls were typically good for remain?
The graph remains even though the huffpost data it was based on is gone.
Note how dead in the water Brexit looked about a month out from the vote, and also the sharp swing back to Remain... (Populus 'polls' in play maybe..)#
A month out, Brexit looked dead. 3 weeks out the tide began to turn - Brexit was ahead looking from 3 weeks to 1 week out
1 week to polling day the polls swung back to remain, The final polling analysis suggested remain, but the volatility was such that Brexit was value on the betting front.
Comments
Apple says "up yours Delors"
All people need to do is to listen to the Facts. That their views are Wrong. They have been Lied To. Their Labour MP who they voted for repeatedly is actually a Tory. Once they hear this then they too will support He who is known as JC.
But they won't be campaigning. The world has changed. No need to door knock. Collect Voter ID data. Have a Get Out The Vote operation. No, all that is needed is Facebook and the Canary. Thats how all these non Voters will vote for Corbyn.
BTW I am not making any of this shit up. I've been told it repeatedly by acolytes of Jezbollah
I'm absolutely sure you are correct.
(Although to be fair, they now have a load more members.. so it may now be true!)
F1: Ladbrokes still only has the winner's market up for Italy. Interestingly, Vettel's odds have lengthened from 15 to 17. Each way, that's worthy of consideration.
A fascinating debate is about to brew up. Imagine the fed raises rates a couple of times, and the US economy accelerates.
Where does that leave the ECB?
NEW THREAD
Betting PostF1: put a tiny sum on Vettel, and even less on Raikkonen [to equalise profit] on them to win each way at 17 and 29 respectively [Ladbrokes]. That's top 2.
In the races so far, Mercedes have a surprisingly low three occasions of 1-2 finishes. Vettel has been 2nd three times (thirteen races so far). Monza should be better for Ferrari, and they were basically a match for Red Bull at Spa, so they should be directly behind Mercedes in case anything goes wrong.
My main concern is that Vettel's been rubbish at wheel-to-wheel stuff at the start. Against that, Mercedes have started a bit ropily too.
Anyway, tiny sums, do at your own risk, etc and so forth. Won't count in my weekly records, of course. Unless I also tip it in the weekend articles.
It is a well-argued letter from Apple. For those who don't bother to read the Commission's decision or do their own research, I think it will be persuasive.
I did an analysis of the implied probability and Brexit peaked at ~87% about a week out.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AQoI3SjmZta2KL1wMSHWrUozrFiXGfrqRq1U7fGhyAU/edit?usp=sharing
The graph remains even though the huffpost data it was based on is gone.
Note how dead in the water Brexit looked about a month out from the vote, and also the sharp swing back to Remain... (Populus 'polls' in play maybe..)#
A month out, Brexit looked dead.
3 weeks out the tide began to turn - Brexit was ahead looking from 3 weeks to 1 week out
1 week to polling day the polls swung back to remain,
The final polling analysis suggested remain, but the volatility was such that Brexit was value on the betting front.