As an aside, Brexit appears to be good for Britain, and good for the Eurozone. Both the UK and the Eurozone posted fabulous PMIs this morning. The UK is at its highest level since 2014, while the Eurozone's rating is the third best in the last two years.
But Brexit hasn't happened yet.
"yet" - penny seems to have dropped with the most ardent remainers that it is definitely happening and in a relatively short timescale. Refreshing that they have moved on.
Five years is still possible and not particularly short. Some posters seem to be making the lazy assumption that a50 is Brexit?
Do you feel there is any realistic chance of the remaining 27 countries agreeing unanimously to extend the renegotiation past the prescribed 2 years ? If not then the ECA is repealed after those 2 years and BrExit has happened. There will certainly be many fruitful years of tidying up and new treaties being worked on afterwards, but this is a separate issue.
If a deal is within sight - say Heads of Terms are agreed, and everyone is going through the minutiae of treaties - then it is likely, I would say.
I am not optimistic of it getting that far. Given who the EU has picked as their negotiators I think a big row, lots of posturing in the media and no substantial progress for 20 months and then a minimalist last minute fudge is more likely. They didnt pick Verhofstadt and Barnier because they are looking for agreement.
Unlike the emollient, conciliatory choices of Fox, Davis & Johnson.
The Hillary Clinton campaign has canceled joint appearances with former primary opponent Bernie Sanders after he admitted that "of course" it bothered him that Clinton seemed to be talking down to his supporters in hacked audio from a fundraiser.
It's amazing that only the Washing Examiner has picked up this seismic event.
They are lying about the quote. Sander does not say he is bothered by Clinton talking down to his supporters, that is a complete fabrication .
Hillary's incompetence as a politician is extraordinary. She could ill afford to further alienate Bernie's basement boys but she just couldn't resist flattering the egos her smug wealthy donors. A wretched grinding snob whose final comeuppance is due.
Expect everything you've said is a complete lie.
Could I ask all these people proclaiming Hillary's statement as the gaffe of the Millennium to actually read the transcript or listen to the audio.
I think they are both awful candidates for different reasons. However, your constant daily defence of HRC irrespective of absolutely anything she does, points raised by other posters or adversely reported in the press is now bordering close on the hysterical. This last post is almost desperate in its pleading ?
Weird or are you a Yank with skin in the game?
It was a perfectly reasonable answer. The Audio and transcript by Clinton isn't her attacking Sanders supporters as 'basement dwellers'. it's another false attack line from Trump and Trump rampers.
Some people may be annoyed that the US could be electing a white nationalist facist as leader based on bullshit lies about Clinton.
As an aside, Brexit appears to be good for Britain, and good for the Eurozone. Both the UK and the Eurozone posted fabulous PMIs this morning. The UK is at its highest level since 2014, while the Eurozone's rating is the third best in the last two years.
But Brexit hasn't happened yet.
"yet" - penny seems to have dropped with the most ardent remainers that it is definitely happening and in a relatively short timescale. Refreshing that they have moved on.
Five years is still possible and not particularly short. Some posters seem to be making the lazy assumption that a50 is Brexit?
Do you feel there is any realistic chance of the remaining 27 countries agreeing unanimously to extend the renegotiation past the prescribed 2 years ? If not then the ECA is repealed after those 2 years and BrExit has happened. There will certainly be many fruitful years of tidying up and new treaties being worked on afterwards, but this is a separate issue.
If a deal is within sight - say Heads of Terms are agreed, and everyone is going through the minutiae of treaties - then it is likely, I would say.
I am not optimistic of it getting that far. Given who the EU has picked as their negotiators I think a big row, lots of posturing in the media and no substantial progress for 20 months and then a minimalist last minute fudge is more likely. They didnt pick Verhofstadt and Barnier because they are looking for agreement.
So the EU - which exports hundreds of billions of Euros to us - has no interest in a deal?
Well, I guess it's a view.
Less interest than the UK and they are consoling themselves with the thought of picking up additional investment as companies located in the UK for single market purposes move to the EU-27.
" clearly some form of accommodation between the leadership and Labour MPs will need to be made so that the party can start looking outwards"
Keiran makes the mistake of assuming that the leadership thinks and acts like normal career politicians, and that their activist supporters are interested in running a large mainstream party challenging for power. Neither is the case.
Corbyn is not interested in compromise beyond giving those who disagreed a second chance to show unconditional loyalty; the activists are - as he notes in the anecdote quoted - still less forgiving or pragmatic. To them, there is only one acceptable face of Corbynism and it is Corbyn.
What about after 2020 and a disastrous result? For a start, Lewis has to be returned to parliament. His current Norwich South seat is far from rock-solid (the Lib Dems won it in 2010), and it's surrounded by a sea of blue. The boundary reforms look to have made it at best marginal and quite probably Con-leaning (one Lab/Grn ward out three Con/LD wards in).
If he does get back then if he runs he stands a chance. But that's a lot of ifs over the course of four years. Not anything like 8/1 value in my book.
On the basis of the Boundary proposals Anthony Wells still has Labour almost 4500 ahead in Norwich South with a lead of circa 8.5%. In addition there would be a significant Green vote to squeeze if needed , and potential gains from first time incumbency.However, I expect all this to be academic as too many Tories will not wish to see the changes go ahead.
Those Leavers who need safe spaces can treat this as the appropriate trigger warning. Others will find it informative.
Interesting, if perhaps a little one eyed. I felt that this was an illuminating line: One German official said that if the British decided to exclude only unskilled workers, with the result that many poor Romanians ended up in Germany rather than the UK, it would be seen as an unfriendly act. No thought that they might end up in France, Spain or elsewhere in the EU.
As an aside, Brexit appears to be good for Britain, and good for the Eurozone. Both the UK and the Eurozone posted fabulous PMIs this morning. The UK is at its highest level since 2014, while the Eurozone's rating is the third best in the last two years.
But Brexit hasn't happened yet.
"yet" - penny seems to have dropped with the most ardent remainers that it is definitely happening and in a relatively short timescale. Refreshing that they have moved on.
Five years is still possible and not particularly short. Some posters seem to be making the lazy assumption that a50 is Brexit?
Do you feel there is any realistic chance of the remaining 27 countries agreeing unanimously to extend the renegotiation past the prescribed 2 years ? If not then the ECA is repealed after those 2 years and BrExit has happened. There will certainly be many fruitful years of tidying up and new treaties being worked on afterwards, but this is a separate issue.
If a deal is within sight - say Heads of Terms are agreed, and everyone is going through the minutiae of treaties - then it is likely, I would say.
I am not optimistic of it getting that far. Given who the EU has picked as their negotiators I think a big row, lots of posturing in the media and no substantial progress for 20 months and then a minimalist last minute fudge is more likely. They didnt pick Verhofstadt and Barnier because they are looking for agreement.
So the EU - which exports hundreds of billions of Euros to us - has no interest in a deal?
Well, I guess it's a view.
Less interest than the UK and they are consoling themselves with the thought of picking up additional investment as companies located in the UK for single market purposes move to the EU-27.
I agree that - in the case of UDI - the Eurozone would be less impacted than the UK. Nevertheless, it is only now extracating itself from a long and painful recession. I don't think that any of Merkel, Remzi, Rajoy, Sarkozy/Juppe will be keen to upset their tentative recovery.
As an aside, Brexit appears to be good for Britain, and good for the Eurozone. Both the UK and the Eurozone posted fabulous PMIs this morning. The UK is at its highest level since 2014, while the Eurozone's rating is the third best in the last two years.
But Brexit hasn't happened yet.
"yet" - penny seems to have dropped with the most ardent remainers that it is definitely happening and in a relatively short timescale. Refreshing that they have moved on.
Five years is still possible and not particularly short. Some posters seem to be making the lazy assumption that a50 is Brexit?
Do you feel there is any realistic chance of the remaining 27 countries agreeing unanimously to extend the renegotiation past the prescribed 2 years ? If not then the ECA is repealed after those 2 years and BrExit has happened. There will certainly be many fruitful years of tidying up and new treaties being worked on afterwards, but this is a separate issue.
If a deal is within sight - say Heads of Terms are agreed, and everyone is going through the minutiae of treaties - then it is likely, I would say.
I am not optimistic of it getting that far. Given who the EU has picked as their negotiators I think a big row, lots of posturing in the media and no substantial progress for 20 months and then a minimalist last minute fudge is more likely. They didnt pick Verhofstadt and Barnier because they are looking for agreement.
Unlike the emollient, conciliatory choices of Fox, Davis & Johnson.
I admit they are but children at the feet of the master of abrasive megaphone diplomacy, Mrs Sturgeon.
The Hillary Clinton campaign has canceled joint appearances with former primary opponent Bernie Sanders after he admitted that "of course" it bothered him that Clinton seemed to be talking down to his supporters in hacked audio from a fundraiser.
It's amazing that only the Washing Examiner has picked up this seismic event.
They are lying about the quote. Sander does not say he is bothered by Clinton talking down to his supporters, that is a complete fabrication .
Hillary's incompetence as a politician is extraordinary. She could ill afford to further alienate Bernie's basement boys but she just couldn't resist flattering the egos her smug wealthy donors. A wretched grinding snob whose final comeuppance is due.
Expect everything you've said is a complete lie.
Could I ask all these people proclaiming Hillary's statement as the gaffe of the Millennium to actually read the transcript or listen to the audio.
I think they are both awful candidates for different reasons. However, your constant daily defence of HRC irrespective of absolutely anything she does, points raised by other posters or adversely reported in the press is now bordering close on the hysterical. This last post is almost desperate in its pleading ?
Weird or are you a Yank with skin in the game?
It was a perfectly reasonable answer. The Audio and transcript by Clinton isn't her attacking Sanders supporters as 'basement dwellers'. it's another false attack line from Trump and Trump rampers.
Some people may be annoyed that the US could be electing a white nationalist facist as leader based on bullshit lies about Clinton.
So a black nationalist fascist would be ok?
I don't see one on the ticket.
I do hope someone wants to back Dr Ben Carson at 80-1 the night before the election again. (As they did for GOP VP pick)
If you bought a bigger house you'd have more leverage...
My wife keeps sending me links to properties on the Knight Frank website. Do you think she's trying to tell me something?
That she wants to leave the PRC?
(But why Knight Frank - they only sell very grand, big properties. I'd suggest Lane Fox or Strutt & Parker).
I think we'll be remaining the PRC, not least because my wife's primary goal is to find somewhere that is walking distance from our childrens' schools. Which pretty much means between Hampstead and Belsize Park.
Corbyn is secure for the forseable future, and with the combination of deselections, boundary changes and massive electoral losses before the next contest, it is not a market worth entering at this point.
People are all making the assumption that Corbyn will step down if he loses in 2020.
May be this time it's different?
I've read that in the event of a bad loss - let's say 200 seats but the number doesn't matter - the PLP will be much more heavily weighted to the left on the basis that many of the leading moderates are in relative marginals + retirements of the older moderates + boundaries/reselection
If this is true, wouldn't he stay on until 2022, say, but use his regained control of the NEC to change the rules in his favour?
200 seats wouldn't be a bad loss at all. In fact, if the new boundaries come in then it's roughly where Labour will be starting the election (admittedly, in a parliament of 600 MPs, rather than 650).
I realised that afterwards - I was comparing it to 232 in 2015, not as 200/600.
Corbyn is secure for the forseable future, and with the combination of deselections, boundary changes and massive electoral losses before the next contest, it is not a market worth entering at this point.
Agreed. In Lewis' favour, he might appeal to the membership, the PLP and the electorate. Against, he holds a very marginal seat that's not defensible on current polling, and with chaos likely to erupt in all directions where current MPs fight like ferrets in a sack for the new seats the odds of him getting one are, if not low, not good enough for this bet.
I'm also doubtful about his leadership potential - he seems very gaffe prone which suggests poor judgement. A bit like a more serious and grounded version of Boris, or perhaps an honest Jeffrey Archer.
Your psephology is amiss here. I do not expect the new boundaries to receive approval but even if they do the Tories would need a lead of at least 15% nationally to win Norwich South as proposed in the changes to date. Lewis would also enjoy first term incumbency.
@rcs1000 I'm quite sure that the EU would like a deal with Britain (or at least that many of the component parts would). The problem is that (a) the component parts differ on the deal that they would like and (b) in general the deals that they would like would not be palatable to the British.
A fairly hard Brexit - or as I prefer to think of it, car crash Brexit - looks more likely than not.
If you bought a bigger house you'd have more leverage...
My wife keeps sending me links to properties on the Knight Frank website. Do you think she's trying to tell me something?
That she wants to leave the PRC?
(But why Knight Frank - they only sell very grand, big properties. I'd suggest Lane Fox or Strutt & Parker).
I think we'll be remaining the PRC, not least because my wife's primary goal is to find somewhere that is walking distance from our childrens' schools. Which pretty much means between Hampstead and Belsize Park.
It's much nicer just over the border
The North End of SJW would actually be great for my son, as he's at The Hall. My daughter is also rapidly approaching the age when she'll end up commuting anyway (or going to South Hampstead High).
I also have Lord's season tickets, and the tube is so much more convenient for work.
The final advantage is that the Ivy Cafe is opening on the High Street!
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday said Hillary Clinton was "absolutely correct" in leaked comments about his supporters that she made at a fundraiser earlier this year.
In audio released last week by the Washington Free Beacon, Clinton described Sanders supporters as "children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents’ basement." She continued, "They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don’t see much of a future."
She said that because of those feelings, voters found the idea of a political revolution appealing, adding, "I think we all should be really understanding of that."
I can't begin to understand that mindset. I'd a termination at 12 weeks. I waited a very anxious month for appointment, was under general anaesthetic and it was all very serious and horrible.
The teacher in the next bed went back to work the same afternoon. I lied to my boss and said I couldn't drive after twisting my ankle.
@rcs1000 I'm quite sure that the EU would like a deal with Britain (or at least that many of the component parts would). The problem is that (a) the component parts differ on the deal that they would like and (b) in general the deals that they would like would not be palatable to the British.
A fairly hard Brexit - or as I prefer to think of it, car crash Brexit - looks more likely than not.
I think a free trade agreement in goods is inevitable, simply because the UK car industry would die without it, and because it would be to the benefit of the Eurozone.
'- That the polls for Labour are currently dreadful; the only recent comparable figures for an opposition at this stage are Hague in 1998 and IDS in 2002.'
As an aside, Brexit appears to be good for Britain, and good for the Eurozone. Both the UK and the Eurozone posted fabulous PMIs this morning. The UK is at its highest level since 2014, while the Eurozone's rating is the third best in the last two years.
But Brexit hasn't happened yet.
"yet" - penny seems to have dropped with the most ardent remainers that it is definitely happening and in a relatively short timescale. Refreshing that they have moved on.
Five years is still possible and not particularly short. Some posters seem to be making the lazy assumption that a50 is Brexit?
Do you feel there is any realistic chance of the remaining 27 countries agreeing unanimously to extend the renegotiation past the prescribed 2 years ? If not then the ECA is repealed after those 2 years and BrExit has happened. There will certainly be many fruitful years of tidying up and new treaties being worked on afterwards, but this is a separate issue.
If a deal is within sight - say Heads of Terms are agreed, and everyone is going through the minutiae of treaties - then it is likely, I would say.
I am not optimistic of it getting that far. Given who the EU has picked as their negotiators I think a big row, lots of posturing in the media and no substantial progress for 20 months and then a minimalist last minute fudge is more likely. They didnt pick Verhofstadt and Barnier because they are looking for agreement.
So the EU - which exports hundreds of billions of Euros to us - has no interest in a deal?
Well, I guess it's a view.
Of course it has an interest in a deal. Whether it has an interest in meaningul negotiations is another matter. The attitude of the central EU institutions is one thing that has infuriated many Remainers and was no small reason for the leave vote (not so much any individual decision; more the cumulative effect of years of aloofness).
@rcs1000 I'm quite sure that the EU would like a deal with Britain (or at least that many of the component parts would). The problem is that (a) the component parts differ on the deal that they would like and (b) in general the deals that they would like would not be palatable to the British.
A fairly hard Brexit - or as I prefer to think of it, car crash Brexit - looks more likely than not.
" Car crash Brexit " , poor metaphor for a separation. Your seem to be unable to apply your mind unhysterically to the EU.
As an aside, Brexit appears to be good for Britain, and good for the Eurozone. Both the UK and the Eurozone posted fabulous PMIs this morning. The UK is at its highest level since 2014, while the Eurozone's rating is the third best in the last two years.
But Brexit hasn't happened yet.
"yet" - penny seems to have dropped with the most ardent remainers that it is definitely happening and in a relatively short timescale. Refreshing that they have moved on.
Five years is still possible and not particularly short. Some posters seem to be making the lazy assumption that a50 is Brexit?
Do you feel there is any realistic chance of the remaining 27 countries agreeing unanimously to extend the renegotiation past the prescribed 2 years ? If not then the ECA is repealed after those 2 years and BrExit has happened. There will certainly be many fruitful years of tidying up and new treaties being worked on afterwards, but this is a separate issue.
If a deal is within sight - say Heads of Terms are agreed, and everyone is going through the minutiae of treaties - then it is likely, I would say.
I am not optimistic of it getting that far. Given who the EU has picked as their negotiators I think a big row, lots of posturing in the media and no substantial progress for 20 months and then a minimalist last minute fudge is more likely. They didnt pick Verhofstadt and Barnier because they are looking for agreement.
Unlike the emollient, conciliatory choices of Fox, Davis & Johnson.
I admit they are but children at the feet of the master of abrasive megaphone diplomacy, Mrs Sturgeon.
If you are a Scottish voter, feel free to go to Scotland and bang on about the idiocy of electing the master of abrasive megaphone diplomacy, Mrs Sturgeon, till your heart's content. I fail to see the point in people banging on about her here when (almost) no one can vote for her.
The Danish giant Dong Energy stunned the industry in July by clinching an offshore deal in the Netherlands at a strike price of €72.5 per megawatt hour (MWh), half the sorts of levels agreed less than five years ago.
the project was quickly surpassed by an even cheaper bid of €60 per MWh by Vattenfalls in a Danish tender
Can someone remind me of the Hinkley Point strike price ?
As an aside, Brexit appears to be good for Britain, and good for the Eurozone. Both the UK and the Eurozone posted fabulous PMIs this morning. The UK is at its highest level since 2014, while the Eurozone's rating is the third best in the last two years.
But Brexit hasn't happened yet.
"yet" - penny seems to have dropped with the most ardent remainers that it is definitely happening and in a relatively short timescale. Refreshing that they have moved on.
Five years is still possible and not particularly short. Some posters seem to be making the lazy assumption that a50 is Brexit?
Do you feel there is any realistic chance of the remaining 27 countries agreeing unanimously to extend the renegotiation past the prescribed 2 years ? If not then the ECA is repealed after those 2 years and BrExit has happened. There will certainly be many fruitful years of tidying up and new treaties being worked on afterwards, but this is a separate issue.
If a deal is within sight - say Heads of Terms are agreed, and everyone is going through the minutiae of treaties - then it is likely, I would say.
I am not optimistic of it getting that far. Given who the EU has picked as their negotiators I think a big row, lots of posturing in the media and no substantial progress for 20 months and then a minimalist last minute fudge is more likely. They didnt pick Verhofstadt and Barnier because they are looking for agreement.
So the EU - which exports hundreds of billions of Euros to us - has no interest in a deal?
Well, I guess it's a view.
Of course it has an interest in a deal. Whether it has an interest in meaningul negotiations is another matter. The attitude of the central EU institutions is one thing that has infuriated many Remainers and was no small reason for the leave vote (not so much any individual decision; more the cumulative effect of years of aloofness).
But the decision will be made by the text of a treaty being put to the Council of Ministers, which is passed by QMV and then approved by the European Parliament.
The bulk of the negotiations could - and might well be - conducted between the representatives of the governments of Germany, France, Italy and Spain.
Ultimately, if the national governments want to cut Juncker out of it, they can. For it is they that would table them motion at the Council of Ministers. And only they who have a vote.
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday said Hillary Clinton was "absolutely correct" in leaked comments about his supporters that she made at a fundraiser earlier this year.
In audio released last week by the Washington Free Beacon, Clinton described Sanders supporters as "children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents’ basement." She continued, "They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don’t see much of a future."
She said that because of those feelings, voters found the idea of a political revolution appealing, adding, "I think we all should be really understanding of that."
Golly.
It appears there are liars, damn liars and PB Trumplings.
The Danish giant Dong Energy stunned the industry in July by clinching an offshore deal in the Netherlands at a strike price of €72.5 per megawatt hour (MWh), half the sorts of levels agreed less than five years ago.
the project was quickly surpassed by an even cheaper bid of €60 per MWh by Vattenfalls in a Danish tender
Can someone remind me of the Hinkley Point strike price ?
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday said Hillary Clinton was "absolutely correct" in leaked comments about his supporters that she made at a fundraiser earlier this year.
In audio released last week by the Washington Free Beacon, Clinton described Sanders supporters as "children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents’ basement." She continued, "They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don’t see much of a future."
She said that because of those feelings, voters found the idea of a political revolution appealing, adding, "I think we all should be really understanding of that."
How can a thread on the next Labour leader have run this long without highlighting the obvious odds-on (if it was accurately priced) leader of the Labour party?
How can a thread on the next Labour leader have run this long without highlighting the obvious odds-on (if it was accurately priced) leader of the Labour party?
If you bought a bigger house you'd have more leverage...
My wife keeps sending me links to properties on the Knight Frank website. Do you think she's trying to tell me something?
That she wants to leave the PRC?
(But why Knight Frank - they only sell very grand, big properties. I'd suggest Lane Fox or Strutt & Parker).
I think we'll be remaining the PRC, not least because my wife's primary goal is to find somewhere that is walking distance from our childrens' schools. Which pretty much means between Hampstead and Belsize Park.
It's much nicer just over the border
The North End of SJW would actually be great for my son, as he's at The Hall. My daughter is also rapidly approaching the age when she'll end up commuting anyway (or going to South Hampstead High).
I also have Lord's season tickets, and the tube is so much more convenient for work.
The final advantage is that the Ivy Cafe is opening on the High Street!
That's where I'll be looking when I come back from Zurich. Probably the nicest part of London.
The Danish giant Dong Energy stunned the industry in July by clinching an offshore deal in the Netherlands at a strike price of €72.5 per megawatt hour (MWh), half the sorts of levels agreed less than five years ago.
the project was quickly surpassed by an even cheaper bid of €60 per MWh by Vattenfalls in a Danish tender
Can someone remind me of the Hinkley Point strike price ?
Does a direct price comparison make sense? After all, nuclear electricity is pretty much a constant supply, while wind power, unless backed by gas, is subject to availability.
How can a thread on the next Labour leader have run this long without highlighting the obvious odds-on (if it was accurately priced) leader of the Labour party?
The Danish giant Dong Energy stunned the industry in July by clinching an offshore deal in the Netherlands at a strike price of €72.5 per megawatt hour (MWh), half the sorts of levels agreed less than five years ago.
the project was quickly surpassed by an even cheaper bid of €60 per MWh by Vattenfalls in a Danish tender
Can someone remind me of the Hinkley Point strike price ?
Does a direct price comparison make sense? After all, nuclear electricity is pretty much a constant supply, while wind power, unless backed by gas, is subject to availability.
Nuclear isn't a 24-7 supply with downtimes for maintenance, and the north sea tends to be an area of low pressure, except for some exceptional summer and winter high pressure days
How can a thread on the next Labour leader have run this long without highlighting the obvious odds-on (if it was accurately priced) leader of the Labour party?
The Danish giant Dong Energy stunned the industry in July by clinching an offshore deal in the Netherlands at a strike price of €72.5 per megawatt hour (MWh), half the sorts of levels agreed less than five years ago.
the project was quickly surpassed by an even cheaper bid of €60 per MWh by Vattenfalls in a Danish tender
Can someone remind me of the Hinkley Point strike price ?
Does a direct price comparison make sense? After all, nuclear electricity is pretty much a constant supply, while wind power, unless backed by gas, is subject to availability.
Your uptime for nuclear is highly unlikely to exceed 80%, and offshore wind will probably be around 66%*, so they are similar.
* That's a top of the head number. I can't remember the exact one, so don't shoot be if I'm wrong.
But the decision will be made by the text of a treaty being put to the Council of Ministers, which is passed by QMV and then approved by the European Parliament.
The bulk of the negotiations could - and might well be - conducted between the representatives of the governments of Germany, France, Italy and Spain.
Ultimately, if the national governments want to cut Juncker out of it, they can. For it is they that would table them motion at the Council of Ministers. And only they who have a vote.
The question of whom we will actually be negotiating with, in substance, is really quite opaque. The Charles Grant article says "Once the article is invoked, the British will have to negotiate with the European Commission, though the Council of Ministers, representing the member-states, will watch it closely.". However that's not what Article 50 says:
That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
So we need to look at Article 218(3):
The Commission, or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy where the agreement envisaged relates exclusively or principally to the common foreign and security policy, shall submit recommendations to the Council, which shall adopt a decision authorising the opening of negotiations and, depending on the subject of the agreement envisaged, nominating the Union negotiator or the head of the Union's negotiating team.
In other words, we'll be negotiating with multiple parties (Commission, EU Council of 27 countries, EU parliament), where the exact balance of power is unclear. To complicate things further, this overlays an existing tussle between the Commission and the Council.
To my mind this is one of the major risk factors of the whole Brexit process. It is quite possible that we may end up with a bad deal for both sides simply because the EU doesn't have the institutional capability of agreeing a good deal for itself.
How can a thread on the next Labour leader have run this long without highlighting the obvious odds-on (if it was accurately priced) leader of the Labour party?
Five years is still possible and not particularly short. Some posters seem to be making the lazy assumption that a50 is Brexit?
Do you feel there is any realistic chance of the remaining 27 countries agreeing unanimously to extend the renegotiation past the prescribed 2 years ? If not then the ECA is repealed after those 2 years and BrExit has happened. There will certainly be many fruitful years of tidying up and new treaties being worked on afterwards, but this is a separate issue.
If a deal is within sight - say Heads of Terms are agreed, and everyone is going through the minutiae of treaties - then it is likely, I would say.
I am not optimistic of it getting that far. Given who the EU has picked as their negotiators I think a big row, lots of posturing in the media and no substantial progress for 20 months and then a minimalist last minute fudge is more likely. They didnt pick Verhofstadt and Barnier because they are looking for agreement.
So the EU - which exports hundreds of billions of Euros to us - has no interest in a deal?
Well, I guess it's a view.
Of course it has an interest in a deal. Whether it has an interest in meaningul negotiations is another matter. The attitude of the central EU institutions is one thing that has infuriated many Remainers and was no small reason for the leave vote (not so much any individual decision; more the cumulative effect of years of aloofness).
But the decision will be made by the text of a treaty being put to the Council of Ministers, which is passed by QMV and then approved by the European Parliament.
The bulk of the negotiations could - and might well be - conducted between the representatives of the governments of Germany, France, Italy and Spain.
Ultimately, if the national governments want to cut Juncker out of it, they can. For it is they that would table them motion at the Council of Ministers. And only they who have a vote.
Well, they and the European parliament, as you said. They might not be nominated players in the negotiations but everyone will be aware of their presence offstage, in the same way that national parliaments and electorates are all present - in the minds of the leaders - at the bi treaty-negotiating summits.
Yes, Tusk, Merkal, Hollande and the rest cut cut Junker's boys out of the process but if they do, there'll need to be some other mechanism whereby the rEU can negotiate with the UK without it becoming unwieldly. A return to 3-state-troikas, perhaps?
'- That the polls for Labour are currently dreadful; the only recent comparable figures for an opposition at this stage are Hague in 1998 and IDS in 2002.'
And Kinnock in late 1988 /early 1989.
Who also lost in 1992, albeit that it took a change of Tory leader.
The Danish giant Dong Energy stunned the industry in July by clinching an offshore deal in the Netherlands at a strike price of €72.5 per megawatt hour (MWh), half the sorts of levels agreed less than five years ago.
the project was quickly surpassed by an even cheaper bid of €60 per MWh by Vattenfalls in a Danish tender
Can someone remind me of the Hinkley Point strike price ?
Does a direct price comparison make sense? After all, nuclear electricity is pretty much a constant supply, while wind power, unless backed by gas, is subject to availability.
Your uptime for nuclear is highly unlikely to exceed 80%, and offshore wind will probably be around 66%*, so they are similar.
* That's a top of the head number. I can't remember the exact one, so don't shoot be if I'm wrong.
With power storage solutions now becoming viable wind power and other intermittent power sources are now serious competition gfor nuclear.
'- That the polls for Labour are currently dreadful; the only recent comparable figures for an opposition at this stage are Hague in 1998 and IDS in 2002.'
And Kinnock in late 1988 /early 1989.
Who also lost in 1992, albeit that it took a change of Tory leader.
Indeed so - but Labour still performed a good deal better in April 1992 than polls were suggesting in late 1988 /early 1989.
How can a thread on the next Labour leader have run this long without highlighting the obvious odds-on (if it was accurately priced) leader of the Labour party?
The Danish giant Dong Energy stunned the industry in July by clinching an offshore deal in the Netherlands at a strike price of €72.5 per megawatt hour (MWh), half the sorts of levels agreed less than five years ago.
the project was quickly surpassed by an even cheaper bid of €60 per MWh by Vattenfalls in a Danish tender
Can someone remind me of the Hinkley Point strike price ?
Does a direct price comparison make sense? After all, nuclear electricity is pretty much a constant supply, while wind power, unless backed by gas, is subject to availability.
Demand is as variable as supply. Constant supply isn't automatically a benefit. What matters more is the ability to bring on extra supply when needed and switch it off when it's not and, importantly the cost to do so. Energy suppliers charge for taking themselves off the grid. Nuclear has the highest bid prices for doing so and in practice never does remove itself in response to a lowering of demand
To think that Barbara Castle never became leader of the Labour Party and yet we are seriously considering whether Emily Thornberry could become leader. Has the talent level really sunk that low?
The Danish giant Dong Energy stunned the industry in July by clinching an offshore deal in the Netherlands at a strike price of €72.5 per megawatt hour (MWh), half the sorts of levels agreed less than five years ago.
the project was quickly surpassed by an even cheaper bid of €60 per MWh by Vattenfalls in a Danish tender
Can someone remind me of the Hinkley Point strike price ?
Does a direct price comparison make sense? After all, nuclear electricity is pretty much a constant supply, while wind power, unless backed by gas, is subject to availability.
Demand is as variable as supply. Constant supply isn't automatically a benefit. What matters more is the ability to bring on extra supply when needed and switch it off when it's not and, importantly the cost to do so. Energy suppliers charge for taking themselves off the grid. Nuclear has the highest bid prices for doing so and in practice never does remove itself in response to a lowering of demand
Yes which is why stored energy needs serious research, it could help decentralise the grid which would help reduce transmission losses.
@rcs1000 I'm quite sure that the EU would like a deal with Britain (or at least that many of the component parts would). The problem is that (a) the component parts differ on the deal that they would like and (b) in general the deals that they would like would not be palatable to the British.
A fairly hard Brexit - or as I prefer to think of it, car crash Brexit - looks more likely than not.
I think a free trade agreement in goods is inevitable, simply because the UK car industry would die without it, and because it would be to the benefit of the Eurozone.
The problem seem to hinge on what measure of access we get for services. At the moment that's looking a bit sticky, although I suspect FoM will largely be maintained for the financial services sector as Hammond has already annouced.
@rcs1000 I'm quite sure that the EU would like a deal with Britain (or at least that many of the component parts would). The problem is that (a) the component parts differ on the deal that they would like and (b) in general the deals that they would like would not be palatable to the British.
A fairly hard Brexit - or as I prefer to think of it, car crash Brexit - looks more likely than not.
I think a free trade agreement in goods is inevitable, simply because the UK car industry would die without it, and because it would be to the benefit of the Eurozone.
The problem seem to hinge on what measure of access we get for services. At the moment that's looking a bit sticky, although I suspect FoM will largely be maintained for the financial services sector as Hammond has already annouced.
There is no real single market for services outside of the one we (stupidly in hindsight) created for financial services. Losing single market membership for services is not really a big deal outside of finance. If we can come to an accommodation on the latter and keep free trade in goods with mutual recognition for standards it would be the ideal non-EEA solution IMO.
Well, they and the European parliament, as you said. They might not be nominated players in the negotiations but everyone will be aware of their presence offstage, in the same way that national parliaments and electorates are all present - in the minds of the leaders - at the bi treaty-negotiating summits.
Yes, Tusk, Merkal, Hollande and the rest cut cut Junker's boys out of the process but if they do, there'll need to be some other mechanism whereby the rEU can negotiate with the UK without it becoming unwieldly. A return to 3-state-troikas, perhaps?
If it's anything like the Greek bailout negotations, EU Council staff (representing EU heads of government) will maintain two versions of an agreement text - the British proposal and the rEU counter proposal. They will keep publishing the two versions, highlighting the common ground as well as the differences, always nudging players towards moving items from the second into the first. Then there will be one or more meetings of heads of government in Brussels to haggle over the remaining differences.
Bear in mind: This is the Article 50 Exit Agreement , which is still nominally an internal EU negotiation. But it's not clear that Didier Seeuws will act as an honest broker on behalf of all EU countries including the UK for the present. Any treaty negotiations after leaving will involve the EU Commission (Juncker's peeople) as well as the EU Council and Parliament and will be much slower.
The Danish giant Dong Energy stunned the industry in July by clinching an offshore deal in the Netherlands at a strike price of €72.5 per megawatt hour (MWh), half the sorts of levels agreed less than five years ago.
the project was quickly surpassed by an even cheaper bid of €60 per MWh by Vattenfalls in a Danish tender
Can someone remind me of the Hinkley Point strike price ?
Does a direct price comparison make sense? After all, nuclear electricity is pretty much a constant supply, while wind power, unless backed by gas, is subject to availability.
Your uptime for nuclear is highly unlikely to exceed 80%, and offshore wind will probably be around 66%*, so they are similar.
* That's a top of the head number. I can't remember the exact one, so don't shoot be if I'm wrong.
With power storage solutions now becoming viable wind power and other intermittent power sources are now serious competition gfor nuclear.
Are the long-run (i.e. clean-up) costs for Hinkley Point known with any degree of certainty? Are they so far in the future that discounting means they are nowt to worry about at present? This is another thing where I'm not sure that a straight comparison makes sense.
Hinckley Point isn't about price, it's about capacity. The idea we could meet demand without new nuclear is pure fantasy.
Yes, and the reason Hinckley is such a crap deal is the risk attached. Were it guaranteed to be delivered on time and at full capacity, then there might be a case to be made for it, even at the nosebleed price we agreed. That there is still not a working example of the plant we are purchasing makes it absurd.
Hinckley Point isn't about price, it's about capacity. The idea we could meet demand without new nuclear is pure fantasy.
OK. Some UK electricity facts.
Currently, UK electricity demand is 32.5GW. Demand peaks at a little over 40GW these days. (Overall demand has trended down for some time, for various reasons - better insulation, more efficient appliances, the move from incandescent to LED/CFL for lighting, the rise of laptops and end of traditional PCs, and a smaller industrial base.)
There are about 20GW of UK coal plants, which are largely sitting idle right now (3GW in on). Coal has been hammered by...
The rise of CCGTs (combined cycle gas turbines), which are (a) more efficient than coal plants, (b) cost less to build, (c) are more flexible/reliable, and (d) have much lower operational costs. Historically, the UK's gas plant was used to supply peaking power, but the collapse in the price of oil and gas has meant is has largely supplanted coal in the UK. There is just north of 20GW of CCGTs in the UK, although some older plants are currently mothballed. Right now, 17GW of CCGTs are on-line.
Wind currently tops out at just north of 7GW, but realistically runs in the 0.5-3GW range.
Nuclear is about a fifth of our generating capacity at just under 10GW installed. But, and here's the big but, nuclear is very rarely all available. Right now, about 75% of the UK's nuclear is on-line which is about par for the course. I would be extremely surprised (astounded really) if HPC's uptime matched our existing nuclear in its first five years of operation.
Now for the smaller parts of power generation: Hydro and pumped can provide up to 3GW of peaking power. Realistically, assuming that pumped storage is refilled every night, it can provide 1.5GW or so during every peak period.
Then there is biomass, which is a fairly constant 1.4GW (rising to 2GW when new builds are complete).
Finally, we have pure peaking: there are around 4GW of open cycle gas turbines (basically jet engines) that can step in in the case of emergencies, and another 1.5GW of oil fired power plant.
In theory, we have about 70GW of power plant. Even after retirements, and assuming the wind is not not blowing at all, we have about a 10GW of 'spare'. If you want to increase that, why not use a cheap, flexible power source like natural gas? (And if you're worried about security of supply, surely you're better off increasing the UK's indigenous gas supply rather than building expensive, unreliable nuclear.)
Hinckley Point isn't about price, it's about capacity. The idea we could meet demand without new nuclear is pure fantasy.
Well given that HPC isn't due to begin power generation for a minimum of 8 years it stands to reason we're going to have to meet demand without it.
Eight years, Mr. Max? That is a bit optimistic, isn't it? Even EDF's own web site say it will take ten years to build and that is without over runs, which are probably inevitable. If EDF perform on this contract as they have on their two other EPR projects I doubt we will see any electricity from Hinkley C until about 2030.
On the subject of strike price I read this morning that the cost of electricity from Hinkley now stands at £97 per MWh (due to inflation since the original deal was signed) and God alone knows what it will be by the time the place comes on line. However, I also read that for offshore wind contracts already signed we are paying £140 - £150 per MWh.
Hinckley Point isn't about price, it's about capacity. The idea we could meet demand without new nuclear is pure fantasy.
Absolutely we could meet all medium term demand by building gas plants. They are cheap to build (much cheaper than nuclear), cheap to switch off (again much cheaper than nuclear) and fuel prices are reasonable at the moment. They emit pollutants, but as they substitute for dirtier coal plants, emissions will stay steady for a while. As more renewables come online and the proportion of gas capacity used for peak load increases, the overall emissions come down.
I don't have ideological objections to nuclear power, but the economics are basket case and have been ever since Margaret Thatcher privatised energy production.
To think that Barbara Castle never became leader of the Labour Party and yet we are seriously considering whether Emily Thornberry could become leader. Has the talent level really sunk that low?
Hinckley Point isn't about price, it's about capacity. The idea we could meet demand without new nuclear is pure fantasy.
Well given that HPC isn't due to begin power generation for a minimum of 8 years it stands to reason we're going to have to meet demand without it.
Eight years, Mr. Max? That is a bit optimistic, isn't it? Even EDF's own web site say it will take ten years to build and that is without over runs, which are probably inevitable. If EDF perform on this contract as they have on their two other EPR projects I doubt we will see any electricity from Hinkley C until about 2030.
On the subject of strike price I read this morning that the cost of electricity from Hinkley now stands at £97 per MWh (due to inflation since the original deal was signed) and God alone knows what it will be by the time the place comes on line. However, I also read that for offshore wind contracts already signed we are paying £140 - £150 per MWh.
Hinckley Point isn't about price, it's about capacity. The idea we could meet demand without new nuclear is pure fantasy.
Yes, and the reason Hinckley is such a crap deal is the risk attached. Were it guaranteed to be delivered on time and at full capacity, then there might be a case to be made for it, even at the nosebleed price we agreed. That there is still not a working example of the plant we are purchasing makes it absurd.
(snip) To my mind this is one of the major risk factors of the whole Brexit process. It is quite possible that we may end up with a bad deal for both sides simply because the EU doesn't have the institutional capability of agreeing a good deal for itself.
I agree with this. One of the many problems in dealing with the EU is finding someone who can say yes (or no). That is the key to any successful negotiation and it is a key that is going to be hard to find.
Until now the default assumption was that the key holder was going to be Merkel but it is increasingly unclear if she will even be in office by the time these negotiations are completed.
How does the UK deal with this ineptitude? I think by setting out broad and simple heads of agreement as quickly as possible accepting that the detail may well be sorted out long after the UK has left. So we should:
* make formal proposals along the lines Davis was talking about yesterday accepting that EU citizens already here will have indefinite leave to remain and so do UK citizens in the EU. *Push for tariff free trade in goods and services between the UK and the EU. * Be clear that we will not be a part of the EU Customs Union. * Confirm that we will continue to co-operate on all security and defence related matters by either remaining a part of existing agreements or signing the equivalent. *Be open to any further proposals for continued co-operation and co-ordination that the EU wants to make.
If we get bogged down in detail with someone who has to constantly check back to others we will get absolutely nowhere.
Hinckley Point isn't about price, it's about capacity. The idea we could meet demand without new nuclear is pure fantasy.
Well given that HPC isn't due to begin power generation for a minimum of 8 years it stands to reason we're going to have to meet demand without it.
Eight years, Mr. Max? That is a bit optimistic, isn't it? Even EDF's own web site say it will take ten years to build and that is without over runs, which are probably inevitable. If EDF perform on this contract as they have on their two other EPR projects I doubt we will see any electricity from Hinkley C until about 2030.
On the subject of strike price I read this morning that the cost of electricity from Hinkley now stands at £97 per MWh (due to inflation since the original deal was signed) and God alone knows what it will be by the time the place comes on line. However, I also read that for offshore wind contracts already signed we are paying £140 - £150 per MWh.
HPC's contract is inflation linked, while the wind contracts are fixed in absolute terms. If inflation runs at 2% a year, then when HPC comes on line then price gap will be less than 10%, and within about five years it'll be the more expensive option.
The Danish giant Dong Energy stunned the industry in July by clinching an offshore deal in the Netherlands at a strike price of €72.5 per megawatt hour (MWh), half the sorts of levels agreed less than five years ago.
the project was quickly surpassed by an even cheaper bid of €60 per MWh by Vattenfalls in a Danish tender
Can someone remind me of the Hinkley Point strike price ?
Does a direct price comparison make sense? After all, nuclear electricity is pretty much a constant supply, while wind power, unless backed by gas, is subject to availability.
Your uptime for nuclear is highly unlikely to exceed 80%, and offshore wind will probably be around 66%*, so they are similar.
* That's a top of the head number. I can't remember the exact one, so don't shoot be if I'm wrong.
Also your entire nuclear capacity goes off simultaneously for months or years at a time when they catch the utility faking safety data or whatever.
Hinckley Point isn't about price, it's about capacity. The idea we could meet demand without new nuclear is pure fantasy.
Well given that HPC isn't due to begin power generation for a minimum of 8 years it stands to reason we're going to have to meet demand without it.
Eight years, Mr. Max? That is a bit optimistic, isn't it? Even EDF's own web site say it will take ten years to build and that is without over runs, which are probably inevitable. If EDF perform on this contract as they have on their two other EPR projects I doubt we will see any electricity from Hinkley C until about 2030.
On the subject of strike price I read this morning that the cost of electricity from Hinkley now stands at £97 per MWh (due to inflation since the original deal was signed) and God alone knows what it will be by the time the place comes on line. However, I also read that for offshore wind contracts already signed we are paying £140 - £150 per MWh.
Yes, but those were effectively subsidies to jump start offshore wind (though probably higher than they needed to be). The price of future deals will be significantly lower.
Hinckley Point isn't about price, it's about capacity. The idea we could meet demand without new nuclear is pure fantasy.
Yes, and the reason Hinckley is such a crap deal is the risk attached. Were it guaranteed to be delivered on time and at full capacity, then there might be a case to be made for it, even at the nosebleed price we agreed. That there is still not a working example of the plant we are purchasing makes it absurd.
Ah, but there are two non-working examples!
Just so long as we don't make an offer for those as well...
To think that Barbara Castle never became leader of the Labour Party and yet we are seriously considering whether Emily Thornberry could become leader. Has the talent level really sunk that low?
I agree with this. One of the many problems in dealing with the EU is finding someone who can say yes (or no). That is the key to any successful negotiation and it is a key that is going to be hard to find.
Until now the default assumption was that the key holder was going to be Merkel but it is increasingly unclear if she will even be in office by the time these negotiations are completed.
This is another in a series of cases where the guy who could really have been helping the British is Jean-Claude Juncker, but unfortunately for a random historical reason they've made him into an enemy in their own minds.
Hinckley Point isn't about price, it's about capacity. The idea we could meet demand without new nuclear is pure fantasy.
Well given that HPC isn't due to begin power generation for a minimum of 8 years it stands to reason we're going to have to meet demand without it.
Eight years, Mr. Max? That is a bit optimistic, isn't it? Even EDF's own web site say it will take ten years to build and that is without over runs, which are probably inevitable. If EDF perform on this contract as they have on their two other EPR projects I doubt we will see any electricity from Hinkley C until about 2030.
On the subject of strike price I read this morning that the cost of electricity from Hinkley now stands at £97 per MWh (due to inflation since the original deal was signed) and God alone knows what it will be by the time the place comes on line. However, I also read that for offshore wind contracts already signed we are paying £140 - £150 per MWh.
Yes, but those were effectively subsidies to jump start offshore wind (though probably higher than they needed to be). The price of future deals will be significantly lower.
offshore wind strike price now roughly half Hinkley:
Hinckley Point isn't about price, it's about capacity. The idea we could meet demand without new nuclear is pure fantasy.
Well given that HPC isn't due to begin power generation for a minimum of 8 years it stands to reason we're going to have to meet demand without it.
Eight years, Mr. Max? That is a bit optimistic, isn't it? Even EDF's own web site say it will take ten years to build and that is without over runs, which are probably inevitable. If EDF perform on this contract as they have on their two other EPR projects I doubt we will see any electricity from Hinkley C until about 2030.
On the subject of strike price I read this morning that the cost of electricity from Hinkley now stands at £97 per MWh (due to inflation since the original deal was signed) and God alone knows what it will be by the time the place comes on line. However, I also read that for offshore wind contracts already signed we are paying £140 - £150 per MWh.
HPC's contract is inflation linked, while the wind contracts are fixed in absolute terms. If inflation runs at 2% a year, then when HPC comes on line then price gap will be less than 10%, and within about five years it'll be the more expensive option.
IIRC the non-nuclear strike price period starts from the contract being signed and normally last 15 years. If the generator delays building the plant, he will benefit from the strike price for a shorter period. The Hinkley Point strike price period starts on first production of electricity and lasts for 35 years. We could still be committed to it in 50 years time!
Hinckley Point isn't about price, it's about capacity. The idea we could meet demand without new nuclear is pure fantasy.
Well given that HPC isn't due to begin power generation for a minimum of 8 years it stands to reason we're going to have to meet demand without it.
Eight years, Mr. Max? That is a bit optimistic, isn't it? Even EDF's own web site say it will take ten years to build and that is without over runs, which are probably inevitable. If EDF perform on this contract as they have on their two other EPR projects I doubt we will see any electricity from Hinkley C until about 2030.
On the subject of strike price I read this morning that the cost of electricity from Hinkley now stands at £97 per MWh (due to inflation since the original deal was signed) and God alone knows what it will be by the time the place comes on line. However, I also read that for offshore wind contracts already signed we are paying £140 - £150 per MWh.
Yes, but those were effectively subsidies to jump start offshore wind (though probably higher than they needed to be). The price of future deals will be significantly lower.
offshore wind strike price now roughly half Hinkley:
'- That the polls for Labour are currently dreadful; the only recent comparable figures for an opposition at this stage are Hague in 1998 and IDS in 2002.'
And Kinnock in late 1988 /early 1989.
Who also lost in 1992, albeit that it took a change of Tory leader.
Indeed so - but Labour still performed a good deal better in April 1992 than polls were suggesting in late 1988 /early 1989.
A good reason for not reintroducing the poll tax and keeping interest rates below 15% and not engaging in internal battles over Europe, then. Well, two out of three isn't bad.
Hinckley Point isn't about price, it's about capacity. The idea we could meet demand without new nuclear is pure fantasy.
Well given that HPC isn't due to begin power generation for a minimum of 8 years it stands to reason we're going to have to meet demand without it.
Eight years, Mr. Max? That is a bit optimistic, isn't it? Even EDF's own web site say it will take ten years to build and that is without over runs, which are probably inevitable. If EDF perform on this contract as they have on their two other EPR projects I doubt we will see any electricity from Hinkley C until about 2030.
On the subject of strike price I read this morning that the cost of electricity from Hinkley now stands at £97 per MWh (due to inflation since the original deal was signed) and God alone knows what it will be by the time the place comes on line. However, I also read that for offshore wind contracts already signed we are paying £140 - £150 per MWh.
HPC's contract is inflation linked, while the wind contracts are fixed in absolute terms. If inflation runs at 2% a year, then when HPC comes on line then price gap will be less than 10%, and within about five years it'll be the more expensive option.
IIRC the non-nuclear strike price period starts from the contract being signed and normally last 15 years. If the generator delays building the plant, he will benefit from the strike price for a shorter period. The Hinkley Point strike price period starts on first production of electricity and lasts for 35 years. We could still be committed to it in 50 years time!
How cunning - so there actually is no incentive for the French or Chinese to get it up particularly quickly ?
In fact if interest rates are lower than inflation for the next 15 years...
"... I don't have ideological objections to nuclear power, but the economics are basket case ..."
Yes and, possibly, no. The UK has a huge stockpile of plutonium (I read somewhere the largest in the world) and we have no real plan for how to deal and with it. We are also adding to that stockpile every year and will continue to do so with reactors likely Hinkley C.
It may well be cheaper to develop the Moltex reactors to "burn" that plutonium, turning it into electricity, than to store it safely for the next n thousand years.
Indeed. It is thought the Nazis killing disabled children was one of civil servant Ralph Wigram's reasons for passing documents to Churchill during the wilderness years. Wigram's own child might have had Down's syndrome. Lawson sounds hysterical, though.
This is not infanticide like the nazis, it is abortion for foetal abnormalities. Indeed all ante-natal testing is based on the presumption of abortion if one is detected.
As abortion is legal in GB for significant foetal abnormalities, it makes sense to have better, safer, more reliable antenatal testing.
Oh well thats ok then. Providing we kill the disabled before they go through birth then we are all good compassionate liberals not nazis.
Glad we got that cleared up.
Humanities capacity not to see gross evil staring them in the face because it is convenient not to see it.
Actually I would not have a child of mine aborted, and I have not participated in abortions in my career.
However, I respect other people's views and do not want to impose my beliefs on them. The politicisation of abortion in the USA is something that I would not want to see here.
The problem with that approach (and I am not trying to personalise it) is that it is the job of doctors - and others - to stand up for the most vulnerable. A viable foetus has rights too: they don't just magically appear at tge moment of birth
Its not magic, those who are born have rights, those who haven't been born don't. What rights does someone have before they are born?
If someone attacks a pregnant women killing the viable foetus they get charged with the offence of Child Destruction. Ergo the foetus has legal rights.
And is also defined as a child in law before birth which ought to give pause for thought.
Hinckley Point isn't about price, it's about capacity. The idea we could meet demand without new nuclear is pure fantasy.
Well given that HPC isn't due to begin power generation for a minimum of 8 years it stands to reason we're going to have to meet demand without it.
Who is paying for the decommissioning at the end of the plant's lifetime btw ?
On wind, I'm now in favour - although AONBs should be avoided where possible for turbines... But in regular fields I have no issue with them.
The owners of the nuclear plant have to agree a plan with the government for decommissioning and long term storage of waste. That was part of original deal agreed with EDF. The plan will be revised over the lifetime of the plant and nominally means all known costs will be funded at all times duringthe project.
The government (ie the taxpayer) carries the risk though
"... I don't have ideological objections to nuclear power, but the economics are basket case ..."
Yes and, possibly, no. The UK has a huge stockpile of plutonium (I read somewhere the largest in the world) and we have no real plan for how to deal and with it. We are also adding to that stockpile every year and will continue to do so with reactors likely Hinkley C.
It may well be cheaper to develop the Moltex reactors to "burn" that plutonium, turning it into electricity, than to store it safely for the next n thousand years.
Please don't burn plutonium*.
* Yes, I know you weren't seriously suggesting that.
Isn't the point of nuclear to spread the risk away from one type of energy production ?
If the price of copper multiplies by 10 then wind turbine costs go up etc etc.
Put our energy supply eggs in a range of baskets and less chance of the lights going out - there is a premium for spreading that risk.
Well yes. Except that:
(a) Natural gas is now being exported by an increasingly large number of friendly countries, including the US, Australia, and Norway. (b) We have made staggering discoveries of gas in the last 15 years. (c) We actually have quite a lot of gas in the UK that is economic above $8/mmcf. (d) We're going to be adding a lot of intermittent power to the UK grid, with or without government involvement. This means that we should be paying a premium for flexibility.
I am appalled at the very sloppy commentary that has come from supposedly well informed journalists/pollsters regarding Corbyn's re election this year. This includes the latest Polling Blog where one of the speakers refers to Corbyn having won by a bigger margin compared with 2015. Norman Smith on the BBC said the same thing. The fact of the matters is that that is not true! This year he defeated Owen Smith 61.8% to 38.2% - a margin of 23.6%. Last year Corbyn received 59.5% whilst his nearest rival - Andy Burnham - polled just 19.0% - a margin of over 40%. Yes , Corbyn increased his vote share from 59.5% to 61.8% - but that is a different matter to the margin of victory! Moreover, polling 61.8% in a two-way contest is less impressive than 59.5% in a four -way election. There was no need to redistribute preferences in 2015 , but had that happened Corbyn would surely have beaten Burnham by 65% to 35%. He would probably have defeated Cooper by at least 67% to 33%. On that reasonable basis,therefore, Corbyn's position has weakened a bit on a like for like basis over the last year.Why do these commentators fail to work these things out?
Hinckley Point isn't about price, it's about capacity. The idea we could meet demand without new nuclear is pure fantasy.
OK. Some UK electricity facts.
Currently, UK electricity demand is 32.5GW. Demand peaks at a little over 40GW these days. (Overall demand has trended down for some time, for various reasons - better insulation, more efficient appliances, the move from incandescent to LED/CFL for lighting, the rise of laptops and end of traditional PCs, and a smaller industrial base.)
There are about 20GW of UK coal plants, which are largely sitting idle right now (3GW in on). Coal has been hammered by...
The rise of CCGTs (combined cycle gas turbines), which are (a) more efficient than coal plants, (b) cost less to build, (c) are more flexible/reliable, and (d) have much lower operational costs. Historically, the UK's gas plant was used to supply peaking power, but the collapse in the price of oil and gas has meant is has largely supplanted coal in the UK. There is just north of 20GW of CCGTs in the UK, although some older plants are currently mothballed. Right now, 17GW of CCGTs are on-line.
Wind currently tops out at just north of 7GW, but realistically runs in the 0.5-3GW range.
Nuclear is about a fifth of our generating capacity at just under 10GW installed. But, and here's the big but, nuclear is very rarely all available. Right now, about 75% of the UK's nuclear is on-line which is about par for the course. I would be extremely surprised (astounded really) if HPC's uptime matched our existing nuclear in its first five years of operation.
Now for the smaller parts of power generation: Hydro and pumped can provide up to 3GW of peaking power. Realistically, assuming that pumped storage is refilled every night, it can provide 1.5GW or so during every peak period.
Then there is biomass, which is a fairly constant 1.4GW (rising to 2GW when new builds are complete).
Finally, we have pure peaking: there are around 4GW of open cycle gas turbines (basically jet engines) that can step in in the case of emergencies, and another 1.5GW of oil fired power plant.
In theory, we have about 70GW of power plant. Even after retirements, and assuming the wind is not not blowing at all, we have about a 10GW of 'spare'. If you want to increase that, why not use a cheap, flexible power source like natural gas? (And if you're worried about security of supply, surely you're better off increasing the UK's indigenous gas supply rather than building expensive, unreliable nuclear.)
And how many nuclear plants are due to be decommissioned in the next 15 years? And how many wind farms would you need to replace them?
Comments
#UK Manufacturing #PMI rises to 55.4 in September. Highest reading since mid-2014 https://t.co/86g985T56B https://t.co/WxHDPnE80K
A fairly hard Brexit - or as I prefer to think of it, car crash Brexit - looks more likely than not.
I also have Lord's season tickets, and the tube is so much more convenient for work.
The final advantage is that the Ivy Cafe is opening on the High Street!
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Sunday said Hillary Clinton was "absolutely correct" in leaked comments about his supporters that she made at a fundraiser earlier this year.
In audio released last week by the Washington Free Beacon, Clinton described Sanders supporters as "children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents’ basement." She continued, "They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don’t see much of a future."
She said that because of those feelings, voters found the idea of a political revolution appealing, adding, "I think we all should be really understanding of that."
The teacher in the next bed went back to work the same afternoon. I lied to my boss and said I couldn't drive after twisting my ankle.
This was 20yrs ago.
And Kinnock in late 1988 /early 1989.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/02/cut-throat-competition-is-slashing-offshore-wind-costs-to-unthin/
The Danish giant Dong Energy stunned the industry in July by clinching an offshore deal in the Netherlands at a strike price of €72.5 per megawatt hour (MWh), half the sorts of levels agreed less than five years ago.
the project was quickly surpassed by an even cheaper bid of €60 per MWh by Vattenfalls in a Danish tender
Can someone remind me of the Hinkley Point strike price ?
The bulk of the negotiations could - and might well be - conducted between the representatives of the governments of Germany, France, Italy and Spain.
Ultimately, if the national governments want to cut Juncker out of it, they can. For it is they that would table them motion at the Council of Ministers. And only they who have a vote.
It appears there are liars, damn liars and PB Trumplings.
David Davis isn't*?
* the best deal or any deal at all because May and Hammond are the ones in charge?
I'm disgusted.
I thought this site was for political anoraks?
How can a thread on the next Labour leader have run this long without highlighting the obvious odds-on (if it was accurately priced) leader of the Labour party?
http://www.cityam.com/241715/shadow-city-minister-richard-burgons-out-of-office-email-reveals-that-he-cant-count
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/watch-labours-new-shadow-justice-secretary-turns-fellow-mps-momentum-rally/
http://order-order.com/2015/05/27/big-feartie-which-snp-mp-gassed-the-chamber/
I even did a thread on it.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/08/14/the-1001-bet-on-the-next-labour-leader-that-quite-a-few-of-us-have-taken-this-last-week/
* That's a top of the head number. I can't remember the exact one, so don't shoot be if I'm wrong.
That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
So we need to look at Article 218(3):
The Commission, or the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy where the agreement envisaged relates exclusively or principally to the common foreign and security policy, shall submit recommendations to the Council, which shall adopt a decision authorising the opening of negotiations and, depending on the subject of the agreement envisaged, nominating the Union negotiator or the head of the Union's negotiating team.
In other words, we'll be negotiating with multiple parties (Commission, EU Council of 27 countries, EU parliament), where the exact balance of power is unclear. To complicate things further, this overlays an existing tussle between the Commission and the Council.
To my mind this is one of the major risk factors of the whole Brexit process. It is quite possible that we may end up with a bad deal for both sides simply because the EU doesn't have the institutional capability of agreeing a good deal for itself.
Yes, Tusk, Merkal, Hollande and the rest cut cut Junker's boys out of the process but if they do, there'll need to be some other mechanism whereby the rEU can negotiate with the UK without it becoming unwieldly. A return to 3-state-troikas, perhaps?
I had no idea Mill House was so enormous.
https://twitter.com/Independent/status/782880410854387713
Bear in mind: This is the Article 50 Exit Agreement , which is still nominally an internal EU negotiation. But it's not clear that Didier Seeuws will act as an honest broker on behalf of all EU countries including the UK for the present. Any treaty negotiations after leaving will involve the EU Commission (Juncker's peeople) as well as the EU Council and Parliament and will be much slower.
Were it guaranteed to be delivered on time and at full capacity, then there might be a case to be made for it, even at the nosebleed price we agreed. That there is still not a working example of the plant we are purchasing makes it absurd.
On wind, I'm now in favour - although AONBs should be avoided where possible for turbines... But in regular fields I have no issue with them.
Tory MP says boundary review will not fix Britain's broken voting system – and only PR will
Exclusive: Ben Howlett said the party should embrace PR to complete its modernisation process
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/proportional-representation-electoral-reform-ben-howlett-pr-make-vote-matter-a7341986.html
Dont put the new fiver in the tumble dryer.... #handytip https://t.co/U7hXrzFLE5
https://twitter.com/tradegovuk/status/782860452325982208
Currently, UK electricity demand is 32.5GW. Demand peaks at a little over 40GW these days. (Overall demand has trended down for some time, for various reasons - better insulation, more efficient appliances, the move from incandescent to LED/CFL for lighting, the rise of laptops and end of traditional PCs, and a smaller industrial base.)
There are about 20GW of UK coal plants, which are largely sitting idle right now (3GW in on). Coal has been hammered by...
The rise of CCGTs (combined cycle gas turbines), which are (a) more efficient than coal plants, (b) cost less to build, (c) are more flexible/reliable, and (d) have much lower operational costs. Historically, the UK's gas plant was used to supply peaking power, but the collapse in the price of oil and gas has meant is has largely supplanted coal in the UK. There is just north of 20GW of CCGTs in the UK, although some older plants are currently mothballed. Right now, 17GW of CCGTs are on-line.
Wind currently tops out at just north of 7GW, but realistically runs in the 0.5-3GW range.
Nuclear is about a fifth of our generating capacity at just under 10GW installed. But, and here's the big but, nuclear is very rarely all available. Right now, about 75% of the UK's nuclear is on-line which is about par for the course. I would be extremely surprised (astounded really) if HPC's uptime matched our existing nuclear in its first five years of operation.
Now for the smaller parts of power generation: Hydro and pumped can provide up to 3GW of peaking power. Realistically, assuming that pumped storage is refilled every night, it can provide 1.5GW or so during every peak period.
Then there is biomass, which is a fairly constant 1.4GW (rising to 2GW when new builds are complete).
Finally, we have pure peaking: there are around 4GW of open cycle gas turbines (basically jet engines) that can step in in the case of emergencies, and another 1.5GW of oil fired power plant.
In theory, we have about 70GW of power plant. Even after retirements, and assuming the wind is not not blowing at all, we have about a 10GW of 'spare'. If you want to increase that, why not use a cheap, flexible power source like natural gas? (And if you're worried about security of supply, surely you're better off increasing the UK's indigenous gas supply rather than building expensive, unreliable nuclear.)
On the subject of strike price I read this morning that the cost of electricity from Hinkley now stands at £97 per MWh (due to inflation since the original deal was signed) and God alone knows what it will be by the time the place comes on line. However, I also read that for offshore wind contracts already signed we are paying £140 - £150 per MWh.
Tory Fewer
Lab Fewer
SNP Fewer
UKIP, Green, Lib Dem all more.
I don't have ideological objections to nuclear power, but the economics are basket case and have been ever since Margaret Thatcher privatised energy production.
Until now the default assumption was that the key holder was going to be Merkel but it is increasingly unclear if she will even be in office by the time these negotiations are completed.
How does the UK deal with this ineptitude? I think by setting out broad and simple heads of agreement as quickly as possible accepting that the detail may well be sorted out long after the UK has left. So we should:
* make formal proposals along the lines Davis was talking about yesterday accepting that EU citizens already here will have indefinite leave to remain and so do UK citizens in the EU.
*Push for tariff free trade in goods and services between the UK and the EU.
* Be clear that we will not be a part of the EU Customs Union.
* Confirm that we will continue to co-operate on all security and defence related matters by either remaining a part of existing agreements or signing the equivalent.
*Be open to any further proposals for continued co-operation and co-ordination that the EU wants to make.
If we get bogged down in detail with someone who has to constantly check back to others we will get absolutely nowhere.
https://twitter.com/matt_dathan/status/782888676821008384
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/691055087377059840?ref_src=twsrc^tfw
Labour dont have any Future, not as a Party that matters. Their Future is to join the "Ragbag", UKIP, PC, The Greens etc.
and hasn't aged since !
Just so long as we don't make an offer for those as well...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/02/cut-throat-competition-is-slashing-offshore-wind-costs-to-unthin/
Although this may be a temporary freak of the market.
Mr. Eagles, I have a vague memory of Caesar annoying people by wearing red boots, reputedly the footwear of kings.
In fact if interest rates are lower than inflation for the next 15 years...
"... I don't have ideological objections to nuclear power, but the economics are basket case ..."
Yes and, possibly, no. The UK has a huge stockpile of plutonium (I read somewhere the largest in the world) and we have no real plan for how to deal and with it. We are also adding to that stockpile every year and will continue to do so with reactors likely Hinkley C.
It may well be cheaper to develop the Moltex reactors to "burn" that plutonium, turning it into electricity, than to store it safely for the next n thousand years.
Simples.
If the price of copper multiplies by 10 then wind turbine costs go up etc etc.
Put our energy supply eggs in a range of baskets and less chance of the lights going out - there is a premium for spreading that risk.
And is also defined as a child in law before birth which ought to give pause for thought.
The government (ie the taxpayer) carries the risk though
* Yes, I know you weren't seriously suggesting that.
Clinton 42
Trump 35
Key: Poll shows some millennials and indys moving to her from Johnson
(a) Natural gas is now being exported by an increasingly large number of friendly countries, including the US, Australia, and Norway.
(b) We have made staggering discoveries of gas in the last 15 years.
(c) We actually have quite a lot of gas in the UK that is economic above $8/mmcf.
(d) We're going to be adding a lot of intermittent power to the UK grid, with or without government involvement. This means that we should be paying a premium for flexibility.