Skip to content
Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Blow for Change UK as it tried to complete formalities ahead o

SystemSystem Posts: 12,598
edited April 2019 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Blow for Change UK as it tried to complete formalities ahead of the possible May Euro elections

It has just been reported that the new party, change UK, has had its party logo rejected by the Electoral Commission on the grounds that it could “mislead voters”.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,534
    Amateur hour.....
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,627
    edited April 2019
    First, Second, still unlike the Tories in the EU elections.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,627
    edited April 2019
    Deleted as superfluous.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,534
    edited April 2019
    "Let's change the system by, er....sending MEPs to Brussels...."
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,629
    Benpointer said:

    First, Second, still unlike the Tories in the EU elections.

    Fifth, like the Tories in the EU elections. :p
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,627
    How can a new party have a sufficiently well known logo?
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,069
    6th like Spurs when I get back from holibobs .... (pls no)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,197
    Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said talks with the government are stalling due to a Tory desire for post-Brexit deregulation including pursuing a US trade deal, a sign that the cordial tone of the negotiations is faltering.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/16/brexit-talks-with-government-have-stalled-says-corbyn
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Benpointer said:

    How can a new party have a sufficiently well known logo?

    Cunning, isn't it?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    TIG started well, but have since made a number of unforced errors. I appreciate that the Euros were generally unexpected, but they are below critical mass to do anything other than badly.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 35,627
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said talks with the government are stalling due to a Tory desire for post-Brexit deregulation including pursuing a US trade deal, a sign that the cordial tone of the negotiations is faltering.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/16/brexit-talks-with-government-have-stalled-says-corbyn

    Also a canny move by Jezza. What proportion of the population are genuinely up for a post-Brexit deregulation spree? Not top of most people's list I would guess.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Benpointer said:

    How can a new party have a sufficiently well known logo?

    Cunning, isn't it?
    It seems that the hashtag was perhaps the bigger problem - they can't promise or control what it might point to in future.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    edited April 2019
    Jonathan said:

    TIG started well, but have since made a number of unforced errors. I appreciate that the Euros were generally unexpected, but they are below critical mass to do anything other than badly.

    That's fair, but also they may have been kiboshed by Tom Watson's rapid counter-offensive of creating TIG-within-Labour to head off further defections.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 9,039
    Jonathan said:

    TIG started well, but have since made a number of unforced errors. I appreciate that the Euros were generally unexpected, but they are below critical mass to do anything other than badly.

    Yes, they really need to beat the Lib Dems here (given that they've decided not to ally with them). That might be close.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,194
    I reckon that TIG will only get one MEP elected.

    Then in their acceptance speech they can say:

    "The wonderful thing about Tiggers is I'm the only one!"

    (Sorry)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,250
    SandyRentool said:

    I reckon that TIG will only get one MEP elected.

    Then in their acceptance speech they can say:

    "The wonderful thing about Tiggers is I'm the only one!"

    (Sorry)

    One in the South East, for sure, and perhaps one in London.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,194
    Chuka might look the part, but Farage is teaching him and his fellow-travellers a serious lesson on how to go about setting up a new political party.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    Is "Chuka's Party" available ?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,076
    Benpointer said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said talks with the government are stalling due to a Tory desire for post-Brexit deregulation including pursuing a US trade deal, a sign that the cordial tone of the negotiations is faltering.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/16/brexit-talks-with-government-have-stalled-says-corbyn

    Also a canny move by Jezza. What proportion of the population are genuinely up for a post-Brexit deregulation spree? Not top of most people's list I would guess.
    No. Precisely. The uber Thatcherites think the rest of the population wants to live in their fantasy Ayn Rand land of mass deregulation, environmental collapse and zero hours for all. They'll find eventually people don't.

    In fact they very much like stuff like the social chapter on holidays.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,194
    Sean_F said:

    SandyRentool said:

    I reckon that TIG will only get one MEP elected.

    Then in their acceptance speech they can say:

    "The wonderful thing about Tiggers is I'm the only one!"

    (Sorry)

    One in the South East, for sure, and perhaps one in London.
    I was thinking London, but yes the number of seats in the south east sets a very low bar for success. Even the LibDems got over the line last time.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    'A spokesperson for the Commission said: "The emblem contained a hashtag, and we cannot assess the material linked to a hashtag, which will change over time, against the legal tests.

    “The emblem also contained the acronym TIG, which we were not satisfied was sufficiently well known."'

    From the link. "Not sufficiently well known" is a weird objection, since it would presumably damage tig and no one else; its not like being too similar to an existing logo. Also most people would have informally run their design past the Commision with a week in hand.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,076
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Benpointer said:

    How can a new party have a sufficiently well known logo?

    Cunning, isn't it?
    Presumably by this logic the Brexit party logo is well known?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,948
    Will the new SDP be standing and how is that not confusing?

    The clearly pro Remain parties not forming a one off alliance is bonkers (I appreciate it may have been hard in the time available)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,668
    OT, but very interesting and detailed paper on what it would take to achieve 100% renewable generation by 2050.
    http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/EWG_LUT_100RE_All_Sectors_Global_Report_2019.pdf
    Electrification across all energy sectors is inevitable (see Figure KF-1) and is more resource efficient than the current system. Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors. Final energy fuel consumption is reduced by more than 2/3 (68%) from 2015 numbers, as fossil fuels are phased out completely and remaining fuels are either electricity-based or biofuels. Electricity will constitute for more than 90% of the primary energy demand in 2050. This electrification results in massive energy efficiency gains when compared to a low electrification trajectory (see KF-1). Almost all of the renewable energy supply will come from local and regional generation....

    Briefly skimming the assumptions in their model, which appear in the appendices at the end, they do not seem to have made any heroic assumptions about any of the technologies involved (all of which are currently demonstrable).

    The biggest assumption seems to be the political policy lead involved - though given the compelling economic case, even that might be feasible.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,512
    It's a picture of Toad having an argument with Ratty...

    Oh...ummm...sorry. Easy mistake to make...
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,800
    Jonathan said:

    TIG started well, but have since made a number of unforced errors. I appreciate that the Euros were generally unexpected, but they are below critical mass to do anything other than badly.

    The only real way they can now make progress is with a merger with the Lib dems to create a proper 'centrist/centre left' party. Fishing in the same pool will leave everyone with nothing.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,629
    rottenborough said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Benpointer said:

    How can a new party have a sufficiently well known logo?

    Cunning, isn't it?
    Presumably by this logic the Brexit party logo is well known?
    Isn't it just the name of the party? The problem with ChUK's logo is that it isn't.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,718
    rottenborough said:

    Benpointer said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said talks with the government are stalling due to a Tory desire for post-Brexit deregulation including pursuing a US trade deal, a sign that the cordial tone of the negotiations is faltering.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/16/brexit-talks-with-government-have-stalled-says-corbyn

    Also a canny move by Jezza. What proportion of the population are genuinely up for a post-Brexit deregulation spree? Not top of most people's list I would guess.
    No. Precisely. The uber Thatcherites think the rest of the population wants to live in their fantasy Ayn Rand land of mass deregulation, environmental collapse and zero hours for all. They'll find eventually people don't.

    In fact they very much like stuff like the social chapter on holidays.
    It’s a consequence of Leave leaders not actually having worked out what the point of Leave is.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    Having their logo rejected sounds like a blessing in disguise. New parties with low brand recognition need a logo that captures in less than a second's viewing who they are and, broadly, what they stand for.

    The unkind might argue that the complete mix and muddle described in the submitted logo does indeed capture what the ChUKkers are about but that would be an unfortunate irony rather than an intended piece of marketing.

    In the first instance, with no time to get the logo well-known, I'd suggest that they'd be best off superimposing black capitals 'CHANGE' over an outline of Britain.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,948
    kjh said:

    Will the new SDP be standing and how is that not confusing?

    The clearly pro Remain parties not forming a one off alliance is bonkers (I appreciate it may have been hard in the time available)

    In answer to my own question before booking myself into the home for the bewildered:

    No

    And it is not a new party.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1118153178325950464
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 67,076
    RobD said:

    rottenborough said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Benpointer said:

    How can a new party have a sufficiently well known logo?

    Cunning, isn't it?
    Presumably by this logic the Brexit party logo is well known?
    Isn't it just the name of the party? The problem with ChUK's logo is that it isn't.
    No, it has a light blue arrow (i.e. a sort of exit symbol).

    Maybe they aren't bothering to use the logo on the ballot.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    Jonathan said:

    TIG started well, but have since made a number of unforced errors. I appreciate that the Euros were generally unexpected, but they are below critical mass to do anything other than badly.

    The Euros were an entirely plausible scenario, and the locals a nailed-on certainty.

    As soon as they left their previous parties, they should have registered a new group. Instead, they seemed to take two months to realise that they'd taken an irrevocable step, couldn't go back and unless they were all happy to stand down at the next GE (possibly only weeks away), they'd need to organise as a party.

    That lost time was critical as a reason for some of the errors being made now.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Good afternoon, my fellow Martians.

    Bit weird. Going for Change UK (which is a daft name) and then trying to stick to the TIG line for the logo.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,194
    Nigelb said:

    OT, but very interesting and detailed paper on what it would take to achieve 100% renewable generation by 2050.
    http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/EWG_LUT_100RE_All_Sectors_Global_Report_2019.pdf
    Electrification across all energy sectors is inevitable (see Figure KF-1) and is more resource efficient than the current system. Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors. Final energy fuel consumption is reduced by more than 2/3 (68%) from 2015 numbers, as fossil fuels are phased out completely and remaining fuels are either electricity-based or biofuels. Electricity will constitute for more than 90% of the primary energy demand in 2050. This electrification results in massive energy efficiency gains when compared to a low electrification trajectory (see KF-1). Almost all of the renewable energy supply will come from local and regional generation....

    Briefly skimming the assumptions in their model, which appear in the appendices at the end, they do not seem to have made any heroic assumptions about any of the technologies involved (all of which are currently demonstrable).

    The biggest assumption seems to be the political policy lead involved - though given the compelling economic case, even that might be feasible.

    Thanks for the link.

    "Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors"

    This is quite an assumption - if we make use of hydrogen to decarbonise heating, then the growth in demand for electricity will not be quite so dramatic.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited April 2019
    Tissue_Price said:

    Jonathan said:

    TIG started well, but have since made a number of unforced errors. I appreciate that the Euros were generally unexpected, but they are below critical mass to do anything other than badly.

    Yes, they really need to beat the Lib Dems here (given that they've decided not to ally with them). That might be close.
    Like I said the other day, I think the Greens will beat both the Tiggers and the Lib Dems.

    I feel like people (regardless of how they voted in the referendum) are just exasperated by the whole of "Westminster", so will be looking for the easiest way of protesting against the whole system, like in the 2009 Euro elections after the expenses scandal. Unfortunately for the LDs, despite having so few MPs, they'll still probably be grouped as part of "Westminster" (again like in the expenses scandal), in a way that the Greens won't be.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 10,082
    kjh said:

    Will the new SDP be standing and how is that not confusing?

    The clearly pro Remain parties not forming a one off alliance is bonkers (I appreciate it may have been hard in the time available)

    Any alliance whether LibDem/TIG or UKIP/Brexit woule have to agree who would top the alliance's list - and the order of subsequent names.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,442
    Why will TIG not pick up a ton of Remainer votes in the Euros? Can't see the point of them if they don't.
  • TrèsDifficileTrèsDifficile Posts: 1,729
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good afternoon, my fellow Martians.

    Bit weird. Going for Change UK (which is a daft name) and then trying to stick to the TIG line for the logo.

    I thought their name was now Change UK The Independent Group?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,629
    edited April 2019
    rottenborough said:

    RobD said:

    rottenborough said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Benpointer said:

    How can a new party have a sufficiently well known logo?

    Cunning, isn't it?
    Presumably by this logic the Brexit party logo is well known?
    Isn't it just the name of the party? The problem with ChUK's logo is that it isn't.
    No, it has a light blue arrow (i.e. a sort of exit symbol).

    Maybe they aren't bothering to use the logo on the ballot.
    It literally has the words Brexit Party on it.

    https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/2019/04/12/11/brexit-party-launch-9.jpg
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    Slackbladder said:

    Jonathan said:

    TIG started well, but have since made a number of unforced errors. I appreciate that the Euros were generally unexpected, but they are below critical mass to do anything other than badly.

    The only real way they can now make progress is with a merger with the Lib dems to create a proper 'centrist/centre left' party. Fishing in the same pool will leave everyone with nothing.
    That's true, but it only really works as a Change takeover, which means it has to be a merger from a position of strength. If the ChUKkers wanted to end up with the Lib Dems, they'd have just defected direct. They don't want to be tainted by that brand, which means that a genuine merger has to marry Lib Dem activist and data strengths, with ChUK electoral appeal and MPs/MEPs.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    kjh said:

    Will the new SDP be standing and how is that not confusing?

    The clearly pro Remain parties not forming a one off alliance is bonkers (I appreciate it may have been hard in the time available)

    Sdp have stated they do not consider the euros valid and are not standing.
    Their MEP oflynn will stand in Peterborough if theres a by election
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    MikeSmithson said:

    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1118153178325950464

    Harris and Warren neck-and-neck, yet Harris was last matched at 5.8 on Betfair, and Warren at 28.0. I don't get it.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Mr. Difficile, a fair correction, though if the Conservatives had UP in their logo it'd seem odd too.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,874
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1118153178325950464

    Harris and Warren neck-and-neck, yet Harris was last matched at 5.8 on Betfair, and Warren at 28.0. I don't get it.
    Will we get Lake and Palmer polls too ?
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Pulpstar said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1118153178325950464

    Harris and Warren neck-and-neck, yet Harris was last matched at 5.8 on Betfair, and Warren at 28.0. I don't get it.
    Will we get Lake and Palmer polls too ?
    Only 33% of them believe in Father Christmas
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1118153178325950464

    Harris and Warren neck-and-neck, yet Harris was last matched at 5.8 on Betfair, and Warren at 28.0. I don't get it.
    Kamala Harris still looking very much like 2020's version of Jeb Bush.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    Pulpstar said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1118153178325950464

    Harris and Warren neck-and-neck, yet Harris was last matched at 5.8 on Betfair, and Warren at 28.0. I don't get it.
    Will we get Lake and Palmer polls too ?
    Warren should be doing better based on recognition. It's not about where you are, it's where you are going.

    However Harris is definitely too short.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,668
    SandyRentool said:

    Nigelb said:

    OT, but very interesting and detailed paper on what it would take to achieve 100% renewable generation by 2050.
    http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/EWG_LUT_100RE_All_Sectors_Global_Report_2019.pdf
    Electrification across all energy sectors is inevitable (see Figure KF-1) and is more resource efficient than the current system. Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors. Final energy fuel consumption is reduced by more than 2/3 (68%) from 2015 numbers, as fossil fuels are phased out completely and remaining fuels are either electricity-based or biofuels. Electricity will constitute for more than 90% of the primary energy demand in 2050. This electrification results in massive energy efficiency gains when compared to a low electrification trajectory (see KF-1). Almost all of the renewable energy supply will come from local and regional generation....

    Briefly skimming the assumptions in their model, which appear in the appendices at the end, they do not seem to have made any heroic assumptions about any of the technologies involved (all of which are currently demonstrable).

    The biggest assumption seems to be the political policy lead involved - though given the compelling economic case, even that might be feasible.

    Thanks for the link.

    "Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors"

    This is quite an assumption - if we make use of hydrogen to decarbonise heating, then the growth in demand for electricity will not be quite so dramatic.
    We won't, as the infrastructure required to distribute and burn it would be prohibitively expensive - synthesised methane would do the job more cheaply.
    Syngas, as a means of energy storage/distribution is in the model in any event - but requires electricity for its production.

    Heat pumps are in the main a cheaper option.
  • TheWhiteRabbitTheWhiteRabbit Posts: 12,455
    Danny565 said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1118153178325950464

    Harris and Warren neck-and-neck, yet Harris was last matched at 5.8 on Betfair, and Warren at 28.0. I don't get it.
    Kamala Harris still looking very much like 2020's version of Jeb Bush.
    Question is whether she is Bush or Rubio, depending on for how long people cling to the idea they will win
  • Animal_pbAnimal_pb Posts: 608
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Difficile, a fair correction, though if the Conservatives had UP in their logo it'd seem odd too.

    Unless it was preceded by "F*CK"
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Doesn't that require a Democrat Trump, though?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,512
    edited April 2019
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Difficile, a fair correction, though if the Conservatives had UP in their logo it'd seem odd too.

    They would certainly spill votes if they were CUPs....

    Although it could be worse. They might be the Tory and Unionist Party. Then they would be completely screwed...
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,940
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has said talks with the government are stalling due to a Tory desire for post-Brexit deregulation including pursuing a US trade deal, a sign that the cordial tone of the negotiations is faltering.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/apr/16/brexit-talks-with-government-have-stalled-says-corbyn

    laughable

    if the bozos in government are struggling to agree with the EU what on earth makes them think they will progress with the maelstrom that is Trump ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,668
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Danny565 said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1118153178325950464

    Harris and Warren neck-and-neck, yet Harris was last matched at 5.8 on Betfair, and Warren at 28.0. I don't get it.
    Kamala Harris still looking very much like 2020's version of Jeb Bush.
    Question is whether she is Bush or Rubio, depending on for how long people cling to the idea they will win
    The trouble with comparisons like that is that she might well be neither.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    That's an unfortunate picture of Anna Soubry (on the politicshome article)
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 86,197
    Because of Brexit? Or Despite Brexit?

    Nissan announces layoff of 600 workers in Catalonia
    No deal with unions after four meetings; promised investment of 70 million euro up in the air

    http://www.catalannews.com/business/item/nissan-announces-layoff-of-600-workers-in-catalonia
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Mr. Brooke, be fair. Blaming the US is Corbyn's first response to most things.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Does anyone think UKIP could get more votes than Farage's new party, simply through name recognition? A lot of people probably think Farage is still UKIP leader.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    SandyRentool said:

    Nigelb said:

    OT, but very interesting and detailed paper on what it would take to achieve 100% renewable generation by 2050.
    http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/EWG_LUT_100RE_All_Sectors_Global_Report_2019.pdf
    Electrification across all energy sectors is inevitable (see Figure KF-1) and is more resource efficient than the current system. Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors. Final energy fuel consumption is reduced by more than 2/3 (68%) from 2015 numbers, as fossil fuels are phased out completely and remaining fuels are either electricity-based or biofuels. Electricity will constitute for more than 90% of the primary energy demand in 2050. This electrification results in massive energy efficiency gains when compared to a low electrification trajectory (see KF-1). Almost all of the renewable energy supply will come from local and regional generation....

    Briefly skimming the assumptions in their model, which appear in the appendices at the end, they do not seem to have made any heroic assumptions about any of the technologies involved (all of which are currently demonstrable).

    The biggest assumption seems to be the political policy lead involved - though given the compelling economic case, even that might be feasible.

    Thanks for the link.

    "Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors"

    This is quite an assumption - if we make use of hydrogen to decarbonise heating, then the growth in demand for electricity will not be quite so dramatic.
    Won't we need electricity to get hydrogen?
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    AndyJS said:

    Does anyone think UKIP could get more votes than Farage's new party, simply through name recognition? A lot of people probably think Farage is still UKIP leader.

    Not a chance imo. UKIP will wither on the vine
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,194
    Nigelb said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Nigelb said:

    OT, but very interesting and detailed paper on what it would take to achieve 100% renewable generation by 2050.
    http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/EWG_LUT_100RE_All_Sectors_Global_Report_2019.pdf
    Electrification across all energy sectors is inevitable (see Figure KF-1) and is more resource efficient than the current system. Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors. Final energy fuel consumption is reduced by more than 2/3 (68%) from 2015 numbers, as fossil fuels are phased out completely and remaining fuels are either electricity-based or biofuels. Electricity will constitute for more than 90% of the primary energy demand in 2050. This electrification results in massive energy efficiency gains when compared to a low electrification trajectory (see KF-1). Almost all of the renewable energy supply will come from local and regional generation....

    Briefly skimming the assumptions in their model, which appear in the appendices at the end, they do not seem to have made any heroic assumptions about any of the technologies involved (all of which are currently demonstrable).

    The biggest assumption seems to be the political policy lead involved - though given the compelling economic case, even that might be feasible.

    Thanks for the link.

    "Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors"

    This is quite an assumption - if we make use of hydrogen to decarbonise heating, then the growth in demand for electricity will not be quite so dramatic.
    We won't, as the infrastructure required to distribute and burn it would be prohibitively expensive - synthesised methane would do the job more cheaply.
    Syngas, as a means of energy storage/distribution is in the model in any event - but requires electricity for its production.

    Heat pumps are in the main a cheaper option.
    Heat pumps are great for new buildings with high spec thermal insulation. For older buildings - most of which have a gas supply - converting the gas distribution system to hydrogen is a viable means to decarbonise heat. Appliances would need modification or replacement, but we did that once already when we switched from towns gas to natural gas. Producing hydrogen from natural gas (or coal) with carbon capture is viable at very large scale - bioSNG would be more costly and need a heck of a lot of biomass.

    Google search: h21 north of england hydrogen
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,668
    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1118153178325950464

    Harris and Warren neck-and-neck, yet Harris was last matched at 5.8 on Betfair, and Warren at 28.0. I don't get it.
    Will we get Lake and Palmer polls too ?
    Warren should be doing better based on recognition. It's not about where you are, it's where you are going.

    However Harris is definitely too short.
    The other point is that Warren has burned through most of the cash she raised in the first quarter, apparently to little effect so far, whereas Harris and Buttigieg have kept most of what they raised.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,194
    edited April 2019
    david_herdson said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Nigelb said:

    OT, but very interesting and detailed paper on what it would take to achieve 100% renewable generation by 2050.
    http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/EWG_LUT_100RE_All_Sectors_Global_Report_2019.pdf
    Electrification across all energy sectors is inevitable (see Figure KF-1) and is more resource efficient than the current system. Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors. Final energy fuel consumption is reduced by more than 2/3 (68%) from 2015 numbers, as fossil fuels are phased out completely and remaining fuels are either electricity-based or biofuels. Electricity will constitute for more than 90% of the primary energy demand in 2050. This electrification results in massive energy efficiency gains when compared to a low electrification trajectory (see KF-1). Almost all of the renewable energy supply will come from local and regional generation....

    Briefly skimming the assumptions in their model, which appear in the appendices at the end, they do not seem to have made any heroic assumptions about any of the technologies involved (all of which are currently demonstrable).

    The biggest assumption seems to be the political policy lead involved - though given the compelling economic case, even that might be feasible.

    Thanks for the link.

    "Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors"

    This is quite an assumption - if we make use of hydrogen to decarbonise heating, then the growth in demand for electricity will not be quite so dramatic.
    Won't we need electricity to get hydrogen?
    Electrolysis is one route. Reforming/gasification of hydrocarbons (with carbon capture) is more scalable.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    MikeSmithson said:

    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1118153178325950464

    MoE more than 5%!, sample sub-400.

    While the trends are certainly worth noting, they also need to be taken with a large dollop of caution.

    (But how does Mike Gravel get *anyone* supporting him, with so many other candidates in the field?!)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,097
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Good afternoon, my fellow Martians.

    Bit weird. Going for Change UK (which is a daft name) and then trying to stick to the TIG line for the logo.

    I’m going to guess that they tried to register The Independent Group as the party name, and the Electoral Commission told them to get lost, as “Independent” is a reserved word for candidates of no party affiliation standing in elections. Hence “Change UK” as the party name, or “the EU’s cucks, if you’re Nigel Farage.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,362
    david_herdson said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Nigelb said:

    OT, but very interesting and detailed paper on what it would take to achieve 100% renewable generation by 2050.
    http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/EWG_LUT_100RE_All_Sectors_Global_Report_2019.pdf
    Electrification across all energy sectors is inevitable (see Figure KF-1) and is more resource efficient than the current system. Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors. Final energy fuel consumption is reduced by more than 2/3 (68%) from 2015 numbers, as fossil fuels are phased out completely and remaining fuels are either electricity-based or biofuels. Electricity will constitute for more than 90% of the primary energy demand in 2050. This electrification results in massive energy efficiency gains when compared to a low electrification trajectory (see KF-1). Almost all of the renewable energy supply will come from local and regional generation....

    Briefly skimming the assumptions in their model, which appear in the appendices at the end, they do not seem to have made any heroic assumptions about any of the technologies involved (all of which are currently demonstrable).

    The biggest assumption seems to be the political policy lead involved - though given the compelling economic case, even that might be feasible.

    Thanks for the link.

    "Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors"

    This is quite an assumption - if we make use of hydrogen to decarbonise heating, then the growth in demand for electricity will not be quite so dramatic.
    Won't we need electricity to get hydrogen?
    Yup. And unless they've repealed those pesky thermodynamics laws, the amount of heat and energy required to produce the electricity to get the hydrogen is far greater than the heat and electricity saved by the hydrogen that you got. Unless we get it from the nearest free source of course, which is (thinks for a minute) the outer gas giant planets.

    Pause.

    Ok, that's not gonna work... :)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,629
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Because of Brexit? Or Despite Brexit?

    Nissan announces layoff of 600 workers in Catalonia
    No deal with unions after four meetings; promised investment of 70 million euro up in the air

    http://www.catalannews.com/business/item/nissan-announces-layoff-of-600-workers-in-catalonia

    UK job losses are all to do with Brexit, EU job losses have nothing to do with Brexit. Got it?
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,218
    No surprise that the Brexit-supporting elite should use its servants within the bureaucracy to hamper Brexit's enemies. The establishment won't have a word said against Brexit. Brexit's advocates all went to the top schools and universities, of course, so perish the thought that anyone might think Brexit was mistaken.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,668
    edited April 2019
    SandyRentool said:

    Nigelb said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Nigelb said:

    OT, but very interesting and detailed paper on what it would take to achieve 100% renewable generation by 2050.
    http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/EWG_LUT_100RE_All_Sectors_Global_Report_2019.pdf

    Briefly skimming the assumptions in their model, which appear in the appendices at the end, they do not seem to have made any heroic assumptions about any of the technologies involved (all of which are currently demonstrable).

    The biggest assumption seems to be the political policy lead involved - though given the compelling economic case, even that might be feasible.

    Thanks for the link.

    "Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors"

    This is quite an assumption - if we make use of hydrogen to decarbonise heating, then the growth in demand for electricity will not be quite so dramatic.
    We won't, as the infrastructure required to distribute and burn it would be prohibitively expensive - synthesised methane would do the job more cheaply.
    Syngas, as a means of energy storage/distribution is in the model in any event - but requires electricity for its production.

    Heat pumps are in the main a cheaper option.
    Heat pumps are great for new buildings with high spec thermal insulation. For older buildings - most of which have a gas supply - converting the gas distribution system to hydrogen is a viable means to decarbonise heat. Appliances would need modification or replacement, but we did that once already when we switched from towns gas to natural gas. Producing hydrogen from natural gas (or coal) with carbon capture is viable at very large scale - bioSNG would be more costly and need a heck of a lot of biomass.

    Google search: h21 north of england hydrogen
    I don't think you can reliably distribute hydrogen over the existing gas network ?

    In any event, that is hardly of importance to the major world population centres in 2050 - Asia and Africa.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,948
    logical_song said:

    kjh said:

    Will the new SDP be standing and how is that not confusing?

    The clearly pro Remain parties not forming a one off alliance is bonkers (I appreciate it may have been hard in the time available)

    Any alliance whether LibDem/TIG or UKIP/Brexit woule have to agree who would top the alliance's list - and the order of subsequent names.
    yes that clearly is a problem
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,097
    edited April 2019
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Because of Brexit? Or Despite Brexit?

    Nissan announces layoff of 600 workers in Catalonia
    No deal with unions after four meetings; promised investment of 70 million euro up in the air

    http://www.catalannews.com/business/item/nissan-announces-layoff-of-600-workers-in-catalonia

    Because of the EU/Japan trade deal.

    That’s what happens when you have the EU collectively negotiate your trade deals. They end up being massively in favour of German and French industry, while screwing everyone else. Why does anyone think a customs union with the EU after we’ve left would be anything but an abysmal idea?
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    "Betting odds continue to point towards a sweeping Labor victory, even as intelligence from both sides of politics suggests a much tighter contest."

    https://www.pollbludger.net
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,512
    Sandpit said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Because of Brexit? Or Despite Brexit?

    Nissan announces layoff of 600 workers in Catalonia
    No deal with unions after four meetings; promised investment of 70 million euro up in the air

    http://www.catalannews.com/business/item/nissan-announces-layoff-of-600-workers-in-catalonia

    Because of the EU/Japan trade deal.

    That’s what happens when you have the EU collectively negotiate your trade deals. They end up being massively in favour of German and French industry, while screwing everyone else. Why does anyone think a customs union with the EU after we’ve left would be anything but an abysmal idea?
    Because all other current options seem to lead either to economic catastrophe, or to no say on anything, or to a war in Ireland, which would be much worse ideas.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,629
    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Because of Brexit? Or Despite Brexit?

    Nissan announces layoff of 600 workers in Catalonia
    No deal with unions after four meetings; promised investment of 70 million euro up in the air

    http://www.catalannews.com/business/item/nissan-announces-layoff-of-600-workers-in-catalonia

    Because of the EU/Japan trade deal.

    That’s what happens when you have the EU collectively negotiate your trade deals. They end up being massively in favour of German and French industry, while screwing everyone else. Why does anyone think a customs union with the EU after we’ve left would be anything but an abysmal idea?
    Because all other current options seem to lead either to economic catastrophe, or to no say on anything, or to a war in Ireland, which would be much worse ideas.
    What about May’s deal. Or was there a war with Ireland clause I missed? :p
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    kjh said:

    logical_song said:

    kjh said:

    Will the new SDP be standing and how is that not confusing?

    The clearly pro Remain parties not forming a one off alliance is bonkers (I appreciate it may have been hard in the time available)

    Any alliance whether LibDem/TIG or UKIP/Brexit woule have to agree who would top the alliance's list - and the order of subsequent names.
    yes that clearly is a problem
    It's not *that* much of a problem for LD/ChUK, who only have 1 MEP between them, and whose prospects of gaining many are considerably lower if competing as two parties rather than one (even allowing that you can't put a single list up and assume all the voters who would back the two independently would swing behind an alliance).

    There'd be much more of a problem for UKIP/Brexit, who must already have a lot of bad blood between them anyway, when they have sitting MEPs to protect.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,194
    Nigelb said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Nigelb said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Nigelb said:

    OT, but very interesting and detailed paper on what it would take to achieve 100% renewable generation by 2050.
    http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/EWG_LUT_100RE_All_Sectors_Global_Report_2019.pdf

    Briefly skimming the assumptions in their model, which appear in the appendices at the end, they do not seem to have made any heroic assumptions about any of the technologies involved (all of which are currently demonstrable).

    The biggest assumption seems to be the political policy lead involved - though given the compelling economic case, even that might be feasible.

    Thanks for the link.

    "Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors"

    This is quite an assumption - if we make use of hydrogen to decarbonise heating, then the growth in demand for electricity will not be quite so dramatic.
    We won't, as the infrastructure required to distribute and burn it would be prohibitively expensive - synthesised methane would do the job more cheaply.
    Syngas, as a means of energy storage/distribution is in the model in any event - but requires electricity for its production.

    Heat pumps are in the main a cheaper option.
    Heat pumps are great for new buildings with high spec thermal insulation. For older buildings - most of which have a gas supply - converting the gas distribution system to hydrogen is a viable means to decarbonise heat. Appliances would need modification or replacement, but we did that once already when we switched from towns gas to natural gas. Producing hydrogen from natural gas (or coal) with carbon capture is viable at very large scale - bioSNG would be more costly and need a heck of a lot of biomass.

    Google search: h21 north of england hydrogen
    I don't think you can reliably distribute hydrogen over the existing gas network ?

    In any event, that is hardly of importance to the major world population centres in 2050 - Asia and Africa.
    There is a potential problem with high pressure transmission of hydrogen - hydrogen embrittlement of carbon steel pipelines - not good! At the lower pressure distribution level, where the entire network will be plastic in a few years time, then there is no problem with hydrogen.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,512
    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Because of Brexit? Or Despite Brexit?

    Nissan announces layoff of 600 workers in Catalonia
    No deal with unions after four meetings; promised investment of 70 million euro up in the air

    http://www.catalannews.com/business/item/nissan-announces-layoff-of-600-workers-in-catalonia

    Because of the EU/Japan trade deal.

    That’s what happens when you have the EU collectively negotiate your trade deals. They end up being massively in favour of German and French industry, while screwing everyone else. Why does anyone think a customs union with the EU after we’ve left would be anything but an abysmal idea?
    Because all other current options seem to lead either to economic catastrophe, or to no say on anything, or to a war in Ireland, which would be much worse ideas.
    What about May’s deal. Or was there a war with Ireland clause I missed? :p
    May's deal includes a customs union. They just call it the 'backstop.'
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    david_herdson said:

    kjh said:

    logical_song said:

    kjh said:

    Will the new SDP be standing and how is that not confusing?

    The clearly pro Remain parties not forming a one off alliance is bonkers (I appreciate it may have been hard in the time available)

    Any alliance whether LibDem/TIG or UKIP/Brexit woule have to agree who would top the alliance's list - and the order of subsequent names.
    yes that clearly is a problem
    It's not *that* much of a problem for LD/ChUK, who only have 1 MEP between them, and whose prospects of gaining many are considerably lower if competing as two parties rather than one (even allowing that you can't put a single list up and assume all the voters who would back the two independently would swing behind an alliance).

    There'd be much more of a problem for UKIP/Brexit, who must already have a lot of bad blood between them anyway, when they have sitting MEPs to protect.
    Apparently, there's already a couple of Tory MEPs chicken-running to the CUK slate.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    https://twitter.com/RachBradleyITV/status/1118163811675119616
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,668
    viewcode said:

    david_herdson said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Nigelb said:

    OT, but very interesting and detailed paper on what it would take to achieve 100% renewable generation by 2050.
    http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/EWG_LUT_100RE_All_Sectors_Global_Report_2019.pdf


    Briefly skimming the assumptions in their model, which appear in the appendices at the end, they do not seem to have made any heroic assumptions about any of the technologies involved (all of which are currently demonstrable).

    The biggest assumption seems to be the political policy lead involved - though given the compelling economic case, even that might be feasible.

    Thanks for the link.

    "Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors"

    This is quite an assumption - if we make use of hydrogen to decarbonise heating, then the growth in demand for electricity will not be quite so dramatic.
    Won't we need electricity to get hydrogen?
    Yup. And unless they've repealed those pesky thermodynamics laws, the amount of heat and energy required to produce the electricity to get the hydrogen is far greater than the heat and electricity saved by the hydrogen that you got. Unless we get it from the nearest free source of course, which is (thinks for a minute) the outer gas giant planets.

    Pause.

    Ok, that's not gonna work... :)
    In areas of excess generation capacity, whether solar or wind, the marginal cost of electricity is effectively zero.
    Of course, that implies an excess capital investment in those areas, which can only be recouped if renewable fuels are mandated.

    The model is based on an assumption of zero emissions by 2050 - and clearly that requires a political lead - but demonstrates that it is achievable without making the cost of energy prohibitive.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,948
    david_herdson said:

    kjh said:

    logical_song said:

    kjh said:

    Will the new SDP be standing and how is that not confusing?

    The clearly pro Remain parties not forming a one off alliance is bonkers (I appreciate it may have been hard in the time available)

    Any alliance whether LibDem/TIG or UKIP/Brexit woule have to agree who would top the alliance's list - and the order of subsequent names.
    yes that clearly is a problem
    It's not *that* much of a problem for LD/ChUK, who only have 1 MEP between them, and whose prospects of gaining many are considerably lower if competing as two parties rather than one (even allowing that you can't put a single list up and assume all the voters who would back the two independently would swing behind an alliance).

    There'd be much more of a problem for UKIP/Brexit, who must already have a lot of bad blood between them anyway, when they have sitting MEPs to protect.
    I was only focusing on remain; as you point out I couldn't see Brexit/UKIP joining together. LD and TIG should have done something for the reasons you give and could have prospered by doing so. Ideally I would have liked to see the Greens come into that and even the nationalist but then it just gets too difficult to coordinate who goes where on the list.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,629
    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Because of Brexit? Or Despite Brexit?

    Nissan announces layoff of 600 workers in Catalonia
    No deal with unions after four meetings; promised investment of 70 million euro up in the air

    http://www.catalannews.com/business/item/nissan-announces-layoff-of-600-workers-in-catalonia

    Because of the EU/Japan trade deal.

    That’s what happens when you have the EU collectively negotiate your trade deals. They end up being massively in favour of German and French industry, while screwing everyone else. Why does anyone think a customs union with the EU after we’ve left would be anything but an abysmal idea?
    Because all other current options seem to lead either to economic catastrophe, or to no say on anything, or to a war in Ireland, which would be much worse ideas.
    What about May’s deal. Or was there a war with Ireland clause I missed? :p
    May's deal includes a customs union. They just call it the 'backstop.'
    That's a fair point, but as a backup, not the main option.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,512
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/RachBradleyITV/status/1118163811675119616

    Who was the American mayor who on being called out for falsely claiming he had played baseball for Oakland Athletics, issued the unforgettable clarification: 'after researching the matter, I came to the conclusion I was not in fact drafted by the As'?

    Because that's a more convincing lie than the series Burgon's been telling over this.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 74,512
    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Because of Brexit? Or Despite Brexit?

    Nissan announces layoff of 600 workers in Catalonia
    No deal with unions after four meetings; promised investment of 70 million euro up in the air

    http://www.catalannews.com/business/item/nissan-announces-layoff-of-600-workers-in-catalonia

    Because of the EU/Japan trade deal.

    That’s what happens when you have the EU collectively negotiate your trade deals. They end up being massively in favour of German and French industry, while screwing everyone else. Why does anyone think a customs union with the EU after we’ve left would be anything but an abysmal idea?
    Because all other current options seem to lead either to economic catastrophe, or to no say on anything, or to a war in Ireland, which would be much worse ideas.
    What about May’s deal. Or was there a war with Ireland clause I missed? :p
    May's deal includes a customs union. They just call it the 'backstop.'
    That's a fair point, but as a backup, not the main option.
    And that is why I said 'all current options.' The idea of the backstop is it keeps an in a customs union until or unless a satisfactory way can be found to leave it.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 8,754
    edited April 2019
    Nigelb said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1118153178325950464

    Harris and Warren neck-and-neck, yet Harris was last matched at 5.8 on Betfair, and Warren at 28.0. I don't get it.
    Will we get Lake and Palmer polls too ?
    Warren should be doing better based on recognition. It's not about where you are, it's where you are going.

    However Harris is definitely too short.
    The other point is that Warren has burned through most of the cash she raised in the first quarter, apparently to little effect so far, whereas Harris and Buttigieg have kept most of what they raised.
    Apparently Warren has hired the largest team. No idea whether that's a good idea or not, but it speaks to a candidate who is confident of further fundraising

    https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1RS05W
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 62,776
    Mr. Sandpit, aye, but that doesn't explain the logo cock-up.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    rottenborough said:

    RobD said:

    rottenborough said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Benpointer said:

    How can a new party have a sufficiently well known logo?

    Cunning, isn't it?
    Presumably by this logic the Brexit party logo is well known?
    Isn't it just the name of the party? The problem with ChUK's logo is that it isn't.
    No, it has a light blue arrow (i.e. a sort of exit symbol).

    Maybe they aren't bothering to use the logo on the ballot.
    According to the article that Mike linked, the problem was that the acronym isn't sufficiently known.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,097
    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Sandpit, aye, but that doesn't explain the logo cock-up.

    They thought they could change the name, but keep the logo for the name that had been rejected. A party called "Change UK" with the logo "TIG" is meaningless.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,668
    SandyRentool said:

    Nigelb said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Nigelb said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Nigelb said:

    OT, but very interesting and detailed paper on what it would take to achieve 100% renewable generation by 2050.
    http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/EWG_LUT_100RE_All_Sectors_Global_Report_2019.pdf

    Briefly skimming the assumptions in their model, which appear in the appendices at the end, they do not seem to have made any heroic assumptions about any of the technologies involved (all of which are currently demonstrable).

    The biggest assumption seems to be the political policy lead involved - though given the compelling economic case, even that might be feasible.

    Thanks for the link.

    "Electricity generation in 2050 will exceed four to five times that of 2015, primarily due to high electrification rates of the transport and heat sectors"

    This is quite an assumption - if we make use of hydrogen to decarbonise heating, then the growth in demand for electricity will not be quite so dramatic.
    We won't, as the infrastructure required to distribute and burn it would be prohibitively expensive - synthesised methane would do the job more cheaply.
    Syngas, as a means of energy storage/distribution is in the model in any event - but requires electricity for its production.

    Heat pumps are in the main a cheaper option.
    Heat pumps are great for new buildings with high spec thermal insulation. For older buildings - most of which have a gas supply - converting the gas distribution system to hydrogen is a viable means to decarbonise heat. Appliances would need modification or replacement, but we did that once already when we switched from towns gas to natural gas. Producing hydrogen from natural gas (or coal) with carbon capture is viable at very large scale - bioSNG would be more costly and need a heck of a lot of biomass.

    Google search: h21 north of england hydrogen
    I don't think you can reliably distribute hydrogen over the existing gas network ?

    In any event, that is hardly of importance to the major world population centres in 2050 - Asia and Africa.
    There is a potential problem with high pressure transmission of hydrogen - hydrogen embrittlement of carbon steel pipelines - not good! At the lower pressure distribution level, where the entire network will be plastic in a few years time, then there is no problem with hydrogen.
    Perhaps (though the safety case appears as yet unproven), but I'd question how worthwhile the investment in CO2 sequestration, which seems to be part of the plan, is likely to be.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,097
    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Sandpit said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Because of Brexit? Or Despite Brexit?

    Nissan announces layoff of 600 workers in Catalonia
    No deal with unions after four meetings; promised investment of 70 million euro up in the air

    http://www.catalannews.com/business/item/nissan-announces-layoff-of-600-workers-in-catalonia

    Because of the EU/Japan trade deal.

    That’s what happens when you have the EU collectively negotiate your trade deals. They end up being massively in favour of German and French industry, while screwing everyone else. Why does anyone think a customs union with the EU after we’ve left would be anything but an abysmal idea?
    Because all other current options seem to lead either to economic catastrophe, or to no say on anything, or to a war in Ireland, which would be much worse ideas.
    What about May’s deal. Or was there a war with Ireland clause I missed? :p
    May's deal includes a customs union. They just call it the 'backstop.'
    Which is why the deal didn't pass the commons. Because the backstop put handcuffs on the UK for which the EU hold the keys.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,668
    rkrkrk said:

    Nigelb said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1118153178325950464

    Harris and Warren neck-and-neck, yet Harris was last matched at 5.8 on Betfair, and Warren at 28.0. I don't get it.
    Will we get Lake and Palmer polls too ?
    Warren should be doing better based on recognition. It's not about where you are, it's where you are going.

    However Harris is definitely too short.
    The other point is that Warren has burned through most of the cash she raised in the first quarter, apparently to little effect so far, whereas Harris and Buttigieg have kept most of what they raised.
    Apparently Warren has hired the largest team. No idea whether that's a good idea or not, but it speaks to a candidate who is confident of further fundraising

    https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1RS05W
    Or one who has gone all in at the start of the game.
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 18,357
    Nigelb said:

    TheWhiteRabbit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Richard_Nabavi said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1118153178325950464

    Harris and Warren neck-and-neck, yet Harris was last matched at 5.8 on Betfair, and Warren at 28.0. I don't get it.
    Will we get Lake and Palmer polls too ?
    Warren should be doing better based on recognition. It's not about where you are, it's where you are going.

    However Harris is definitely too short.
    The other point is that Warren has burned through most of the cash she raised in the first quarter, apparently to little effect so far, whereas Harris and Buttigieg have kept most of what they raised.
    The numbers overall are relatively small though, by American standards: $70m between them in 2019Q1, which compares with $81m back in the equivalent quarter in 2007. And Sanders - who raised most on the Democrat field, at $18m - was still a good deal short of Trump's $30m.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/the-latest-democratic-hopefuls-raise-75m-in-1st-quarter/2019/04/16/849274d4-6004-11e9-bf24-db4b9fb62aa2_story.html?utm_term=.43973d5bf1a4
  • BannedInParisBannedInParis Posts: 2,191
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/RachBradleyITV/status/1118163811675119616

    that doesn't help him.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 79,668
    ydoethur said:

    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/RachBradleyITV/status/1118163811675119616

    Who was the American mayor who on being called out for falsely claiming he had played baseball for Oakland Athletics, issued the unforgettable clarification: 'after researching the matter, I came to the conclusion I was not in fact drafted by the As'?

    Because that's a more convincing lie than the series Burgon's been telling over this.
    I'd never realised that transparent bollocks were a thing, but Burgon has proved them so.
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092
    Sandpit said:

    Morris_Dancer said:

    Mr. Sandpit, aye, but that doesn't explain the logo cock-up.

    They thought they could change the name, but keep the logo for the name that had been rejected. A party called "Change UK" with the logo "TIG" is meaningless.
    So far if getting elected is an exam, the CUKs are finding it a huge struggle to write their name at the top of the answer sheet. Heaven help us when they move onto their actual questions, like "what do you stand for?", "what are your policies?", and "why should we vote for you?"
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Jonathan said:

    TIG started well, but have since made a number of unforced errors. I appreciate that the Euros were generally unexpected, but they are below critical mass to do anything other than badly.

    That's fair, but also they may have been kiboshed by Tom Watson's rapid counter-offensive of creating TIG-within-Labour to head off further defections.
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Jonathan said:

    TIG started well, but have since made a number of unforced errors. I appreciate that the Euros were generally unexpected, but they are below critical mass to do anything other than badly.

    That's fair, but also they may have been kiboshed by Tom Watson's rapid counter-offensive of creating TIG-within-Labour to head off further defections.
    It was a very smart move. There’s still a bunch of MPs in Labour who are liable to moan every time the regularly scheduled anti-semitism scandal breaks again, but they’ve essentially committed to staying in the party no matter what the leadership or its members may do. Tiggers had a very tough job, but they do seem to have failed to grab much attention. And new parties get their logos approved every week practically, it is not hard.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,232
    Scott_P said:

    https://twitter.com/RachBradleyITV/status/1118163811675119616


    One of the less believable of apologies, given his very firm denials previously. He would have known if he said something like that, and equivocated more. But it should pass muster with the party faithful, these sorts of things always do, left and right.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    edited April 2019
    Why does Change UK still have "The Independent Group" as its name on both its website and Twitter?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,194
    Nigelb said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Nigelb said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Nigelb said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Nigelb said:

    OT, but very interesting and detailed paper on what it would take to achieve 100% renewable generation by 2050.
    http://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/EWG_LUT_100RE_All_Sectors_Global_Report_2019.pdf

    Bri

    The biggest assumption seems to be the political policy lead involved - though given the compelling economic case, even that might be feasible.

    Thanks for the link.

    "ramatic.
    We won't, as the infrastructure required to distribute and burn it would be prohibitively expensive - synthesised methane would do the job more cheaply.
    Syngas, as a means of energy storage/distribution is in the model in any event - but requires electricity for its production.

    Heat pumps are in the main a cheaper option.
    Heat pumps are great for new buildings with high spec thermal insulation. For older buildings - most of which have a gas supply - converting the gas distribution system to hydrogen is a viable means to decarbonise heat. Appliances would need modification or replacement, but we did that once already when we switched from towns gas to natural gas. Producing hydrogen from natural gas (or coal) with carbon capture is viable at very large scale - bioSNG would be more costly and need a heck of a lot of biomass.

    Google search: h21 north of england hydrogen
    I don't think you can reliably distribute hydrogen over the existing gas network ?

    In any event, that is hardly of importance to the major world population centres in 2050 - Asia and Africa.
    There is a potential problem with high pressure transmission of hydrogen - hydrogen embrittlement of carbon steel pipelines - not good! At the lower pressure distribution level, where the entire network will be plastic in a few years time, then there is no problem with hydrogen.
    Perhaps (though the safety case appears as yet unproven), but I'd question how worthwhile the investment in CO2 sequestration, which seems to be part of the plan, is likely to be.
    The CO2 transport and storage infrastructure can be utilised by multiple sectors - power generation, hydrogen production and industry (e.g. cement, steel, oil refining, petrochemicals - some of which cannot decarbonise without carbon capture), thereby facilitating carbon capture from multiple sources and reducing the cost per tonne of CO2 captured and stored.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025