The point was they were the first I remember talking about it, I think it was in their last manifesto, rather thanit being inherently left wing. But how many ideas, left or right, do they have to differentiate themselves?
One Green policy that I like is an alternative to air passenger tax - they propose as I recall that you can have one flight per year to wherever you like free of tax, and each flight thereafter attracts an increasing tax. That gets round the "you're trying to tax ordinary people's annual holiday" argument, but it curbs the habit of routinely flying everywhere, and in particular encourages businesses to do more meetings by video conference - which we've all got used to anyway.
Personally I like flying, and one of my most enjoyable jobs involved flying to 25 different countries to lobby Ministers and MPs. But even then I felt that this probably wasn't the ideal way to help the environment.
I'm not averse to that but where does that, so to speak, take us? P&O offer a few cruises in the winter which sail from the UK to the Caribbean and back without flying so that's a 28-35 day cruise on a very nice ship and there's a lot to be said about the central Atlantic if you want it peaceful.
So we've got 4000 people on a ship cruising at 20mph across the Atlantic Ocean - is that worse for the environment than the same number flying to the Caribbean and back? I genuinely don't know,
I believe the carbon cost per mile as a cruise passenger is twice that of an air passenger. @tyson linked to a convincing source for this.
Yes, and of course all our efforts have been to maintain free trade in goods, where we have a deficit with the EU, and not services where we enjoy a surplus. I gather from PB over previous days that some City firms are moving their books across the North Sea.
AOC kicking off the Democrat civil war with Joe Mancin before sleepy Joe heads into office. The whole defund the police stuff probably costs them GA senate seats.
Until the two wings of the Democratic party realise that they are in permanent coalition and have to find a way of working with each other, they are going to struggle to govern.
Manchin is a bit of a dick (and voted for Kavanaugh) but that’s what you get if you want a Democratic senate seat from WV.
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.
Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?
Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
There was a conversation a bit earlier about another Scotland vote.
Unlike many on here I don’t take the view that on such critical matters (see also Brexit) one can just decide things with a simple, one-off majority vote. To take the point to absurdity, what if the 2014 referendum had been carried by just one vote?
Nor do I think that, having voted in 2014, it is appropriate to be having another vote any time soon. Although “once every generation” carries no legal weight, ever twenty years does not seem unreasonable for a question of this magnitude.
Extending the franchise to 16+ was worth about 0.5% in favour of Indy and I’ve no idea why this was granted.
I do also think it is worth looking at granting a vote to anyone born in Scotland who wishes to register as such. I do not know whether this would help or hinder independence, but I often wonder how I’d feel if my homeland (NZ) voted for some irrevocable break-up. I would certainly want a say in that, despite not living there for 20 years.
Quite entitled to hold the views you do: but just one small point: the Scottish franchise has generally been extennded to 16+ as a wider point of public principle - crossparty approval (including Smith Commission). It's Westminster is the holdout here.
Yes, am aware of that. I am personally against votes at 16 on principle, and don’t understand why it seems to have gained traction in parts of this country. Outside of Scotland (and now Wales), is there any country on earth that has votes at 16?
And then, again, I can see in the Scottish context that it aids the independence movement.
I think it is constitutionally iffy to allow it for an independence vote.
I'm also opposed to it on principle, and many of the arguments used to argue in favour of it I find far from convincing. It's well known we are inconsistent in how we set rules of adulthood for various things, and in fairness there may be scope for some inconsistency, but I do think our general approach to young people argues against giving 16 year olds the vote.
However, I think the battle has already been lost. If you have it for some votes for some parts of the country, I think it is pretty hard to resist the argument for another vote or other parts of the country.
For elections which come along every 4 years one can say that 16 and 17 year olds will get their turn soon enough. Independence and for that matter Brexit are matters which affect everyone for decades and the young will live their lives with the consequences, so I think they should get the vote there. As a teacher I'd say most 16 and 17 year olds have a pretty clear idea of what they want for their and the country's future. Many of them are clearer and more incisive thinkers than some of the old farts who post here, speaking as an old fart myself.
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.
Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?
Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
I honestly don't know the answer, but is tidal being adopted widely across the globe?
States (hope I get the abbreviations right) AZ Dem 1.09 GA Dem 1.12 MI Dem 1.06 NV Dem 1.05 NC Rep 1.01 PA Dem 1.09 WI Dem 1.09
Most markets are fairly thin, except the main next president market. Note that some markets by definition cannot be settled until the counting stops; others might not be according to Betfair's whim.
The point was they were the first I remember talking about it, I think it was in their last manifesto, rather thanit being inherently left wing. But how many ideas, left or right, do they have to differentiate themselves?
One Green policy that I like is an alternative to air passenger tax - they propose as I recall that you can have one flight per year to wherever you like free of tax, and each flight thereafter attracts an increasing tax. That gets round the "you're trying to tax ordinary people's annual holiday" argument, but it curbs the habit of routinely flying everywhere, and in particular encourages businesses to do more meetings by video conference - which we've all got used to anyway.
Personally I like flying, and one of my most enjoyable jobs involved flying to 25 different countries to lobby Ministers and MPs. But even then I felt that this probably wasn't the ideal way to help the environment.
I'm not averse to that but where does that, so to speak, take us? P&O offer a few cruises in the winter which sail from the UK to the Caribbean and back without flying so that's a 28-35 day cruise on a very nice ship and there's a lot to be said about the central Atlantic if you want it peaceful.
So we've got 4000 people on a ship cruising at 20mph across the Atlantic Ocean - is that worse for the environment than the same number flying to the Caribbean and back? I genuinely don't know,
I believe the carbon cost per mile as a cruise passenger is twice that of an air passenger. @tyson linked to a convincing source for this.
I think going on cruises is utterly passive, like watching grass grow, but more polluting. I recommend walking or cycling in this remarkable country.
Be worried kids. Prof Tim Spector of KCL and the ZOE app warns that:
"they will use the new vaccine news as a “carrot” to keep us locked down for the next three months, when he believes it will likely take most of the year to get enough people vaccinated"
States (hope I get the abbreviations right) AZ Dem 1.09 GA Dem 1.12 MI Dem 1.06 NV Dem 1.05 NC Rep 1.01 PA Dem 1.09 WI Dem 1.09
Most markets are fairly thin, except the main next president market. Note that some markets by definition cannot be settled until the counting stops; others might not be according to Betfair's whim.
Dived back in this morning. JIT, apparently.
It will be interesting to see if prices drift out again because some punters need to free up funds for the weekend.
ETA (we'd expect prices to fall, as they have done, as we get closer to settlement.)
AOC kicking off the Democrat civil war with Joe Mancin before sleepy Joe heads into office. The whole defund the police stuff probably costs them GA senate seats.
'Defund the Police' must be the worst, most alienating political slogan that the left has ever come up with.
And it's a shame really, because there's a debate to be had about how best to tackle crime in USA cities, and the role of the police in this. There's a serious argument to be had that, if budgets are limited, diverting some funds currently spent on 'law and order' to community projects, mental health and social services and so on may be more effective in tackling the social problems that underpin crime than police action. Then obviously if crime reduces the police need less money. The same sort of thinking could well be applied to tackling the opioid crisis, which is more a mental health crisis than a normal 'health' or law and order crisis.
We live in the UK, the Police in the US is a very different beast (with very different funding and recruitment practices) than this country.
My comment was only about the USA - no mention of the UK.
The thing is that we are sat in the UK - which means that while we may think we know the nuances we actually don't.
Portland is a great example, when I read up on the protests there I eventually discovered (but only after reading multiple articles and this was almost an aside) that the police aren't recruited from within Portland but actually come from the very white suburbs around it.
Yet once you discovered that single fact everything else which previously made little sense suddenly fell into place.
That's fascinating and useful to know, but I don't really see what it has to do with generic criticism of a slogan which from all accounts does not mean what it sounds like it means, and thus diverts from the topic at hand rather than illuminates it. It may well be that it is not as damaging a cry as others may imagine, but even with zero knowledge of the intricacies of the US police, or even if one agrees with the aims of the people behind the slogan 100%, it still appears to be a terrible slogan given it still doesn't mean what it sounds like it means. We don't need to know the nuances there, because it's not about the nuances, its an argument about general presentation.
It was a shit slogan. Police departments across the US are in desperate need of reform, and a poorly chosen label has set back policy by years. And likely contributed to the loss of a dozen congressional seats.
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.
Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?
Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
I honestly don't know the answer, but is tidal being adopted widely across the globe?
Few places have the tidal power potential that Britian has, so it's particularly stupid that we are not maximisong the opportunity:
"could"? Have they never visited Gillingham or Dartford?
Dartford is a step up from Gravesend, the worst place I have ever worked.
Dartford was where I walked past a local pub and heard the dulcet tones of That's Life's Doc Cox, in his alter ego of Ivor Biggin, leading a jolly singalobg of 'I'm A Wanker'. Such place associations stay with you.
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.
Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?
Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
I honestly don't know the answer, but is tidal being adopted widely across the globe?
Few places have the tidal power potential that Britian has, so it's particularly stupid that we are not maximisong the opportunity:
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.
Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?
Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
I honestly don't know the answer, but is tidal being adopted widely across the globe?
Few places have the tidal power potential that Britian has, so it's particularly stupid that we are not maximisong the opportunity:
True dat. I often think that sailing in British waters should actually be called "tiding."
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.
Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?
Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
I honestly don't know the answer, but is tidal being adopted widely across the globe?
Few places have the tidal power potential that Britian has, so it's particularly stupid that we are not maximisong the opportunity:
As a total male ingenue to this topic, according to that map, it looks like the UK, Spain, France and Western Canada have some of the best potential in the world for it.
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.
Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?
Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
I honestly don't know the answer, but is tidal being adopted widely across the globe?
Few places have the tidal power potential that Britian has, so it's particularly stupid that we are not maximisong the opportunity:
The UK would be the word leader in this nascent industry. The UK resource makes it worth doing anyway, but there are a decent number of countries to whom it couuld readily be exported.
I think going on cruises is utterly passive, like watching grass grow, but more polluting. I recommend walking or cycling in this remarkable country.
I'm going to disagree fundamentally with you not because you're wrong but because everyone has a right to the holiday of their choice.
Some people don't like walking or cycling and would rather be passive on a ship or at a nice hotel - it's a question of what works for you.
Clearly, cruise holidays have an appeal otherwise there wouldn't be the oceanic leviathans which used to ply their trade across the waters and now sit in Weymouth Bay or elsewhere.
If the media spent as much time educating themselves about covid and stats as they do on breathless reporting of political melodramas, they might actually get things right once in a while.
Had the FT corrected the record yet on their bollocks claim on 43bn spent on project moonshot? Or the various papers claims of Sunak going to launch help out to eat out for Christmas?
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.
Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?
Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
I honestly don't know the answer, but is tidal being adopted widely across the globe?
Few places have the tidal power potential that Britian has, so it's particularly stupid that we are not maximisong the opportunity:
The UK would be the word leader in this nascent industry. The UK resource makes it worth doing anyway, but there are a decent number of countries to whom it couuld readily be exported.
So do you think the reasons are simply nuclear industry lobbying, and essentially corporate rather than technical ?
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.
Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?
Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
I honestly don't know the answer, but is tidal being adopted widely across the globe?
Few places have the tidal power potential that Britian has, so it's particularly stupid that we are not maximisong the opportunity:
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.
Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?
Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
I honestly don't know the answer, but is tidal being adopted widely across the globe?
Few places have the tidal power potential that Britian has, so it's particularly stupid that we are not maximisong the opportunity:
Why was the swansea project ditched?
There's a question.
But essentially, nobbled by The Blob - nuclear's stooges within government. The report that went up to Theresa May had one number £30 billion wrong. Another £60 billion wrong. Both in favour of nuclear.
Nuclear is paranoid that once we build one tidal lagoon, the economics of nuclear power stations will be exposed as being crazily uneconomic in comparison.
You would not believe the shit that tidal has endured.
I think going on cruises is utterly passive, like watching grass grow, but more polluting. I recommend walking or cycling in this remarkable country.
I'm going to disagree fundamentally with you not because you're wrong but because everyone has a right to the holiday of their choice.
Some people don't like walking or cycling and would rather be passive on a ship or at a nice hotel - it's a question of what works for you.
Clearly, cruise holidays have an appeal otherwise there wouldn't be the oceanic leviathans which used to ply their trade across the waters and now sit in Weymouth Bay or elsewhere.
Fine. It's just a personal opinion like saying I don't see how anyone could support Trump. I don't like the pollution though. Climate change is the big one.
Be worried kids. Prof Tim Spector of KCL and the ZOE app warns that:
"they will use the new vaccine news as a “carrot” to keep us locked down for the next three months, when he believes it will likely take most of the year to get enough people vaccinated"
That's right - it will be used as a carrot to keep most of us locked down for the next three months after which the most vulnerable will be protected (which is what we're going for here), and we ca start loosening up.
If you are a healthy 30 year old man, getting the disease is not that big a deal. The issue is if you pass it on to your 70 year old father who has co-morbidities. If said father has been vaccinated, then you getting the disease is a much less serious issue.
AOC kicking off the Democrat civil war with Joe Mancin before sleepy Joe heads into office. The whole defund the police stuff probably costs them GA senate seats.
'Defund the Police' must be the worst, most alienating political slogan that the left has ever come up with.
And it's a shame really, because there's a debate to be had about how best to tackle crime in USA cities, and the role of the police in this. There's a serious argument to be had that, if budgets are limited, diverting some funds currently spent on 'law and order' to community projects, mental health and social services and so on may be more effective in tackling the social problems that underpin crime than police action. Then obviously if crime reduces the police need less money. The same sort of thinking could well be applied to tackling the opioid crisis, which is more a mental health crisis than a normal 'health' or law and order crisis.
We live in the UK, the Police in the US is a very different beast (with very different funding and recruitment practices) than this country.
My comment was only about the USA - no mention of the UK.
The thing is that we are sat in the UK - which means that while we may think we know the nuances we actually don't.
Portland is a great example, when I read up on the protests there I eventually discovered (but only after reading multiple articles and this was almost an aside) that the police aren't recruited from within Portland but actually come from the very white suburbs around it.
Yet once you discovered that single fact everything else which previously made little sense suddenly fell into place.
That's fascinating and useful to know, but I don't really see what it has to do with generic criticism of a slogan which from all accounts does not mean what it sounds like it means, and thus diverts from the topic at hand rather than illuminates it. It may well be that it is not as damaging a cry as others may imagine, but even with zero knowledge of the intricacies of the US police, or even if one agrees with the aims of the people behind the slogan 100%, it still appears to be a terrible slogan given it still doesn't mean what it sounds like it means. We don't need to know the nuances there, because it's not about the nuances, its an argument about general presentation.
It was a shit slogan. Police departments across the US are in desperate need of reform, and a poorly chosen label has set back policy by years. And likely contributed to the loss of a dozen congressional seats.
The slogan was probably invented in Russia, and is designed to maximise division in the US.
Be worried kids. Prof Tim Spector of KCL and the ZOE app warns that:
"they will use the new vaccine news as a “carrot” to keep us locked down for the next three months, when he believes it will likely take most of the year to get enough people vaccinated"
That's right - it will be used as a carrot to keep most of us locked down for the next three months after which the most vulnerable will be protected (which is what we're going for here), and we ca start loosening up.
If you are a healthy 30 year old man, getting the disease is not that big a deal. The issue is if you pass it on to your 70 year old father who has co-morbidities. If said father has been vaccinated, then you getting the disease is a much less serious issue.
Most of the time. We have twenty something on our covid ICU.
If the media spent as much time educating themselves about covid and stats as they do on breathless reporting of political melodramas, they might actually get things right once in a while.
Had the FT corrected the record yet on their bollocks claim on 43bn spent on project moonshot? Or the various papers claims of Sunak going to launch help out to eat out for Christmas?
I thought you were going along last night with the suggestion that "three people get infected after taking 92% effective vaccine", with no further information at all, proved or suggested anything about anything. I am profoundly opposed to the fashion for "calling people out" on stuff on here, but could you talk us through that one, from the educated-about-stats perspective?
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.
Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?
Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
I honestly don't know the answer, but is tidal being adopted widely across the globe?
Few places have the tidal power potential that Britian has, so it's particularly stupid that we are not maximisong the opportunity:
The UK would be the word leader in this nascent industry. The UK resource makes it worth doing anyway, but there are a decent number of countries to whom it couuld readily be exported.
So do you think the reasons are simply nuclear industry lobbying, and essentially corporate rather than technical ?
The problem is that the plan for Hinckley C was conceived when everyone was convinced the world was running out of natural gas, renewables were expensive and would be a marginal contributor to total UK generation, and we didn't want to be dependent on coal for baseload power.
Since then, the cost of wind, solar and natural gas have all collapsed, and we don't need baseload - what we need is cheap (relatively clean) natural gas combined cycle generators to step in whenever the wind isn't blowing.
Tidal, by the way, is a good addition to the mix, with the added advantage that (while intermittent) it is relatively predictable.
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.
Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?
Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
I honestly don't know the answer, but is tidal being adopted widely across the globe?
Few places have the tidal power potential that Britian has, so it's particularly stupid that we are not maximisong the opportunity:
Why was the swansea project ditched?
There's a question.
But essentially, nobbled by The Blob - nuclear's stooges within government. The report that went up to Theresa May had one number £30 billion wrong. Another £60 billion wrong. Both in favour of nuclear.
Nuclear is paranoid that once we build one tidal lagoon, the economics of nuclear power stations will be exposed as being crazily uneconomic in comparison.
You would not believe the shit that tidal has endured.
I support tidal and for Scotland the Pentland Firth where the Atlantic and North Sea converge is made for it
My late Father in Law used to say how when coming through the Pentland in his fishing boat he would actually be going backwards on full forward power
Be worried kids. Prof Tim Spector of KCL and the ZOE app warns that:
"they will use the new vaccine news as a “carrot” to keep us locked down for the next three months, when he believes it will likely take most of the year to get enough people vaccinated"
That's right - it will be used as a carrot to keep most of us locked down for the next three months after which the most vulnerable will be protected (which is what we're going for here), and we ca start loosening up.
If you are a healthy 30 year old man, getting the disease is not that big a deal. The issue is if you pass it on to your 70 year old father who has co-morbidities. If said father has been vaccinated, then you getting the disease is a much less serious issue.
Most of the time. We have twenty something on our covid ICU.
I'm not convinced the panicking ministers and their 'lack of proportion' advisors are going to say 'hey all the 80 or 70 years old are protected now let's unlock'.
Be worried kids. Prof Tim Spector of KCL and the ZOE app warns that:
"they will use the new vaccine news as a “carrot” to keep us locked down for the next three months, when he believes it will likely take most of the year to get enough people vaccinated"
That's right - it will be used as a carrot to keep most of us locked down for the next three months after which the most vulnerable will be protected (which is what we're going for here), and we ca start loosening up.
If you are a healthy 30 year old man, getting the disease is not that big a deal. The issue is if you pass it on to your 70 year old father who has co-morbidities. If said father has been vaccinated, then you getting the disease is a much less serious issue.
Correct - caution is very much the watchword here when considering the vaccine, be optimistic, but cautiously optimistic.
I think going on cruises is utterly passive, like watching grass grow, but more polluting. I recommend walking or cycling in this remarkable country.
I'm going to disagree fundamentally with you not because you're wrong but because everyone has a right to the holiday of their choice.
Some people don't like walking or cycling and would rather be passive on a ship or at a nice hotel - it's a question of what works for you.
Clearly, cruise holidays have an appeal otherwise there wouldn't be the oceanic leviathans which used to ply their trade across the waters and now sit in Weymouth Bay or elsewhere.
Not my idea, but I recently saw an article which explained that, for the elderly, a cruise ship was cheaper than a care home, the food was better and the staff were much more polite. And if you want to cycle, thee's a gym with a bike with one of those boxes on it, so you can pretend you're cycling through the Dales or wherever. Not entirely my idea of fun, but most of the time I could keep an eye on Bp for an hour or so a day as well.
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.
Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?
Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
I honestly don't know the answer, but is tidal being adopted widely across the globe?
Few places have the tidal power potential that Britian has, so it's particularly stupid that we are not maximisong the opportunity:
The UK would be the word leader in this nascent industry. The UK resource makes it worth doing anyway, but there are a decent number of countries to whom it couuld readily be exported.
So do you think the reasons are simply nuclear industry lobbying, and essentially corporate rather than technical ?
Oh, 100%. We have an opportunity to create a power source where those in the mid-22nd Century would marvel at our foresight.
La Rance tidal power station was built in the 1960's in France. It has just been upgraded with new turbines for the next 60 years.
It generates the cheapest power in France. (Which they then export to the UK at a huge mark-up....)
If the media spent as much time educating themselves about covid and stats as they do on breathless reporting of political melodramas, they might actually get things right once in a while.
Had the FT corrected the record yet on their bollocks claim on 43bn spent on project moonshot? Or the various papers claims of Sunak going to launch help out to eat out for Christmas?
I thought you were going along last night with the suggestion that "three people get infected after taking 92% effective vaccine", with no further information at all, proved or suggested anything about anything. I am profoundly opposed to the fashion for "calling people out" on stuff on here, but could you talk us through that one, from the educated-about-stats perspective?
Are you talking about my jokey comment about the Russian vaccine? Where as i said thats unlucky? As I can't remember saying anything else along the lines as you mention.
If the media spent as much time educating themselves about covid and stats as they do on breathless reporting of political melodramas, they might actually get things right once in a while.
Had the FT corrected the record yet on their bollocks claim on 43bn spent on project moonshot? Or the various papers claims of Sunak going to launch help out to eat out for Christmas?
Have any of the media corrected the record yet for any of the bollocks claims on HS2 costs yet?
Be worried kids. Prof Tim Spector of KCL and the ZOE app warns that:
"they will use the new vaccine news as a “carrot” to keep us locked down for the next three months, when he believes it will likely take most of the year to get enough people vaccinated"
That's right - it will be used as a carrot to keep most of us locked down for the next three months after which the most vulnerable will be protected (which is what we're going for here), and we ca start loosening up.
If you are a healthy 30 year old man, getting the disease is not that big a deal. The issue is if you pass it on to your 70 year old father who has co-morbidities. If said father has been vaccinated, then you getting the disease is a much less serious issue.
Most of the time. We have twenty something on our covid ICU.
They purged all the Remainers. Even Labour do not have any left...
Could it be that the Cabal are too scared to Brexit? They are inventing a strawman as a face-saving excuse to stay in a while longer? Surely they know what it is going to be like in 7 weeks time?
AOC kicking off the Democrat civil war with Joe Mancin before sleepy Joe heads into office. The whole defund the police stuff probably costs them GA senate seats.
'Defund the Police' must be the worst, most alienating political slogan that the left has ever come up with.
And it's a shame really, because there's a debate to be had about how best to tackle crime in USA cities, and the role of the police in this. There's a serious argument to be had that, if budgets are limited, diverting some funds currently spent on 'law and order' to community projects, mental health and social services and so on may be more effective in tackling the social problems that underpin crime than police action. Then obviously if crime reduces the police need less money. The same sort of thinking could well be applied to tackling the opioid crisis, which is more a mental health crisis than a normal 'health' or law and order crisis.
We live in the UK, the Police in the US is a very different beast (with very different funding and recruitment practices) than this country.
Demilitarise the Police would be better, but hard to beat "Tough on the causes of crime".
Simply "Reform the Police" would have been the best slogan for BLM and the left-wing Dems - reform can cover a multitude of things, and few could object to it and argue that the USA police didn't need reforming following Floyd and countless other incidents.
I think you can go a bit harder and sloganise with "Fix the Police". That frames it as there being a problem.
Defund The Police though is the worst slogan of all time. And the defensiveness the American Left are building about it will kill them. They are literally driving people who agree with the goals of Defund the Police into voting for Republicans.
If the media spent as much time educating themselves about covid and stats as they do on breathless reporting of political melodramas, they might actually get things right once in a while.
Had the FT corrected the record yet on their bollocks claim on 43bn spent on project moonshot? Or the various papers claims of Sunak going to launch help out to eat out for Christmas?
I thought you were going along last night with the suggestion that "three people get infected after taking 92% effective vaccine", with no further information at all, proved or suggested anything about anything. I am profoundly opposed to the fashion for "calling people out" on stuff on here, but could you talk us through that one, from the educated-about-stats perspective?
Are you talking about my jokey comment about the Russian vaccine?
What I can't work out is in what alternative planet do you have a Director of Comms who doesn't have the (about to be) number one press/media spokesperson and most visible representation of the government, reporting to them?
Who thought that would last two minutes?
Strikes me that none of these people have ever run anything in their lives.
If the media spent as much time educating themselves about covid and stats as they do on breathless reporting of political melodramas, they might actually get things right once in a while.
Had the FT corrected the record yet on their bollocks claim on 43bn spent on project moonshot? Or the various papers claims of Sunak going to launch help out to eat out for Christmas?
AOC kicking off the Democrat civil war with Joe Mancin before sleepy Joe heads into office. The whole defund the police stuff probably costs them GA senate seats.
'Defund the Police' must be the worst, most alienating political slogan that the left has ever come up with.
And it's a shame really, because there's a debate to be had about how best to tackle crime in USA cities, and the role of the police in this. There's a serious argument to be had that, if budgets are limited, diverting some funds currently spent on 'law and order' to community projects, mental health and social services and so on may be more effective in tackling the social problems that underpin crime than police action. Then obviously if crime reduces the police need less money. The same sort of thinking could well be applied to tackling the opioid crisis, which is more a mental health crisis than a normal 'health' or law and order crisis.
We live in the UK, the Police in the US is a very different beast (with very different funding and recruitment practices) than this country.
My comment was only about the USA - no mention of the UK.
The thing is that we are sat in the UK - which means that while we may think we know the nuances we actually don't.
Portland is a great example, when I read up on the protests there I eventually discovered (but only after reading multiple articles and this was almost an aside) that the police aren't recruited from within Portland but actually come from the very white suburbs around it.
Yet once you discovered that single fact everything else which previously made little sense suddenly fell into place.
But it is not just one single fact. Another fact that starts to make sense of it is that, in many parts of many cities, the police go in afraid. So they militarize. And then they are asked to do the job of social services, and sort out domestic disputes, and they go in afraid and militarized. And then they are asked to deal with the homeless and the mentally unwell, and they are afraid and militarized and trained to react to threats with force, rather than to focus on situational awareness and deescalation.
There is so much wrong with the policing situation in the US. And many of the ideas of "Defund the Police" are great - such as a major rethink of what we are asking our police forces to do. But it has to be the absolute worst political slogan ever if you are actually trying to achieve something, as it alienates not just the right, but the entire middle ground (at least until they understand that it does not actually mean 'defund policing').
It is an astonishing failure of a slogan. And it seems they are doubling down on it.
I think going on cruises is utterly passive, like watching grass grow, but more polluting. I recommend walking or cycling in this remarkable country.
I'm going to disagree fundamentally with you not because you're wrong but because everyone has a right to the holiday of their choice.
Some people don't like walking or cycling and would rather be passive on a ship or at a nice hotel - it's a question of what works for you.
Clearly, cruise holidays have an appeal otherwise there wouldn't be the oceanic leviathans which used to ply their trade across the waters and now sit in Weymouth Bay or elsewhere.
Not my idea, but I recently saw an article which explained that, for the elderly, a cruise ship was cheaper than a care home, the food was better and the staff were much more polite. And if you want to cycle, thee's a gym with a bike with one of those boxes on it, so you can pretend you're cycling through the Dales or wherever. Not entirely my idea of fun, but most of the time I could keep an eye on Bp for an hour or so a day as well.
You could walk a mile in 2 and a half full laps of the deck on some cruise ships
Be worried kids. Prof Tim Spector of KCL and the ZOE app warns that:
"they will use the new vaccine news as a “carrot” to keep us locked down for the next three months, when he believes it will likely take most of the year to get enough people vaccinated"
That's right - it will be used as a carrot to keep most of us locked down for the next three months after which the most vulnerable will be protected (which is what we're going for here), and we ca start loosening up.
If you are a healthy 30 year old man, getting the disease is not that big a deal. The issue is if you pass it on to your 70 year old father who has co-morbidities. If said father has been vaccinated, then you getting the disease is a much less serious issue.
Most of the time. We have twenty something on our covid ICU.
14 in Chesterfield and 58 I/Ps
I meant a Twenty something patient. We have 28 patients there.
What I can't work out is in what alternative planet do you have a Director of Comms who doesn't have the (about to be) number one press/media spokesperson and most visible representation of the government, reporting to them?
Who thought that would last two minutes?
Strikes me that none of these people have ever run anything in their lives.
"Run something? Good God!! We are not 'Managers'. That is what we have the lower classes for. Break out the Bolly...."
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.
Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?
Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
I honestly don't know the answer, but is tidal being adopted widely across the globe?
Few places have the tidal power potential that Britian has, so it's particularly stupid that we are not maximisong the opportunity:
The UK would be the word leader in this nascent industry. The UK resource makes it worth doing anyway, but there are a decent number of countries to whom it couuld readily be exported.
So do you think the reasons are simply nuclear industry lobbying, and essentially corporate rather than technical ?
Oh, 100%. We have an opportunity to create a power source where those in the mid-22nd Century would marvel at our foresight.
La Rance tidal power station was built in the 1960's in France. It has just been upgraded with new turbines for the next 60 years.
It generates the cheapest power in France. (Which they then export to the UK at a huge mark-up....)
Now where have I heard that before - it all sounds remarkably like continental providers charging more for mail and train services here than they do at home, too. In several key, strategic areas Britain is still the unknowing, vanguard laboratory for ultra free market ideology it was in 1981.
I think going on cruises is utterly passive, like watching grass grow, but more polluting. I recommend walking or cycling in this remarkable country.
I'm going to disagree fundamentally with you not because you're wrong but because everyone has a right to the holiday of their choice.
Some people don't like walking or cycling and would rather be passive on a ship or at a nice hotel - it's a question of what works for you.
Clearly, cruise holidays have an appeal otherwise there wouldn't be the oceanic leviathans which used to ply their trade across the waters and now sit in Weymouth Bay or elsewhere.
Not my idea, but I recently saw an article which explained that, for the elderly, a cruise ship was cheaper than a care home, the food was better and the staff were much more polite. And if you want to cycle, thee's a gym with a bike with one of those boxes on it, so you can pretend you're cycling through the Dales or wherever. Not entirely my idea of fun, but most of the time I could keep an eye on Bp for an hour or so a day as well.
You could walk a mile in 2 and a half full laps of the deck on some cruise ships
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.
Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?
Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
I honestly don't know the answer, but is tidal being adopted widely across the globe?
Few places have the tidal power potential that Britian has, so it's particularly stupid that we are not maximisong the opportunity:
The UK would be the word leader in this nascent industry. The UK resource makes it worth doing anyway, but there are a decent number of countries to whom it couuld readily be exported.
So do you think the reasons are simply nuclear industry lobbying, and essentially corporate rather than technical ?
The problem is that the plan for Hinckley C was conceived when everyone was convinced the world was running out of natural gas, renewables were expensive and would be a marginal contributor to total UK generation, and we didn't want to be dependent on coal for baseload power.
Since then, the cost of wind, solar and natural gas have all collapsed, and we don't need baseload - what we need is cheap (relatively clean) natural gas combined cycle generators to step in whenever the wind isn't blowing.
Tidal, by the way, is a good addition to the mix, with the added advantage that (while intermittent) it is relatively predictable.
Each tidal power station produces for 14 hours in 24 hours. With the differences in high tide around the coast, you can deliver effective baseload around the clock. What tidal has over other renewables is the dependability - you know exactly how much power is delivered on any day for the next 120 years.
I think going on cruises is utterly passive, like watching grass grow, but more polluting. I recommend walking or cycling in this remarkable country.
I'm going to disagree fundamentally with you not because you're wrong but because everyone has a right to the holiday of their choice.
Some people don't like walking or cycling and would rather be passive on a ship or at a nice hotel - it's a question of what works for you.
Clearly, cruise holidays have an appeal otherwise there wouldn't be the oceanic leviathans which used to ply their trade across the waters and now sit in Weymouth Bay or elsewhere.
Not my idea, but I recently saw an article which explained that, for the elderly, a cruise ship was cheaper than a care home, the food was better and the staff were much more polite. And if you want to cycle, thee's a gym with a bike with one of those boxes on it, so you can pretend you're cycling through the Dales or wherever. Not entirely my idea of fun, but most of the time I could keep an eye on Bp for an hour or so a day as well.
You could walk a mile in 2 and a half full laps of the deck on some cruise ships
On the minus side, the booze isn't cheap.
It is ridiculously expensive but as my wife is teetotal and I rarely drink alcohol it is not an issue for us
What I can't work out is in what alternative planet do you have a Director of Comms who doesn't have the (about to be) number one press/media spokesperson and most visible representation of the government, reporting to them?
Manager vs Director of Football situation perhaps.
If the media spent as much time educating themselves about covid and stats as they do on breathless reporting of political melodramas, they might actually get things right once in a while.
Had the FT corrected the record yet on their bollocks claim on 43bn spent on project moonshot? Or the various papers claims of Sunak going to launch help out to eat out for Christmas?
I thought you were going along last night with the suggestion that "three people get infected after taking 92% effective vaccine", with no further information at all, proved or suggested anything about anything. I am profoundly opposed to the fashion for "calling people out" on stuff on here, but could you talk us through that one, from the educated-about-stats perspective?
That was from memory about the Russians not the Pfizer vaccine. And nobody seems to be taking the Russians claims credulously.
This thread on the second (!) Sharpiegate lawsuit is hilarious. If this is the best team Trump can come up with, this is going to be over very quickly.
AOC kicking off the Democrat civil war with Joe Mancin before sleepy Joe heads into office. The whole defund the police stuff probably costs them GA senate seats.
'Defund the Police' must be the worst, most alienating political slogan that the left has ever come up with.
And it's a shame really, because there's a debate to be had about how best to tackle crime in USA cities, and the role of the police in this. There's a serious argument to be had that, if budgets are limited, diverting some funds currently spent on 'law and order' to community projects, mental health and social services and so on may be more effective in tackling the social problems that underpin crime than police action. Then obviously if crime reduces the police need less money. The same sort of thinking could well be applied to tackling the opioid crisis, which is more a mental health crisis than a normal 'health' or law and order crisis.
We live in the UK, the Police in the US is a very different beast (with very different funding and recruitment practices) than this country.
My comment was only about the USA - no mention of the UK.
The thing is that we are sat in the UK - which means that while we may think we know the nuances we actually don't.
Portland is a great example, when I read up on the protests there I eventually discovered (but only after reading multiple articles and this was almost an aside) that the police aren't recruited from within Portland but actually come from the very white suburbs around it.
Yet once you discovered that single fact everything else which previously made little sense suddenly fell into place.
But it is not just one single fact. Another fact that starts to make sense of it is that, in many parts of many cities, the police go in afraid. So they militarize. And then they are asked to do the job of social services, and sort out domestic disputes, and they go in afraid and militarized. And then they are asked to deal with the homeless and the mentally unwell, and they are afraid and militarized and trained to react to threats with force, rather than to focus on situational awareness and deescalation.
There is so much wrong with the policing situation in the US. And many of the ideas of "Defund the Police" are great - such as a major rethink of what we are asking our police forces to do. But it has to be the absolute worst political slogan ever if you are actually trying to achieve something, as it alienates not just the right, but the entire middle ground (at least until they understand that it does not actually mean 'defund policing').
It is an astonishing failure of a slogan. And it seems they are doubling down on it.
I really don't get it. Once they can break through about what they want it all becomes so much more reasonable, so why start from a position of defensiveness? Your opponents will do the heavy lifting there, no need to give them a hand - it's why the thing people remember as the Bedroom Tax was't officially called that. Sure, the gov lost the image fight on that one, but they'd have lost sooner if that was their chosen name.
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.
Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?
Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
I honestly don't know the answer, but is tidal being adopted widely across the globe?
Few places have the tidal power potential that Britian has, so it's particularly stupid that we are not maximisong the opportunity:
The UK would be the word leader in this nascent industry. The UK resource makes it worth doing anyway, but there are a decent number of countries to whom it couuld readily be exported.
So do you think the reasons are simply nuclear industry lobbying, and essentially corporate rather than technical ?
Oh, 100%. We have an opportunity to create a power source where those in the mid-22nd Century would marvel at our foresight.
La Rance tidal power station was built in the 1960's in France. It has just been upgraded with new turbines for the next 60 years.
It generates the cheapest power in France. (Which they then export to the UK at a huge mark-up....)
Now where have I heard that before - it all sounds remarkably like continental providers charging more for mail and train services here than they do at home, too. In several key, strategic areas Britain is still the unknowing, vanguard laboratory for ultra free market ideology it was in 1981.
The French sell electricity at the spot price in the UK, they aren't setting the price, the market is, and EDF can choose to sell MW or not at that price.
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.
Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?
Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
I honestly don't know the answer, but is tidal being adopted widely across the globe?
Few places have the tidal power potential that Britian has, so it's particularly stupid that we are not maximisong the opportunity:
The UK would be the word leader in this nascent industry. The UK resource makes it worth doing anyway, but there are a decent number of countries to whom it couuld readily be exported.
So do you think the reasons are simply nuclear industry lobbying, and essentially corporate rather than technical ?
The problem is that the plan for Hinckley C was conceived when everyone was convinced the world was running out of natural gas, renewables were expensive and would be a marginal contributor to total UK generation, and we didn't want to be dependent on coal for baseload power.
Since then, the cost of wind, solar and natural gas have all collapsed, and we don't need baseload - what we need is cheap (relatively clean) natural gas combined cycle generators to step in whenever the wind isn't blowing.
Tidal, by the way, is a good addition to the mix, with the added advantage that (while intermittent) it is relatively predictable.
Each tidal power station produces for 14 hours in 24 hours. With the differences in high tide around the coast, you can deliver effective baseload around the clock. What tidal has over other renewables is the dependability - you know exactly how much power is delivered on any day for the next 120 years.
I really hate to say it, but I kind of understand where they are coming from. I don't know why it would matter, but I do know people who have been terrified all along of any extension - it was their major worry when Boris went into ICU that no one else would ensure we did not extend the transition.
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.
Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?
Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
I honestly don't know the answer, but is tidal being adopted widely across the globe?
Few places have the tidal power potential that Britian has, so it's particularly stupid that we are not maximisong the opportunity:
The UK would be the word leader in this nascent industry. The UK resource makes it worth doing anyway, but there are a decent number of countries to whom it couuld readily be exported.
So do you think the reasons are simply nuclear industry lobbying, and essentially corporate rather than technical ?
Oh, 100%. We have an opportunity to create a power source where those in the mid-22nd Century would marvel at our foresight.
La Rance tidal power station was built in the 1960's in France. It has just been upgraded with new turbines for the next 60 years.
It generates the cheapest power in France. (Which they then export to the UK at a huge mark-up....)
Now where have I heard that before - it all sounds remarkably like continental providers charging more for mail and train services here than they do at home, too. In several key, strategic areas Britain is still the unknowing, vanguard laboratory for ultra free market ideology it was in 1981.
The French sell electricity at the spot price in the UK, they aren't setting the price, the market is, and EDF can choose to sell MW or not at that price.
However, no other major western economy has put itself in such a vassal position as regards its strategic industries, all in the overall service of free market thinking. Not even Reagan's America went as far.
Pretty sure plenty of MPs have already called on him to do so before, maybe it'll finally work this time, if more stick their heads above the parapet. Not that it always helps, as Javid could tell us.
I really hate to say it, but I kind of understand where they are coming from. I don't know why it would matter, but I do know people who have been terrified all along of any extension - it was their major worry when Boris went into ICU that no one else would ensure we did not extend the transition.
If they were so worried about it then why not stop blocking every single negotiation with the EU by inventing bollocks like we wont be able to create neo-Google at Grimsby old docks if we don't No Deal.
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.
Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?
Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
I honestly don't know the answer, but is tidal being adopted widely across the globe?
Few places have the tidal power potential that Britian has, so it's particularly stupid that we are not maximisong the opportunity:
Why was the swansea project ditched?
There's a question.
But essentially, nobbled by The Blob - nuclear's stooges within government. The report that went up to Theresa May had one number £30 billion wrong. Another £60 billion wrong. Both in favour of nuclear.
Nuclear is paranoid that once we build one tidal lagoon, the economics of nuclear power stations will be exposed as being crazily uneconomic in comparison.
You would not believe the shit that tidal has endured.
Agreed. It’s a great illustration of a policy issue which crosses the political divide. But unfortunately until the first large scale project is built and successful, few voters are going to care enough to make it politically costly to sabotage.
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.
Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?
Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
I honestly don't know the answer, but is tidal being adopted widely across the globe?
Few places have the tidal power potential that Britian has, so it's particularly stupid that we are not maximisong the opportunity:
The UK would be the word leader in this nascent industry. The UK resource makes it worth doing anyway, but there are a decent number of countries to whom it couuld readily be exported.
So do you think the reasons are simply nuclear industry lobbying, and essentially corporate rather than technical ?
The problem is that the plan for Hinckley C was conceived when everyone was convinced the world was running out of natural gas, renewables were expensive and would be a marginal contributor to total UK generation, and we didn't want to be dependent on coal for baseload power.
Since then, the cost of wind, solar and natural gas have all collapsed, and we don't need baseload - what we need is cheap (relatively clean) natural gas combined cycle generators to step in whenever the wind isn't blowing.
Tidal, by the way, is a good addition to the mix, with the added advantage that (while intermittent) it is relatively predictable.
Each tidal power station produces for 14 hours in 24 hours. With the differences in high tide around the coast, you can deliver effective baseload around the clock. What tidal has over other renewables is the dependability - you know exactly how much power is delivered on any day for the next 120 years.
“The view from a lot of colleagues today is that we are witnessing the end of hope in Boris as a second-term PM,” they said. “He has left a vacuum at the centre of government and that is being filled by Cummings, who does not like the Conservative party, and his fiancee, who lives above the shop. It’s like the script from a bad soap opera.”
The bumbling old Etonian PM The 'evil genius' adviser who'll stop at nothing The fruity girlfriend The former Guardian/BBC journalist brought in as a counterpoint The scheming husband and wife power couple
Just think what Noel Coward could have done with material like that.
Pretty sure plenty of MPs have already called on him to do so before, maybe it'll finally work this time, if more stick their heads above the parapet. Not that it always helps, as Javid could tell us.
Tomorrows headlines might be interesting if Dom fires the Conservative Party for daring to interfere with the Masterplan
Labour are slightly or further down in all these most recent polls, and the only thing that's really changed obviously in their public profile recently is the Corbyn suspension. If I was Starmer I would be very wary of it, and trying to think of a way to patch things up, before the "Labour splits" narrative really takes hold.
Some movement Labour to Green certainly and a bit from Tories to Farage, little movement recently between the 2 main parties who are about neck and neck with most of the Labour gains since 2019 still coming from the LDs
Hm, yup. Without wanting to say 'I told you so' , some slippage to the Greens and others was what I predicted the day after the Corbyn suspension.
The Greens really should have become a proper party in the UK years ago. Their only 'leading light' is Lucas and even with the best will in the world she's pretty average. I can't remember the name of the half-leader with the Aussie accent, but she did them a dis-service.
Their main issue though is that they actually don't know what they're talking about - sure they know the green bit, but they don't have a clue about the non-green bit, even if that is what they're trying to argue against.
Nuclear energy is the easiest example - none of the Greens have a clue about it, and yet they're absolutely sure that it's a bad option. I'd not make the case for nuclear being super-green, but perhaps you could, and the greens haven't even wondered about that. UK greens at least are just de-industrialists, anti-economists, and without sense.
Nuclear power is an issue that has overtaken the Greens. The climate emergency is so acute now that we positively need nuclear power because the ecology needs drastic intervention. If action on carbon emissions had happened a lot earlier, nuclear power might not have been necessary. The Green objections to nuclear power are solid and sensible; there is a legacy of pollution that will outlast the next thousand generations, and inflicting the risks on future generations is selfish and irresponsible. But in the short term, we now need it along with every other measure you can think of, just to get carbon emissions down to a sensible level. I changed my mind on nuclear power some years ago, and I'm strongly in favour of it, and the reasons for that change are entirely in the "green" policy sphere. It baffles me that many Greens haven't caught up, but their objections are merely outdated, not senseless.
No, the UK does not need need nuclear energy. Tidal lagoon power could be in place WAY before the replacements for current nuclear that is going to be decommissioned. Both planning and construction are far quicker. Construction is also far, far cheaper. 2030 would see planning met and construction largely completed - if we started now. Paid for by the private sector - locking in the current very cheap money and Green Bonds. With 80,000 jobs created during the process. And power close to half the cost per unit of nuclear. With plants lasting a minimum vast amount of money to of 120 years, compared to 60 - tops - for a nuclear plant. That then costs a vast amount to abandon.
One day, people will realise that they have been duped on a grand scale by the nuclear industry. As they pay hugely over the odds for their electricity for many decades. But you really aren't to be allowed to know this. Government is so far up the nuclear rectum, they make it their business to close down competition.
There's a great political story for Labour to exploit here.
If you're saying there are better alternatives than new nuclear power, then ok, I'll look into it to satisfy curiosity. But I wasn't only talking about new nuclear. I used to be of the opinion that nuclear power stations should be shut down, and some people are still of that opinion. We cannot do that, and for that reason alone, I'm certain that we need existing nuclear power at least in the medium term, because renewables are not yet meeting our needs.
The great bulk of current nuclear capacity is gone by 2030. You are looking at new capacity.
Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?
Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
I honestly don't know the answer, but is tidal being adopted widely across the globe?
Few places have the tidal power potential that Britian has, so it's particularly stupid that we are not maximisong the opportunity:
The UK would be the word leader in this nascent industry. The UK resource makes it worth doing anyway, but there are a decent number of countries to whom it couuld readily be exported.
So do you think the reasons are simply nuclear industry lobbying, and essentially corporate rather than technical ?
The problem is that the plan for Hinckley C was conceived when everyone was convinced the world was running out of natural gas, renewables were expensive and would be a marginal contributor to total UK generation, and we didn't want to be dependent on coal for baseload power.
Since then, the cost of wind, solar and natural gas have all collapsed, and we don't need baseload - what we need is cheap (relatively clean) natural gas combined cycle generators to step in whenever the wind isn't blowing.
Tidal, by the way, is a good addition to the mix, with the added advantage that (while intermittent) it is relatively predictable.
Each tidal power station produces for 14 hours in 24 hours. With the differences in high tide around the coast, you can deliver effective baseload around the clock. What tidal has over other renewables is the dependability - you know exactly how much power is delivered on any day for the next 120 years.
This may sound an ignorant question but why do we need dependability if the rest of our energy is not dependable nor on demand?
If the wind is blowing hard and we are getting a lot of energy from wind then how are we advantaged knowing as well as the wind we also have tidal available now too?
If the wind stops and we need on demand energy then how are we advantaged knowing that tidal isn't working right now but will in six hours time?
To me it seems if we are primarily using wind then we surely need to supplement that with energy that can be accessed on demand rather than on a schedule?
Of course nuclear doesn't help with on demand either.
I really hate to say it, but I kind of understand where they are coming from. I don't know why it would matter, but I do know people who have been terrified all along of any extension - it was their major worry when Boris went into ICU that no one else would ensure we did not extend the transition.
If they were so worried about it then why not stop blocking every single negotiation with the EU by inventing bollocks like we wont be able to create neo-Google at Grimsby old docks if we don't No Deal.
I understood their fear of how some people will get upset, not their chosen responses.
They purged all the Remainers. Even Labour do not have any left...
Could it be that the Cabal are too scared to Brexit? They are inventing a strawman as a face-saving excuse to stay in a while longer? Surely they know what it is going to be like in 7 weeks time?
Quite possible. The sinister 'Remoaners' have been a useful bogeyman for some time - all sorts government blunders and implausibilities are blamed on their shadowy machinations - even though, as you say, they all disappeared from positions of power long ago.
Comments
Manchin is a bit of a dick (and voted for Kavanaugh) but that’s what you get if you want a Democratic senate seat from WV.
Tidal could readily replace nuclear. The planned Cardiff lagoon has almost exactly the same output as Hinkley C. Zero-carbon, zero-waste electricity. It would cost £7.5 bn, (compare with £22.5 billion plus plus for Hinkley C) and could be producing from 20 of its 80 turbines within this decade, the rest within a couple of years after that. Tidal doesn't come with the risk of causing a meltdown, the costs of sorting which would make Covid look cheap cheap cheap. What Governemnt would now take that risk?
Tidal is a no-brainer. Ask loudly why it isn't being allowed by this Government.
https://twitter.com/Indy_Quint/status/1326991440325603328?s=20
JIT, apparently.
I recommend walking or cycling in this remarkable country.
Is Gravesend as grim as it sounds ? I've never actually been.
"they will use the new vaccine news as a “carrot” to keep us locked down for the next three months, when he believes it will likely take most of the year to get enough people vaccinated"
ETA (we'd expect prices to fall, as they have done, as we get closer to settlement.)
Police departments across the US are in desperate need of reform, and a poorly chosen label has set back policy by years.
And likely contributed to the loss of a dozen congressional seats.
Some people don't like walking or cycling and would rather be passive on a ship or at a nice hotel - it's a question of what works for you.
Clearly, cruise holidays have an appeal otherwise there wouldn't be the oceanic leviathans which used to ply their trade across the waters and now sit in Weymouth Bay or elsewhere.
Had the FT corrected the record yet on their bollocks claim on 43bn spent on project moonshot? Or the various papers claims of Sunak going to launch help out to eat out for Christmas?
Edit: indeed it has: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyce_Green_Hospital
But essentially, nobbled by The Blob - nuclear's stooges within government. The report that went up to Theresa May had one number £30 billion wrong. Another £60 billion wrong. Both in favour of nuclear.
Nuclear is paranoid that once we build one tidal lagoon, the economics of nuclear power stations will be exposed as being crazily uneconomic in comparison.
You would not believe the shit that tidal has endured.
If you are a healthy 30 year old man, getting the disease is not that big a deal. The issue is if you pass it on to your 70 year old father who has co-morbidities. If said father has been vaccinated, then you getting the disease is a much less serious issue.
As someone once said about somewhere else.
https://twitter.com/Mahjabinno/status/1325224651476250624
Since then, the cost of wind, solar and natural gas have all collapsed, and we don't need baseload - what we need is cheap (relatively clean) natural gas combined cycle generators to step in whenever the wind isn't blowing.
Tidal, by the way, is a good addition to the mix, with the added advantage that (while intermittent) it is relatively predictable.
My late Father in Law used to say how when coming through the Pentland in his fishing boat he would actually be going backwards on full forward power
And if you want to cycle, thee's a gym with a bike with one of those boxes on it, so you can pretend you're cycling through the Dales or wherever.
Not entirely my idea of fun, but most of the time I could keep an eye on Bp for an hour or so a day as well.
La Rance tidal power station was built in the 1960's in France. It has just been upgraded with new turbines for the next 60 years.
It generates the cheapest power in France. (Which they then export to the UK at a huge mark-up....)
Meanwhile, CCGT with CCS. Low carbon and despatchable. See also Allam Cycle.
Could it be that the Cabal are too scared to Brexit? They are inventing a strawman as a face-saving excuse to stay in a while longer? Surely they know what it is going to be like in 7 weeks time?
Defund The Police though is the worst slogan of all time. And the defensiveness the American Left are building about it will kill them. They are literally driving people who agree with the goals of Defund the Police into voting for Republicans.
Who thought that would last two minutes?
Strikes me that none of these people have ever run anything in their lives.
As in this interesting story from the US.
https://twitter.com/BrettKelman/status/1326888878486196226
Business, industry, unions and the exchequer would all breathe a sigh of relief in the middle of a pandemic, too.
A Freudian slip if ever I saw one.
If this is the best team Trump can come up with, this is going to be over very quickly.
https://twitter.com/alanfeuer/status/1326939929851662339
It’s a great illustration of a policy issue which crosses the political divide.
But unfortunately until the first large scale project is built and successful, few voters are going to care enough to make it politically costly to sabotage.
If the wind is blowing hard and we are getting a lot of energy from wind then how are we advantaged knowing as well as the wind we also have tidal available now too?
If the wind stops and we need on demand energy then how are we advantaged knowing that tidal isn't working right now but will in six hours time?
To me it seems if we are primarily using wind then we surely need to supplement that with energy that can be accessed on demand rather than on a schedule?
Of course nuclear doesn't help with on demand either.
To celebrate I had one firework left I kept back, Fountain of Mayhem, and I have set it off outside just now. 🥙