They've had a year to prepare for the thing that they said would be easy and would be great. Why aren't they ready? Could it be because the whole thing is bollocks?
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.
Video of dead 'covid patient' in hospital ward toilet and people 'abandoned in their own excrement' shocks Italy while Sicilian mayor warns of massacre' as cases and deaths spiral
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.
Whereas I imagine they have the Channel Islands by the balls, monopolies being what they are.
The CI of course also have more tide than anywhere else in the world. Alderney seems to be taking the hint.
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.
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.
So, it's February. We have a massive high pressure system sitting over us. It is below zero all day, sharply so at night.
The turbines are delivering zero power, as they sit idle, day and night in flat calm weather.
A dozen tidal lagoons around the coast means that at any time, say 8 the size of nuclear plants are producing (there is a degree of flexibility to hold back the water and generate a little later, when demand is highest).
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.
You mean the way that - based on the Russian published numbers - 1.6 people who'd received the vaccines had Covid?
Off topic. I’ve come to the conclusion Trump’s re-elect bid is in some trouble now, and he isn’t going to hold onto office.
Why would you even think he might hold on? All the institutional processes are against him, all his "lawsuits" are baloney and ritual dance of the Electoral Colleges will not change what everyone knows - that Trump lost by a good margin.
Even the networks - including Fox - turned on him as soon as it was clear he was a loser.
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.
Well, my understanding was that in general the Russians don't mean for people to take their communications seriously, it's about throwing out a lot nonsense to confuse things, so they could hardly complain about incredulity.
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
Rasputin of course took a second go to get rid of him finally as the poison in the sherry didn't work.
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.
It's not a vassal position, we have plenty of capacity in the UK. It's just that it's cheaper to use excess French power than to fire up an Open Cycle Gas Turbine (and which probably puts us in a more vassalage position, given we need to import the gas for the turbine anyway).
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.
Quite the reverse. Starmer has a free hit.
"During his election campaign for leader, Boris Johnson said in Wales that he was in favour of developing tidal power.
He has had the opportunity to implement this. Instead, he has reneged. He could have been creating 80,000 jobs in this new industry. An industry that would have made Wales the first country powered by the tides. Zero carbon, zero waste power that would have been meeting our commitment to climate change. Playing our part in saving the planet.
Instead, he has gone with nuclear. With its problems of security, waste, cost. Especially cost. His going with the massively costly nuclear option means that you, your children, your grandchildren will be paying far more for their elecricity than you and they need to."
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.
It's not a vassal position, we have plenty of capacity in the UK. It's just that it's cheaper to use excess French power than to fire up an Open Cycle Gas Turbine (and which probably puts us in a more vassalage position, given we need to import the gas for the turbine anyway).
We rely heavily on nuclear power, but have heavily lost our own nuclear expertise. We're dependent on foreign providers in other key strategic and infrastractural areas. No other major western countries have followed this kind of route to this extent.
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
Rasputin of course took a second go to get rid of him finally as the poison in the sherry didn't work.
Only a lunatic PM would not take a 12 month extension to get through the covid crisis.
Boris was offered one. He turned it down and went out of his way to do so.
It's entirely rational not to take an extension. Why throw away the opportunity of getting this done during COVID?
I am not saying that they should take an extension, just pointing out that they deliberately turned one down. So if it all goes pear-shaped then it is all their fault.
Personally, I do NOT think that they should ask for an extension. I think that they should put their money where their mouth is, because up now, they have had plenty of mouth.
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.
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.
So, it's February. We have a massive high pressure system sitting over us. It is below zero all day, sharply so at night.
The turbines are delivering zero power, as they sit idle, day and night in flat calm weather.
A dozen tidal lagoons around the coast means that at any time, say 8 the size of nuclear plants are producing (there is a degree of flexibility to hold back the water and generate a little later, when demand is highest).
But if the turbines are producing zero we will need more on demand energy than if the turbines were producing at full whack.
Those dozen lagoons how do we make them produce on demand when the turbines are producing nothing? Or are they just going to keep producing the same regardless of whether the turbines are working or not?
On demand is more advantageous than predictability given that the predictability can't be used to our advantage much. If the rest of our energy was on demand (like gas) then predictability is fantastic but when the alternative is wind it seems the wrong answer to the question. The ability to hold back the water sounds more advantageous.
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.
It's not a vassal position, we have plenty of capacity in the UK. It's just that it's cheaper to use excess French power than to fire up an Open Cycle Gas Turbine (and which probably puts us in a more vassalage position, given we need to import the gas for the turbine anyway).
We really heavily on nuclear power, but have heavily lost our own nuclear expertise. We rely on foreign providers in other key strategic and infrastractural areas. No other major western countries have followed the same route.
We are going to be dependent on foreign countries for our energy, one way or another.
If we go nuclear, we will be dependent on imports of uranium, we also sent overseas some of our nuclear waste. Even if we had "expertise", we would still be dependent on the rest of the world to maintain a nuclear power generating capability.
Not a single nuclear power plant has been built anywhere in the world, ever, without government subsidy.
Hinckley Point C is extremely expensive, and will result in both higher tax bills for UK firms, and higher electrictiy prices for everyone as the grid is required to buy its power at a fixed (and growing) price.
So, what exactly is the point of Hinckley Point C?
It is also worth remembering that nuclear power is in decline almost everywhere now. Only in China are new reactors coming on stream, and even there plans for new plants are being shelved left, right and center. In the US and in Europe, reactors are being taken off-line every year. Simple, they can't compete with renewables.
So, here's my question: why would we want to force the grid to buy expensive electricity that doesn't improve our energy independence, and which disadvantages British firms by increasng the price of electricity?
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.
You mean the way that - based on the Russian published numbers - 1.6 people who'd received the vaccines had Covid?
I couldn't work out how they'd got "92% effectiveness" from "20 cases"
Be interesting to see what they send to the WHO.....
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.
Quite the reverse. Starmer has a free hit.
"During his election campaign for leader, Boris Johnson said in Wales that he was in favour of developing tidal power.
He has had the opportunity to implement this. Instead, he has reneged. He could have been creating 80,000 jobs in this new industry. An industry that would have made Wales the first country powered by the tides. Zero carbon, zero waste power that would have been meeting our commitment to climate change. Playing our part in saving the planet.
Instead, he has gone with nuclear. With its problems of security, waste, cost. Especially cost. His going with the massively costly nuclear option means that you, your children, your grandchildren will be paying far more for their elecricity than you and they need to."
I meant that you and I agree on the policy, and it’s pure common sense, as opposed to any kind of political stance. And sure, Starmer would be very sensible, and entirely correct to say something along those lines, but it’s unlikely to move the political dial much.
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.
It's not a vassal position, we have plenty of capacity in the UK. It's just that it's cheaper to use excess French power than to fire up an Open Cycle Gas Turbine (and which probably puts us in a more vassalage position, given we need to import the gas for the turbine anyway).
We really heavily on nuclear power, but have heavily lost our own nuclear expertise. We rely on foreign providers in other key strategic and infrastractural areas. No other major western countries have followed the same route.
We are going to be dependent on foreign countries for our energy, one way or another.
If we go nuclear, we will be dependent on imports of uranium, we also sent overseas some of our nuclear waste. Even if we had "expertise", we would still be dependent on the rest of the world to maintain a nuclear power generating capability.
Not a single nuclear power plant has been built anywhere in the world, ever, without government subsidy.
Hinckley Point C is extremely expensive, and will result in both higher tax bills for UK firms, and higher electrictiy prices for everyone as the grid is required to buy its power at a fixed (and growing) price.
So, what exactly is the point of Hinckley Point C?
It is also worth remembering that nuclear power is in decline almost everywhere now. Only in China are new reactors coming on stream, and even there plans for new plants are being shelved left, right and center. In the US and in Europe, reactors are being taken off-line every year. Simple, they can't compete with renewables.
So, here's my question: why would we want to force the grid to buy expensive electricity that doesn't improve our energy independence, and which disadvantages British firms by increasng the price of electricity?
Tidal lagoons are 85% UK content. The supply chain is across the Red Wall seats.
Like I said, tidal lagoons are politically a no-brainer. Sadly, on energy policy, this Government has no brain.
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.
It's not a vassal position, we have plenty of capacity in the UK. It's just that it's cheaper to use excess French power than to fire up an Open Cycle Gas Turbine (and which probably puts us in a more vassalage position, given we need to import the gas for the turbine anyway).
We really heavily on nuclear power, but have heavily lost our own nuclear expertise. We rely on foreign providers in other key strategic and infrastractural areas. No other major western countries have followed the same route.
We are going to be dependent on foreign countries for our energy, one way or another.
If we go nuclear, we will be dependent on imports of uranium, we also sent overseas some of our nuclear waste. Even if we had "expertise", we would still be dependent on the rest of the world to maintain a nuclear power generating capability.
Not a single nuclear power plant has been built anywhere in the world, ever, without government subsidy.
Hinckley Point C is extremely expensive, and will result in both higher tax bills for UK firms, and higher electrictiy prices for everyone as the grid is required to buy its power at a fixed (and growing) price.
So, what exactly is the point of Hinckley Point C?
It is also worth remembering that nuclear power is in decline almost everywhere now. Only in China are new reactors coming on stream, and even there plans for new plants are being shelved left, right and center. In the US and in Europe, reactors are being taken off-line every year. Simple, they can't compete with renewables.
So, here's my question: why would we want to force the grid to buy expensive electricity that doesn't improve our energy independence, and which disadvantages British firms by increasng the price of electricity?
Surely the time has long since come to scrap Hinkley C. Even if it has penalty fees attached to scrapping it.
Or scrapping it as sanctions on China for what they're doing in Hong Kong.
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.
It's not a vassal position, we have plenty of capacity in the UK. It's just that it's cheaper to use excess French power than to fire up an Open Cycle Gas Turbine (and which probably puts us in a more vassalage position, given we need to import the gas for the turbine anyway).
We really heavily on nuclear power, but have heavily lost our own nuclear expertise. We rely on foreign providers in other key strategic and infrastractural areas. No other major western countries have followed the same route.
We are going to be dependent on foreign countries for our energy, one way or another.
If we go nuclear, we will be dependent on imports of uranium, we also sent overseas some of our nuclear waste. Even if we had "expertise", we would still be dependent on the rest of the world to maintain a nuclear power generating capability.
Not a single nuclear power plant has been built anywhere in the world, ever, without government subsidy.
Hinckley Point C is extremely expensive, and will result in both higher tax bills for UK firms, and higher electrictiy prices for everyone as the grid is required to buy its power at a fixed (and growing) price.
So, what exactly is the point of Hinckley Point C?
It is also worth remembering that nuclear power is in decline almost everywhere now. Only in China are new reactors coming on stream, and even there plans for new plants are being shelved left, right and center. In the US and in Europe, reactors are being taken off-line every year. Simple, they can't compete with renewables.
So, here's my question: why would we want to force the grid to buy expensive electricity that doesn't improve our energy independence, and which disadvantages British firms by increasng the price of electricity?
According to MarqueeMark, because of a corporate-governmental nexus being more influential than a strategic industry ready to grow domestically - tidal power.
That would be an incredibly familiar story in modern Britain.
Caffe Nero has become the latest high-profile business casualty of the Covid-19 pandemic – with the second national lockdown being blamed for its plight.
The coffee chain was last night forced to put itself into a Company Voluntary Arrangement, a type of insolvency that allows firms to continue trading while they attempt to get their finances in order.
That's giving Trump a lot of credit. Too much IMO, that it is all some planned WWE storyline.
No, it’s improvised and disorganised (like most of what Trump has ever done), but the playacting which shades into reality is tried and tested behaviour.
Donald Trump “promised an elixir for the racial anxiety” of “millions of Americans spooked by a black man in the White House”, Barack Obama writes in his eagerly awaited memoir.
Hmm....seems a bit like Brexit was cos of all the racists, rather than admission that globalisation has resulted in a certain demographic of people "losing" at the game and feeling that the establishment / politicians don't value them or are interested in their issues.
God help me I'm watching Question Time. Cos Rosie Jones is on
Just put it on. First time I've seen it outside of election specials since before Dimbleby retired.
Don't know if it's just because it's the Health Secretary talking about a vaccine but it seems much smarter without the audience chipping in with boos, claps and jeers. Can actually have an informed discussion?
God help me I'm watching Question Time. Cos Rosie Jones is on
Just put it on. First time I've seen it outside of election specials since before Dimbleby retired.
Don't know if it's just because it's the Health Secretary talking about a vaccine but it seems much smarter without the audience chipping in with boos, claps and jeers. Can actually have an informed discussion?
God help me I'm watching Question Time. Cos Rosie Jones is on
Just put it on. First time I've seen it outside of election specials since before Dimbleby retired.
Don't know if it's just because it's the Health Secretary talking about a vaccine but it seems much smarter without the audience chipping in with boos, claps and jeers. Can actually have an informed discussion?
God help me I'm watching Question Time. Cos Rosie Jones is on
Just put it on. First time I've seen it outside of election specials since before Dimbleby retired.
Don't know if it's just because it's the Health Secretary talking about a vaccine but it seems much smarter without the audience chipping in with boos, claps and jeers. Can actually have an informed discussion?
Might watch it more often if it stays like this.
Yes, I stopped watching it because the audience was abysmal. Either partisan plants or pond scum.
God help me I'm watching Question Time. Cos Rosie Jones is on
Just put it on. First time I've seen it outside of election specials since before Dimbleby retired.
Don't know if it's just because it's the Health Secretary talking about a vaccine but it seems much smarter without the audience chipping in with boos, claps and jeers. Can actually have an informed discussion?
Might watch it more often if it stays like this.
Yes, I stopped watching it because the audience was abysmal. Either partisan plants or pond scum.
Indeed. The audience were worse than a laugh track. Plants were so obvious too. This is first time I've watched it in years as a result, glad you mentioned it as this is genuinely interesting and informative.
God help me I'm watching Question Time. Cos Rosie Jones is on
Just put it on. First time I've seen it outside of election specials since before Dimbleby retired.
Don't know if it's just because it's the Health Secretary talking about a vaccine but it seems much smarter without the audience chipping in with boos, claps and jeers. Can actually have an informed discussion?
Might watch it more often if it stays like this.
Yes, I stopped watching it because the audience was abysmal. Either partisan plants or pond scum.
God help me I'm watching Question Time. Cos Rosie Jones is on
Just put it on. First time I've seen it outside of election specials since before Dimbleby retired.
Don't know if it's just because it's the Health Secretary talking about a vaccine but it seems much smarter without the audience chipping in with boos, claps and jeers. Can actually have an informed discussion?
Might watch it more often if it stays like this.
Yes, I stopped watching it because the audience was abysmal. Either partisan plants or pond scum.
Indeed. The audience were worse than a laugh track. Plants were so obvious too. This is first time I've watched it in years as a result, glad you mentioned it as this is genuinely interesting and informative.
Without wishing to be mean to the producers and participants of QT, it is pretty hard to see how the audience improves anything. The idea makes sense on paper, going round to various different places and relatively local people putting their views, but outside of local issues (or the ones in the other UK nations) most political views are pretty nationally homogenised, and you're not going to get anything that different, nor are the sort of people who show up normal, nor is it a debate between the audience and the panel.
So unless you want a contest to see who can get the biggest cheer, I'm not sure an audience adds anthing.
My concern long term is that MPs don't like to actually debate things, certainly not in parliament and not likely elsewhere - too high risk if you do a crap job - and while they'll do their best to stick to standard talking points, I can see them not wanting to go onto a show where because of the absence of audience it becomes dangerously close to debating things.
Comments
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8942419/Video-captures-shocking-scenes-Naples-hospital-corpse-covid-patient-slumped-toilet.html
The CI of course also have more tide than anywhere else in the world. Alderney seems to be taking the hint.
The turbines are delivering zero power, as they sit idle, day and night in flat calm weather.
A dozen tidal lagoons around the coast means that at any time, say 8 the size of nuclear plants are producing (there is a degree of flexibility to hold back the water and generate a little later, when demand is highest).
Even the networks - including Fox - turned on him as soon as it was clear he was a loser.
It should probably be called now.
https://twitter.com/RBairner/status/1327009807996510208?s=20
"During his election campaign for leader, Boris Johnson said in Wales that he was in favour of developing tidal power.
He has had the opportunity to implement this. Instead, he has reneged. He could have been creating 80,000 jobs in this new industry. An industry that would have made Wales the first country powered by the tides. Zero carbon, zero waste power that would have been meeting our commitment to climate change. Playing our part in saving the planet.
Instead, he has gone with nuclear. With its problems of security, waste, cost. Especially cost. His going with the massively costly nuclear option means that you, your children, your grandchildren will be paying far more for their elecricity than you and they need to."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_In:_The_Fight_for_Democracy
I hadn't realised quite how badly screwed American "democracy" (sic) is, and what an impressive person Stacy Abrams is.
Flick away. I can't watch this ship of fools.
Personally, I do NOT think that they should ask for an extension. I think that they should put their money where their mouth is, because up now, they have had plenty of mouth.
https://results.decisiondeskhq.com/
Those dozen lagoons how do we make them produce on demand when the turbines are producing nothing? Or are they just going to keep producing the same regardless of whether the turbines are working or not?
On demand is more advantageous than predictability given that the predictability can't be used to our advantage much. If the rest of our energy was on demand (like gas) then predictability is fantastic but when the alternative is wind it seems the wrong answer to the question. The ability to hold back the water sounds more advantageous.
spending a penny?
defund the coppers?
https://twitter.com/JYSexton/status/1326902814736592902
If we go nuclear, we will be dependent on imports of uranium, we also sent overseas some of our nuclear waste. Even if we had "expertise", we would still be dependent on the rest of the world to maintain a nuclear power generating capability.
Not a single nuclear power plant has been built anywhere in the world, ever, without government subsidy.
Hinckley Point C is extremely expensive, and will result in both higher tax bills for UK firms, and higher electrictiy prices for everyone as the grid is required to buy its power at a fixed (and growing) price.
So, what exactly is the point of Hinckley Point C?
It is also worth remembering that nuclear power is in decline almost everywhere now. Only in China are new reactors coming on stream, and even there plans for new plants are being shelved left, right and center. In the US and in Europe, reactors are being taken off-line every year. Simple, they can't compete with renewables.
So, here's my question: why would we want to force the grid to buy expensive electricity that doesn't improve our energy independence, and which disadvantages British firms by increasng the price of electricity?
Be interesting to see what they send to the WHO.....
Looking forward to beating you guys on 18 June @uniondivvie @carnyx @Alistair @DavidL @Scott_P
Seriously though, many congratulations gentlemen.
Scotland: penalty icemen.
And sure, Starmer would be very sensible, and entirely correct to say something along those lines, but it’s unlikely to move the political dial much.
I’d love to be proved wrong.
Like I said, tidal lagoons are politically a no-brainer. Sadly, on energy policy, this Government has no brain.
Or scrapping it as sanctions on China for what they're doing in Hong Kong.
Gonna be quite something!
That would be an incredibly familiar story in modern Britain.
Oh boy.
So that's everyone significant calling the 270 for Biden now then?
Congrats to Scotland Carlotta.
The coffee chain was last night forced to put itself into a Company Voluntary Arrangement, a type of insolvency that allows firms to continue trading while they attempt to get their finances in order.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8943997/Second-coronavirus-lockdown-forces-coffee-chain-Caffe-Nero-Voluntary-Arrangement.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/12/barack-obama-memoir-donald-trump
Hmm....seems a bit like Brexit was cos of all the racists, rather than admission that globalisation has resulted in a certain demographic of people "losing" at the game and feeling that the establishment / politicians don't value them or are interested in their issues.
Don't know if it's just because it's the Health Secretary talking about a vaccine but it seems much smarter without the audience chipping in with boos, claps and jeers. Can actually have an informed discussion?
Might watch it more often if it stays like this.
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1327021528207286273?s=21
https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1327022324458151942?s=21
So unless you want a contest to see who can get the biggest cheer, I'm not sure an audience adds anthing.
My concern long term is that MPs don't like to actually debate things, certainly not in parliament and not likely elsewhere - too high risk if you do a crap job - and while they'll do their best to stick to standard talking points, I can see them not wanting to go onto a show where because of the absence of audience it becomes dangerously close to debating things.