Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
If you can point me to an incidence of him intervening, I'll happily opine.
Oh, saying that, he did try to intervene to stop windfarms, but as a private citizen, not (afaik) coming here and throwing his Presidential weight around.
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
If you can point me to an incidence of him intervening, I'll happily opine.
Oh, saying that, he did try to intervene to stop windfarms, but as a private citizen, not (afaik) coming here and throwing his Presidential weight around.
Brexit...
Trump wasn't President when we voted for Brexit. Obama was, he did intervene, and I was strongly critical. That's not what you were asking though.
Trump during the Brexit process told us what we should do, i.e. sue the EU amongst other things.
So yes, as I suspected it's only when the US does something you disagree with that you call outrage. I'm not surprised in the least.
I praise Kerry for having the balls to stand up to our utterly morally bankrupt Government, who don't give a toss about climate change. Not really.
Tories virtue signal on climate change, end of story
You think Kerry gives more of a toss about climate change, coming from a country with a per person carbon footprint 3 times the size of ours? Do you not think if he gave a real toss, he might start there, rather than racking up airmiles to go to other countries doing a lot better than his and wag his finger?
As I said in my last post, I would still disapprove if I agreed with the action. You've so far failed to provide any examples - Trump sounding off about Brexit from his vantage point as a Presidential candidate is totally different to Obama coming here as President and telling us we'd be at the back of the queue.
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Worth noting that the combined capacity of all the Tesla Gigabatteries - installed and under construction - in the world, is only about a fifth of the capacity of the Dinorwig pumped storage plant in Wales.
Dinorwig is what, 9GWh ? Each of Tesla’s new battery factories, like the ones under construction in Berlin and Texas, are supposed to turn out around 100GWh pa of batteries initially, then doubling from there. I think the entire worldwide production last year was only around 149GWh..
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Worth noting that the combined capacity of all the Tesla Gigabatteries - installed and under construction - in the world, is only about a fifth of the capacity of the Dinorwig pumped storage plant in Wales.
Dinorwig is what, 9GWh ? Each of Tesla’s new battery factories, like the ones under construction in Berlin and Texas, are supposed to turn out around 100GWh pa of batteries initially, then doubling from there. I think the entire worldwide production last year was only around 149GWh..
I'm taking Gigabatteries - like the one backing up the Australian grid, not Gigafactories.
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
If you can point me to an incidence of him intervening, I'll happily opine.
Oh, saying that, he did try to intervene to stop windfarms, but as a private citizen, not (afaik) coming here and throwing his Presidential weight around.
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
If you can point me to an incidence of him intervening, I'll happily opine.
Oh, saying that, he did try to intervene to stop windfarms, but as a private citizen, not (afaik) coming here and throwing his Presidential weight around.
Brexit...
Trump wasn't President when we voted for Brexit. Obama was, he did intervene, and I was strongly critical. That's not what you were asking though.
Trump during the Brexit process told us what we should do, i.e. sue the EU amongst other things.
So yes, as I suspected it's only when the US does something you disagree with that you call outrage. I'm not surprised in the least.
I praise Kerry for having the balls to stand up to our utterly morally bankrupt Government, who don't give a toss about climate change. Not really.
Tories virtue signal on climate change, end of story
You think Kerry gives more of a toss about climate change, coming from a country with a per person carbon footprint 3 times the size of ours? Do you not think if he gave a real toss, he might start there, rather than racking up airmiles to go to other countries doing a lot better than his and wag his finger?
As I said in my last post, I would still disapprove if I agreed with the action. You've so far failed to provide any examples - Trump sounding off about Brexit from his vantage point as a Presidential candidate is totally different to Obama coming here as President and telling us we'd be at the back of the queue.
Trump as *President* said we should sue the EU. Literally Google it dude
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
Mark, I'm being serious here. Do you know anyone that knows Carrie? Casino Royale drove her around, do you think he still has her number? Get Carrie behind it.
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
If you can point me to an incidence of him intervening, I'll happily opine.
Oh, saying that, he did try to intervene to stop windfarms, but as a private citizen, not (afaik) coming here and throwing his Presidential weight around.
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
If you can point me to an incidence of him intervening, I'll happily opine.
Oh, saying that, he did try to intervene to stop windfarms, but as a private citizen, not (afaik) coming here and throwing his Presidential weight around.
Brexit...
Trump wasn't President when we voted for Brexit. Obama was, he did intervene, and I was strongly critical. That's not what you were asking though.
Trump during the Brexit process told us what we should do, i.e. sue the EU amongst other things.
So yes, as I suspected it's only when the US does something you disagree with that you call outrage. I'm not surprised in the least.
I praise Kerry for having the balls to stand up to our utterly morally bankrupt Government, who don't give a toss about climate change. Not really.
Tories virtue signal on climate change, end of story
You think Kerry gives more of a toss about climate change, coming from a country with a per person carbon footprint 3 times the size of ours? Do you not think if he gave a real toss, he might start there, rather than racking up airmiles to go to other countries doing a lot better than his and wag his finger?
As I said in my last post, I would still disapprove if I agreed with the action. You've so far failed to provide any examples - Trump sounding off about Brexit from his vantage point as a Presidential candidate is totally different to Obama coming here as President and telling us we'd be at the back of the queue.
Trump as *President* said we should sue the EU. Literally Google it dude
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
If you can point me to an incidence of him intervening, I'll happily opine.
Oh, saying that, he did try to intervene to stop windfarms, but as a private citizen, not (afaik) coming here and throwing his Presidential weight around.
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
If you can point me to an incidence of him intervening, I'll happily opine.
Oh, saying that, he did try to intervene to stop windfarms, but as a private citizen, not (afaik) coming here and throwing his Presidential weight around.
Brexit...
Trump wasn't President when we voted for Brexit. Obama was, he did intervene, and I was strongly critical. That's not what you were asking though.
Trump during the Brexit process told us what we should do, i.e. sue the EU amongst other things.
So yes, as I suspected it's only when the US does something you disagree with that you call outrage. I'm not surprised in the least.
I praise Kerry for having the balls to stand up to our utterly morally bankrupt Government, who don't give a toss about climate change. Not really.
Tories virtue signal on climate change, end of story
It is gross hypocrisy from Kerry and Biden.
40% of UK energy is now provided by renewables but only 11% of US energy comes from renewables.
Will Kerry and Biden be shutting coalmines in Pennsylvania? Certainly not
They won't need to: those coalmines are being shut down because of natural gas has fallen to $2.69/mmbtu. Quite extraordinarily, it's now cheaper to use the gas starter for your coal plant on its own rather than to add coal to the mix.
The problem with that argument is that it's not just EU countries which have a problem with the AZ vaccine.
Unless you think the South Africans, the Swiss, the Norwegians, the Americans and the Icelandics are all in together with the EU.
It's fearmongering. From the Telegraph:
The European Medicines Agency is investigating the reports, but stressed that the number of "thromboembolic events" - marked by the formation of blood clots - was no higher among vaccinated people than in the general population. It said 30 cases had been reported among the close to 5 million vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine in the European Economic Area.
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
If you can point me to an incidence of him intervening, I'll happily opine.
Oh, saying that, he did try to intervene to stop windfarms, but as a private citizen, not (afaik) coming here and throwing his Presidential weight around.
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
If you can point me to an incidence of him intervening, I'll happily opine.
Oh, saying that, he did try to intervene to stop windfarms, but as a private citizen, not (afaik) coming here and throwing his Presidential weight around.
Brexit...
Trump wasn't President when we voted for Brexit. Obama was, he did intervene, and I was strongly critical. That's not what you were asking though.
Trump during the Brexit process told us what we should do, i.e. sue the EU amongst other things.
So yes, as I suspected it's only when the US does something you disagree with that you call outrage. I'm not surprised in the least.
I praise Kerry for having the balls to stand up to our utterly morally bankrupt Government, who don't give a toss about climate change. Not really.
Tories virtue signal on climate change, end of story
You think Kerry gives more of a toss about climate change, coming from a country with a per person carbon footprint 3 times the size of ours? Do you not think if he gave a real toss, he might start there, rather than racking up airmiles to go to other countries doing a lot better than his and wag his finger?
As I said in my last post, I would still disapprove if I agreed with the action. You've so far failed to provide any examples - Trump sounding off about Brexit from his vantage point as a Presidential candidate is totally different to Obama coming here as President and telling us we'd be at the back of the queue.
Trump as *President* said we should sue the EU. Literally Google it dude
Ok 'dude', if he'd said we should sue the EU, and we did sue the EU, I'd have disapproved. Strongly. Satisfied?
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
Almost anything is cheaper than Hinckley Point C, but other than that, I agree that tidal requires more investigation.
The problem with that argument is that it's not just EU countries which have a problem with the AZ vaccine.
Unless you think the South Africans, the Swiss, the Norwegians, the Americans and the Icelandics are all in together with the EU.
It's fearmongering. From the Telegraph:
The European Medicines Agency is investigating the reports, but stressed that the number of "thromboembolic events" - marked by the formation of blood clots - was no higher among vaccinated people than in the general population. It said 30 cases had been reported among the close to 5 million vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine in the European Economic Area.
That's not my point.
My point is that - on this board and Twitter - there is this extraordinary belief that this is all part of an EU plot, which skates over the fact that lots of countries outside the EU seem to have big (largely misguided IMHO) issues with the AZ vaccine.
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
Almost anything is cheaper than Hinckley Point C, but other than that, I agree that tidal requires more investigation.
It was blindingly obvious that Hinckley C was going to be a disaster.
The problem with that argument is that it's not just EU countries which have a problem with the AZ vaccine.
Unless you think the South Africans, the Swiss, the Norwegians, the Americans and the Icelandics are all in together with the EU.
It's fearmongering. From the Telegraph:
The European Medicines Agency is investigating the reports, but stressed that the number of "thromboembolic events" - marked by the formation of blood clots - was no higher among vaccinated people than in the general population. It said 30 cases had been reported among the close to 5 million vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine in the European Economic Area.
That's not my point.
My point is that - on this board and Twitter - there is this extraordinary belief that this is all part of an EU plot, which skates over the fact that lots of countries outside the EU seem to have big (largely misguided IMHO) issues with the AZ vaccine.
It does make you wonder why the only not-for-profit vaccine might come in for particular criticism...
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
We rarely agree. But the government's blind spot on even having a go at looking at an experimental tidal scheme on the off chance of even a couple of the benefits you outline above coming off, simply beggars belief.
Would be excellent if No Religion tops the Census.
There's far too much of religious people imposing their views on everyone else and frankly wasting people's time.
The clearer it becomes that it's a minority pursuit then there's less justification for the CofE to remain Established, Bishops in the House of Lords, Prince Charles saying he is the "Defender of Faith" etc etc. Well if most people have no religion what about them?
Plus of course all the religious led opposition to Assisted Dying.
It's all as absurd as the religious led opposition to equal marriage - and of course as soon as these anachronisms are done away with everyone wonders why we put up with them for so long.
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
If you can point me to an incidence of him intervening, I'll happily opine.
Oh, saying that, he did try to intervene to stop windfarms, but as a private citizen, not (afaik) coming here and throwing his Presidential weight around.
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
If you can point me to an incidence of him intervening, I'll happily opine.
Oh, saying that, he did try to intervene to stop windfarms, but as a private citizen, not (afaik) coming here and throwing his Presidential weight around.
Brexit...
Trump wasn't President when we voted for Brexit. Obama was, he did intervene, and I was strongly critical. That's not what you were asking though.
Trump during the Brexit process told us what we should do, i.e. sue the EU amongst other things.
So yes, as I suspected it's only when the US does something you disagree with that you call outrage. I'm not surprised in the least.
I praise Kerry for having the balls to stand up to our utterly morally bankrupt Government, who don't give a toss about climate change. Not really.
Tories virtue signal on climate change, end of story
The Tories are the only party in the UK to have ever taken climate change seriously in office (apart from the Lib Dems as our sidekicks for five years).
Name any party in office to have ever handled climate change better and how they did that please?
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
He didn't BTW. He said it was a local matter and he wasn't getting involved in it.
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
Almost anything is cheaper than Hinckley Point C, but other than that, I agree that tidal requires more investigation.
It was blindingly obvious that Hinckley C was going to be a disaster.
Would be excellent if No Religion tops the Census.
There's far too much of religious people imposing their views on everyone else and frankly wasting people's time.
The clearer it becomes that it's a minority pursuit then there's less justification for the CofE to remain Established, Bishops in the House of Lords, Prince Charles saying he is the "Defender of Faith" etc etc. Well if most people have no religion what about them?
Plus of course all the religious led opposition to Assisted Dying.
It's all as absurd as the religious led opposition to equal marriage - and of course as soon as these anachronisms are done away with everyone wonders why we put up with them for so long.
There are, of course, also religious people who try not to impose their views on others. By the very nature of that fact, you tend not to hear from them.
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
All good points. If we weren't investing in wind and if wind wasn't cheaper.
But taking away Hinckley being stupid (we agree on that)
If tidal is meant to partner wind then how does it surge "on demand" to deal with when wind power goes down? Gas can be burnt to surge power on demand, how does tidal surge (besides storage lagoons which I agree are a good idea if economic)?
You're making a good case for tidal in isolation, but not addressing concerns about how tidal is meant to work in synergy with wind. Simply saying tidal is reliable isn't a solution since we don't need reliable with wind since wind isn't reliable. Unless your solution is to abandon wind as well as nuclear we need something that can work synergistically with wind to surge on demand - tidal isn't that is it?
The problem with that argument is that it's not just EU countries which have a problem with the AZ vaccine.
Unless you think the South Africans, the Swiss, the Norwegians, the Americans and the Icelandics are all in together with the EU.
It's fearmongering. From the Telegraph:
The European Medicines Agency is investigating the reports, but stressed that the number of "thromboembolic events" - marked by the formation of blood clots - was no higher among vaccinated people than in the general population. It said 30 cases had been reported among the close to 5 million vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine in the European Economic Area.
That's not my point.
My point is that - on this board and Twitter - there is this extraordinary belief that this is all part of an EU plot, which skates over the fact that lots of countries outside the EU seem to have big (largely misguided IMHO) issues with the AZ vaccine.
No, just part of a joint effort to rubbish the vaccine.
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
If you can point me to an incidence of him intervening, I'll happily opine.
Oh, saying that, he did try to intervene to stop windfarms, but as a private citizen, not (afaik) coming here and throwing his Presidential weight around.
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
Just wondering if you opposed Trump getting involved in UK affairs, or is it only when they do something you disagree with
If you can point me to an incidence of him intervening, I'll happily opine.
Oh, saying that, he did try to intervene to stop windfarms, but as a private citizen, not (afaik) coming here and throwing his Presidential weight around.
Brexit...
Trump wasn't President when we voted for Brexit. Obama was, he did intervene, and I was strongly critical. That's not what you were asking though.
Trump during the Brexit process told us what we should do, i.e. sue the EU amongst other things.
So yes, as I suspected it's only when the US does something you disagree with that you call outrage. I'm not surprised in the least.
I praise Kerry for having the balls to stand up to our utterly morally bankrupt Government, who don't give a toss about climate change. Not really.
Tories virtue signal on climate change, end of story
You think Kerry gives more of a toss about climate change, coming from a country with a per person carbon footprint 3 times the size of ours? Do you not think if he gave a real toss, he might start there, rather than racking up airmiles to go to other countries doing a lot better than his and wag his finger?
As I said in my last post, I would still disapprove if I agreed with the action. You've so far failed to provide any examples - Trump sounding off about Brexit from his vantage point as a Presidential candidate is totally different to Obama coming here as President and telling us we'd be at the back of the queue.
Trump as *President* said we should sue the EU. Literally Google it dude
And I'm pretty sure everyone crossparty said "what a stupid idiot".
Did anyone on here say "that's a good idea, listen to him"?
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
All good points. If we weren't investing in wind and if wind wasn't cheaper.
But taking away Hinckley being stupid (we agree on that)
If tidal is meant to partner wind then how does it surge "on demand" to deal with when wind power goes down? Gas can be burnt to surge power on demand, how does tidal surge (besides storage lagoons which I agree are a good idea if economic)?
You're making a good case for tidal in isolation, but not addressing concerns about how tidal is meant to work in synergy with wind. Simply saying tidal is reliable isn't a solution since we don't need reliable with wind since wind isn't reliable. Unless your solution is to abandon wind as well as nuclear we need something that can work synergistically with wind to surge on demand - tidal isn't that is it?
Tidal can work with hydrogen generation, if you want to mesh these two together.
And you still aren't listening to the costings on wind power. It is not as cheap as you think and it is far more transient. The current low costings talked about for wind won't deliver until at least 2025. All installed today will need completely replacing before 2060, much of it sooner.
The problem with that argument is that it's not just EU countries which have a problem with the AZ vaccine.
Unless you think the South Africans, the Swiss, the Norwegians, the Americans and the Icelandics are all in together with the EU.
It's fearmongering. From the Telegraph:
The European Medicines Agency is investigating the reports, but stressed that the number of "thromboembolic events" - marked by the formation of blood clots - was no higher among vaccinated people than in the general population. It said 30 cases had been reported among the close to 5 million vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine in the European Economic Area.
That's not my point.
My point is that - on this board and Twitter - there is this extraordinary belief that this is all part of an EU plot, which skates over the fact that lots of countries outside the EU seem to have big (largely misguided IMHO) issues with the AZ vaccine.
It does make you wonder why the only not-for-profit vaccine might come in for particular criticism...
I remember when the initial Astra Zeneca trials data was released, there were a lot of very sceptical articles about AZ published in places like the NY Times, and @Charles suggested that it was the Pfizer "dirty tricks" department.
If it does turn out to be the case that Pfizer (for example) were to have spent time and money deliberately undermining trust in a safe and efficacious vaccine, then there should need to be serious consequences.
Would be excellent if No Religion tops the Census.
There's far too much of religious people imposing their views on everyone else and frankly wasting people's time.
The clearer it becomes that it's a minority pursuit then there's less justification for the CofE to remain Established, Bishops in the House of Lords, Prince Charles saying he is the "Defender of Faith" etc etc. Well if most people have no religion what about them?
Plus of course all the religious led opposition to Assisted Dying.
It's all as absurd as the religious led opposition to equal marriage - and of course as soon as these anachronisms are done away with everyone wonders why we put up with them for so long.
Most of our oldest universities, many of our hospitals and our foodbanks are provided by religious bodies. I also have grave reservations about uncontrolled assisted dying which soon leads to older people being pressurised into ending their lives as they are a burden.
I voted Green at the 2005GE, and was posting here before then, and since then I've often been in arguments with the PB Tories on Green issues.
I supported wind turbines back then and the PB Tories said they couldn't work. Now we generate loads of electricity from wind turbines - and the PB Tories say it proves that technology will stop climate change and the Greens were wrong.
I was at the climate camp protests against coal power stations in 2008 and the PB Tories said wind wouldn't work and we needed to burn coal. Since then coal use for electricity has plummeted to be replaced by wind. But according to the PB Tories this proves that the Greens were wrong.
I predict that in the future we will be able to stop using coking coal to make steel. Maybe it will be the hydrogen method being trialled in Sweden. Maybe another technology. I'm certain that when it happens the PB Tories who opposed any measure to help it happen sooner will claim they supported it all along.
The PB Tories are always wrong and the PB Tories never learn.
Tories don't care about climate change or pollution, unless it is a means to winning elections.
See their entirely contradictory manifesto promises and the climate for examples.
I will make a guess that the majority of Tory voters do not see climate change as extinction, it is at best a nice to have
I do care about climate change. A lot. It is coming and it doesn't matter what we do in the UK to reduce emissions because emissions from the USA, India and China are the driving factor.
What we have to do is urgently consider how we make our infrastructure resilient to what is coming. Diversified energy generation, storage and transmission. Improved building codes to resist wind, rain and heat. Land and water management to mitigate increased flooding. Managed retreat from fenlands which are near the end of their productive use (which ironically could allow them to be re-drained and reused for farming in centuries to come). Improved flood defences for London.
A lot of this can be enabled through post-Brexit legislative frameworks supported by an investment fund. .
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
We rarely agree. But the government's blind spot on even having a go at looking at an experimental tidal scheme on the off chance of even a couple of the benefits you outline above coming off, simply beggars belief.
BTW, the US Senate just confirmed US Rep. Marcia Fudge (D-Ohio, Cleveland) as Secretary of Housing & Urban Development.
Meaning that
a) there will be a special election to fill her House seat, which in her strongly-Democratic district (the Black side of Cleveland) will likely be a contest between the local Democratic establishment versus a progressive challenger; and
b) the Democrats will lose her vote in the House until a replacement is selected, which will (I'm guessing) will take several months; note that precise timing is up to the (Republican) governor of Ohio.
However, the polling assumes that the question will be exactly the same as last time. I doubt whether it will be, in any future referendum sanctioned by the UK government. Surely a future UK government will show a bit more spine than did Cameron in 2014 and question the use of subjective term "independence" in the question. Especially now that rejoining the EU and giving up recently acquired devolved powers is apparently the aim.
A question such as "Should Scotland remain as part of the United Kingdom?" would be far less ambiguous. Or even, to be more precise, "Should Scotland remain as part of the United Kingdom while exercising powers of devolved independent government?" Something like that is not being promoted by the SNP only because they know that it would be less likely to generate the answer they want.
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
He didn't BTW. He said it was a local matter and he wasn't getting involved in it.
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
We rarely agree. But the government's blind spot on even having a go at looking at an experimental tidal scheme on the off chance of even a couple of the benefits you outline above coming off, simply beggars belief.
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
All good points. If we weren't investing in wind and if wind wasn't cheaper.
But taking away Hinckley being stupid (we agree on that)
If tidal is meant to partner wind then how does it surge "on demand" to deal with when wind power goes down? Gas can be burnt to surge power on demand, how does tidal surge (besides storage lagoons which I agree are a good idea if economic)?
You're making a good case for tidal in isolation, but not addressing concerns about how tidal is meant to work in synergy with wind. Simply saying tidal is reliable isn't a solution since we don't need reliable with wind since wind isn't reliable. Unless your solution is to abandon wind as well as nuclear we need something that can work synergistically with wind to surge on demand - tidal isn't that is it?
Tidal can work with hydrogen generation, if you want to mesh these two together.
And you still aren't listening to the costings on wind power. It is not as cheap as you think and it is far more transient. The current low costings talked about for wind won't deliver until at least 2025. All installed today will need completely replacing before 2060, much of it sooner.
Hydrogen generation is an excellent idea IMO and is what I've suggested in the past. Wind + Hydrogen generation.
Tidal + Hydrogen generation is a good idea to mesh together but it comes back to the same issue - we're talking about tidal as a replacement to, or working in the same stream as, wind. It is not working in synergy with wind surging when wind dips or vice-versa.
As for the other issues 2025 will be here before long and we still have gas to burn between now and then. Even until the end of the decade we'll still be burning gas.
So if they need replacing by 2060 then replace them by 2060. That's not a problem today and by 2060 it might be even cheaper to replace them given costs are still descending right now.
Could Charlie Boy become Defender of No Faith, as we look forward to a humanist UK, the envy of the world?
No and anyway as immigration continues to rise so will religion again with Catholic East Europeans, African evangelicals and South Asian Hindus and Muslims which will be ideal for Charles to present himself as the defender of all faith.
The problem with that argument is that it's not just EU countries which have a problem with the AZ vaccine.
Unless you think the South Africans, the Swiss, the Norwegians, the Americans and the Icelandics are all in together with the EU.
It's fearmongering. From the Telegraph:
The European Medicines Agency is investigating the reports, but stressed that the number of "thromboembolic events" - marked by the formation of blood clots - was no higher among vaccinated people than in the general population. It said 30 cases had been reported among the close to 5 million vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine in the European Economic Area.
That's not my point.
My point is that - on this board and Twitter - there is this extraordinary belief that this is all part of an EU plot, which skates over the fact that lots of countries outside the EU seem to have big (largely misguided IMHO) issues with the AZ vaccine.
It does make you wonder why the only not-for-profit vaccine might come in for particular criticism...
I remember when the initial Astra Zeneca trials data was released, there were a lot of very sceptical articles about AZ published in places like the NY Times, and @Charles suggested that it was the Pfizer "dirty tricks" department.
If it does turn out to be the case that Pfizer (for example) were to have spent time and money deliberately undermining trust in a safe and efficacious vaccine, then there should need to be serious consequences.
Demanding imports of AZ which go unused while exporting BioNTech/Pfizer for profit could be considered blatant mercantilism.
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
We rarely agree. But the government's blind spot on even having a go at looking at an experimental tidal scheme on the off chance of even a couple of the benefits you outline above coming off, simply beggars belief.
Not if the cost is in the league of £150/MWh
But. Until we have one we don't know. Nor do we have any way of investigating how to make it cheaper. Fact is. We have huge tides. And a large coastline. It is a comparitive advantage on most of our competitors. Isn't that what a nimble Brexit was meant to be all about? Not simply saying it's too expensive and difficult. That is Remoaner talk.
Damn sight more interesting than squabbling about the tide fer Jaysus sake. OR about stuff that the evil John Kerry did NOT say.
I am sorry for being grumpy about Kerry. Believe me, if Boris went over to the USA and started lecturing you folks about what to do, I'd be just as furious. You would have my full permission to tie him to a tree, cover him in truffle oil, and let a herd of wild pigs have their way with him.
(The above is an actual plotline from Midsummer Murders, as I found when I put together a quiz round on murder mysteries recently)
Could Charlie Boy become Defender of No Faith, as we look forward to a humanist UK, the envy of the world?
No and anyway as immigration continues to rise so will religion again with Catholic East Europeans, African evangelicals and South Asian Hindus and Muslims which will be ideal for Charles to present himself as the defender of all faith.
The Czechs and Estonians are among the world’s most irreligious - not all Eastern Europeans are religious, far from it in fact.
Could Charlie Boy become Defender of No Faith, as we look forward to a humanist UK, the envy of the world?
No and anyway as immigration continues to rise so will religion again with Catholic East Europeans, African evangelicals and South Asian Hindus and Muslims which will be ideal for Charles to present himself as the defender of all faith.
But he wouldn't be. He would literally be head of the Church of England. You can't have it both ways.
Could Charlie Boy become Defender of No Faith, as we look forward to a humanist UK, the envy of the world?
No and anyway as immigration continues to rise so will religion again with Catholic East Europeans, African evangelicals and South Asian Hindus and Muslims which will be ideal for Charles to present himself as the defender of all faith.
But he wouldn't be. He would literally be head of the Church of England. You can't have it both ways.
You can be Head of the Church of England and still defend all faiths as monarch of the UK
Damn sight more interesting than squabbling about the tide fer Jaysus sake. OR about stuff that the evil John Kerry did NOT say.
I had never heard of it till I moved to Canada. It is sellotape over here.
Wonder IF the commercial name change, was due to English Caledonia-phobia?
OR did Scots take it as some kind of snarky insult ("Call US cheap, will ya?")
It's not called Sellotape over here, you can buy Scotch tape. It's opaque, and less sticky than sellotape. That's why it is called Scotch tape - because it uses less glue. They were having a dig at the fabled parsimony of the Scots. It used to have a sort of tartan design on the reels too, not sure if it still does.
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
He didn't BTW. He said it was a local matter and he wasn't getting involved in it.
Listen to what he said and its confused but he's talking about "coal plants" and "fuels". The UK has either closed or is closing all its "coal plants" too.
This is coking coal for steel. That's different. Its not used in coal plants, its not burnt as a fuel for electricity.
Could Charlie Boy become Defender of No Faith, as we look forward to a humanist UK, the envy of the world?
No and anyway as immigration continues to rise so will religion again with Catholic East Europeans, African evangelicals and South Asian Hindus and Muslims which will be ideal for Charles to present himself as the defender of all faith.
The Czechs and Estonians are among the world’s most irreligious - not all Eastern Europeans are religious, far from it in fact.
75% of Poles are religious and Poland has more than double the population of the Czech Republic and Estonia combined
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
He didn't BTW. He said it was a local matter and he wasn't getting involved in it.
Listen to what he said and its confused but he's talking about "coal plants" and "fuels". The UK has either closed or is closing all its "coal plants" too.
This is coking coal for steel. That's different. Its not used in coal plants, its not burnt as a fuel for electricity.
Could Charlie Boy become Defender of No Faith, as we look forward to a humanist UK, the envy of the world?
No and anyway as immigration continues to rise so will religion again with Catholic East Europeans, African evangelicals and South Asian Hindus and Muslims which will be ideal for Charles to present himself as the defender of all faith.
The Czechs and Estonians are among the world’s most irreligious - not all Eastern Europeans are religious, far from it in fact.
The whole White Mountain business + Conter-Reformation deprived the Czechs of their native Protestantism while souring them on Catholicism.
Not sure what's eating the Estonians, for whom at one time Lutheranism was a barrier against Russian imperialism.
BTW, the Lithuanians were the last European kingdom to (formally) forsake paganism as state religion. Then proceeded to become more Catholic than the Pope (or at least the Curia).
Could Charlie Boy become Defender of No Faith, as we look forward to a humanist UK, the envy of the world?
No and anyway as immigration continues to rise so will religion again with Catholic East Europeans, African evangelicals and South Asian Hindus and Muslims which will be ideal for Charles to present himself as the defender of all faith.
But he wouldn't be. He would literally be head of the Church of England. You can't have it both ways.
You can be Head of the Church of England and still defend all faiths as monarch of the UK
You can? That's like saying you can be owner of Liverpool FC and CEO of the EFL, EPL, UEFA and FIFA.
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
We rarely agree. But the government's blind spot on even having a go at looking at an experimental tidal scheme on the off chance of even a couple of the benefits you outline above coming off, simply beggars belief.
Not if the cost is in the league of £150/MWh
It isn't. It is £50-55.
Is it really? I mean by the time you get to the fifth plant, then maybe, but for the first one?
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
He didn't BTW. He said it was a local matter and he wasn't getting involved in it.
Listen to what he said and its confused but he's talking about "coal plants" and "fuels". The UK has either closed or is closing all its "coal plants" too.
This is coking coal for steel. That's different. Its not used in coal plants, its not burnt as a fuel for electricity.
Will he be telling voters in Pennsylvania?
There are currently about 6k working coal miners in the Keystone State. And few steel mills.
The PA you imagine has been dead and gone for about thirty years now. Natural gas = fracking is the new thing. NOT coal or steel.
Could Charlie Boy become Defender of No Faith, as we look forward to a humanist UK, the envy of the world?
No and anyway as immigration continues to rise so will religion again with Catholic East Europeans, African evangelicals and South Asian Hindus and Muslims which will be ideal for Charles to present himself as the defender of all faith.
The Czechs and Estonians are among the world’s most irreligious - not all Eastern Europeans are religious, far from it in fact.
75% of Poles are religious and Poland has more than double the population of the Czech Republic and Estonia combined
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
He didn't BTW. He said it was a local matter and he wasn't getting involved in it.
Listen to what he said and its confused but he's talking about "coal plants" and "fuels". The UK has either closed or is closing all its "coal plants" too.
This is coking coal for steel. That's different. Its not used in coal plants, its not burnt as a fuel for electricity.
Yes, I'm sure Boris made that point as forcefully as was possible from a prostate position.
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
He didn't BTW. He said it was a local matter and he wasn't getting involved in it.
Listen to what he said and its confused but he's talking about "coal plants" and "fuels". The UK has either closed or is closing all its "coal plants" too.
This is coking coal for steel. That's different. Its not used in coal plants, its not burnt as a fuel for electricity.
Will he be telling voters in Pennsylvania?
Yes, he is.
Not that he needs to as SeaShanty says PA has already changed from your imaginations.
Could Charlie Boy become Defender of No Faith, as we look forward to a humanist UK, the envy of the world?
No and anyway as immigration continues to rise so will religion again with Catholic East Europeans, African evangelicals and South Asian Hindus and Muslims which will be ideal for Charles to present himself as the defender of all faith.
Well if the answer's "no" and we're an irreligious country then it seems yet another reason to add to the pile to axe the monarchy. 👍
Could Charlie Boy become Defender of No Faith, as we look forward to a humanist UK, the envy of the world?
No and anyway as immigration continues to rise so will religion again with Catholic East Europeans, African evangelicals and South Asian Hindus and Muslims which will be ideal for Charles to present himself as the defender of all faith.
Well if the answer's "no" and we're an irreligious country then it seems yet another reason to add to the pile to axe the monarchy. 👍
Absolutely not, the monarch also has a role in defending our established Church, as does the Tory Party as well as faith as a whole.
However I would not expect a non Tory, non conservative, non Unionist, former Labour voter with a republican, anti religion agenda such as yourself to understand that
Just one more thing on this and then I'll shut up. How dare John Kerry come here and lecture us about not opening a coal mine? America's CO2 emissions are 16 metric tonnes per person, ours are 5.3. Should he not have come to us asking for lessons on how to perform this environmental miracle, rather than intervening in matters that don't concern him? What an utter, utter prick.
He didn't BTW. He said it was a local matter and he wasn't getting involved in it.
Listen to what he said and its confused but he's talking about "coal plants" and "fuels". The UK has either closed or is closing all its "coal plants" too.
This is coking coal for steel. That's different. Its not used in coal plants, its not burnt as a fuel for electricity.
Will he be telling voters in Pennsylvania?
There are currently about 6k working coal miners in the Keystone State. And few steel mills.
The PA you imagine has been dead and gone for about thirty years now. Natural gas = fracking is the new thing. NOT coal or steel.
Not that fracking is exactly environmentally perfect either.
Plus Pennnsylvania remains a swing state Biden only won by less than 100,000 votes, he cannot afford to piss off any of its residents, including coal miners, their families and the businesses associated with coalmining towns
Could Charlie Boy become Defender of No Faith, as we look forward to a humanist UK, the envy of the world?
No and anyway as immigration continues to rise so will religion again with Catholic East Europeans, African evangelicals and South Asian Hindus and Muslims which will be ideal for Charles to present himself as the defender of all faith.
Well if the answer's "no" and we're an irreligious country then it seems yet another reason to add to the pile to axe the monarchy. 👍
Absolutely not, the monarch also has a role in defending our established Church, as does the Tory Party as well as faith as a whole.
However I would not expect a non Tory, non conservative, non Unionist, former Labour voter with a republican, anti religion agenda such as yourself to understand that
You're right I don't.
Since the country does not believe in the Church it should not be established.
Let's see what the Census says, either way it's wrong to have an established Church bit if the established Church represents less than half of the public then it should be removed.
To my mind, the only justification for building that mine is if the coal is of the quality required for steel making. If it's good for steel then it should be built. If it's not then the coal should be left in the ground.
In the latter case the Government should probably find an agency that needs urgently to be relocated out of London to compensate.
It's coking coal for steel production. There aren't too many things that I feel strongly about, but preventing this mine from opening is utterly stupid.
According to the Sun (yes, I know)," it was revealed last month that due to the high sulphur content of the coal itself, it might be able to be used at all - either in Britain or sold to other markets". If true, that does seem rather a snag, irrespective of climate impact.
That's not really relevant for planning purposes. If it's got too high a sulphur content to be any good, no one will pay to dig it up. Personally I think it's very unlikely that they would have got this far without having a good idea what's down there.
How does "climate alarmists" go with the Government supposedly being all in on the green agenda?
This Government wants it both ways, some day these two ideas are going to smash into each other. Fundamentally this Tory Government is holding together two coalitions, perhaps they will last. Perhaps they won't
The number of climate alarmists who vote Tory now are miniscule, if climate change is already your main concern you will already be voting Labour or Tory.
The working class voters in the North who won the Tories their majority however will not be happy if the government abandons this proposed new mine
Why do the Tories go on about climate change all the time then? Explain that one.
Climate change is the main concern, it's the future of our planet for goodness sake
Because many Tory politicians are variously:
a) Morons who don't understand their voting coalition b) Wet liberals who are way to the left of their voters.
They can currently get away with this because they are only really opposed from the left, who want to do all the same stupid stuff, just faster and with extra subsidies.
Who do you vote for if you think that banning the mining of coal is moronic all the while its use it increasing elsewhere in the world? Especially when it's for steel production anyway?
Who do you vote for if you want the option to buy an IC engine vehicle for as long as you need one?
Who do you vote for if you don't want to see the entire country's heavy industry exported to China by green taxes, and expensive renewable energy?
Who do you vote for if you think that given the ever rising level of 3rd world emissions, we should move to climate change mitigation rather than uselessly trashing our economy in an excersise of tokenism?
Who do you vote for who would end lockdown right now, given we have data we have which shows fairly clearly that we could without overwhelming the health service?
The above may all be very unpopular with the London Liberal types who have a iron grip on both parties, but probably a good 1/3rd of the country currently feels disenfranchised along these lines (the Europe issue was similar in the 90s/00s).
Looking at current vaccination rates that seems about right.
Well, excluding France.
That was based on respiratory disease pandemic emergency response plans, rather than on the effectiveness of those plans.
Once again, the best plans upon first contact with the enemy ...
Indeed, some of the serious literature on either adaptive risk management, or business management in uncertainty and flux, strongly advises against over-emphasis on planning as it can lead to fixation on the plan long after evidence is pointing in another direction.
To my mind, the only justification for building that mine is if the coal is of the quality required for steel making. If it's good for steel then it should be built. If it's not then the coal should be left in the ground.
Yes, with the proviso that all too often these mines require subsidy to build.
Is the government underwriting the loan that the miner has almost certainly required? Are there job subsidy programmes? Has a state enterprise entered into a non-market purchase agreement for the coal? (Or, occasionally it's a round-the-houses arrangement: Liberty Steel agrees to buy the coal at a non-market price in return for getting its own debts underwritten.)
Could Charlie Boy become Defender of No Faith, as we look forward to a humanist UK, the envy of the world?
No and anyway as immigration continues to rise so will religion again with Catholic East Europeans, African evangelicals and South Asian Hindus and Muslims which will be ideal for Charles to present himself as the defender of all faith.
Well if the answer's "no" and we're an irreligious country then it seems yet another reason to add to the pile to axe the monarchy. 👍
Absolutely not, the monarch also has a role in defending our established Church, as does the Tory Party as well as faith as a whole.
However I would not expect a non Tory, non conservative, non Unionist, former Labour voter with a republican, anti religion agenda such as yourself to understand that
You're right I don't.
Since the country does not believe in the Church it should not be established.
Let's see what the Census says, either way it's wrong to have an established Church bit if the established Church represents less than half of the public then it should be removed.
Actually there is a problem with religion and the census related to what we discussed the other night. If Jewishness is not an ethnicity, then the only place for Jews to be Jews, or Muslims to be Muslims and so on and so forth is in the religion section of the census, so while a White Briton who is nominally Christian but only in the sense of giving chocolate eggs to their children and swapping Christmas presents can say they have no religion, their non-practising Jewish or Hindu peers cannot, at least not if they want their identity recognised.
The net result is that the number of practising religious people is overstated, but the number of non-practising culturally religious people is understated.
For the avoidance of doubt, I haven't a clue what the solution is, but questions of ethnicity, religion and identity are complicated. Does it matter? Ask the next king which faiths he is defending. Why is Sunday special but Jewish or Muslim sabbaths not? Should Eid be a bank holiday like Christmas? (Both of them?) Come to think of it, should the Orthodox Christmas in January also be a bank holiday as our Eastern European population rises?
And that is before we get on to assisted dying.
ETA: rinse and repeat for sex, gender, attraction and what have you.
Could Charlie Boy become Defender of No Faith, as we look forward to a humanist UK, the envy of the world?
No and anyway as immigration continues to rise so will religion again with Catholic East Europeans, African evangelicals and South Asian Hindus and Muslims which will be ideal for Charles to present himself as the defender of all faith.
Well if the answer's "no" and we're an irreligious country then it seems yet another reason to add to the pile to axe the monarchy. 👍
However I would not expect a non Tory, non conservative, non Unionist, former Labour voter with a republican, anti religion agenda such as yourself to understand that
On topic, it does seem odd, though not unexpected, that Scottish Independence is closely linked to the SNP's internal travails. If Scotland is to thrive as an independent state, then it should not be reliant on Nicola Sturgeon being immortal. Scotland must be strong enough to cope with being led by an incompetent First Minister and a divided government, because sooner or later, it will be. All countries are.
On topic, it does seem odd, though not unexpected, that Scottish Independence is closely linked to the SNP's internal travails. If Scotland is to thrive as an independent state, then it should not be reliant on Nicola Sturgeon being immortal. Scotland must be strong enough to cope with being led by an incompetent First Minister and a divided government, because sooner or later, it will be. All countries are.
I often wonder why the SNP occupy such a dominant space - why has their not been a fragmentation of the Independence case (for example in Catalonia there are 4/5 established parties competing for the independence vote) the SNP must fear another force (the Greens?) eventually parking tanks on their lawn....
London Mayor stuff -- got a second copy of the Shaun Bailey pseudo-magazine, this time wrapped up in a lot of commercial junk mail so someone is paying for delivery, which makes sense with Covid restrictions on activists delivering election material (even assuming Shaun could find enough activists to cover London).
On social media there has been a sudden outbreak of bashing incumbent Sadiq Khan, including by the Boris-aligned Fair Tax Campaign (and Brian Rose is still there, of course).
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Worth noting that the combined capacity of all the Tesla Gigabatteries - installed and under construction - in the world, is only about a fifth of the capacity of the Dinorwig pumped storage plant in Wales.
Dinorwig is what, 9GWh ? Each of Tesla’s new battery factories, like the ones under construction in Berlin and Texas, are supposed to turn out around 100GWh pa of batteries initially, then doubling from there. I think the entire worldwide production last year was only around 149GWh..
I'm taking Gigabatteries - like the one backing up the Australian grid, not Gigafactories.
Indeed - but the former requires the latter first. Grid storage in a fast growing part of Tesla’s business. Thus far only in the niche end of the market, but that will change as costs continue to fall.
The biggest thing forcing the development of battery storage, though, is the rapidly falling cost of solar. It is becoming incredibly cheap compared with other forms of generation, and in places with the best sunshine, the marginal cost of electricity at noon is tending towards zero. That’s massively distorting very large energy markets, and the only solution is storage. https://twitter.com/Quicktake/status/1370169450901737474
Looking at current vaccination rates that seems about right.
Well, excluding France.
“Prepared” was the exam question, young Thompson. That’s a fail.
Indeed and our vaccination program dates back to ... February 2020. First contracts signed in February 2020, with the EUs first contracts signed from memory in August 2020.
To my mind, the only justification for building that mine is if the coal is of the quality required for steel making. If it's good for steel then it should be built. If it's not then the coal should be left in the ground.
Yes, with the proviso that all too often these mines require subsidy to build.
Is the government underwriting the loan that the miner has almost certainly required? Are there job subsidy programmes? Has a state enterprise entered into a non-market purchase agreement for the coal? (Or, occasionally it's a round-the-houses arrangement: Liberty Steel agrees to buy the coal at a non-market price in return for getting its own debts underwritten.)
Alternatively. Is there enough coal for steel already? Will most of the production be exported? Do we need to rapidly move to ways of producing steel that have a much smaller carbon footprint?
If the answer is yes to all 3 then the coal should definitely be left in the ground.
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
All good points. If we weren't investing in wind and if wind wasn't cheaper.
But taking away Hinckley being stupid (we agree on that)
If tidal is meant to partner wind then how does it surge "on demand" to deal with when wind power goes down? Gas can be burnt to surge power on demand, how does tidal surge (besides storage lagoons which I agree are a good idea if economic)?
You're making a good case for tidal in isolation, but not addressing concerns about how tidal is meant to work in synergy with wind. Simply saying tidal is reliable isn't a solution since we don't need reliable with wind since wind isn't reliable. Unless your solution is to abandon wind as well as nuclear we need something that can work synergistically with wind to surge on demand - tidal isn't that is it?
That logic is faulty surely? You are saying we have one unreliable source so we should complement it with another unreliable source?
If you were complementing two reliable but cyclical sources that would make sense
Surely you need a base load source (like nuclear or tidal) to complement an episodic source like wind?
The biggest thing forcing the development of battery storage, though, is the rapidly falling cost of solar. It is becoming incredibly cheap compared with other forms of generation, and in places with the best sunshine, the marginal cost of electricity at noon is tending towards zero. That’s massively distorting very large energy markets, and the only solution is storage. https://twitter.com/Quicktake/status/1370169450901737474
And is pretty much all imported from China.
The UK has put £9 billion into wind and solar subsidies. It has caused £14 billion in imports into the UK. Supported so many jobs.
The problem with that argument is that it's not just EU countries which have a problem with the AZ vaccine.
Unless you think the South Africans, the Swiss, the Norwegians, the Americans and the Icelandics are all in together with the EU.
It's fearmongering. From the Telegraph:
The European Medicines Agency is investigating the reports, but stressed that the number of "thromboembolic events" - marked by the formation of blood clots - was no higher among vaccinated people than in the general population. It said 30 cases had been reported among the close to 5 million vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine in the European Economic Area.
That's not my point.
My point is that - on this board and Twitter - there is this extraordinary belief that this is all part of an EU plot, which skates over the fact that lots of countries outside the EU seem to have big (largely misguided IMHO) issues with the AZ vaccine.
It does make you wonder why the only not-for-profit vaccine might come in for particular criticism...
I remember when the initial Astra Zeneca trials data was released, there were a lot of very sceptical articles about AZ published in places like the NY Times, and @Charles suggested that it was the Pfizer "dirty tricks" department.
If it does turn out to be the case that Pfizer (for example) were to have spent time and money deliberately undermining trust in a safe and efficacious vaccine, then there should need to be serious consequences.
I don’t specifically remember saying that! But Pfizer is very very effective at persuading US regulators to act in their interests
I am not surprised at exports dropping so much, but imports is interesting. We have decided to take control of our borders by not enforcing them, until October, I understand.
Give us real numbers for those imports and exports.
In 2019, UK exports to the EU were £294 billion (43% of all UK exports). UK imports from the EU were £374 billion (52% of all UK imports). The share of UK exports accounted for by the EU has generally fallen over time from 54% in 2002 to 43% in 2019. (Source: Commons Library)
So, that drop in imports represents say £10 billion. The drop in imports on the same basis is £15.3 billion.
That "Brexit bonus" for the EU is looking pretty fucking dumb.
The government doesn't step in in such things unless it wants to take a decision contrary to the existing one, or to cause a big delay for some other reason. Either way, it's a signal of the government cocking about, no matter what they say about not making a decision for or against.
They need to introduce the manufacture of wind turbines into the same area
Double win
No, they need to start the West Cumbria Tidal Lagoon.
I think that ship has sailed.
The future is wind + other but wind + tidal just don't work together.
When the wind pressure is wrong and the tide is wrong what do you do to make electricity?
A series of tidal lagoons and because of the different high tides around the coast, you always have power. They each generate power for 14 hours a day. Irrespective of the wind.
They can recharge the nation's fleet of electric vehicles overnight.
But we don't need something "irrespective" of the wind, because we have invested a fortune and are continuing to do so. Unless we're going to scrap the wind turbines, but we're not. We need something that generates with respect to wind - complementing wind by powering up more when wind goes down, then going down when wind goes up.
So either the wind doesn't work but the tide does and we have enough, in which case what are we doing with the wind? Or the wind and tide both work and we have far too much in which case what are we doing?
We need something to supplement the wind on-demand.
Isn't the point of Tesla GigaBattery technology which they are currently building in Texas but will no doubt be coming (or something similar) in due course.
Absolutely.
Wind (inconsistent, unpredictable) + Storage work as a combination. Tidal (inconsistent, predictable) + Storage work as a combination.
Wind + Tidal simply don't work as a combo. Tidal is an alternative to Wind, not a complement to it.
I do not think you understand how tides work.
I do. The output is predictable based on high tide and low tide etc that is perfectly predictable even years into advance.
Low pressure systems affecting the wind don't cycle neatly with the tide. So when low pressure means our wind turbines aren't generating as much we currently burn gas to make up the difference. How do we on demand increase tidal generation during a low pressure system?
But isn't tidal pretty much consistent and predictable? It always comes in and out, at the same speed.
I believe it cycles but either way that's my point.
Predictability is a strength if working with something like gas, you can get a great synergy between tidal and gas because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can burn more gas.
You get a great synergy between tidal and storage because when you have a surge in demand or lower tidal output you can release some storage.
The same with wind+storage or wind+gas, when there is a surge in demand, or a lack of wind we can burn more gas or release some storage.
But what synergy is there between tidal and wind? When the wind pressure is down we can burn more gas, or use more storage, but we can't make the tidal pressures change. Tidal storage works, but not tidal generation.
I think I see your point, that you can increase/decrease gas as tidal goes in the other direction. Storage would also be an alternative, but not viable at the moment.
Exactly!
Tidal is an excellent alternative to wind, but more predictable and more expensive.
It is not an excellent supplement to wind.
If wind wasn't much cheaper we 100% should be building tidal. But we need a system that supplements each other, otherwise we haven't solved the reliability problems.
Tidal isn't an answer for storage and once storage is a viable alternative then what answer does tidal serve, since wind is cheaper?
Tidal is not more expensive, in the overall scheme.
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
All good points. If we weren't investing in wind and if wind wasn't cheaper.
But taking away Hinckley being stupid (we agree on that)
If tidal is meant to partner wind then how does it surge "on demand" to deal with when wind power goes down? Gas can be burnt to surge power on demand, how does tidal surge (besides storage lagoons which I agree are a good idea if economic)?
You're making a good case for tidal in isolation, but not addressing concerns about how tidal is meant to work in synergy with wind. Simply saying tidal is reliable isn't a solution since we don't need reliable with wind since wind isn't reliable. Unless your solution is to abandon wind as well as nuclear we need something that can work synergistically with wind to surge on demand - tidal isn't that is it?
That logic is faulty surely? You are saying we have one unreliable source so we should complement it with another unreliable source?
If you were complementing two reliable but cyclical sources that would make sense
Surely you need a base load source (like nuclear or tidal) to complement an episodic source like wind?
No that is the opposite of what I was saying.
I was saying that to compliment something unreliable like wind you need something dependable like gas or storage that can scale up on demand.
Base load doesn't scale up so unless you want the country to operate off base load alone that's not complimentary.
Comments
As I said in my last post, I would still disapprove if I agreed with the action. You've so far failed to provide any examples - Trump sounding off about Brexit from his vantage point as a Presidential candidate is totally different to Obama coming here as President and telling us we'd be at the back of the queue.
Each of Tesla’s new battery factories, like the ones under construction in Berlin and Texas, are supposed to turn out around 100GWh pa of batteries initially, then doubling from there.
I think the entire worldwide production last year was only around 149GWh..
A vaccines-style task force, tasked with seeing if tidal WAS viable would discover:
- a series of tidal lagoon power stations generates 80,000 UK jobs through this decade
- it is an 85% domestic spend (versus maybe 5% for solar and maybe 35% for wind power).
- it is maybe half the price of nuclear power. Hinkley C has required £37 billion in taxpayer/electricity consumer subsidies.
- each tidal lagoon structure lasts a minimum of 120 years. Probably double that. A nuclear plant last 60. If that. Offshore wind farms maybe 30. If that. Solar farms maybe 25. They need replacing in total at the end of their life. Factor that replacement into the price and tidal is the cheapest option.
- the current cost of nuclear facilities abandonment is up to £220 billion. Getting on for the cost of another Covid. Each nuclear plant adds to that sum.
- tidal is zero carbon, zero waste. It cannot be blocked by external forces. No fuel required, no pipelines to shut off. Nuclear requires thousands of years of waste management. If you have a catastrophic nuclear failure, you have a large area of your land uninhabitable. For decades, maybe centuries. The cost of that failure would make Covid look like the rounding error. If you have a catastrophic failure of a lagoon, you just have tomorrow's tide.
- first power from Swansea could be within four years. First power from Cardiff could be within maybe 6-7 years. The same as a large nuclear power station. First power from a series of other tidal lagoons around the coast could be by decade end - each the power of a large nuclear.
- tidal lagoons regenerate areas that need this investment. They work in harmony with the local environment. They can also have huge land management benefits - the east of Cardiff could be hugely regenerated (with a massive uplift in developable land in the city).
Unless you think the South Africans, the Swiss, the Norwegians, the Americans and the Icelandics are all in together with the EU.
The European Medicines Agency is investigating the reports, but stressed that the number of "thromboembolic events" - marked by the formation of blood clots - was no higher among vaccinated people than in the general population. It said 30 cases had been reported among the close to 5 million vaccinated with the AstraZeneca vaccine in the European Economic Area.
My point is that - on this board and Twitter - there is this extraordinary belief that this is all part of an EU plot, which skates over the fact that lots of countries outside the EU seem to have big (largely misguided IMHO) issues with the AZ vaccine.
Yet the entire establishment was all for it.
What was their thought process ???
There's far too much of religious people imposing their views on everyone else and frankly wasting people's time.
The clearer it becomes that it's a minority pursuit then there's less justification for the CofE to remain Established, Bishops in the House of Lords, Prince Charles saying he is the "Defender of Faith" etc etc. Well if most people have no religion what about them?
Plus of course all the religious led opposition to Assisted Dying.
It's all as absurd as the religious led opposition to equal marriage - and of course as soon as these anachronisms are done away with everyone wonders why we put up with them for so long.
Name any party in office to have ever handled climate change better and how they did that please?
By the very nature of that fact, you tend not to hear from them.
But taking away Hinckley being stupid (we agree on that)
If tidal is meant to partner wind then how does it surge "on demand" to deal with when wind power goes down? Gas can be burnt to surge power on demand, how does tidal surge (besides storage lagoons which I agree are a good idea if economic)?
You're making a good case for tidal in isolation, but not addressing concerns about how tidal is meant to work in synergy with wind. Simply saying tidal is reliable isn't a solution since we don't need reliable with wind since wind isn't reliable. Unless your solution is to abandon wind as well as nuclear we need something that can work synergistically with wind to surge on demand - tidal isn't that is it?
Did anyone on here say "that's a good idea, listen to him"?
Damn sight more interesting than squabbling about the tide fer Jaysus sake. OR about stuff that the evil John Kerry did NOT say.
And you still aren't listening to the costings on wind power. It is not as cheap as you think and it is far more transient. The current low costings talked about for wind won't deliver until at least 2025. All installed today will need completely replacing before 2060, much of it sooner.
If it does turn out to be the case that Pfizer (for example) were to have spent time and money deliberately undermining trust in a safe and efficacious vaccine, then there should need to be serious consequences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations
Most of our oldest universities, many of our hospitals and our foodbanks are provided by religious bodies. I also have grave reservations about uncontrolled assisted dying which soon leads to older people being pressurised into ending their lives as they are a burden.
So tough, we religious are not going anywhere
Could Charlie Boy become Defender of No Faith, as we look forward to a humanist UK, the envy of the world?
What we have to do is urgently consider how we make our infrastructure resilient to what is coming. Diversified energy generation, storage and transmission. Improved building codes to resist wind, rain and heat. Land and water management to mitigate increased flooding. Managed retreat from fenlands which are near the end of their productive use (which ironically could allow them to be re-drained and reused for farming in centuries to come). Improved flood defences for London.
A lot of this can be enabled through post-Brexit legislative frameworks supported by an investment fund.
.
Meaning that
a) there will be a special election to fill her House seat, which in her strongly-Democratic district (the Black side of Cleveland) will likely be a contest between the local Democratic establishment versus a progressive challenger; and
b) the Democrats will lose her vote in the House until a replacement is selected, which will (I'm guessing) will take several months; note that precise timing is up to the (Republican) governor of Ohio.
However, the polling assumes that the question will be exactly the same as last time. I doubt whether it will be, in any future referendum sanctioned by the UK government. Surely a future UK government will show a bit more spine than did Cameron in 2014 and question the use of subjective term "independence" in the question. Especially now that rejoining the EU and giving up recently acquired devolved powers is apparently the aim.
A question such as "Should Scotland remain as part of the United Kingdom?" would be far less ambiguous. Or even, to be more precise, "Should Scotland remain as part of the United Kingdom while exercising powers of devolved independent government?" Something like that is not being promoted by the SNP only because they know that it would be less likely to generate the answer they want.
Yes, he's really taken a diplomatic neutral stand on it hasn't he?
Tidal + Hydrogen generation is a good idea to mesh together but it comes back to the same issue - we're talking about tidal as a replacement to, or working in the same stream as, wind. It is not working in synergy with wind surging when wind dips or vice-versa.
As for the other issues 2025 will be here before long and we still have gas to burn between now and then. Even until the end of the decade we'll still be burning gas.
So if they need replacing by 2060 then replace them by 2060. That's not a problem today and by 2060 it might be even cheaper to replace them given costs are still descending right now.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/11/uk-secularism-on-rise-as-more-than-half-say-they-have-no-religion?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Fact is. We have huge tides. And a large coastline. It is a comparitive advantage on most of our competitors.
Isn't that what a nimble Brexit was meant to be all about?
Not simply saying it's too expensive and difficult. That is Remoaner talk.
OR did Scots take it as some kind of snarky insult ("Call US cheap, will ya?")
(The above is an actual plotline from Midsummer Murders, as I found when I put together a quiz round on murder mysteries recently)
You can't have it both ways.
Listen to what he said and its confused but he's talking about "coal plants" and "fuels". The UK has either closed or is closing all its "coal plants" too.
This is coking coal for steel. That's different. Its not used in coal plants, its not burnt as a fuel for electricity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country
Not sure what's eating the Estonians, for whom at one time Lutheranism was a barrier against Russian imperialism.
BTW, the Lithuanians were the last European kingdom to (formally) forsake paganism as state religion. Then proceeded to become more Catholic than the Pope (or at least the Curia).
That's like saying you can be owner of Liverpool FC and CEO of the EFL, EPL, UEFA and FIFA.
https://twitter.com/socialistraptor/status/1369920223147483139?s=21
Indeed. I’m told that godlessness is a sliding scale:
5. Religious
4. Agnostic
3. Irreligious
2. Atheist
1. C of E
The PA you imagine has been dead and gone for about thirty years now. Natural gas = fracking is the new thing. NOT coal or steel.
Well, excluding France.
Not that he needs to as SeaShanty says PA has already changed from your imaginations.
However I would not expect a non Tory, non conservative, non Unionist, former Labour voter with a republican, anti religion agenda such as yourself to understand that
Plus Pennnsylvania remains a swing state Biden only won by less than 100,000 votes, he cannot afford to piss off any of its residents, including coal miners, their families and the businesses associated with coalmining towns
28% White
25% Black
Since the country does not believe in the Church it should not be established.
Let's see what the Census says, either way it's wrong to have an established Church bit if the established Church represents less than half of the public then it should be removed.
a) Morons who don't understand their voting coalition
b) Wet liberals who are way to the left of their voters.
They can currently get away with this because they are only really opposed from the left, who want to do all the same stupid stuff, just faster and with extra subsidies.
Who do you vote for if you think that banning the mining of coal is moronic all the while its use it increasing elsewhere in the world? Especially when it's for steel production anyway?
Who do you vote for if you want the option to buy an IC engine vehicle for as long as you need one?
Who do you vote for if you don't want to see the entire country's heavy industry exported to China by green taxes, and expensive renewable energy?
Who do you vote for if you think that given the ever rising level of 3rd world emissions, we should move to climate change mitigation rather than uselessly trashing our economy in an excersise of tokenism?
Who do you vote for who would end lockdown right now, given we have data we have which shows fairly clearly that we could without overwhelming the health service?
The above may all be very unpopular with the London Liberal types who have a iron grip on both parties, but probably a good 1/3rd of the country currently feels disenfranchised along these lines (the Europe issue was similar in the 90s/00s).
Once again, the best plans upon first contact with the enemy ...
Indeed, some of the serious literature on either adaptive risk management, or business management in uncertainty and flux, strongly advises against over-emphasis on planning as it can lead to fixation on the plan long after evidence is pointing in another direction.
Sir Humphrey explains:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUSTKisEgTo
Is the government underwriting the loan that the miner has almost certainly required? Are there job subsidy programmes? Has a state enterprise entered into a non-market purchase agreement for the coal? (Or, occasionally it's a round-the-houses arrangement: Liberty Steel agrees to buy the coal at a non-market price in return for getting its own debts underwritten.)
The net result is that the number of practising religious people is overstated, but the number of non-practising culturally religious people is understated.
For the avoidance of doubt, I haven't a clue what the solution is, but questions of ethnicity, religion and identity are complicated. Does it matter? Ask the next king which faiths he is defending. Why is Sunday special but Jewish or Muslim sabbaths not? Should Eid be a bank holiday like Christmas? (Both of them?) Come to think of it, should the Orthodox Christmas in January also be a bank holiday as our Eastern European population rises?
And that is before we get on to assisted dying.
ETA: rinse and repeat for sex, gender, attraction and what have you.
On social media there has been a sudden outbreak of bashing incumbent Sadiq Khan, including by the Boris-aligned Fair Tax Campaign (and Brian Rose is still there, of course).
Grid storage in a fast growing part of Tesla’s business. Thus far only in the niche end of the market, but that will change as costs continue to fall.
F1 testing begins today. Think it starts at 7am.
That’s massively distorting very large energy markets, and the only solution is storage.
https://twitter.com/Quicktake/status/1370169450901737474
Preparation in action.
Will most of the production be exported?
Do we need to rapidly move to ways of producing steel that have a much smaller carbon footprint?
If the answer is yes to all 3 then the coal should definitely be left in the ground.
If not it should probably be left in the ground.
If you were complementing two reliable but cyclical sources that would make sense
Surely you need a base load source (like nuclear or tidal) to complement an episodic source like wind?
The UK has put £9 billion into wind and solar subsidies. It has caused £14 billion in imports into the UK. Supported so many jobs.
In northern Europe and China.
As any Blue Peter fan will know its real name is “sticky-backed plastic”
In 2019, UK exports to the EU were £294 billion (43% of all UK exports). UK imports from the EU were £374 billion (52% of all UK imports). The share of UK exports accounted for by the EU has generally fallen over time from 54% in 2002 to 43% in 2019. (Source: Commons Library)
So, that drop in imports represents say £10 billion. The drop in imports on the same basis is £15.3 billion.
That "Brexit bonus" for the EU is looking pretty fucking dumb.
I was saying that to compliment something unreliable like wind you need something dependable like gas or storage that can scale up on demand.
Base load doesn't scale up so unless you want the country to operate off base load alone that's not complimentary.