Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Dom gets the front pages that he clearly wanted – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,709
edited May 2021 in General
imageDom gets the front pages that he clearly wanted – politicalbetting.com

As expected the appearance by Dominic Cummings before the Commons committee yesterday totally dominates the front pages. The big question is what will be the political impact.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Options
    BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,489
    First?
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,561
    edited May 2021
    I don't think this will be forgotten by the weekend but I don't think it'll have much impact in a month or two.

    Cummings is too obviously out to get revenge and many people accept that mistakes were made early in the pandemic.

    But the popular mood is of course quite difficult to read - I still can't understand what so many people see in hip-hop, Eurovision, organised sport, McDonald's, etc. etc. etc.
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,561
    Also, the opposition these days never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity...
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 27,039
    edited May 2021
    Do voters think the opposition would have closed the borders any earlier?
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,561
    Probably not given the WHO advice at the time.
  • Options
    swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,436
    Fishing said:

    I don't think this will be forgotten by the weekend but I don't think it'll have much impact in a month or two.

    Cummings is too obviously out to get revenge and many people accept that mistakes were made early in the pandemic.

    But the popular mood is of course quite difficult to read - I still can't understand what so many people see in hip-hop, Eurovision, organised sport, McDonald's, etc. etc. etc.

    it all depends on whether Cummings keeps up the pressure and also an Inquiry? for many voters who are bereaved or separated from care home resident parents or who have close ties to the NHS (which could run into quite a few millions) DC's account will resonate and as I occasionally point out..chip away at Brand Boris esp among the Tory backbenchers (whose 1922 Committee I believe is currently going through a leadership vote)
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,005
    Fishing said:

    I don't think this will be forgotten by the weekend but I don't think it'll have much impact in a month or two.

    Cummings is too obviously out to get revenge and many people accept that mistakes were made early in the pandemic.

    But the popular mood is of course quite difficult to read - I still can't understand what so many people see in hip-hop, Eurovision, organised sport, McDonald's, etc. etc. etc.

    "organised sport" covers a colossal amount of stuff
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,154
    edited May 2021
    Fishing said:

    I don't think this will be forgotten by the weekend but I don't think it'll have much impact in a month or two.

    Cummings is too obviously out to get revenge and many people accept that mistakes were made early in the pandemic.

    But the popular mood is of course quite difficult to read - I still can't understand what so many people see in hip-hop, Eurovision, organised sport, McDonald's, etc. etc. etc.

    I think one consequence of Cummings' appearance will be to ensure 21st June sees us free from Covid constraints. Boris will want to show he had a strategy to get out of lockdown - in contrast to the more chaotic times when Cummings was part of the problem in causing that chaos.

    "Funny how things have run on rails since he left, eh?"
  • Options
    Cocky_cockneyCocky_cockney Posts: 760
    edited May 2021
    Relative of mine, deeply critical of Johnson and the Gov't generally, and who has said he would never again vote Conservative, emailed me yesterday to say,

    'I am not sure what purpose the Dominic Cummings saga is serving. It is obvious the pandemic was not handled well at the start. But the vaccine roll out has been excellent and we need to move on."

    If his view is widely held, which I suspect to be the case, then this won't have an impact. In some ways Cummings wildly overplayed his hand. Instead of the focus being on Johnson and Hancock, the take away is of someone who is so embittered that he is hell bent on revenge. And we're talking about a man who broke lockdown in such a spectacular manner that it spawned a thousand memes.

    It's all rather sad really. Hell hath no fury.

    I'm afraid that Cummings will have to watch on whilst Boris Johnson continues to win big. His fall will come, of course, but not for some years.
  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,871

    Fishing said:

    I don't think this will be forgotten by the weekend but I don't think it'll have much impact in a month or two.

    Cummings is too obviously out to get revenge and many people accept that mistakes were made early in the pandemic.

    But the popular mood is of course quite difficult to read - I still can't understand what so many people see in hip-hop, Eurovision, organised sport, McDonald's, etc. etc. etc.

    I think one consequence of Cummings' appearance will be to ensure 21st June sees us free from Covid constraints. Boris will want to show he had a strategy to get out of lockdown - in contrast to the more chaotic times when Cummings was part of the problem in causing that chaos.

    "Funny how things have run on rails since he left, eh?"
    You may well be right, but isn't that simply confirming one of Cummings main criticisms of Johnson? That it is government for daily media headlines, not long term, or even medium term outcomes? It may well be a good way to win elections, but it is not a fit way to run a country.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,907
    Andy_JS said:

    Do voters think the opposition would have closed the borders any earlier?

    Those kind of questions are like asking whether the the Tories would have joined the Americans into Iraq. They were gagging for it but who cares!
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,863
    Paper proposing a mechanism for the (fortunately rare) AZN and Janssen vaccines’ clotting side effects.

    https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-558954/v1
    ... Here, we present first molecular evidence that vector-based vaccines encoding the Spike protein exhibit a problem that is completely absent in mRNA-based vaccines. This is due to the fact that during the vaccination step, the adenoviral DNA enters the nucleus and use the host machinery to transcribe its (trans)genes inside the nucleus. However, RNA viruses have evolved in the absence of any post-transcriptional modification systems that are usually enabled to process the primary RNA transcripts of nuclear encoded genes.
    In this study, we experimentally validated our assumption that potential splice events cause the production of Spike protein variants that have lost the important membrane anchor, resulting in secreted, soluble Spike protein variants. We could show that (1) predicted splice donor sites are used to create Spike-Luciferase fusion proteins, that Luciferase activity can be measured intra- and extracellularly which was a clear indication that splice reactions are occurring, and (3) that codon-optimized Spike protein – that exhibits more and stronger splice donor sites – was able to fuse with the pIX gene either by transcriptional read-through and splicing, or by a trans-splicing event. All these results indicate that splice reactions occur and create soluble Spike protein. Soluble Spike protein has been described to cause adverse effects, e.g. a strong inflammatory response on endothelial cells [13–16]. Moreover, nearly all severe cases of SARS-CoV-2 infections (COVID-19) suffer from life-threatening thromboembolic events due to the many viruses with Spike surface protein in the blood stream. Even pseudoviruses with Spike protein on the surface cause strong inflammatory reactions in tissues and endothelial cells, indicating the danger of this protein when available in a systemic fashion [17]....
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,954
    Good morning Villarreal fans!
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,863
    This is a very good article on China, and the mistaken assumptions about its political system.
    https://bg.hbr.org/2021/05/what-the-west-gets-wrong-about-china#
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,445
    My view is that it's fascinating but ultimately all fog of war stuff.

    I don't expect the general and voting public's reaction to be much different.

    It confirms to me how unsuitable Boris was and is to be prime minister but equally voters don't seem to care.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,472
    edited May 2021
    What will be interesting is if Hancock provides actual evidence to refute Cummings.

    For example, it was widely rumoured that it was Cummings himself who was opposed to lockdowns and tried to pursue herd immunity. (He was also thought to be one of the strongest advocates of reopening schools and unis, and look how that turned out.)

    If Hancock has evidence of the former and is allowed to publish it Cummings’ limited remaining credibility will sink faster than the Titanic.

    Moreover, it would allow the government to blame somebody they have now removed for all their cockups.

    It wouldn’t address the essential question over Johnson’s judgement - why did he hire somebody so manifestly unsuitable for an executive role and back him when he should have been fired? - but it would buy time for the media circus to move on to unlocking, particularly if they brought the easing of restrictions forward a couple of weeks.
  • Options
    AnExileinD4AnExileinD4 Posts: 337
    I’m not sure that The Guardian’s approach is quite the shock implied. Assume that it’s peppered with quotes from Fake SAGE.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,512
    edited May 2021
    All this is a distraction from PB competition day! Every PB’er must fling open your curtains and check to see whether there’s a covering of snow outside?

    If there is, you’ve experienced that rarest of events, a prediction genuinely made by LeadronicT ahead of an event, actually coming true!

    I guess there’s a second chance for him if beyond the curtains you see stacks of bodies piled at street corners, but that now seems an even longer shot.... ;)
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,083
    IanB2 said:

    All this is a distraction from PB competition day! Every PB’er must fling open your curtains and check to see whether there’s a covering of snow outside?

    If there is, you’ve experienced that rarest of events, a prediction genuinely made by LeadronicT ahead of an event, actually coming true!

    I guess there’s a second chance for him if beyond the curtains you see stacks of bodies piled at street corners, but that now seems an even longer shot.... ;)

    S'no'w snow!

    Bright sunlight, and thermometer on my iPhone indicates 8.4degC
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 67,472

    IanB2 said:

    All this is a distraction from PB competition day! Every PB’er must fling open your curtains and check to see whether there’s a covering of snow outside?

    If there is, you’ve experienced that rarest of events, a prediction genuinely made by LeadronicT ahead of an event, actually coming true!

    I guess there’s a second chance for him if beyond the curtains you see stacks of bodies piled at street corners, but that now seems an even longer shot.... ;)

    S'no'w snow!

    Bright sunlight, and thermometer on my iPhone indicates 8.4degC
    Some dew, but no snow.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.

    They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.

    Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.

    Crap investment.

    The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)

    Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.

    Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
    Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.

    Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
    80% of very little is very little.

    Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.

    Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.

    It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.

    A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.

    Etc.

    They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
    Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)

    Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?

    Here's two things to remember:

    (1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.

    (2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.

    Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.

    And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.

    But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?

    Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
    0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
    Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.

    Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.

    We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!

    The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
    Hang on.

    In a world where most of our generation is natural gas CCGTs that can be turned on and off at will, then if it's cheaper for an individual to generate power via the sun great. And if it's not, then people won't buy them.

    My point is that for a young person (like you) solar panels are a terrible investment relative to (say) paying down your mortgage. For someone in their mid 50s, on the other hand, they are likely a pretty good investment relative to government bonds or leaving money in the bank.

    Simply, you get a 5-6% real after tax return, which is shit compared to SpaceX, but fantastic compared to other low-risk assets.
    That's the problem though, we aren't going to have most of our generation from gas CCGTs by 2030, let alone by 2040 or 2050.

    Net zero entails removing CCGT surely and having sufficient clean energy to power electronic heating through the winter.

    In which case what environmental purpose do solar panels serve.

    This is a completely different to somewhere like California that relies upon air conditioning in the summer.
    Currently 46% of UK electrical generation is CCGTs: https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
    Currently being the operative word.

    That's a minority of gas and it's falling fast. If you're looking at a 25 year lifespan then how many of those years do you think that will be true for?

    In 2010 coal was about 80% of electricity. It's now about 0% most if the time. The same thing will happen now to gas within the next decade, not the next 25 years.

    The future of greenery is surely in this country more stuff like wind and tidal etc than solar.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 33,234
    Times report says the Ofcom Chair interview panel found that Paul Dacre was “not appointable”. So now the govt is re-running the process to get the ‘right’ result. Dominic Cummings couldn’t make it up. https://twitter.com/arusbridger/status/1397794703588855811/photo/1
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,379
    Clear blue sky no clouds anywhere. Bloody deer have eaten all our hollyhocks...
  • Options
    swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,436
    DavidL said:

    Once again it seems to me that the "tens of thousand died that didn't need to die" is a complete illusion. If we had locked down sooner we would have deferred some cases and some deaths. But unless we were to live in lockdown for the last 18 months it would only be a deferral. Those that died were the most vulnerable to this pernicious disease. As a generality they would have caught it and died whenever we opened up. Significant numbers of old, vulnerable people in care homes were always going to die of this. Its simply naive to claim otherwise.

    So individual mistakes such as the care homes fiasco where hospitals were cleared of bed blockers or the unending failure to secure borders or the fiasco of the early T&T changed the shape of our death toll but I remain to be convinced that it affected the final result. The brutal truth was that pre vaccines somewhere between 0.5 and 1% of us were going to die of this disease, mainly the old, the obese and those with impaired immune systems with the odd unlucky other as well. This is the reality and pretending that this could be magicked away by some clever policy is delusional.

    We still have a real problem in recognising that we are vulnerable to nature, that there are things that we simply cannot prevent. Its a bit weird.

    You are correct, however the mortality rate in the UK (127,000 deaths) seems very high compared to say Germany or France (both similar sized countries with comparable demographics)....
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,379
    DavidL said:

    Once again it seems to me that the "tens of thousand died that didn't need to die" is a complete illusion. If we had locked down sooner we would have deferred some cases and some deaths. But unless we were to live in lockdown for the last 18 months it would only be a deferral. Those that died were the most vulnerable to this pernicious disease. As a generality they would have caught it and died whenever we opened up. Significant numbers of old, vulnerable people in care homes were always going to die of this. Its simply naive to claim otherwise.

    So individual mistakes such as the care homes fiasco where hospitals were cleared of bed blockers or the unending failure to secure borders or the fiasco of the early T&T changed the shape of our death toll but I remain to be convinced that it affected the final result. The brutal truth was that pre vaccines somewhere between 0.5 and 1% of us were going to die of this disease, mainly the old, the obese and those with impaired immune systems with the odd unlucky other as well. This is the reality and pretending that this could be magicked away by some clever policy is delusional.

    We still have a real problem in recognising that we are vulnerable to nature, that there are things that we simply cannot prevent. Its a bit weird.

    Very good post that cuts through the the fog of illusion that Cummings tried to portray.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,512

    IanB2 said:

    All this is a distraction from PB competition day! Every PB’er must fling open your curtains and check to see whether there’s a covering of snow outside?

    If there is, you’ve experienced that rarest of events, a prediction genuinely made by LeadronicT ahead of an event, actually coming true!

    I guess there’s a second chance for him if beyond the curtains you see stacks of bodies piled at street corners, but that now seems an even longer shot.... ;)

    S'no'w snow!

    Bright sunlight, and thermometer on my iPhone indicates 8.4degC
    Ironically it is probably going to feel like the first day of summer in many places today!
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,416

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.

    They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.

    Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.

    Crap investment.

    The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)

    Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.

    Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
    Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.

    Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
    80% of very little is very little.

    Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.

    Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.

    It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.

    A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.

    Etc.

    They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
    Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)

    Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?

    Here's two things to remember:

    (1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.

    (2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.

    Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.

    And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.

    But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?

    Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
    0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
    Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.

    Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.

    We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!

    The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
    Hang on.

    In a world where most of our generation is natural gas CCGTs that can be turned on and off at will, then if it's cheaper for an individual to generate power via the sun great. And if it's not, then people won't buy them.

    My point is that for a young person (like you) solar panels are a terrible investment relative to (say) paying down your mortgage. For someone in their mid 50s, on the other hand, they are likely a pretty good investment relative to government bonds or leaving money in the bank.

    Simply, you get a 5-6% real after tax return, which is shit compared to SpaceX, but fantastic compared to other low-risk assets.
    That's the problem though, we aren't going to have most of our generation from gas CCGTs by 2030, let alone by 2040 or 2050.

    Net zero entails removing CCGT surely and having sufficient clean energy to power electronic heating through the winter.

    In which case what environmental purpose do solar panels serve.

    This is a completely different to somewhere like California that relies upon air conditioning in the summer.
    Currently 46% of UK electrical generation is CCGTs: https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
    Currently being the operative word.

    That's a minority of gas and it's falling fast. If you're looking at a 25 year lifespan then how many of those years do you think that will be true for?

    In 2010 coal was about 80% of electricity. It's now about 0% most if the time. The same thing will happen now to gas within the next decade, not the next 25 years.

    The future of greenery is surely in this country more stuff like wind and tidal etc than solar.
    I agree with all of that except the last line. Solar has improved in efficiency so much that it will be an important part of the mix as well, even in this gloomy overcast country. It still occasionally startles me when I am out for a walk how many houses in the village now have solar panels. The increase in the last 3 years has been marked and I do not think that trend has petered out at all yet.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,862
    Pulpstar said:

    Fishing said:

    I don't think this will be forgotten by the weekend but I don't think it'll have much impact in a month or two.

    Cummings is too obviously out to get revenge and many people accept that mistakes were made early in the pandemic.

    But the popular mood is of course quite difficult to read - I still can't understand what so many people see in hip-hop, Eurovision, organised sport, McDonald's, etc. etc. etc.

    "organised sport" covers a colossal amount of stuff
    Nigelb said:

    Paper proposing a mechanism for the (fortunately rare) AZN and Janssen vaccines’ clotting side effects.

    https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-558954/v1
    ... Here, we present first molecular evidence that vector-based vaccines encoding the Spike protein exhibit a problem that is completely absent in mRNA-based vaccines. This is due to the fact that during the vaccination step, the adenoviral DNA enters the nucleus and use the host machinery to transcribe its (trans)genes inside the nucleus. However, RNA viruses have evolved in the absence of any post-transcriptional modification systems that are usually enabled to process the primary RNA transcripts of nuclear encoded genes.
    In this study, we experimentally validated our assumption that potential splice events cause the production of Spike protein variants that have lost the important membrane anchor, resulting in secreted, soluble Spike protein variants. We could show that (1) predicted splice donor sites are used to create Spike-Luciferase fusion proteins, that Luciferase activity can be measured intra- and extracellularly which was a clear indication that splice reactions are occurring, and (3) that codon-optimized Spike protein – that exhibits more and stronger splice donor sites – was able to fuse with the pIX gene either by transcriptional read-through and splicing, or by a trans-splicing event. All these results indicate that splice reactions occur and create soluble Spike protein. Soluble Spike protein has been described to cause adverse effects, e.g. a strong inflammatory response on endothelial cells [13–16]. Moreover, nearly all severe cases of SARS-CoV-2 infections (COVID-19) suffer from life-threatening thromboembolic events due to the many viruses with Spike surface protein in the blood stream. Even pseudoviruses with Spike protein on the surface cause strong inflammatory reactions in tissues and endothelial cells, indicating the danger of this protein when available in a systemic fashion [17]....

    Interesting indeed. The vascular complications of covid-19 are one of its unusual features for a respiratory virus.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,416

    DavidL said:

    Once again it seems to me that the "tens of thousand died that didn't need to die" is a complete illusion. If we had locked down sooner we would have deferred some cases and some deaths. But unless we were to live in lockdown for the last 18 months it would only be a deferral. Those that died were the most vulnerable to this pernicious disease. As a generality they would have caught it and died whenever we opened up. Significant numbers of old, vulnerable people in care homes were always going to die of this. Its simply naive to claim otherwise.

    So individual mistakes such as the care homes fiasco where hospitals were cleared of bed blockers or the unending failure to secure borders or the fiasco of the early T&T changed the shape of our death toll but I remain to be convinced that it affected the final result. The brutal truth was that pre vaccines somewhere between 0.5 and 1% of us were going to die of this disease, mainly the old, the obese and those with impaired immune systems with the odd unlucky other as well. This is the reality and pretending that this could be magicked away by some clever policy is delusional.

    We still have a real problem in recognising that we are vulnerable to nature, that there are things that we simply cannot prevent. Its a bit weird.

    You are correct, however the mortality rate in the UK (127,000 deaths) seems very high compared to say Germany or France (both similar sized countries with comparable demographics)....
    France's deaths per million is not materially different from ours 1,600 to 1800 and their deaths are still increasing. Germany is lower, nearer the 1,000, but would it have been that different if vaccines had not been available for another year? I doubt it. They have been much harder hit on this most recent wave.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,379
    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.

    They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.

    Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.

    Crap investment.

    The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)

    Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.

    Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
    Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.

    Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
    80% of very little is very little.

    Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.

    Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.

    It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.

    A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.

    Etc.

    They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
    Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)

    Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?

    Here's two things to remember:

    (1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.

    (2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.

    Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.

    And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.

    But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?

    Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
    0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
    Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.

    Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.

    We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!

    The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
    Hang on.

    In a world where most of our generation is natural gas CCGTs that can be turned on and off at will, then if it's cheaper for an individual to generate power via the sun great. And if it's not, then people won't buy them.

    My point is that for a young person (like you) solar panels are a terrible investment relative to (say) paying down your mortgage. For someone in their mid 50s, on the other hand, they are likely a pretty good investment relative to government bonds or leaving money in the bank.

    Simply, you get a 5-6% real after tax return, which is shit compared to SpaceX, but fantastic compared to other low-risk assets.
    That's the problem though, we aren't going to have most of our generation from gas CCGTs by 2030, let alone by 2040 or 2050.

    Net zero entails removing CCGT surely and having sufficient clean energy to power electronic heating through the winter.

    In which case what environmental purpose do solar panels serve.

    This is a completely different to somewhere like California that relies upon air conditioning in the summer.
    Currently 46% of UK electrical generation is CCGTs: https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
    Currently being the operative word.

    That's a minority of gas and it's falling fast. If you're looking at a 25 year lifespan then how many of those years do you think that will be true for?

    In 2010 coal was about 80% of electricity. It's now about 0% most if the time. The same thing will happen now to gas within the next decade, not the next 25 years.

    The future of greenery is surely in this country more stuff like wind and tidal etc than solar.
    I agree with all of that except the last line. Solar has improved in efficiency so much that it will be an important part of the mix as well, even in this gloomy overcast country. It still occasionally startles me when I am out for a walk how many houses in the village now have solar panels. The increase in the last 3 years has been marked and I do not think that trend has petered out at all yet.
    The trouble with solar panels is that they are so ugly. I would not put them on my old house. It would ruin the beauty of it.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,954
    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.

    They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.

    Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.

    Crap investment.

    The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)

    Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.

    Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
    Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.

    Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
    80% of very little is very little.

    Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.

    Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.

    It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.

    A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.

    Etc.

    They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
    Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)

    Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?

    Here's two things to remember:

    (1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.

    (2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.

    Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.

    And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.

    But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?

    Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
    0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
    Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.

    Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.

    We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!

    The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
    Hang on.

    In a world where most of our generation is natural gas CCGTs that can be turned on and off at will, then if it's cheaper for an individual to generate power via the sun great. And if it's not, then people won't buy them.

    My point is that for a young person (like you) solar panels are a terrible investment relative to (say) paying down your mortgage. For someone in their mid 50s, on the other hand, they are likely a pretty good investment relative to government bonds or leaving money in the bank.

    Simply, you get a 5-6% real after tax return, which is shit compared to SpaceX, but fantastic compared to other low-risk assets.
    That's the problem though, we aren't going to have most of our generation from gas CCGTs by 2030, let alone by 2040 or 2050.

    Net zero entails removing CCGT surely and having sufficient clean energy to power electronic heating through the winter.

    In which case what environmental purpose do solar panels serve.

    This is a completely different to somewhere like California that relies upon air conditioning in the summer.
    Currently 46% of UK electrical generation is CCGTs: https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
    Currently being the operative word.

    That's a minority of gas and it's falling fast. If you're looking at a 25 year lifespan then how many of those years do you think that will be true for?

    In 2010 coal was about 80% of electricity. It's now about 0% most if the time. The same thing will happen now to gas within the next decade, not the next 25 years.

    The future of greenery is surely in this country more stuff like wind and tidal etc than solar.
    I agree with all of that except the last line. Solar has improved in efficiency so much that it will be an important part of the mix as well, even in this gloomy overcast country. It still occasionally startles me when I am out for a walk how many houses in the village now have solar panels. The increase in the last 3 years has been marked and I do not think that trend has petered out at all yet.
    They are slowly getting better, but at 56°N they’re still very much uneconomical.

    Great for virtue signalling though, to show the neighbours how ‘green’ you are.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,416

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.

    They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.

    Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.

    Crap investment.

    The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)

    Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.

    Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
    Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.

    Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
    80% of very little is very little.

    Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.

    Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.

    It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.

    A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.

    Etc.

    They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
    Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)

    Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?

    Here's two things to remember:

    (1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.

    (2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.

    Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.

    And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.

    But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?

    Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
    0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
    Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.

    Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.

    We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!

    The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
    Hang on.

    In a world where most of our generation is natural gas CCGTs that can be turned on and off at will, then if it's cheaper for an individual to generate power via the sun great. And if it's not, then people won't buy them.

    My point is that for a young person (like you) solar panels are a terrible investment relative to (say) paying down your mortgage. For someone in their mid 50s, on the other hand, they are likely a pretty good investment relative to government bonds or leaving money in the bank.

    Simply, you get a 5-6% real after tax return, which is shit compared to SpaceX, but fantastic compared to other low-risk assets.
    That's the problem though, we aren't going to have most of our generation from gas CCGTs by 2030, let alone by 2040 or 2050.

    Net zero entails removing CCGT surely and having sufficient clean energy to power electronic heating through the winter.

    In which case what environmental purpose do solar panels serve.

    This is a completely different to somewhere like California that relies upon air conditioning in the summer.
    Currently 46% of UK electrical generation is CCGTs: https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
    Currently being the operative word.

    That's a minority of gas and it's falling fast. If you're looking at a 25 year lifespan then how many of those years do you think that will be true for?

    In 2010 coal was about 80% of electricity. It's now about 0% most if the time. The same thing will happen now to gas within the next decade, not the next 25 years.

    The future of greenery is surely in this country more stuff like wind and tidal etc than solar.
    I agree with all of that except the last line. Solar has improved in efficiency so much that it will be an important part of the mix as well, even in this gloomy overcast country. It still occasionally startles me when I am out for a walk how many houses in the village now have solar panels. The increase in the last 3 years has been marked and I do not think that trend has petered out at all yet.
    The trouble with solar panels is that they are so ugly. I would not put them on my old house. It would ruin the beauty of it.
    I don't disagree, its why they are not on mine. But financially they are now a no brainer and they are good for the environment too. As we get to the point we are all not just charging our phones but our cars overnight that will be important.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,602
    edited May 2021

    DavidL said:

    Once again it seems to me that the "tens of thousand died that didn't need to die" is a complete illusion. If we had locked down sooner we would have deferred some cases and some deaths. But unless we were to live in lockdown for the last 18 months it would only be a deferral. Those that died were the most vulnerable to this pernicious disease. As a generality they would have caught it and died whenever we opened up. Significant numbers of old, vulnerable people in care homes were always going to die of this. Its simply naive to claim otherwise.

    So individual mistakes such as the care homes fiasco where hospitals were cleared of bed blockers or the unending failure to secure borders or the fiasco of the early T&T changed the shape of our death toll but I remain to be convinced that it affected the final result. The brutal truth was that pre vaccines somewhere between 0.5 and 1% of us were going to die of this disease, mainly the old, the obese and those with impaired immune systems with the odd unlucky other as well. This is the reality and pretending that this could be magicked away by some clever policy is delusional.

    We still have a real problem in recognising that we are vulnerable to nature, that there are things that we simply cannot prevent. Its a bit weird.

    You are correct, however the mortality rate in the UK (127,000 deaths) seems very high compared to say Germany or France (both similar sized countries with comparable demographics)....
    And if one looks at the countries that have higher death rates, there aren't many that the UK should be proud of beating;

    "Boris Johnson: a more effective Covid response than Hungary" isn't quite the zinger some might hope.

    Think of BoJo like the manager of a struggling league team that gets drawn against a non-league club in the cup and avoids being giant-killed. It's nice, but it doesn't alter the fundamentals.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,512
    edited May 2021
    A quick reminder, from May 14:
    Leon said:

    The medium range weather forecasts are incredible. 7C maximum in Paris on the 27th May. Snow widespread across Britain

    Day after day of quite sensational cold across northern Europe, if it happens

    He does however have a third chance to win, if anyone upon opening the curtains sees a flying saucer landing in the garden.....
    Leon said:



    I do now wonder if we are being surveilled by aliens

  • Options
    AnExileinD4AnExileinD4 Posts: 337
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.

    They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.

    Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.

    Crap investment.

    The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)

    Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.

    Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
    Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.

    Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
    80% of very little is very little.

    Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.

    Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.

    It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.

    A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.

    Etc.

    They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
    Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)

    Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?

    Here's two things to remember:

    (1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.

    (2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.

    Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.

    And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.

    But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?

    Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
    0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
    Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.

    Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.

    We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!

    The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
    Hang on.

    In a world where most of our generation is natural gas CCGTs that can be turned on and off at will, then if it's cheaper for an individual to generate power via the sun great. And if it's not, then people won't buy them.

    My point is that for a young person (like you) solar panels are a terrible investment relative to (say) paying down your mortgage. For someone in their mid 50s, on the other hand, they are likely a pretty good investment relative to government bonds or leaving money in the bank.

    Simply, you get a 5-6% real after tax return, which is shit compared to SpaceX, but fantastic compared to other low-risk assets.
    That's the problem though, we aren't going to have most of our generation from gas CCGTs by 2030, let alone by 2040 or 2050.

    Net zero entails removing CCGT surely and having sufficient clean energy to power electronic heating through the winter.

    In which case what environmental purpose do solar panels serve.

    This is a completely different to somewhere like California that relies upon air conditioning in the summer.
    Currently 46% of UK electrical generation is CCGTs: https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
    Currently being the operative word.

    That's a minority of gas and it's falling fast. If you're looking at a 25 year lifespan then how many of those years do you think that will be true for?

    In 2010 coal was about 80% of electricity. It's now about 0% most if the time. The same thing will happen now to gas within the next decade, not the next 25 years.

    The future of greenery is surely in this country more stuff like wind and tidal etc than solar.
    I agree with all of that except the last line. Solar has improved in efficiency so much that it will be an important part of the mix as well, even in this gloomy overcast country. It still occasionally startles me when I am out for a walk how many houses in the village now have solar panels. The increase in the last 3 years has been marked and I do not think that trend has petered out at all yet.
    The trouble with solar panels is that they are so ugly. I would not put them on my old house. It would ruin the beauty of it.
    I don't disagree, its why they are not on mine. But financially they are now a no brainer and they are good for the environment too. As we get to the point we are all not just charging our phones but our cars overnight that will be important.
    Better have a word with Planning Officers who are awfully keen, in some areas, to refuse applications to fit them domestically. Frequently abetted by Parish Councils.

    Left hand, right hand.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,416
    edited May 2021
    IanB2 said:

    A quick reminder, from May 14:


    Leon said:

    The medium range weather forecasts are incredible. 7C maximum in Paris on the 27th May. Snow widespread across Britain

    Day after day of quite sensational cold across northern Europe, if it happens

    He does however have a third chance to win, if anyone upon opening the curtains sees a flying saucer landing in the garden.....
    Leon said:



    I do now wonder if we are being surveilled by aliens

    Not so far but its early yet. Who can doubt that aliens will be addicted to Weetabix by now and enjoy a hearty breakfast before they start buzzing around?
  • Options
    Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,060
    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.

    They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.

    Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.

    Crap investment.

    The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)

    Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.

    Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
    Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.

    Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
    80% of very little is very little.

    Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.

    Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.

    It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.

    A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.

    Etc.

    They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
    Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)

    Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?

    Here's two things to remember:

    (1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.

    (2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.

    Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.

    And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.

    But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?

    Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
    0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
    Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.

    Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.

    We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!

    The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
    Hang on.

    In a world where most of our generation is natural gas CCGTs that can be turned on and off at will, then if it's cheaper for an individual to generate power via the sun great. And if it's not, then people won't buy them.

    My point is that for a young person (like you) solar panels are a terrible investment relative to (say) paying down your mortgage. For someone in their mid 50s, on the other hand, they are likely a pretty good investment relative to government bonds or leaving money in the bank.

    Simply, you get a 5-6% real after tax return, which is shit compared to SpaceX, but fantastic compared to other low-risk assets.
    That's the problem though, we aren't going to have most of our generation from gas CCGTs by 2030, let alone by 2040 or 2050.

    Net zero entails removing CCGT surely and having sufficient clean energy to power electronic heating through the winter.

    In which case what environmental purpose do solar panels serve.

    This is a completely different to somewhere like California that relies upon air conditioning in the summer.
    Currently 46% of UK electrical generation is CCGTs: https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
    Currently being the operative word.

    That's a minority of gas and it's falling fast. If you're looking at a 25 year lifespan then how many of those years do you think that will be true for?

    In 2010 coal was about 80% of electricity. It's now about 0% most if the time. The same thing will happen now to gas within the next decade, not the next 25 years.

    The future of greenery is surely in this country more stuff like wind and tidal etc than solar.
    I agree with all of that except the last line. Solar has improved in efficiency so much that it will be an important part of the mix as well, even in this gloomy overcast country. It still occasionally startles me when I am out for a walk how many houses in the village now have solar panels. The increase in the last 3 years has been marked and I do not think that trend has petered out at all yet.
    They are slowly getting better, but at 56°N they’re still very much uneconomical.

    Great for virtue signalling though, to show the neighbours how ‘green’ you are.
    From the point of view of reducing climate change, the closer to the equator the panels are used the better.
    In fact the best thing would be if the Chinese kept all the panels they made and use them to replace energy produced from coal rather than selling them to us to reduce the amount of gas we burn.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,862
    DavidL said:

    Once again it seems to me that the "tens of thousand died that didn't need to die" is a complete illusion. If we had locked down sooner we would have deferred some cases and some deaths. But unless we were to live in lockdown for the last 18 months it would only be a deferral. Those that died were the most vulnerable to this pernicious disease. As a generality they would have caught it and died whenever we opened up. Significant numbers of old, vulnerable people in care homes were always going to die of this. Its simply naive to claim otherwise.

    So individual mistakes such as the care homes fiasco where hospitals were cleared of bed blockers or the unending failure to secure borders or the fiasco of the early T&T changed the shape of our death toll but I remain to be convinced that it affected the final result. The brutal truth was that pre vaccines somewhere between 0.5 and 1% of us were going to die of this disease, mainly the old, the obese and those with impaired immune systems with the odd unlucky other as well. This is the reality and pretending that this could be magicked away by some clever policy is delusional.

    We still have a real problem in recognising that we are vulnerable to nature, that there are things that we simply cannot prevent. Its a bit weird.

    I don't think sealing the borders in February would have stopped the virus for long, considering the porous nature of our borders compared to NZ. The year before any real border control, even one as lame as the traffic light system, is rather long.

    Domestic measures may have contained and limited the spread much more effectively, allowing time to prepare the NHS. The first wave was chaotically scary to be in hospital. Testing was hard to obtain for either patients or staff, segregation of cases impossible, PPE in short supply, and PPE protocols regularly downgraded to what was available rather than what was appropriate. Then there was the discharges to care homes.

    Locking down a few weeks earlier is not the same as permanent lockdown.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,181
    IanB2 said:

    A quick reminder, from May 14:


    Leon said:

    The medium range weather forecasts are incredible. 7C maximum in Paris on the 27th May. Snow widespread across Britain

    Day after day of quite sensational cold across northern Europe, if it happens

    He does however have a third chance to win, if anyone upon opening the curtains sees a flying saucer landing in the garden.....
    Leon said:



    I do now wonder if we are being surveilled by aliens

    Don't blame Leon. Have you noticed how we woke up today and there was no snow? *woke* up. It's the fault of woke, clearly.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,862

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.

    They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.

    Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.

    Crap investment.

    The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)

    Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.

    Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
    Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.

    Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
    80% of very little is very little.

    Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.

    Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.

    It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.

    A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.

    Etc.

    They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
    Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)

    Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?

    Here's two things to remember:

    (1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.

    (2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.

    Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.

    And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.

    But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?

    Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
    0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
    Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.

    Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.

    We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!

    The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
    Hang on.

    In a world where most of our generation is natural gas CCGTs that can be turned on and off at will, then if it's cheaper for an individual to generate power via the sun great. And if it's not, then people won't buy them.

    My point is that for a young person (like you) solar panels are a terrible investment relative to (say) paying down your mortgage. For someone in their mid 50s, on the other hand, they are likely a pretty good investment relative to government bonds or leaving money in the bank.

    Simply, you get a 5-6% real after tax return, which is shit compared to SpaceX, but fantastic compared to other low-risk assets.
    That's the problem though, we aren't going to have most of our generation from gas CCGTs by 2030, let alone by 2040 or 2050.

    Net zero entails removing CCGT surely and having sufficient clean energy to power electronic heating through the winter.

    In which case what environmental purpose do solar panels serve.

    This is a completely different to somewhere like California that relies upon air conditioning in the summer.
    Currently 46% of UK electrical generation is CCGTs: https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
    Currently being the operative word.

    That's a minority of gas and it's falling fast. If you're looking at a 25 year lifespan then how many of those years do you think that will be true for?

    In 2010 coal was about 80% of electricity. It's now about 0% most if the time. The same thing will happen now to gas within the next decade, not the next 25 years.

    The future of greenery is surely in this country more stuff like wind and tidal etc than solar.
    I agree with all of that except the last line. Solar has improved in efficiency so much that it will be an important part of the mix as well, even in this gloomy overcast country. It still occasionally startles me when I am out for a walk how many houses in the village now have solar panels. The increase in the last 3 years has been marked and I do not think that trend has petered out at all yet.
    They are slowly getting better, but at 56°N they’re still very much uneconomical.

    Great for virtue signalling though, to show the neighbours how ‘green’ you are.
    From the point of view of reducing climate change, the closer to the equator the panels are used the better.
    In fact the best thing would be if the Chinese kept all the panels they made and use them to replace energy produced from coal rather than selling them to us to reduce the amount of gas we burn.
    Indeed. The other thing about cheap solar panels is that they provide real opportunity for sunny countries in Africa to have cheap electricity and thereby real possibility of economic growth.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,416

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.

    They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.

    Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.

    Crap investment.

    The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)

    Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.

    Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
    Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.

    Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
    80% of very little is very little.

    Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.

    Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.

    It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.

    A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.

    Etc.

    They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
    Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)

    Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?

    Here's two things to remember:

    (1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.

    (2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.

    Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.

    And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.

    But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?

    Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
    0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
    Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.

    Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.

    We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!

    The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
    Hang on.

    In a world where most of our generation is natural gas CCGTs that can be turned on and off at will, then if it's cheaper for an individual to generate power via the sun great. And if it's not, then people won't buy them.

    My point is that for a young person (like you) solar panels are a terrible investment relative to (say) paying down your mortgage. For someone in their mid 50s, on the other hand, they are likely a pretty good investment relative to government bonds or leaving money in the bank.

    Simply, you get a 5-6% real after tax return, which is shit compared to SpaceX, but fantastic compared to other low-risk assets.
    That's the problem though, we aren't going to have most of our generation from gas CCGTs by 2030, let alone by 2040 or 2050.

    Net zero entails removing CCGT surely and having sufficient clean energy to power electronic heating through the winter.

    In which case what environmental purpose do solar panels serve.

    This is a completely different to somewhere like California that relies upon air conditioning in the summer.
    Currently 46% of UK electrical generation is CCGTs: https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
    Currently being the operative word.

    That's a minority of gas and it's falling fast. If you're looking at a 25 year lifespan then how many of those years do you think that will be true for?

    In 2010 coal was about 80% of electricity. It's now about 0% most if the time. The same thing will happen now to gas within the next decade, not the next 25 years.

    The future of greenery is surely in this country more stuff like wind and tidal etc than solar.
    I agree with all of that except the last line. Solar has improved in efficiency so much that it will be an important part of the mix as well, even in this gloomy overcast country. It still occasionally startles me when I am out for a walk how many houses in the village now have solar panels. The increase in the last 3 years has been marked and I do not think that trend has petered out at all yet.
    The trouble with solar panels is that they are so ugly. I would not put them on my old house. It would ruin the beauty of it.
    I don't disagree, its why they are not on mine. But financially they are now a no brainer and they are good for the environment too. As we get to the point we are all not just charging our phones but our cars overnight that will be important.
    Better have a word with Planning Officers who are awfully keen, in some areas, to refuse applications to fit them domestically. Frequently abetted by Parish Councils.

    Left hand, right hand.
    Well, for the same reason @SquareRoot mentions I wouldn't want them on listed buildings or even in conservation areas but the rest of us are going to have to get used to them, just like we have got used to hillsides covered in turbines.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,512

    Leon said:

    The medium range weather forecasts are incredible. 7C maximum in Paris on the 27th May. Snow widespread across Britain

    I see today’s max temp forecast for Paris is 20C.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,083
    DavidL said:

    Once again it seems to me that the "tens of thousand died that didn't need to die" is a complete illusion. If we had locked down sooner we would have deferred some cases and some deaths. But unless we were to live in lockdown for the last 18 months it would only be a deferral. Those that died were the most vulnerable to this pernicious disease. As a generality they would have caught it and died whenever we opened up. Significant numbers of old, vulnerable people in care homes were always going to die of this. Its simply naive to claim otherwise.

    So individual mistakes such as the care homes fiasco where hospitals were cleared of bed blockers or the unending failure to secure borders or the fiasco of the early T&T changed the shape of our death toll but I remain to be convinced that it affected the final result. The brutal truth was that pre vaccines somewhere between 0.5 and 1% of us were going to die of this disease, mainly the old, the obese and those with impaired immune systems with the odd unlucky other as well. This is the reality and pretending that this could be magicked away by some clever policy is delusional.

    We still have a real problem in recognising that we are vulnerable to nature, that there are things that we simply cannot prevent. Its a bit weird.

    There are, and were, I suggest two issues that really need to be taken into account. One we have discussed here before; how we count coronavirus deaths. Does every other European and N. American country define them the same way that we did; within 28 days of a positive test? I personally of two people who died within that period, but they could reasonably be described as 'sick unto death' anyway.

    Secondly, it is almost twenty years since was, most days, concerned with the interface between care homes and hospitals, but then, and I suspect now, it was by no means unknown for the disruption of the transfer, particularly if 'out of hours' to result in a the patient's death. And that could be transfer either way!

    And, of course, when the authorities were counting, they rarely included as a baseline the deaths one might expect anyway. On a normal day people die, simply because, at the end of life, systems just shut down, as in the case of Prince Philip.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,416
    Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Once again it seems to me that the "tens of thousand died that didn't need to die" is a complete illusion. If we had locked down sooner we would have deferred some cases and some deaths. But unless we were to live in lockdown for the last 18 months it would only be a deferral. Those that died were the most vulnerable to this pernicious disease. As a generality they would have caught it and died whenever we opened up. Significant numbers of old, vulnerable people in care homes were always going to die of this. Its simply naive to claim otherwise.

    So individual mistakes such as the care homes fiasco where hospitals were cleared of bed blockers or the unending failure to secure borders or the fiasco of the early T&T changed the shape of our death toll but I remain to be convinced that it affected the final result. The brutal truth was that pre vaccines somewhere between 0.5 and 1% of us were going to die of this disease, mainly the old, the obese and those with impaired immune systems with the odd unlucky other as well. This is the reality and pretending that this could be magicked away by some clever policy is delusional.

    We still have a real problem in recognising that we are vulnerable to nature, that there are things that we simply cannot prevent. Its a bit weird.

    I don't think sealing the borders in February would have stopped the virus for long, considering the porous nature of our borders compared to NZ. The year before any real border control, even one as lame as the traffic light system, is rather long.

    Domestic measures may have contained and limited the spread much more effectively, allowing time to prepare the NHS. The first wave was chaotically scary to be in hospital. Testing was hard to obtain for either patients or staff, segregation of cases impossible, PPE in short supply, and PPE protocols regularly downgraded to what was available rather than what was appropriate. Then there was the discharges to care homes.

    Locking down a few weeks earlier is not the same as permanent lockdown.
    Our lack of preparedness in respect of PPE and testing is something we can definitely learn from going forward and I have the upmost respect for those such as you who faced the chaos of the initial response in our hospitals. We were perhaps a little fortunate that things did not get as bad as they did in northern Italy. It probably was fortune rather than any great planning or organisation.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,862
    IanB2 said:




    Leon said:

    The medium range weather forecasts are incredible. 7C maximum in Paris on the 27th May. Snow widespread across Britain

    I see today’s max temp forecast for Paris is 20C.
    It's almost as if Britain has unpredictable and changeable weather...🤔

    Mrs Foxy off to the Isle of Wight for the long weekend. The Red Funnel sold out for most Southampton sailings Friday and Saturday. Looks to be busy over there.
  • Options
    Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 6,060
    IanB2 said:




    Leon said:

    The medium range weather forecasts are incredible. 7C maximum in Paris on the 27th May. Snow widespread across Britain

    I see today’s max temp forecast for Paris is 20C.
    There was sleet over parts of the UK yesterday (according to the radar in my weather app); being one day out and getting sleet not snow is pretty close for a medium range forecast.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,512
    edited May 2021
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:




    Leon said:

    The medium range weather forecasts are incredible. 7C maximum in Paris on the 27th May. Snow widespread across Britain

    I see today’s max temp forecast for Paris is 20C.
    It's almost as if Britain has unpredictable and changeable weather...🤔

    Mrs Foxy off to the Isle of Wight for the long weekend. The Red Funnel sold out for most Southampton sailings Friday and Saturday. Looks to be busy over there.
    “Widespread snow” five days from June would have been more than changeable!

    Yes, everything has been pretty much full here since Tuesday last week. If you plan on eating out, book ahead.

    The forecast for the weekend looks great; light winds, lots of sunshine, just a bit of light cloud on the Saturday. Temps in the high teens even by the sea.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,386
    ydoethur said:

    What will be interesting is if Hancock provides actual evidence to refute Cummings.

    For example, it was widely rumoured that it was Cummings himself who was opposed to lockdowns and tried to pursue herd immunity. (He was also thought to be one of the strongest advocates of reopening schools and unis, and look how that turned out.)

    If Hancock has evidence of the former and is allowed to publish it Cummings’ limited remaining credibility will sink faster than the Titanic.

    Moreover, it would allow the government to blame somebody they have now removed for all their cockups.

    It wouldn’t address the essential question over Johnson’s judgement - why did he hire somebody so manifestly unsuitable for an executive role and back him when he should have been fired? - but it would buy time for the media circus to move on to unlocking, particularly if they brought the easing of restrictions forward a couple of weeks.

    Yes this would be a highly entertaining twist. Cummings came out with stuff that was beyond crazy yesterday. And produced very little evidence to back it up. "I will have to consult my lawyers" - please.

    As I said beforehand I have no interest in the word of Cummings as I don't trust him. The afternoon session that I saw was compelling. It told me a lot that I thought was true. But as I trust the person saying it almost as little as the people he accuses, meh.

    It won't make any difference to the Cult.
  • Options
    AnExileinD4AnExileinD4 Posts: 337
    IanB2 said:




    Leon said:

    The medium range weather forecasts are incredible. 7C maximum in Paris on the 27th May. Snow widespread across Britain

    I see today’s max temp forecast for Paris is 20C.
    Is almost as if you post enough nonsense then people will forget the 90% inaccuracy rate when you focus on the 10% that is right. The Dominic Cummings theory of mayfly political journalism (but substitute for 99/1).
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,416

    DavidL said:

    Once again it seems to me that the "tens of thousand died that didn't need to die" is a complete illusion. If we had locked down sooner we would have deferred some cases and some deaths. But unless we were to live in lockdown for the last 18 months it would only be a deferral. Those that died were the most vulnerable to this pernicious disease. As a generality they would have caught it and died whenever we opened up. Significant numbers of old, vulnerable people in care homes were always going to die of this. Its simply naive to claim otherwise.

    So individual mistakes such as the care homes fiasco where hospitals were cleared of bed blockers or the unending failure to secure borders or the fiasco of the early T&T changed the shape of our death toll but I remain to be convinced that it affected the final result. The brutal truth was that pre vaccines somewhere between 0.5 and 1% of us were going to die of this disease, mainly the old, the obese and those with impaired immune systems with the odd unlucky other as well. This is the reality and pretending that this could be magicked away by some clever policy is delusional.

    We still have a real problem in recognising that we are vulnerable to nature, that there are things that we simply cannot prevent. Its a bit weird.

    There are, and were, I suggest two issues that really need to be taken into account. One we have discussed here before; how we count coronavirus deaths. Does every other European and N. American country define them the same way that we did; within 28 days of a positive test? I personally of two people who died within that period, but they could reasonably be described as 'sick unto death' anyway.

    Secondly, it is almost twenty years since was, most days, concerned with the interface between care homes and hospitals, but then, and I suspect now, it was by no means unknown for the disruption of the transfer, particularly if 'out of hours' to result in a the patient's death. And that could be transfer either way!

    And, of course, when the authorities were counting, they rarely included as a baseline the deaths one might expect anyway. On a normal day people die, simply because, at the end of life, systems just shut down, as in the case of Prince Philip.
    I remember reading statistics on here, I think from @Philip_Thompson that the average resident of a care home lived something like 6 months. This average is sharply affected by the number who don't cope with the transfer and being taken away from the familiar and die very quickly. Others, of course, go on for decades.

    I have done some work for the Care Inspectorate and this is a significant concern: they recognise that if they close down a poorly performing care home several of the residents will die shortly thereafter. Its a dilemma.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,631
    Summer has finally arrived!
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,954
    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.

    They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.

    Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.

    Crap investment.

    The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)

    Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.

    Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
    Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.

    Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
    80% of very little is very little.

    Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.

    Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.

    It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.

    A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.

    Etc.

    They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
    Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)

    Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?

    Here's two things to remember:

    (1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.

    (2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.

    Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.

    And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.

    But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?

    Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
    0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
    Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.

    Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.

    We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!

    The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
    Hang on.

    In a world where most of our generation is natural gas CCGTs that can be turned on and off at will, then if it's cheaper for an individual to generate power via the sun great. And if it's not, then people won't buy them.

    My point is that for a young person (like you) solar panels are a terrible investment relative to (say) paying down your mortgage. For someone in their mid 50s, on the other hand, they are likely a pretty good investment relative to government bonds or leaving money in the bank.

    Simply, you get a 5-6% real after tax return, which is shit compared to SpaceX, but fantastic compared to other low-risk assets.
    That's the problem though, we aren't going to have most of our generation from gas CCGTs by 2030, let alone by 2040 or 2050.

    Net zero entails removing CCGT surely and having sufficient clean energy to power electronic heating through the winter.

    In which case what environmental purpose do solar panels serve.

    This is a completely different to somewhere like California that relies upon air conditioning in the summer.
    Currently 46% of UK electrical generation is CCGTs: https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
    Currently being the operative word.

    That's a minority of gas and it's falling fast. If you're looking at a 25 year lifespan then how many of those years do you think that will be true for?

    In 2010 coal was about 80% of electricity. It's now about 0% most if the time. The same thing will happen now to gas within the next decade, not the next 25 years.

    The future of greenery is surely in this country more stuff like wind and tidal etc than solar.
    I agree with all of that except the last line. Solar has improved in efficiency so much that it will be an important part of the mix as well, even in this gloomy overcast country. It still occasionally startles me when I am out for a walk how many houses in the village now have solar panels. The increase in the last 3 years has been marked and I do not think that trend has petered out at all yet.
    They are slowly getting better, but at 56°N they’re still very much uneconomical.

    Great for virtue signalling though, to show the neighbours how ‘green’ you are.
    From the point of view of reducing climate change, the closer to the equator the panels are used the better.
    In fact the best thing would be if the Chinese kept all the panels they made and use them to replace energy produced from coal rather than selling them to us to reduce the amount of gas we burn.
    Indeed. The other thing about cheap solar panels is that they provide real opportunity for sunny countries in Africa to have cheap electricity and thereby real possibility of economic growth.
    This is what is happening in my part of the world:
    https://www.eqmagpro.com/financing-completed-for-564m-fifth-phase-of-mbr-solar-park/

    $500m, 900MW solar farm, phase 5 of the massive desert site, with a generation price of 1.7 cents a kWh.

    The biggest challenge is keeping them clean of sand!
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,862
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:




    Leon said:

    The medium range weather forecasts are incredible. 7C maximum in Paris on the 27th May. Snow widespread across Britain

    I see today’s max temp forecast for Paris is 20C.
    It's almost as if Britain has unpredictable and changeable weather...🤔

    Mrs Foxy off to the Isle of Wight for the long weekend. The Red Funnel sold out for most Southampton sailings Friday and Saturday. Looks to be busy over there.
    “Widespread snow” five days from June would have been more than changeable!

    Yes, everything has been pretty much full here since Tuesday last week. If you plan on eating out, book ahead.

    The forecast for the weekend looks great; light winds, lots of sunshine, just a bit of light cloud on the Saturday. Temps in the high teens even by the sea.
    Just Mrs Foxy off to see her mum, I have work on.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    Fishing said:

    I don't think this will be forgotten by the weekend but I don't think it'll have much impact in a month or two.

    Cummings is too obviously out to get revenge and many people accept that mistakes were made early in the pandemic.

    But the popular mood is of course quite difficult to read - I still can't understand what so many people see in hip-hop, Eurovision, organised sport, McDonald's, etc. etc. etc.

    I think one consequence of Cummings' appearance will be to ensure 21st June sees us free from Covid constraints. Boris will want to show he had a strategy to get out of lockdown - in contrast to the more chaotic times when Cummings was part of the problem in causing that chaos.

    "Funny how things have run on rails since he left, eh?"
    You may well be right, but isn't that simply confirming one of Cummings main criticisms of Johnson? That it is government for daily media headlines, not long term, or even medium term outcomes? It may well be a good way to win elections, but it is not a fit way to run a country.
    Dealing with headlines is an important part of running a country. Pressure shows a problem and a solution is found to that problem. It is a critical democratic feedback loop. Indeed that's the irony of people banging on about OODA loops like it's a novel concept, the media are a major part of OODA that happens every day already.

    Investing in vaccines was THE long term solution to the pandemic and this Government did it.

    The EU shows what happens when there is no substantial media. They don't have any proper democratic accountability and no EU wide media either. So the pressures that our governments are forced to deal with don't exist, leaving the EU as a sclerotic, slow institution that doesn't deal with issues ending up with stuff like the vaccines debacle.

    Yes our media can be a bit shit, it's obsession with holidays has been weird. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,083
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Once again it seems to me that the "tens of thousand died that didn't need to die" is a complete illusion. If we had locked down sooner we would have deferred some cases and some deaths. But unless we were to live in lockdown for the last 18 months it would only be a deferral. Those that died were the most vulnerable to this pernicious disease. As a generality they would have caught it and died whenever we opened up. Significant numbers of old, vulnerable people in care homes were always going to die of this. Its simply naive to claim otherwise.

    So individual mistakes such as the care homes fiasco where hospitals were cleared of bed blockers or the unending failure to secure borders or the fiasco of the early T&T changed the shape of our death toll but I remain to be convinced that it affected the final result. The brutal truth was that pre vaccines somewhere between 0.5 and 1% of us were going to die of this disease, mainly the old, the obese and those with impaired immune systems with the odd unlucky other as well. This is the reality and pretending that this could be magicked away by some clever policy is delusional.

    We still have a real problem in recognising that we are vulnerable to nature, that there are things that we simply cannot prevent. Its a bit weird.

    There are, and were, I suggest two issues that really need to be taken into account. One we have discussed here before; how we count coronavirus deaths. Does every other European and N. American country define them the same way that we did; within 28 days of a positive test? I personally of two people who died within that period, but they could reasonably be described as 'sick unto death' anyway.

    Secondly, it is almost twenty years since was, most days, concerned with the interface between care homes and hospitals, but then, and I suspect now, it was by no means unknown for the disruption of the transfer, particularly if 'out of hours' to result in a the patient's death. And that could be transfer either way!

    And, of course, when the authorities were counting, they rarely included as a baseline the deaths one might expect anyway. On a normal day people die, simply because, at the end of life, systems just shut down, as in the case of Prince Philip.
    I remember reading statistics on here, I think from @Philip_Thompson that the average resident of a care home lived something like 6 months. This average is sharply affected by the number who don't cope with the transfer and being taken away from the familiar and die very quickly. Others, of course, go on for decades.

    I have done some work for the Care Inspectorate and this is a significant concern: they recognise that if they close down a poorly performing care home several of the residents will die shortly thereafter. Its a dilemma.
    Thank you Mr L. I'd forgotten the post from @Philip_Thompson but that was my recollection from the time I spent seconded to the Inspectorate.
    And closing down a Home was not a decision to be taken lightly.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    DavidL said:

    Once again it seems to me that the "tens of thousand died that didn't need to die" is a complete illusion. If we had locked down sooner we would have deferred some cases and some deaths. But unless we were to live in lockdown for the last 18 months it would only be a deferral. Those that died were the most vulnerable to this pernicious disease. As a generality they would have caught it and died whenever we opened up. Significant numbers of old, vulnerable people in care homes were always going to die of this. Its simply naive to claim otherwise.

    So individual mistakes such as the care homes fiasco where hospitals were cleared of bed blockers or the unending failure to secure borders or the fiasco of the early T&T changed the shape of our death toll but I remain to be convinced that it affected the final result. The brutal truth was that pre vaccines somewhere between 0.5 and 1% of us were going to die of this disease, mainly the old, the obese and those with impaired immune systems with the odd unlucky other as well. This is the reality and pretending that this could be magicked away by some clever policy is delusional.

    We still have a real problem in recognising that we are vulnerable to nature, that there are things that we simply cannot prevent. Its a bit weird.

    You are correct, however the mortality rate in the UK (127,000 deaths) seems very high compared to say Germany or France (both similar sized countries with comparable demographics)....
    They don't have remotely comparable demographics.

    The three major factors affecting spreads and death are: obesity rates, population density and rate of intergenerational households.
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,688

    Good morning, everyone.

    Had my first jab yesterday. Pfizer (I think they were using AstraZeneca for second shots of older people). Got rained on a bit in the outside waiting tent, post-shot, but otherwise seems fine.

    Relieved to not, as yet, have any side-effects beyond a mild ache in the shoulder.

    Just like with Charles I thought you were a lot older. Because I can't see you that is actually a compliment.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,386
    DavidL said:

    Once again it seems to me that the "tens of thousand died that didn't need to die" is a complete illusion. If we had locked down sooner we would have deferred some cases and some deaths. But unless we were to live in lockdown for the last 18 months it would only be a deferral. Those that died were the most vulnerable to this pernicious disease. As a generality they would have caught it and died whenever we opened up. Significant numbers of old, vulnerable people in care homes were always going to die of this. Its simply naive to claim otherwise.

    So individual mistakes such as the care homes fiasco where hospitals were cleared of bed blockers or the unending failure to secure borders or the fiasco of the early T&T changed the shape of our death toll but I remain to be convinced that it affected the final result. The brutal truth was that pre vaccines somewhere between 0.5 and 1% of us were going to die of this disease, mainly the old, the obese and those with impaired immune systems with the odd unlucky other as well. This is the reality and pretending that this could be magicked away by some clever policy is delusional.

    We still have a real problem in recognising that we are vulnerable to nature, that there are things that we simply cannot prevent. Its a bit weird.

    1. Care homes policy was a literal slaughter in the tens of thousands range. Yes old people die of things other than Covid, but this policy, laid out in gruesome detail yesterday was a bloodbath
    2. The borders allowed in off-shore variants which tore through chunks of the community and led to more regional lockdowns due to spikes in death rates

    Both of these were avoidable
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,862
    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    Sandpit said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.

    They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.

    Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.

    Crap investment.

    The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)

    Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.

    Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
    Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.

    Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
    80% of very little is very little.

    Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.

    Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.

    It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.

    A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.

    Etc.

    They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
    Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)

    Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?

    Here's two things to remember:

    (1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.

    (2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.

    Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.

    And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.

    But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?

    Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
    0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
    Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.

    Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.

    We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!

    The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
    Hang on.

    In a world where most of our generation is natural gas CCGTs that can be turned on and off at will, then if it's cheaper for an individual to generate power via the sun great. And if it's not, then people won't buy them.

    My point is that for a young person (like you) solar panels are a terrible investment relative to (say) paying down your mortgage. For someone in their mid 50s, on the other hand, they are likely a pretty good investment relative to government bonds or leaving money in the bank.

    Simply, you get a 5-6% real after tax return, which is shit compared to SpaceX, but fantastic compared to other low-risk assets.
    That's the problem though, we aren't going to have most of our generation from gas CCGTs by 2030, let alone by 2040 or 2050.

    Net zero entails removing CCGT surely and having sufficient clean energy to power electronic heating through the winter.

    In which case what environmental purpose do solar panels serve.

    This is a completely different to somewhere like California that relies upon air conditioning in the summer.
    Currently 46% of UK electrical generation is CCGTs: https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
    Currently being the operative word.

    That's a minority of gas and it's falling fast. If you're looking at a 25 year lifespan then how many of those years do you think that will be true for?

    In 2010 coal was about 80% of electricity. It's now about 0% most if the time. The same thing will happen now to gas within the next decade, not the next 25 years.

    The future of greenery is surely in this country more stuff like wind and tidal etc than solar.
    I agree with all of that except the last line. Solar has improved in efficiency so much that it will be an important part of the mix as well, even in this gloomy overcast country. It still occasionally startles me when I am out for a walk how many houses in the village now have solar panels. The increase in the last 3 years has been marked and I do not think that trend has petered out at all yet.
    They are slowly getting better, but at 56°N they’re still very much uneconomical.

    Great for virtue signalling though, to show the neighbours how ‘green’ you are.
    From the point of view of reducing climate change, the closer to the equator the panels are used the better.
    In fact the best thing would be if the Chinese kept all the panels they made and use them to replace energy produced from coal rather than selling them to us to reduce the amount of gas we burn.
    Indeed. The other thing about cheap solar panels is that they provide real opportunity for sunny countries in Africa to have cheap electricity and thereby real possibility of economic growth.
    This is what is happening in my part of the world:
    https://www.eqmagpro.com/financing-completed-for-564m-fifth-phase-of-mbr-solar-park/

    $500m, 900MW solar farm, phase 5 of the massive desert site, with a generation price of 1.7 cents a kWh.

    The biggest challenge is keeping them clean of sand!
    One potential problem is that in a warming world, a lot of that energy will go on air-conditioning, thereby exacerbating the problem.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/29/the-air-conditioning-trap-how-cold-air-is-heating-the-world

    As British houses and offices get more effectively insulated, it does create problems in warm weather. British buildings are generally designed to keep heat in rather than out. Air-conditioning on the rise here too.
  • Options
    NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,351
    DavidL said:

    Once again it seems to me that the "tens of thousand died that didn't need to die" is a complete illusion. If we had locked down sooner we would have deferred some cases and some deaths. But unless we were to live in lockdown for the last 18 months it would only be a deferral. Those that died were the most vulnerable to this pernicious disease. As a generality they would have caught it and died whenever we opened up. Significant numbers of old, vulnerable people in care homes were always going to die of this. Its simply naive to claim otherwise.

    So individual mistakes such as the care homes fiasco where hospitals were cleared of bed blockers or the unending failure to secure borders or the fiasco of the early T&T changed the shape of our death toll but I remain to be convinced that it affected the final result. The brutal truth was that pre vaccines somewhere between 0.5 and 1% of us were going to die of this disease, mainly the old, the obese and those with impaired immune systems with the odd unlucky other as well. This is the reality and pretending that this could be magicked away by some clever policy is delusional.

    We still have a real problem in recognising that we are vulnerable to nature, that there are things that we simply cannot prevent. Its a bit weird.

    Excellent post, I think the pictures from India may have changed peoples perceptions somewhat, Im sure lots are thinking thank god it wasn't that bad here and thank god for the vaccines.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,512
    It snowed in London on 2 June 1975.

    Before that, the previous instance of such late snowfall was 1888.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,386

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.

    They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.

    Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.

    Crap investment.

    The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)

    Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.

    Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
    Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.

    Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
    80% of very little is very little.

    Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.

    Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.

    It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.

    A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.

    Etc.

    They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
    Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)

    Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?

    Here's two things to remember:

    (1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.

    (2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.

    Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.

    And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.

    But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?

    Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
    0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
    Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.

    Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.

    We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!

    The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
    Hang on.

    In a world where most of our generation is natural gas CCGTs that can be turned on and off at will, then if it's cheaper for an individual to generate power via the sun great. And if it's not, then people won't buy them.

    My point is that for a young person (like you) solar panels are a terrible investment relative to (say) paying down your mortgage. For someone in their mid 50s, on the other hand, they are likely a pretty good investment relative to government bonds or leaving money in the bank.

    Simply, you get a 5-6% real after tax return, which is shit compared to SpaceX, but fantastic compared to other low-risk assets.
    That's the problem though, we aren't going to have most of our generation from gas CCGTs by 2030, let alone by 2040 or 2050.

    Net zero entails removing CCGT surely and having sufficient clean energy to power electronic heating through the winter.

    In which case what environmental purpose do solar panels serve.

    This is a completely different to somewhere like California that relies upon air conditioning in the summer.
    Currently 46% of UK electrical generation is CCGTs: https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
    Currently being the operative word.

    That's a minority of gas and it's falling fast. If you're looking at a 25 year lifespan then how many of those years do you think that will be true for?

    In 2010 coal was about 80% of electricity. It's now about 0% most if the time. The same thing will happen now to gas within the next decade, not the next 25 years.

    The future of greenery is surely in this country more stuff like wind and tidal etc than solar.
    I agree with all of that except the last line. Solar has improved in efficiency so much that it will be an important part of the mix as well, even in this gloomy overcast country. It still occasionally startles me when I am out for a walk how many houses in the village now have solar panels. The increase in the last 3 years has been marked and I do not think that trend has petered out at all yet.
    The trouble with solar panels is that they are so ugly. I would not put them on my old house. It would ruin the beauty of it.
    My house is grade C listed - panels if we were allowed to fit them would just modernise the place. Happily the double-length garage is not listed. A rebuild plus full length panels on its south-facing roof plus a battery is on the long list of jobs.
  • Options
    Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,772
    IanB2 said:

    It snowed in London on 2 June 1975.

    Before that, the previous instance of such late snowfall was 1888.

    Followed almost immediately by a powerful heat wave that has largely been forgotten because the following year was even hotter.
  • Options
    isamisam Posts: 41,014
    If the Tories aren’t hurt in the polls by headlines like these, what headlines would it take to do it?
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,512

    Good morning, everyone.

    Had my first jab yesterday. Pfizer (I think they were using AstraZeneca for second shots of older people). Got rained on a bit in the outside waiting tent, post-shot, but otherwise seems fine.

    Relieved to not, as yet, have any side-effects beyond a mild ache in the shoulder.

    You must be the youngest morris dancer in the village?
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,014
    Mr. kjh, ha, thanks.

    When I was 18-19 I was part of a chatroom type locale and when the conversation turned to age I was amused the consensus was I was 30-40 (with a few thinking I was 50, 60, or even older).
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Once again it seems to me that the "tens of thousand died that didn't need to die" is a complete illusion. If we had locked down sooner we would have deferred some cases and some deaths. But unless we were to live in lockdown for the last 18 months it would only be a deferral. Those that died were the most vulnerable to this pernicious disease. As a generality they would have caught it and died whenever we opened up. Significant numbers of old, vulnerable people in care homes were always going to die of this. Its simply naive to claim otherwise.

    So individual mistakes such as the care homes fiasco where hospitals were cleared of bed blockers or the unending failure to secure borders or the fiasco of the early T&T changed the shape of our death toll but I remain to be convinced that it affected the final result. The brutal truth was that pre vaccines somewhere between 0.5 and 1% of us were going to die of this disease, mainly the old, the obese and those with impaired immune systems with the odd unlucky other as well. This is the reality and pretending that this could be magicked away by some clever policy is delusional.

    We still have a real problem in recognising that we are vulnerable to nature, that there are things that we simply cannot prevent. Its a bit weird.

    There are, and were, I suggest two issues that really need to be taken into account. One we have discussed here before; how we count coronavirus deaths. Does every other European and N. American country define them the same way that we did; within 28 days of a positive test? I personally of two people who died within that period, but they could reasonably be described as 'sick unto death' anyway.

    Secondly, it is almost twenty years since was, most days, concerned with the interface between care homes and hospitals, but then, and I suspect now, it was by no means unknown for the disruption of the transfer, particularly if 'out of hours' to result in a the patient's death. And that could be transfer either way!

    And, of course, when the authorities were counting, they rarely included as a baseline the deaths one might expect anyway. On a normal day people die, simply because, at the end of life, systems just shut down, as in the case of Prince Philip.
    I remember reading statistics on here, I think from @Philip_Thompson that the average resident of a care home lived something like 6 months. This average is sharply affected by the number who don't cope with the transfer and being taken away from the familiar and die very quickly. Others, of course, go on for decades.

    I have done some work for the Care Inspectorate and this is a significant concern: they recognise that if they close down a poorly performing care home several of the residents will die shortly thereafter. Its a dilemma.
    Thank you Mr L. I'd forgotten the post from @Philip_Thompson but that was my recollection from the time I spent seconded to the Inspectorate.
    And closing down a Home was not a decision to be taken lightly.
    Yes, precisely.

    And one factor we've little discussed but we know how many died within 28 days of a positive test but how many died from not seeing their family and loved ones?

    I have to wonder if what we've done, keeping the old and infirm isolated and away from their loved ones has itself led to them atrophying, shutting down and dying brokenhearted. 😢
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,512
    Jenrick's got the short straw and is doing the media rounds this morning; every time he is asked about whether Hancock lied to Cabinet, his answer is that Hancock works very hard...
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,416

    DavidL said:

    Once again it seems to me that the "tens of thousand died that didn't need to die" is a complete illusion. If we had locked down sooner we would have deferred some cases and some deaths. But unless we were to live in lockdown for the last 18 months it would only be a deferral. Those that died were the most vulnerable to this pernicious disease. As a generality they would have caught it and died whenever we opened up. Significant numbers of old, vulnerable people in care homes were always going to die of this. Its simply naive to claim otherwise.

    So individual mistakes such as the care homes fiasco where hospitals were cleared of bed blockers or the unending failure to secure borders or the fiasco of the early T&T changed the shape of our death toll but I remain to be convinced that it affected the final result. The brutal truth was that pre vaccines somewhere between 0.5 and 1% of us were going to die of this disease, mainly the old, the obese and those with impaired immune systems with the odd unlucky other as well. This is the reality and pretending that this could be magicked away by some clever policy is delusional.

    We still have a real problem in recognising that we are vulnerable to nature, that there are things that we simply cannot prevent. Its a bit weird.

    1. Care homes policy was a literal slaughter in the tens of thousands range. Yes old people die of things other than Covid, but this policy, laid out in gruesome detail yesterday was a bloodbath
    2. The borders allowed in off-shore variants which tore through chunks of the community and led to more regional lockdowns due to spikes in death rates

    Both of these were avoidable
    The idea that we were going to be able to protect those in care homes indefinitely is again delusional. Attempts to do so not only failed but resulted in the loss of contact with families and great hardship for the residents and those left behind without that chance to say goodbye. Scotland had exactly the same problem and for the same reasons. I am sure that you will find that deaths in care homes have been very high everywhere. They are concentrations of the most vulnerable.

    The reason that these offshore variants tore through chunks of the community was because those communities had a higher than average multigenerational mix so the young would bring the virus back to the vulnerable who would succumb.

    Without vaccines all of this was inevitable. Only the timing would vary.
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,209
    isam said:

    If the Tories aren’t hurt in the polls by headlines like these, what headlines would it take to do it?

    “Inflation hits 10%”
  • Options
    swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,436

    DavidL said:

    Once again it seems to me that the "tens of thousand died that didn't need to die" is a complete illusion. If we had locked down sooner we would have deferred some cases and some deaths. But unless we were to live in lockdown for the last 18 months it would only be a deferral. Those that died were the most vulnerable to this pernicious disease. As a generality they would have caught it and died whenever we opened up. Significant numbers of old, vulnerable people in care homes were always going to die of this. Its simply naive to claim otherwise.

    So individual mistakes such as the care homes fiasco where hospitals were cleared of bed blockers or the unending failure to secure borders or the fiasco of the early T&T changed the shape of our death toll but I remain to be convinced that it affected the final result. The brutal truth was that pre vaccines somewhere between 0.5 and 1% of us were going to die of this disease, mainly the old, the obese and those with impaired immune systems with the odd unlucky other as well. This is the reality and pretending that this could be magicked away by some clever policy is delusional.

    We still have a real problem in recognising that we are vulnerable to nature, that there are things that we simply cannot prevent. Its a bit weird.

    You are correct, however the mortality rate in the UK (127,000 deaths) seems very high compared to say Germany or France (both similar sized countries with comparable demographics)....
    They don't have remotely comparable demographics.

    The three major factors affecting spreads and death are: obesity rates, population density and rate of intergenerational households.
    What other European countries would you suggest are more similar in size and demographic to the UK than Germany & France?
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,379
    edited May 2021
    isam said:

    If the Tories aren’t hurt in the polls by headlines like these, what headlines would it take to do it?

    I suspect we are in territory similar to that of 1997. Noone gives a monkeys what Cummings says. The opposition is so weak that the.media is filling in the void as it did post 1997.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,954

    Fishing said:

    I don't think this will be forgotten by the weekend but I don't think it'll have much impact in a month or two.

    Cummings is too obviously out to get revenge and many people accept that mistakes were made early in the pandemic.

    But the popular mood is of course quite difficult to read - I still can't understand what so many people see in hip-hop, Eurovision, organised sport, McDonald's, etc. etc. etc.

    I think one consequence of Cummings' appearance will be to ensure 21st June sees us free from Covid constraints. Boris will want to show he had a strategy to get out of lockdown - in contrast to the more chaotic times when Cummings was part of the problem in causing that chaos.

    "Funny how things have run on rails since he left, eh?"
    You may well be right, but isn't that simply confirming one of Cummings main criticisms of Johnson? That it is government for daily media headlines, not long term, or even medium term outcomes? It may well be a good way to win elections, but it is not a fit way to run a country.
    Dealing with headlines is an important part of running a country. Pressure shows a problem and a solution is found to that problem. It is a critical democratic feedback loop. Indeed that's the irony of people banging on about OODA loops like it's a novel concept, the media are a major part of OODA that happens every day already.

    Investing in vaccines was THE long term solution to the pandemic and this Government did it.

    The EU shows what happens when there is no substantial media. They don't have any proper democratic accountability and no EU wide media either. So the pressures that our governments are forced to deal with don't exist, leaving the EU as a sclerotic, slow institution that doesn't deal with issues ending up with stuff like the vaccines debacle.

    Yes our media can be a bit shit, it's obsession with holidays has been weird. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
    Good point about EU media, and also the structure of the EU that doesn’t have a role for an Opposition in the same way most countries do.

    UK media have been uniformly terrible, uninformed and focussed on the wrong things during the pandemic - but the alternative is worse.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.

    They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.

    Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.

    Crap investment.

    The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)

    Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.

    Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
    Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.

    Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
    80% of very little is very little.

    Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.

    Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.

    It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.

    A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.

    Etc.

    They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
    Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)

    Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?

    Here's two things to remember:

    (1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.

    (2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.

    Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.

    And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.

    But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?

    Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
    0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
    Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.

    Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.

    We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!

    The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
    Hang on.

    In a world where most of our generation is natural gas CCGTs that can be turned on and off at will, then if it's cheaper for an individual to generate power via the sun great. And if it's not, then people won't buy them.

    My point is that for a young person (like you) solar panels are a terrible investment relative to (say) paying down your mortgage. For someone in their mid 50s, on the other hand, they are likely a pretty good investment relative to government bonds or leaving money in the bank.

    Simply, you get a 5-6% real after tax return, which is shit compared to SpaceX, but fantastic compared to other low-risk assets.
    That's the problem though, we aren't going to have most of our generation from gas CCGTs by 2030, let alone by 2040 or 2050.

    Net zero entails removing CCGT surely and having sufficient clean energy to power electronic heating through the winter.

    In which case what environmental purpose do solar panels serve.

    This is a completely different to somewhere like California that relies upon air conditioning in the summer.
    Currently 46% of UK electrical generation is CCGTs: https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
    Currently being the operative word.

    That's a minority of gas and it's falling fast. If you're looking at a 25 year lifespan then how many of those years do you think that will be true for?

    In 2010 coal was about 80% of electricity. It's now about 0% most if the time. The same thing will happen now to gas within the next decade, not the next 25 years.

    The future of greenery is surely in this country more stuff like wind and tidal etc than solar.
    I agree with all of that except the last line. Solar has improved in efficiency so much that it will be an important part of the mix as well, even in this gloomy overcast country. It still occasionally startles me when I am out for a walk how many houses in the village now have solar panels. The increase in the last 3 years has been marked and I do not think that trend has petered out at all yet.
    Just because they have them doesn't mean it's either economically worthwhile or the right investment for the environment.

    There is a bit of a logical fallacy: something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,014
    Mr. B2, I dare say that one of the demographic biases of the site is towards being slightly older.

    Worth considering that when we discuss politics (although the site is still way ahead of others due to the nature of betting and credibility depending on being right rather than a rambling newspaper or broadcast pundit).
  • Options
    swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,436

    isam said:

    If the Tories aren’t hurt in the polls by headlines like these, what headlines would it take to do it?

    I suspect we are in territory similar to that of 1997. Noone gives a monkeys what Cummings says. The opposition is so weak that the.media is filling in the void as it did post 1997.
    If you know someone who died of covid, what DC says probably does matter....
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,354
    edited May 2021
    tlg86 said:

    isam said:

    If the Tories aren’t hurt in the polls by headlines like these, what headlines would it take to do it?

    “Inflation hits 10%”
    As @Philip_Thompson keeps telling me an increase in money supply is no longer inflationary, and if we do get some inflation it is "good". I can't recall why.

    So no, Boris just keeps rolling along.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,907
    edited May 2021
    DavidL said:

    Once again it seems to me that the "tens of thousand died that didn't need to die" is a complete illusion. If we had locked down sooner we would have deferred some cases and some deaths. But unless we were to live in lockdown for the last 18 months it would only be a deferral. Those that died were the most vulnerable to this pernicious disease. As a generality they would have caught it and died whenever we opened up. Significant numbers of old, vulnerable people in care homes were always going to die of this. Its simply naive to claim otherwise.

    So individual mistakes such as the care homes fiasco where hospitals were cleared of bed blockers or the unending failure to secure borders or the fiasco of the early T&T changed the shape of our death toll but I remain to be convinced that it affected the final result. The brutal truth was that pre vaccines somewhere between 0.5 and 1% of us were going to die of this disease, mainly the old, the obese and those with impaired immune systems with the odd unlucky other as well. This is the reality and pretending that this could be magicked away by some clever policy is delusional.

    We still have a real problem in recognising that we are vulnerable to nature, that there are things that we simply cannot prevent. Its a bit weird.

    I take your point. The public aren't good at digesting complex messages such as their Prime Minister's incompetence and hubris cost the lives of tens of thousands while he and his floozy were choosing their wallpaper. What they might though is the arrogance of the Tory Party and their supporters.

    What this has again shown is the Tory Party at its ugliest. Power at all costs. We chose a useless lying charlatan but as long as they like him in Hartlepool who cares....It may take some time but it'll catch up with him. The voters now have several more pieces of the jigsaw. It was arrogance and insensitivity that brought down the great leaderene and he is by some measure worse.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,416

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.

    They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.

    Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.

    Crap investment.

    The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)

    Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.

    Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
    Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.

    Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
    80% of very little is very little.

    Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.

    Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.

    It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.

    A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.

    Etc.

    They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
    Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)

    Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?

    Here's two things to remember:

    (1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.

    (2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.

    Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.

    And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.

    But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?

    Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
    0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
    Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.

    Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.

    We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!

    The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
    Hang on.

    In a world where most of our generation is natural gas CCGTs that can be turned on and off at will, then if it's cheaper for an individual to generate power via the sun great. And if it's not, then people won't buy them.

    My point is that for a young person (like you) solar panels are a terrible investment relative to (say) paying down your mortgage. For someone in their mid 50s, on the other hand, they are likely a pretty good investment relative to government bonds or leaving money in the bank.

    Simply, you get a 5-6% real after tax return, which is shit compared to SpaceX, but fantastic compared to other low-risk assets.
    That's the problem though, we aren't going to have most of our generation from gas CCGTs by 2030, let alone by 2040 or 2050.

    Net zero entails removing CCGT surely and having sufficient clean energy to power electronic heating through the winter.

    In which case what environmental purpose do solar panels serve.

    This is a completely different to somewhere like California that relies upon air conditioning in the summer.
    Currently 46% of UK electrical generation is CCGTs: https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
    Currently being the operative word.

    That's a minority of gas and it's falling fast. If you're looking at a 25 year lifespan then how many of those years do you think that will be true for?

    In 2010 coal was about 80% of electricity. It's now about 0% most if the time. The same thing will happen now to gas within the next decade, not the next 25 years.

    The future of greenery is surely in this country more stuff like wind and tidal etc than solar.
    I agree with all of that except the last line. Solar has improved in efficiency so much that it will be an important part of the mix as well, even in this gloomy overcast country. It still occasionally startles me when I am out for a walk how many houses in the village now have solar panels. The increase in the last 3 years has been marked and I do not think that trend has petered out at all yet.
    Just because they have them doesn't mean it's either economically worthwhile or the right investment for the environment.

    There is a bit of a logical fallacy: something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done.
    People I have spoken to about it say that the cost of the panels is recovered in 5-7 years and that they last about 15 so they are confident that they will gain from it. I haven't researched it in detail but they seem pretty happy with their purchase.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited May 2021

    tlg86 said:

    isam said:

    If the Tories aren’t hurt in the polls by headlines like these, what headlines would it take to do it?

    “Inflation hits 10%”
    As @Philip_Thompson keeps telling me an increase in money supply is no longer inflationary, and if we do get some inflation it is "good". I can't recall why.

    So no, Boris just keeps rolling along.
    I have never said that!

    I have said that it is inflationary but it doesn't automatically mean inflation because we also have deflationary pressures to take into account.

    If the inflationary pressures and deflationary ones cancel each other out then the net result is no inflation. As we've seen for the past decade.

    What part of that are you struggling with? Do you need smaller words? 🤦‍♂️
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,645

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.

    They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.

    Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.

    Crap investment.

    The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)

    Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.

    Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
    Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.

    Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
    80% of very little is very little.

    Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.

    Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.

    It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.

    A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.

    Etc.

    They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
    Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)

    Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?

    Here's two things to remember:

    (1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.

    (2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.

    Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.

    And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.

    But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?

    Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
    0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
    Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.

    Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.

    We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!

    The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
    Hang on.

    In a world where most of our generation is natural gas CCGTs that can be turned on and off at will, then if it's cheaper for an individual to generate power via the sun great. And if it's not, then people won't buy them.

    My point is that for a young person (like you) solar panels are a terrible investment relative to (say) paying down your mortgage. For someone in their mid 50s, on the other hand, they are likely a pretty good investment relative to government bonds or leaving money in the bank.

    Simply, you get a 5-6% real after tax return, which is shit compared to SpaceX, but fantastic compared to other low-risk assets.
    That's the problem though, we aren't going to have most of our generation from gas CCGTs by 2030, let alone by 2040 or 2050.

    Net zero entails removing CCGT surely and having sufficient clean energy to power electronic heating through the winter.

    In which case what environmental purpose do solar panels serve.

    This is a completely different to somewhere like California that relies upon air conditioning in the summer.
    Currently 46% of UK electrical generation is CCGTs: https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
    Currently being the operative word.

    That's a minority of gas and it's falling fast. If you're looking at a 25 year lifespan then how many of those years do you think that will be true for?

    In 2010 coal was about 80% of electricity. It's now about 0% most if the time. The same thing will happen now to gas within the next decade, not the next 25 years.

    The future of greenery is surely in this country more stuff like wind and tidal etc than solar.
    I agree with all of that except the last line. Solar has improved in efficiency so much that it will be an important part of the mix as well, even in this gloomy overcast country. It still occasionally startles me when I am out for a walk how many houses in the village now have solar panels. The increase in the last 3 years has been marked and I do not think that trend has petered out at all yet.
    The trouble with solar panels is that they are so ugly. I would not put them on my old house. It would ruin the beauty of it.
    Hence the interest in Elon Musk's product - roof tiles that are solar panels.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,133

    The other thing is that with hindsight you only really have two choices.

    One is to do a New Zealand: hermetically seal the country. There is absolutely no way that Britain would have put up with this for 18 months (likely 3 or 4 years in NZ's case) nor would it even have been feasible, despite this being the Labour Party policy in opposition.

    The other is to manage it as best as you can, accepting inevitable waves and deaths, like every other country in the world.

    The Gov't decided to go for the second whilst pile-driving the development of vaccines which would, ultimately, save lives and get us back on track.

    Problem is they did not manage it as best as they could, they mucked about , pooh poohed masks, safe distances etc whilst assuming it was a normal flu like virus. If only they could have put as much effort into it as they did lining their own and their families, chums , etc pockets we may not be topping the league of desperate countries who F***ed up big time.
  • Options
    malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 42,133
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    I will repeat again for good measure. I used to do this for a living — I did feasibility studies, tenders, and project designs for solar installations, amongst other renewable technologies.

    They are objectively not a good investment in the UK. They simply do not output enough.

    Without the high Gen Tariffs you're looking at a 20-25 year payback. Much more with an expensive Tesla battery. The panels themselves only have a lifespan for around 25 years.

    Crap investment.

    The panel lifespan is more than 25 years. It's more accurate to say that panels lose approximately 0.8% to 1% of the power they generate each year. (Mostly, IIRC, via surface oxidation, but I could be wrong.)

    Most solar panels output about 105-110% of rated power in year one.

    Aye but you're tailing off at that point, and in a country where it's already cloudy and overcast most the time, you're going to have a dribble of generation.
    Tailing off? That means you're still getting 80+% of rated capacity at the end of the period.

    Let's assume you don't take the FIT, and electricity prices rise 2% per year for the period. You'll be getting more each year - in cash terms - than in the previous one.
    80% of very little is very little.

    Of course that doesn't factor in your inverter failing, which is another expense (you're supposed to have them serviced every year, most don't), failing to wash the panels properly (most people don't do this either), etc etc.

    Listen I did these calculations day in and day out. I know all the tricks solar zealots use. They assume zero shading, they assume perfect orientation with south, they assume a perfect 30 degree pitched roof.

    It simply isn't a good investment. The figures don't lie.

    A lot of people don't know that most panels are wired in series and therefore if one panel is shaded, for example by a cloud, either your whole array is generating nothing, or only half of the array is generating.

    Etc.

    They were fantastic under the ridiculously generous FIT. Otherwise I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole.
    Let's assume that you put panels on your roof and they cost you £1,000 and they give you £50/electricity a year. (I'm making up numbers here.)

    Does that sound like a good investment or a bad investment?

    Here's two things to remember:

    (1) A cost (electricity) avoided is like getting after tax income. If I receive £50 in interest from the bank, I'm paying £25 of that back to the government in tax. On the other hand, if I cut my electricity bill by £50. That means the real yield - for higher rate tax payers - is more than it looks.

    (2) The cost of electricity rises. So you're getting an asset generating a real return, not a nominal one. If you buy indexed linked government bonds you take a guaranteed loss. Even before you take into account the tax you'll be paying on the pitiful amount of income you get.

    Look, if you have £1,000 will you do better in SpaceX or solar panels? Well, SpaceX, duh.

    And if you are at the beginning of your career, then long dated low return assets are a bloody stupid idea.

    But if the choice is between solar panels and government bonds... Or solar panels versus sitting in the bank earning the amazing 0.2% that Lloyds will offer you if you're willing to lock the money up for two years?

    Well, in that case solar panels are the better financial investment. It all depends on where you are in your personal financial journey.
    0.2% sure. But "great investment"?
    Well said gallow. And while they're not a great investment economically, people tend to forget they're not a great one environmentally either.

    Supply and demand don't intersect with solar panels.

    We are a cold, overcast, northern island that relies upon heating in the winter not air conditioning in the summer. The panels generate less supply in the winter. Already today much more electricity is consumed in the winter and that's before gas boilers are discontinued and replaced with electric powered heating too!

    The environment needs electricity supply most in the winter not the summer. Environmentally Solar Panels in place of coal was a great idea, but if we can get through winter with electric heating without much solar generation then what is the point of extra solar generation in the summer when the electric heating is turned off?
    Hang on.

    In a world where most of our generation is natural gas CCGTs that can be turned on and off at will, then if it's cheaper for an individual to generate power via the sun great. And if it's not, then people won't buy them.

    My point is that for a young person (like you) solar panels are a terrible investment relative to (say) paying down your mortgage. For someone in their mid 50s, on the other hand, they are likely a pretty good investment relative to government bonds or leaving money in the bank.

    Simply, you get a 5-6% real after tax return, which is shit compared to SpaceX, but fantastic compared to other low-risk assets.
    That's the problem though, we aren't going to have most of our generation from gas CCGTs by 2030, let alone by 2040 or 2050.

    Net zero entails removing CCGT surely and having sufficient clean energy to power electronic heating through the winter.

    In which case what environmental purpose do solar panels serve.

    This is a completely different to somewhere like California that relies upon air conditioning in the summer.
    Currently 46% of UK electrical generation is CCGTs: https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
    Currently being the operative word.

    That's a minority of gas and it's falling fast. If you're looking at a 25 year lifespan then how many of those years do you think that will be true for?

    In 2010 coal was about 80% of electricity. It's now about 0% most if the time. The same thing will happen now to gas within the next decade, not the next 25 years.

    The future of greenery is surely in this country more stuff like wind and tidal etc than solar.
    I agree with all of that except the last line. Solar has improved in efficiency so much that it will be an important part of the mix as well, even in this gloomy overcast country. It still occasionally startles me when I am out for a walk how many houses in the village now have solar panels. The increase in the last 3 years has been marked and I do not think that trend has petered out at all yet.
    Just because they have them doesn't mean it's either economically worthwhile or the right investment for the environment.

    There is a bit of a logical fallacy: something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done.
    People I have spoken to about it say that the cost of the panels is recovered in 5-7 years and that they last about 15 so they are confident that they will gain from it. I haven't researched it in detail but they seem pretty happy with their purchase.
    You are left with those pug ugly panels on your roof though. They look horrific.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,862

    isam said:

    If the Tories aren’t hurt in the polls by headlines like these, what headlines would it take to do it?

    I suspect we are in territory similar to that of 1997. Noone gives a monkeys what Cummings says. The opposition is so weak that the.media is filling in the void as it did post 1997.
    I agree, but the rot afflicting Labour now was sown in the Blair years of triumphant arrogance. I think the Tories are doing the same now, but it will be after the next GE that we see the loss of faith in the project. These things are a slow burner.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,379

    isam said:

    If the Tories aren’t hurt in the polls by headlines like these, what headlines would it take to do it?

    I suspect we are in territory similar to that of 1997. Noone gives a monkeys what Cummings says. The opposition is so weak that the.media is filling in the void as it did post 1997.
    If you know someone who died of covid, what DC says probably does matter....
    Yes because its personal and some will believe the tissue of thoughts and newspeak emanating from Emmanuel Goldstein.
  • Options
    YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 7,172
    edited May 2021

    DavidL said:

    Once again it seems to me that the "tens of thousand died that didn't need to die" is a complete illusion. If we had locked down sooner we would have deferred some cases and some deaths. But unless we were to live in lockdown for the last 18 months it would only be a deferral. Those that died were the most vulnerable to this pernicious disease. As a generality they would have caught it and died whenever we opened up. Significant numbers of old, vulnerable people in care homes were always going to die of this. Its simply naive to claim otherwise.

    So individual mistakes such as the care homes fiasco where hospitals were cleared of bed blockers or the unending failure to secure borders or the fiasco of the early T&T changed the shape of our death toll but I remain to be convinced that it affected the final result. The brutal truth was that pre vaccines somewhere between 0.5 and 1% of us were going to die of this disease, mainly the old, the obese and those with impaired immune systems with the odd unlucky other as well. This is the reality and pretending that this could be magicked away by some clever policy is delusional.

    We still have a real problem in recognising that we are vulnerable to nature, that there are things that we simply cannot prevent. Its a bit weird.

    You are correct, however the mortality rate in the UK (127,000 deaths) seems very high compared to say Germany or France (both similar sized countries with comparable demographics)....
    They don't have remotely comparable demographics.

    The three major factors affecting spreads and death are: obesity rates, population density and rate of intergenerational households.
    What other European countries would you suggest are more similar in size and demographic to the UK than Germany & France?
    I think -- if you want to carry out this kind of comparison -- it should not be at the national level, as there are too many changing variables.

    But, I think you could compare mortality rate from COVID in regions in France, Germany and the UK with similar population density/demography (eg Greater Birmingham with parts of the Ruhr, etc). I am sure these studies will be done. The results will be interesting.

    But, I suspect none of the UK, Italy, Spain, France & Germany have much to brag about. These countries have all done pretty much the same. About 6 months ago, I would have said Germany was doing markedly better, but no longer.

    In retrospect, I think the major mistake that the Government made was lateness in the first/second lockdowns. In the case of the first lockdown, it is clear that this mistake arose from modelling errors in SAGE. The modellers originally though the disease would spread more slowly than it actually did, so the first wave would peak later.

    The borders I think are more arguable -- it is noticeable on pb.com that it is often the same people shrieking about the borders who can't wait to travel (@Leon). I think it is a lose-lose situation for any Government.

    I would have done more to shut the borders, but there would have been the inevitable shrieks and hollers ... especially from the ranting hypocrites in the press.
  • Options
    RogerRoger Posts: 18,907

    tlg86 said:

    isam said:

    If the Tories aren’t hurt in the polls by headlines like these, what headlines would it take to do it?

    “Inflation hits 10%”
    As @Philip_Thompson keeps telling me an increase in money supply is no longer inflationary, and if we do get some inflation it is "good". I can't recall why.

    So no, Boris just keeps rolling along.
    I have never said that!

    I have said that it is inflationary but it doesn't automatically mean inflation because we also have deflationary pressures to take into account.

    If the inflationary pressures and deflationary ones cancel each other out then the net result is no inflation. As we've seen for the past decade.

    What part of that are you struggling with? Do you need smaller words? 🤦‍♂️
    Get a job Philip
  • Options
    swing_voterswing_voter Posts: 1,436
    "Excellent post, I think the pictures from India may have changed peoples perceptions somewhat, Im sure lots are thinking thank god it wasn't that bad here and thank god for the vaccines."

    I think our rate of morality (deaths per million) was actually worse than India's? so although we didnt have the same images of overrun clinics and lack of oxygen I am no sure we can say it wasnt as bad here.

  • Options
    rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 7,925
    DavidL said:

    Once again it seems to me that the "tens of thousand died that didn't need to die" is a complete illusion. If we had locked down sooner we would have deferred some cases and some deaths. But unless we were to live in lockdown for the last 18 months it would only be a deferral. Those that died were the most vulnerable to this pernicious disease. As a generality they would have caught it and died whenever we opened up. Significant numbers of old, vulnerable people in care homes were always going to die of this. Its simply naive to claim otherwise.

    So individual mistakes such as the care homes fiasco where hospitals were cleared of bed blockers or the unending failure to secure borders or the fiasco of the early T&T changed the shape of our death toll but I remain to be convinced that it affected the final result. The brutal truth was that pre vaccines somewhere between 0.5 and 1% of us were going to die of this disease, mainly the old, the obese and those with impaired immune systems with the odd unlucky other as well. This is the reality and pretending that this could be magicked away by some clever policy is delusional.

    We still have a real problem in recognising that we are vulnerable to nature, that there are things that we simply cannot prevent. Its a bit weird.

    Deaths in the UK peaked on 19th Jan.

    If we'd just locked down in September (2 months earlier as advised) and changed nothing else... still made all those other mistakes.... those 'deaths' would shift backwards in time by 2 months.

    To mid-March by which time we had given about half the population a first dose.
    It does take a few weeks for protection to kick-in but that's >10k deaths averted without a single extra day of lockdown.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,154

    Fishing said:

    I don't think this will be forgotten by the weekend but I don't think it'll have much impact in a month or two.

    Cummings is too obviously out to get revenge and many people accept that mistakes were made early in the pandemic.

    But the popular mood is of course quite difficult to read - I still can't understand what so many people see in hip-hop, Eurovision, organised sport, McDonald's, etc. etc. etc.

    I think one consequence of Cummings' appearance will be to ensure 21st June sees us free from Covid constraints. Boris will want to show he had a strategy to get out of lockdown - in contrast to the more chaotic times when Cummings was part of the problem in causing that chaos.

    "Funny how things have run on rails since he left, eh?"
    You may well be right, but isn't that simply confirming one of Cummings main criticisms of Johnson? That it is government for daily media headlines, not long term, or even medium term outcomes? It may well be a good way to win elections, but it is not a fit way to run a country.
    No, what we needed coming out of Covid was a plan that was stuck to. Apart from the media wetting itself by jumping to conclusions before the data was in on the Indian variant, that is what has happened.

    I return to the point that Cummings' complaints were historical. The period he has spent a day claiming government was not fit for purpose is when he was part of it. Since he left, we've been doing just fine on fighting Covid.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,416
    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    If the Tories aren’t hurt in the polls by headlines like these, what headlines would it take to do it?

    I suspect we are in territory similar to that of 1997. Noone gives a monkeys what Cummings says. The opposition is so weak that the.media is filling in the void as it did post 1997.
    I agree, but the rot afflicting Labour now was sown in the Blair years of triumphant arrogance. I think the Tories are doing the same now, but it will be after the next GE that we see the loss of faith in the project. These things are a slow burner.
    This is the nature of politics and government. The same things happened to the Tories up to 1997. The ones with the ideas and vision get tired and subject to events. Their replacements are apparatchiks and functionaries with fewer ideas of their own. Momentum is lost. The new direction comes from elsewhere.

    What is unusual about the current government is that it is a major change of direction by a party that has already been in power for more than a decade. Have they restarted the clock on inevitable decline? Is it possible, post Boris, that they could do so again?
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,793
    edited May 2021
    The EU vs AZ:

    EU officials have publicly said the bloc is better off anyway without the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab in its future vaccine portfolio, the drugmaker's lawyers pointed out.

    As Boularbah put it, it's “shocking that some members are asking for doses of a vaccine they have said they will no longer use.”....

    .....The pharma company’s lawyers concluded that the EU was now trying to essentially rewrite the contract by asking the court to impose new, strict delivery deadlines and penalties.


    https://www.politico.eu/article/european-commission-astrazeneca-court-coronavirus-vaccines/
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,602
    isam said:

    If the Tories aren’t hurt in the polls by headlines like these, what headlines would it take to do it?

    Excellent question. What headline would damage Johnson enough for you to reject him?
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,354

    tlg86 said:

    isam said:

    If the Tories aren’t hurt in the polls by headlines like these, what headlines would it take to do it?

    “Inflation hits 10%”
    As @Philip_Thompson keeps telling me an increase in money supply is no longer inflationary, and if we do get some inflation it is "good". I can't recall why.

    So no, Boris just keeps rolling along.
    I have never said that!

    I have said that it is inflationary but it doesn't automatically mean inflation because we also have deflationary pressures to take into account.

    If the inflationary pressures and deflationary ones cancel each other out then the net result is no inflation. As we've seen for the past decade.

    What part of that are you struggling with? Do you need smaller words? 🤦‍♂️
    I can't be arsed to find your response but you stated that an increase in M3 is no longer guaranteed to be inflationary. You said the 1980s notion that there was a correlation between an increase in money supply and inflation had been debunked 20 years ago. It is 40 years since I studied economics, so I am taking you at your word.
  • Options
    RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,386
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Once again it seems to me that the "tens of thousand died that didn't need to die" is a complete illusion. If we had locked down sooner we would have deferred some cases and some deaths. But unless we were to live in lockdown for the last 18 months it would only be a deferral. Those that died were the most vulnerable to this pernicious disease. As a generality they would have caught it and died whenever we opened up. Significant numbers of old, vulnerable people in care homes were always going to die of this. Its simply naive to claim otherwise.

    So individual mistakes such as the care homes fiasco where hospitals were cleared of bed blockers or the unending failure to secure borders or the fiasco of the early T&T changed the shape of our death toll but I remain to be convinced that it affected the final result. The brutal truth was that pre vaccines somewhere between 0.5 and 1% of us were going to die of this disease, mainly the old, the obese and those with impaired immune systems with the odd unlucky other as well. This is the reality and pretending that this could be magicked away by some clever policy is delusional.

    We still have a real problem in recognising that we are vulnerable to nature, that there are things that we simply cannot prevent. Its a bit weird.

    1. Care homes policy was a literal slaughter in the tens of thousands range. Yes old people die of things other than Covid, but this policy, laid out in gruesome detail yesterday was a bloodbath
    2. The borders allowed in off-shore variants which tore through chunks of the community and led to more regional lockdowns due to spikes in death rates

    Both of these were avoidable
    The idea that we were going to be able to protect those in care homes indefinitely is again delusional. Attempts to do so not only failed but resulted in the loss of contact with families and great hardship for the residents and those left behind without that chance to say goodbye. Scotland had exactly the same problem and for the same reasons. I am sure that you will find that deaths in care homes have been very high everywhere. They are concentrations of the most vulnerable.

    The reason that these offshore variants tore through chunks of the community was because those communities had a higher than average multigenerational mix so the young would bring the virus back to the vulnerable who would succumb.

    Without vaccines all of this was inevitable. Only the timing would vary.
    Indefinitely? We should have tested patients on release from hospital. That largely would have stopped the primary route pox was introduced to homes and prevented 20k residents dying quickly. Old people die eventually of something - Mr Shakespeare the first to receive the vaccine has died. So it was not about anything indefinite. It was about not carelessly spreading the thing through closed environments full of vulnerable people.
  • Options
    eekeek Posts: 25,037

    tlg86 said:

    isam said:

    If the Tories aren’t hurt in the polls by headlines like these, what headlines would it take to do it?

    “Inflation hits 10%”
    As @Philip_Thompson keeps telling me an increase in money supply is no longer inflationary, and if we do get some inflation it is "good". I can't recall why.

    So no, Boris just keeps rolling along.
    I have never said that!

    I have said that it is inflationary but it doesn't automatically mean inflation because we also have deflationary pressures to take into account.

    If the inflationary pressures and deflationary ones cancel each other out then the net result is no inflation. As we've seen for the past decade.

    What part of that are you struggling with? Do you need smaller words? 🤦‍♂️
    What deflationary pressures - China is no longer selling things at below material cost
  • Options
    kjhkjh Posts: 10,688
    IanB2 said:

    Jenrick's got the short straw and is doing the media rounds this morning; every time he is asked about whether Hancock lied to Cabinet, his answer is that Hancock works very hard...

    He certainly did get the short straw. I thought that was Grant S's job. Normally I don't sympathize with politicians who evade questions, but on BBC1 this morning he was asked some questions that were just impossible for him to answer and therefore unreasonable.
This discussion has been closed.