Howdy, Stranger!

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

Betting opportunities in the German election – politicalbetting.com

1356

Comments

  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,984
    Farooq said:

    The energy crisis started in the late 80s when the sector was deregulated. We've mentioned the dash for gas - not only did it help burn off our North Sea reserves it also bust the market for coal.

    What did that mean? We went from digging coal from profitable pits a short distance from the power station to shutting the pits and importing coal from Venezuela and Brazil. Once you start importing its easy to keep doing it - suddenly imported coal is expensive so both imports and CCS are off the table and coal generation goes.

    But its alright as we have all these gas power stations. Except that the gas is increasingly imported. But its alright as we have nuclear. Yeah right, we can't build new ones. But its alright as we have these interconnectors and the energy market is regulated. Until an interconnector burns out and we quit the regulated market.

    Whilst there have been errors piled on errors this lot have been in government for 11 years. How will they blame someone else or what they have done - and haven't done - in that time?

    There are those who are demanding Cambo is stopped and the Cumbria coal mine planning refused then complain over energy supply crisis

    I really fear that we are all, not just here in the UK, but across the globe going to experience the clash between climate change demands (COP26) and the reality that most everyone wants to deal with it but then cannot accept an abrupt and sudden spike in energy prices which underpins all economic activity

    The eco warriors on the M25 have infuriated drivers and it would appear 59/25 oppose the demonstrations again indicating that you have to take the public with you and their wallets
    The Cumbrian mine is irrelevant now - we needed to not shut the pits and then not shut the power stations.

    Yes, viable green energy is a global issue. The explosive price increase in the UK and only the UK is not a global issue. We can't blame the EU or remoaners or stoppy French idiots for this. Quitting the EU regulated energy market left us wide open to this but as usual we thought it was crap as its the EU and didn't need replacing.

    Whoops.
    I have been listening to the various contributors on Sky this morning and it is fiendishly complex and is not a Brexit issue

    Indeed it seems that Ed Miliband's energy price cap enacted by Therese May is a factor in the crisis
    Its certainly complex, but are we really going to insist that our departure from the regulated market has nothing to do with the vast increase only in UK prices?
    I've not got a detailed understanding about this, so correct me if I'm wrong, but...
    isn't the main driver of the difference in UK/non-UK prices rises due to an interconnector fire in Kent? That is, we're stuck having to generate more of our own electricity. That could have happened just as easily with us within the EU, right?
    It was that which is used to smooth supply plus...a huge flood in demand for energy globally; Russia is being unhelpful and restricting demand as per the AEP article; maintenance on gas platforms in the North Sea; we have had some nuclear outage; and the wind hasn't been blowing in the past few weeks.

    According to R4 this morning (08.13).
  • The energy crisis started in the late 80s when the sector was deregulated. We've mentioned the dash for gas - not only did it help burn off our North Sea reserves it also bust the market for coal.

    What did that mean? We went from digging coal from profitable pits a short distance from the power station to shutting the pits and importing coal from Venezuela and Brazil. Once you start importing its easy to keep doing it - suddenly imported coal is expensive so both imports and CCS are off the table and coal generation goes.

    But its alright as we have all these gas power stations. Except that the gas is increasingly imported. But its alright as we have nuclear. Yeah right, we can't build new ones. But its alright as we have these interconnectors and the energy market is regulated. Until an interconnector burns out and we quit the regulated market.

    Whilst there have been errors piled on errors this lot have been in government for 11 years. How will they blame someone else or what they have done - and haven't done - in that time?

    There are those who are demanding Cambo is stopped and the Cumbria coal mine planning refused then complain over energy supply crisis

    I really fear that we are all, not just here in the UK, but across the globe going to experience the clash between climate change demands (COP26) and the reality that most everyone wants to deal with it but then cannot accept an abrupt and sudden spike in energy prices which underpins all economic activity

    The eco warriors on the M25 have infuriated drivers and it would appear 59/25 oppose the demonstrations again indicating that you have to take the public with you and their wallets
    Perhaps it's time that public and politicians actually listened to the climate demonstrators.

    In addition to their climate changing properties, they is also, by definition, a limited supply of fossil fuels. Gas (and ultimately coal) will inevitably become increasingly scarce and expensive in the future (as well as causing climate change). What we should be doing is straining every sinew to develop replacements for fossil fuels as quickly as possible, not trying to prolong their use and delaying (and worsening) the inevitable!
    I absolutely agree but it has to be organised in a way which allows the replacement of fossil fuel by its replacements in a manner that does not create serious economic disruption
    Well unless we actually get on and develop replacements for fossil fuels pronto, the current economic disruption will seem a very mild inconvenience in comparison to the chaos to come.
  • FishingFishing Posts: 3,035

    Charles said:

    @Philip_Thompson

    The Catholic adoption centres believed that adoption by gay couples was against their religious beliefs. When they were given no choice they closed and kids who were previously adopted were less well supported with a huge cost to them.

    The compromise I pushed at the time was the requirement that if a Catholic service wasn’t willing to provide adoption services to gay couples themselves they had to have a partnership with someone who would. The Catholics were grumpy but ok with it. The activists on the gay rights side weren’t.

    The kids lost out.

    (FWIW my personal belief is that a stable two person parental unit is key to children’s success in life. The sex of each member of the parental unit is irrelevant)

    While, again FWIW, I agree with you about the stable parental unit with two people involved, I do wonder how the children's wider social group react to it, and consequently to the children, particularly as they get towards and into their teens.
    It'll probably not matter too much for those who get on reasonably well with their peers, but is it another stick with which to beat the fat girl or the asthmatic boy?

    I'm not aware of any work on this, and would be interested to learn of any.

    I think peer pressure about gay (or mixed race or single) parents has pretty much gone away among kids. Teasing and bullying hasn't, but not much on those topics.

    Incidentally, the Netflix series Sex Education (series 3 just released), while superficially comedy froth with doubtful cultural background (it's around a school in Britain with distinctly American characteristics) is praised by all my young friends as being spot on abput current social attitudes - it subtly introduces all kinds of teenage and adult angst issues, and manages to be funny, touching, unsentimental and verbally explicit without being pornographic.
    I think bullying about sexuality has become rather alien in the space of a generation. It's something we should be really proud about.

    I've told this anecdote once before but last year my daughter came home from school (in the autumn between them being closed and reclosed) and said that her friend's uncle is getting married to a man before adding crossly "but that isn't allowed".

    We asked her why that wasn't allowed, and she said "because of coronavirus. People shouldn't be having weddings due to coronavirus." The idea that it was a man marrying a man that could be an issue never even entered her head, just that the virus means no weddings at the time.
    That's the same feeling I had when passing by my old school a few months ago and seeing two boys coming out holding hands.

    When I was there, they'd have been in danger of being lynched, or at least mocked mercilessly for the rest of their time there. Now I understand there is an LGBTQ noticeboard (though presumably not that many Ls as it's an all-boys school, but who knows these days?)
  • TOPPING said:

    theProle said:

    I also wonder about the role model question - e.g. if you've two gay blokes who adopt a girl, where is her female role model?
    Often the worst damage when family breakup occurs is to the kid who loses a role model of their own gender from regular family life.

    What about single parent families, of which there are zillions. Short one role model. Or, arguably, long a harmful role model.

    Two loving parents of any sex would seem to me to provide a hugely positive role model about relationships.
    I'm sure two parents of any sex do provide a hugely positive role model about relationships but if it's true that male role models for boys make a difference and female role models for girls make a difference then it stands to reason that having two parents of the same sex might make it more challenging to provide a proximate same-gender role model for a child in the same way it does within single parent families.

    We like to say that there's absolutely no difference between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples, because we want to be inclusive and don't want to discriminate, but the truth is we just don't know yet.

    The former is a fairly recent development (last 15 years) and we may find the difference in datasets in future to be utterly trivial or they might identify some differences.

    We don't know yet.
    Hence the need for male teachers in primary schools.
    Good luck with that. Recruitment of male teachers for young children has an unfortunate image problem, and has done since, well, probably forever. And you can't throw money at the problem because that would be illegal.
    Eldest grandson is a primary school teacher. Happily married to a female secondary school teacher.
    Yes, indeed. Even when I were a lad and dinosaurs roamed the Earth, we had two male junior school teachers. The rest were women, as were all at infants school (none of your primary school nonsense: when did that happen?). And that will be the experience of most. And still is, which I guess is why you mentioned the issue in the first place.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    On topic, good article by Nick.

    The only bet I see value in at present is SDP/Green/Linke at 6/1 (now 5/1) but I can't get myself excited enough to stake on it.
  • Back when British Gas was in the public sector it had the slogan 'Use gas wisely'. Indeed, it was written on the side of the gas holder next to the Oval.

    Privatisation brought 'piss away as much gas as possible' as the industry mantra. Switching power generation from coal to gas gobbled up our reserves even more quickly.

    So now here we are. Highly dependant on imported gas, without the scope to switch to other options as most of the coal fired stations have shut down and the wind doesn't blow on demand.

    And it is only going to get worse. The reduced energy efficiency resulting from decarbonisation means that for the same supply at the consumer end, more primary energy is required up the chain. So, if we convert the gas grid to hydrogen, we'll need around 30% more natural gas, all other things being equal.

    We could always consider coal gasification, but where on earth would we find the coal?

    The decision to stop fracking is looking less than optimal.
    Its the wild west of energy though. Yes there is some frackable gas. And there is a whole load more that isn't. Fracking is a ponzi scheme for investors - "we need more money to frack more sites"

    Better to invest in gas storage.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,859
    TOPPING said:

    Farooq said:

    The energy crisis started in the late 80s when the sector was deregulated. We've mentioned the dash for gas - not only did it help burn off our North Sea reserves it also bust the market for coal.

    What did that mean? We went from digging coal from profitable pits a short distance from the power station to shutting the pits and importing coal from Venezuela and Brazil. Once you start importing its easy to keep doing it - suddenly imported coal is expensive so both imports and CCS are off the table and coal generation goes.

    But its alright as we have all these gas power stations. Except that the gas is increasingly imported. But its alright as we have nuclear. Yeah right, we can't build new ones. But its alright as we have these interconnectors and the energy market is regulated. Until an interconnector burns out and we quit the regulated market.

    Whilst there have been errors piled on errors this lot have been in government for 11 years. How will they blame someone else or what they have done - and haven't done - in that time?

    There are those who are demanding Cambo is stopped and the Cumbria coal mine planning refused then complain over energy supply crisis

    I really fear that we are all, not just here in the UK, but across the globe going to experience the clash between climate change demands (COP26) and the reality that most everyone wants to deal with it but then cannot accept an abrupt and sudden spike in energy prices which underpins all economic activity

    The eco warriors on the M25 have infuriated drivers and it would appear 59/25 oppose the demonstrations again indicating that you have to take the public with you and their wallets
    The Cumbrian mine is irrelevant now - we needed to not shut the pits and then not shut the power stations.

    Yes, viable green energy is a global issue. The explosive price increase in the UK and only the UK is not a global issue. We can't blame the EU or remoaners or stoppy French idiots for this. Quitting the EU regulated energy market left us wide open to this but as usual we thought it was crap as its the EU and didn't need replacing.

    Whoops.
    I have been listening to the various contributors on Sky this morning and it is fiendishly complex and is not a Brexit issue

    Indeed it seems that Ed Miliband's energy price cap enacted by Therese May is a factor in the crisis
    Its certainly complex, but are we really going to insist that our departure from the regulated market has nothing to do with the vast increase only in UK prices?
    I've not got a detailed understanding about this, so correct me if I'm wrong, but...
    isn't the main driver of the difference in UK/non-UK prices rises due to an interconnector fire in Kent? That is, we're stuck having to generate more of our own electricity. That could have happened just as easily with us within the EU, right?
    It was that which is used to smooth supply plus...a huge flood in demand for energy globally; Russia is being unhelpful and restricting demand as per the AEP article; maintenance on gas platforms in the North Sea; we have had some nuclear outage; and the wind hasn't been blowing in the past few weeks.

    According to R4 this morning (08.13).
    Culmination of a lot of factors, none particularly Brexit or pandemic related. It's a decade of shit energy policy catching up with us.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972

    Farooq said:

    TOPPING said:

    theProle said:

    I also wonder about the role model question - e.g. if you've two gay blokes who adopt a girl, where is her female role model?
    Often the worst damage when family breakup occurs is to the kid who loses a role model of their own gender from regular family life.

    What about single parent families, of which there are zillions. Short one role model. Or, arguably, long a harmful role model.

    Two loving parents of any sex would seem to me to provide a hugely positive role model about relationships.
    I'm sure two parents of any sex do provide a hugely positive role model about relationships but if it's true that male role models for boys make a difference and female role models for girls make a difference then it stands to reason that having two parents of the same sex might make it more challenging to provide a proximate same-gender role model for a child in the same way it does within single parent families.

    We like to say that there's absolutely no difference between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples, because we want to be inclusive and don't want to discriminate, but the truth is we just don't know yet.

    The former is a fairly recent development (last 15 years) and we may find the difference in datasets in future to be utterly trivial or they might identify some differences.

    We don't know yet.
    It's worth pointing out that the nuclear family is also an innovation, albeit one with a slightly longer pedigree. It was essentially invented in the middle ages but the Western church as a means to break kinship groups and insert itself into property inheritance. A lot of consequences, good and bad, flowed from that, relating to feudalism, individual rights and rule of law.
    Society here was earlier organised in much wider family networks and role models of both sexes would have been very accessible even to children whose biological parents were dead or absent.
    Well, you can go back tens of thousands of years finding evidence of family groups within tribes, and the corollary for that are the indigenous communities living in comparative isolation today in some forests and on some remote islands.

    What I do think is true (and I think we're agreeing with each other here) is that in such tribes and communities extended families were far more common so you've have grandparents, aunties, uncles, cousins and siblings all mucking in to care for each other - particularly given the unpredictability of life and death, it made a lot of sense - and not just the mum, dad and kids by themselves alone.

    Who's to say that system was worse? In fact, it might be the answer.
    Doesn't take one long in Family Research to find that people tended to marry (breed with) people from their own or the next community (assuming that wasn't over a mountain).
    Another uncomfortable truth is the myth of "the one" - it's one we tell ourselves, we all do, because we love our partners deeply but we haven't individually reviewed all 4 billion + suitable candidates to be sure, have we?

    As this is a betting site it's probably more likely to be 1:10,000 - which means there are statistically a large number of suitable partners, worldwide - and that's then filtered by cultural entropy, language, compatibility and proximity to feel like they are "the one" within your realistic field of vision for your own life.
    Of course, as well, the phrase in the CoE wedding ritual 'till death us do part', when written meant up to about 20 years. Now it can mean 60 years ...... or will for me for Mrs C and myself next year.
    Congratulations.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,481
    edited September 20

    On topic, good article by Nick.

    The only bet I see value in at present is SDP/Green/Linke at 6/1 (now 5/1) but I can't get myself excited enough to stake on it.

    I think both the centrist Scholz and Linke themselves would prefer SPD/Green/FDP.

    Scholz as having the pro business FDP in his government would ensure he could effectively govern as a German New Labour and stick to his image of Merkel 2, whereas if Linke not the FDP joined the government that would shift it significantly left.

    Linke as if they do not join the government they will have opposition on the left to it all to themselves which should help their vote, especially if they can squeeze the Greens, while in government as a small minority party they would end up squeezed
  • Back when British Gas was in the public sector it had the slogan 'Use gas wisely'. Indeed, it was written on the side of the gas holder next to the Oval.

    Privatisation brought 'piss away as much gas as possible' as the industry mantra. Switching power generation from coal to gas gobbled up our reserves even more quickly.

    So now here we are. Highly dependant on imported gas, without the scope to switch to other options as most of the coal fired stations have shut down and the wind doesn't blow on demand.

    And it is only going to get worse. The reduced energy efficiency resulting from decarbonisation means that for the same supply at the consumer end, more primary energy is required up the chain. So, if we convert the gas grid to hydrogen, we'll need around 30% more natural gas, all other things being equal.

    We could always consider coal gasification, but where on earth would we find the coal?

    The decision to stop fracking is looking less than optimal.
    Fracking, though, comes with another issue – private profit, public risk. In particular, the risk of seismic events.
  • MattW said:

    The energy crisis started in the late 80s when the sector was deregulated. We've mentioned the dash for gas - not only did it help burn off our North Sea reserves it also bust the market for coal.

    What did that mean? We went from digging coal from profitable pits a short distance from the power station to shutting the pits and importing coal from Venezuela and Brazil. Once you start importing its easy to keep doing it - suddenly imported coal is expensive so both imports and CCS are off the table and coal generation goes.

    But its alright as we have all these gas power stations. Except that the gas is increasingly imported. But its alright as we have nuclear. Yeah right, we can't build new ones. But its alright as we have these interconnectors and the energy market is regulated. Until an interconnector burns out and we quit the regulated market.

    Whilst there have been errors piled on errors this lot have been in government for 11 years. How will they blame someone else or what they have done - and haven't done - in that time?

    There are those who are demanding Cambo is stopped and the Cumbria coal mine planning refused then complain over energy supply crisis

    I really fear that we are all, not just here in the UK, but across the globe going to experience the clash between climate change demands (COP26) and the reality that most everyone wants to deal with it but then cannot accept an abrupt and sudden spike in energy prices which underpins all economic activity

    The eco warriors on the M25 have infuriated drivers and it would appear 59/25 oppose the demonstrations again indicating that you have to take the public with you and their wallets
    The Cumbrian mine is irrelevant now - we needed to not shut the pits and then not shut the power stations.

    Yes, viable green energy is a global issue. The explosive price increase in the UK and only the UK is not a global issue. We can't blame the EU or remoaners or stoppy French idiots for this. Quitting the EU regulated energy market left us wide open to this but as usual we thought it was crap as its the EU and didn't need replacing.

    Whoops.
    I have been listening to the various contributors on Sky this morning and it is fiendishly complex and is not a Brexit issue

    Indeed it seems that Ed Miliband's energy price cap enacted by Therese May is a factor in the crisis
    The "only in the UK" stuff is baloney. Here is a piece with a more European dataset:

    "A fire at a National Grid site in Sellindge near Ashford in Kent has forced the shut down of the main power cable to the continent. That means reduced electricity imports from France until March.

    In normal circumstances, the UK could rely on interconnectors linking to other countries such as Belgium, Norway, and the Netherlands to import electricity. But most of Europe is also experiencing a surge in energy prices.

    Wholesale European electricity prices have shot up, too, and natural gas futures in the Netherlands have raced past €60/megawatt hour to hit a record high this week. Dutch gas prices have risen by around 450% over the year, and French and German wholesale electricity prices are also trading at record highs. To add to the problem, gas stockpiles are at their lowest in ten years."

    https://moneyweek.com/investments/commodities/energy/603857/why-are-energy-prices-going-up-so-much

    Recovery from Covid is one cause. Russia cutting supply to speed up approval of Nordstream 2 is another. EuCo reducing the supply of carbon credits to make emissions more expensive is a third.
    Its the same as the wholesale price increases of everything from cardboard to aluminium. Everyone is getting a price increase, but the much bigger UK price increase is on us.

    Which is why we're paying double the prices paid in France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark etc etc
    Because we stopped burning coal for environmental reasons and (France aside) they didn't.

    Accordingly to live readings on Gridwatch we are currently getting 3% of our electricity from coal, which is very high for the UK nowadays. Half our energy is from Gas.

    In France below 10% is gas. Nuclear is 77% right now.

    While Germany is still coal powered.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    Nick mentioned the bad polls for Putin the other day - that problem was solved with intimidation and ballot-stuffing:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-election-2021-putins-party-wins-most-corrupt-vote-yet-wz78730xt

    Also, the CCP have allowed the election of a token opposition candidate in Hong Kong to give themselves a bit of cover:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-of-single-opposition-candidate-tik-chi-yuen-proves-hong-kong-democracy-says-beijing-7l8zltqvk

    Both disgusting, and shows what we're up against.
  • ping said:

    Lessons will be learnt.

    Apart from the lessons of Northern Rock's "borrow short, lend long" collapse for domestic gas suppliers.

    And all other lessons.

    What's interesting is that certain companies have come out and said they have hedged against gas prices. Ecotricity for instance I believe is one who have said that.

    But other companies haven't.

    Paying for a hedge is a cost that those that have sensibly done so will now see the benefit for. Those who avoided paying that price are going to struggle now.

    Those who failed to hedge and go bust really should be allowed to fail. Otherwise again we are going to have a moral hazard situation.
    From what I can tell - that’s only a small part of the problem. The main problem is they have to honour the cap after fixed deals end. The figures from the FT - they have to buy energy wholesale at an average of £1600 per customer - and sell it at £1277.

    It’s largely the cap that is making these energy suppliers go bust, rather than the lack of hedging.
    While the cap was a bad policy I opposed when Ed proposed it and when May did it, it's not the issue. All of these companies were happily selling contracts, even recently, for below the cap. It's not like Universities where the cap is also the floor for many. Plus they knew they the cap was in place.

    The problem is that they're buying energy wholesale at £1600 because they didn't hedge. Those who paid for hedges are not being charged £1600 wholesale as they locked in their prices in the past with a hedge.

    Some companies thought they could get away without hedging as it was an unnecessary cost and they could pass on that "saving" to their customers. It wasn't an unnecessary cost and anyone in those businesses should lose their equity as a result or there will be another moral hazard failure here.
    They don't need to hedge if they're big enough to ride the waves. The problem with parvenu energy suppliers is that they look and sound like a £100 start-up from Finchley Road.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,264

    MattW said:

    The energy crisis started in the late 80s when the sector was deregulated. We've mentioned the dash for gas - not only did it help burn off our North Sea reserves it also bust the market for coal.

    What did that mean? We went from digging coal from profitable pits a short distance from the power station to shutting the pits and importing coal from Venezuela and Brazil. Once you start importing its easy to keep doing it - suddenly imported coal is expensive so both imports and CCS are off the table and coal generation goes.

    But its alright as we have all these gas power stations. Except that the gas is increasingly imported. But its alright as we have nuclear. Yeah right, we can't build new ones. But its alright as we have these interconnectors and the energy market is regulated. Until an interconnector burns out and we quit the regulated market.

    Whilst there have been errors piled on errors this lot have been in government for 11 years. How will they blame someone else or what they have done - and haven't done - in that time?

    There are those who are demanding Cambo is stopped and the Cumbria coal mine planning refused then complain over energy supply crisis

    I really fear that we are all, not just here in the UK, but across the globe going to experience the clash between climate change demands (COP26) and the reality that most everyone wants to deal with it but then cannot accept an abrupt and sudden spike in energy prices which underpins all economic activity

    The eco warriors on the M25 have infuriated drivers and it would appear 59/25 oppose the demonstrations again indicating that you have to take the public with you and their wallets
    The Cumbrian mine is irrelevant now - we needed to not shut the pits and then not shut the power stations.

    Yes, viable green energy is a global issue. The explosive price increase in the UK and only the UK is not a global issue. We can't blame the EU or remoaners or stoppy French idiots for this. Quitting the EU regulated energy market left us wide open to this but as usual we thought it was crap as its the EU and didn't need replacing.

    Whoops.
    I have been listening to the various contributors on Sky this morning and it is fiendishly complex and is not a Brexit issue

    Indeed it seems that Ed Miliband's energy price cap enacted by Therese May is a factor in the crisis
    The "only in the UK" stuff is baloney. Here is a piece with a more European dataset:

    "A fire at a National Grid site in Sellindge near Ashford in Kent has forced the shut down of the main power cable to the continent. That means reduced electricity imports from France until March.

    In normal circumstances, the UK could rely on interconnectors linking to other countries such as Belgium, Norway, and the Netherlands to import electricity. But most of Europe is also experiencing a surge in energy prices.

    Wholesale European electricity prices have shot up, too, and natural gas futures in the Netherlands have raced past €60/megawatt hour to hit a record high this week. Dutch gas prices have risen by around 450% over the year, and French and German wholesale electricity prices are also trading at record highs. To add to the problem, gas stockpiles are at their lowest in ten years."

    https://moneyweek.com/investments/commodities/energy/603857/why-are-energy-prices-going-up-so-much

    Recovery from Covid is one cause. Russia cutting supply to speed up approval of Nordstream 2 is another. EuCo reducing the supply of carbon credits to make emissions more expensive is a third.
    Its the same as the wholesale price increases of everything from cardboard to aluminium. Everyone is getting a price increase, but the much bigger UK price increase is on us.

    Which is why we're paying double the prices paid in France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark etc etc
    Because we stopped burning coal for environmental reasons and (France aside) they didn't.

    Accordingly to live readings on Gridwatch we are currently getting 3% of our electricity from coal, which is very high for the UK nowadays. Half our energy is from Gas.

    In France below 10% is gas. Nuclear is 77% right now.

    While Germany is still coal powered.
    What's the normal figure for France, out of interest? Is that 10% a reduction on normal?
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 1,691
    edited September 20

    Back when British Gas was in the public sector it had the slogan 'Use gas wisely'. Indeed, it was written on the side of the gas holder next to the Oval.

    Privatisation brought 'piss away as much gas as possible' as the industry mantra. Switching power generation from coal to gas gobbled up our reserves even more quickly.

    So now here we are. Highly dependant on imported gas, without the scope to switch to other options as most of the coal fired stations have shut down and the wind doesn't blow on demand.

    And it is only going to get worse. The reduced energy efficiency resulting from decarbonisation means that for the same supply at the consumer end, more primary energy is required up the chain. So, if we convert the gas grid to hydrogen, we'll need around 30% more natural gas, all other things being equal.

    We could always consider coal gasification, but where on earth would we find the coal?

    The decision to stop fracking is looking less than optimal.
    Its the wild west of energy though. Yes there is some frackable gas. And there is a whole load more that isn't. Fracking is a ponzi scheme for investors - "we need more money to frack more sites"

    Better to invest in gas storage.
    You still need some gas to store.

    Admittedly having storage smooths out the price spikes, but this looks like more than a short term blip.

    Ambition to cut CO2 is running ahead of the ability to actually do it.


    I agree that the test fracking wasn't really delivering a lot (other than protests), but it took a long time for the North Sea oil bonanza to get going. It seems to work in the US...
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808
    edited September 20

    Thanks for the friendly comments! Various replies:

    - @Sandpit The Greens are very pro-Ukraine for some reason, and hence Russiasceptic, perhaps to distinguish themselves from the Left or because they disapprove of Russian gas imports, or just because they think it's right, not sure. The Left (both the party and some of the SPD) deride them as latter-day cold warriors, which is a snag for an SPD-Green-Left pact, though I expect if it was the only snag they'd get over themselves. Again, I expect Scholz to be coollly pragmatic with both Russia and China.

    Is the Green pro-Ukraine stance recent?

    It could be linked to Nordstream 2, which has thrown Ukraine under the Russian bus by potentially denying it the 2bn (Euro?) a year it gets from it's own Russia gas pipeline, now that Putin can simply divert his supplies. Now that Merkel and Shroder have engineered a new Russia pipeline (with a capacity not far of the entire UK gas usage) that has scuppered Ukraine. To the extent that Merkel came up with a lathe 1bn+ "help Ukraine" package.

    So pro-Ukraine would fit with anti-Nordstream, which the last time I saw the Greens had vowed to cancel. Or, if it has started, presumably run at minimum.

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,481

    Nick mentioned the bad polls for Putin the other day - that problem was solved with intimidation and ballot-stuffing:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-election-2021-putins-party-wins-most-corrupt-vote-yet-wz78730xt

    Also, the CCP have allowed the election of a token opposition candidate in Hong Kong to give themselves a bit of cover:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-of-single-opposition-candidate-tik-chi-yuen-proves-hong-kong-democracy-says-beijing-7l8zltqvk

    Both disgusting, and shows what we're up against.

    Mind you the main opposition party in Russia is the Communist Party so even had Putin's party lost it would not have been much comfort for the West
  • kingbongokingbongo Posts: 393
    El price increases - It's not just the UK btw - from today's BT newspaper "Tilbage i januar 2020 kostede en kWh 24,06 øre... (men) den såkaldte timepris i spidsbelastningsperioder nåede helt op over 135 øre/kWh."

    "Back in Jan 2020 a kWh cost 24 øre but the spot price during peak periods went higher than 135 øre per kWh" - maybe in the UK it has been worse than that - as they say here "I don't know man" but to claim Europe has experienced gentle increases and use Denmark as an example is just fake news.
  • The energy crisis started in the late 80s when the sector was deregulated. We've mentioned the dash for gas - not only did it help burn off our North Sea reserves it also bust the market for coal.

    What did that mean? We went from digging coal from profitable pits a short distance from the power station to shutting the pits and importing coal from Venezuela and Brazil. Once you start importing its easy to keep doing it - suddenly imported coal is expensive so both imports and CCS are off the table and coal generation goes.

    But its alright as we have all these gas power stations. Except that the gas is increasingly imported. But its alright as we have nuclear. Yeah right, we can't build new ones. But its alright as we have these interconnectors and the energy market is regulated. Until an interconnector burns out and we quit the regulated market.

    Whilst there have been errors piled on errors this lot have been in government for 11 years. How will they blame someone else or what they have done - and haven't done - in that time?

    There are those who are demanding Cambo is stopped and the Cumbria coal mine planning refused then complain over energy supply crisis

    I really fear that we are all, not just here in the UK, but across the globe going to experience the clash between climate change demands (COP26) and the reality that most everyone wants to deal with it but then cannot accept an abrupt and sudden spike in energy prices which underpins all economic activity

    The eco warriors on the M25 have infuriated drivers and it would appear 59/25 oppose the demonstrations again indicating that you have to take the public with you and their wallets
    The Cumbrian mine is irrelevant now - we needed to not shut the pits and then not shut the power stations.

    Yes, viable green energy is a global issue. The explosive price increase in the UK and only the UK is not a global issue. We can't blame the EU or remoaners or stoppy French idiots for this. Quitting the EU regulated energy market left us wide open to this but as usual we thought it was crap as its the EU and didn't need replacing.

    Whoops.
    I have been listening to the various contributors on Sky this morning and it is fiendishly complex and is not a Brexit issue

    Indeed it seems that Ed Miliband's energy price cap enacted by Therese May is a factor in the crisis
    Its certainly complex, but are we really going to insist that our departure from the regulated market has nothing to do with the vast increase only in UK prices?
    It was not raised in any discussion I listened to this morning
    Either way this is a UK-specific issue. We aren't going to undo years of non-decisions kicking the can down the road fast enough. As EU electricity costs multiples less than ours perhaps our government may have to throw in big subsidies? Wasn't state aid one of the reasons to leave?

    This is the problem with the CO2 crisis. It isn't commercially viable to produce fertiliser which produces the CO2 with gas prices as high as it is. The gas price and the loss of one interconnector has such a massive effect on the electricity price.

    So how about fat subsidies to slash wholesale gas prices? Have we not now taken back control of such things?
    Seems it is not UK specific
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,264

    The energy crisis started in the late 80s when the sector was deregulated. We've mentioned the dash for gas - not only did it help burn off our North Sea reserves it also bust the market for coal.

    What did that mean? We went from digging coal from profitable pits a short distance from the power station to shutting the pits and importing coal from Venezuela and Brazil. Once you start importing its easy to keep doing it - suddenly imported coal is expensive so both imports and CCS are off the table and coal generation goes.

    But its alright as we have all these gas power stations. Except that the gas is increasingly imported. But its alright as we have nuclear. Yeah right, we can't build new ones. But its alright as we have these interconnectors and the energy market is regulated. Until an interconnector burns out and we quit the regulated market.

    Whilst there have been errors piled on errors this lot have been in government for 11 years. How will they blame someone else or what they have done - and haven't done - in that time?

    There are those who are demanding Cambo is stopped and the Cumbria coal mine planning refused then complain over energy supply crisis

    I really fear that we are all, not just here in the UK, but across the globe going to experience the clash between climate change demands (COP26) and the reality that most everyone wants to deal with it but then cannot accept an abrupt and sudden spike in energy prices which underpins all economic activity

    The eco warriors on the M25 have infuriated drivers and it would appear 59/25 oppose the demonstrations again indicating that you have to take the public with you and their wallets
    The Cumbrian mine is irrelevant now - we needed to not shut the pits and then not shut the power stations.

    Yes, viable green energy is a global issue. The explosive price increase in the UK and only the UK is not a global issue. We can't blame the EU or remoaners or stoppy French idiots for this. Quitting the EU regulated energy market left us wide open to this but as usual we thought it was crap as its the EU and didn't need replacing.

    Whoops.
    I have been listening to the various contributors on Sky this morning and it is fiendishly complex and is not a Brexit issue

    Indeed it seems that Ed Miliband's energy price cap enacted by Therese May is a factor in the crisis
    Its certainly complex, but are we really going to insist that our departure from the regulated market has nothing to do with the vast increase only in UK prices?
    It was not raised in any discussion I listened to this morning
    Either way this is a UK-specific issue. We aren't going to undo years of non-decisions kicking the can down the road fast enough. As EU electricity costs multiples less than ours perhaps our government may have to throw in big subsidies? Wasn't state aid one of the reasons to leave?

    This is the problem with the CO2 crisis. It isn't commercially viable to produce fertiliser which produces the CO2 with gas prices as high as it is. The gas price and the loss of one interconnector has such a massive effect on the electricity price.

    So how about fat subsidies to slash wholesale gas prices? Have we not now taken back control of such things?
    Seems it is not UK specific
    There certainly is a UK-specific element to it. as RP points out, the gas prices are (or were a few days ago, haven't seen today) double our neighbours'. That's our problem, and will certainly be partly due to strategic failures by recent governments.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 1,691

    Back when British Gas was in the public sector it had the slogan 'Use gas wisely'. Indeed, it was written on the side of the gas holder next to the Oval.

    Privatisation brought 'piss away as much gas as possible' as the industry mantra. Switching power generation from coal to gas gobbled up our reserves even more quickly.

    So now here we are. Highly dependant on imported gas, without the scope to switch to other options as most of the coal fired stations have shut down and the wind doesn't blow on demand.

    And it is only going to get worse. The reduced energy efficiency resulting from decarbonisation means that for the same supply at the consumer end, more primary energy is required up the chain. So, if we convert the gas grid to hydrogen, we'll need around 30% more natural gas, all other things being equal.

    We could always consider coal gasification, but where on earth would we find the coal?

    The decision to stop fracking is looking less than optimal.
    Fracking, though, comes with another issue – private profit, public risk. In particular, the risk of seismic events.
    There's a bigger public risk if we run out of energy.

    The seismic events were pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. The Market Rasen earthquake was at least 100 times the power of anything caused by fracking.
  • Mr. Gate, he might. The con is that means starting from the back. And while Bottas showed you can cut through the field, it's much easier if you don't have to.

    Turkey seems back on the agenda. There or the US might be preferable in terms of passing. The flipside is that taking it in Russia effectively nullifies his 3 place grid penalty rather than having that *and* going to the back elsewhere.

    If Verstappen does have a new engine then Bottas to be top 2 looks pretty likely.

    TOPPING said:

    theProle said:

    I also wonder about the role model question - e.g. if you've two gay blokes who adopt a girl, where is her female role model?
    Often the worst damage when family breakup occurs is to the kid who loses a role model of their own gender from regular family life.

    What about single parent families, of which there are zillions. Short one role model. Or, arguably, long a harmful role model.

    Two loving parents of any sex would seem to me to provide a hugely positive role model about relationships.
    I'm sure two parents of any sex do provide a hugely positive role model about relationships but if it's true that male role models for boys make a difference and female role models for girls make a difference then it stands to reason that having two parents of the same sex might make it more challenging to provide a proximate same-gender role model for a child in the same way it does within single parent families.

    We like to say that there's absolutely no difference between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples, because we want to be inclusive and don't want to discriminate, but the truth is we just don't know yet.

    The former is a fairly recent development (last 15 years) and we may find the difference in datasets in future to be utterly trivial or they might identify some differences.

    We don't know yet.
    Hence the need for male teachers in primary schools.
    Good luck with that. Recruitment of male teachers for young children has an unfortunate image problem, and has done since, well, probably forever. And you can't throw money at the problem because that would be illegal.
    Eldest grandson is a primary school teacher. Happily married to a female secondary school teacher.
    Yes, indeed. Even when I were a lad and dinosaurs roamed the Earth, we had two male junior school teachers. The rest were women, as were all at infants school (none of your primary school nonsense: when did that happen?). And that will be the experience of most. And still is, which I guess is why you mentioned the issue in the first place.
    Same here. The only two primary school teachers I had were in my last two primary years. This was in the early sixties.

    I have been a Children’s Panel member for over 10 years and can only think of 1 male primary teacher attending panels in all that time.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225

    TOPPING said:

    theProle said:

    I also wonder about the role model question - e.g. if you've two gay blokes who adopt a girl, where is her female role model?
    Often the worst damage when family breakup occurs is to the kid who loses a role model of their own gender from regular family life.

    What about single parent families, of which there are zillions. Short one role model. Or, arguably, long a harmful role model.

    Two loving parents of any sex would seem to me to provide a hugely positive role model about relationships.
    I'm sure two parents of any sex do provide a hugely positive role model about relationships but if it's true that male role models for boys make a difference and female role models for girls make a difference then it stands to reason that having two parents of the same sex might make it more challenging to provide a proximate same-gender role model for a child in the same way it does within single parent families.

    We like to say that there's absolutely no difference between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples, because we want to be inclusive and don't want to discriminate, but the truth is we just don't know yet.

    The former is a fairly recent development (last 15 years) and we may find the difference in datasets in future to be utterly trivial or they might identify some differences.

    We don't know yet.
    Hence the need for male teachers in primary schools.
    Good luck with that. Recruitment of male teachers for young children has an unfortunate image problem, and has done since, well, probably forever. And you can't throw money at the problem because that would be illegal.
    Eldest grandson is a primary school teacher. Happily married to a female secondary school teacher.
    Yes, indeed. Even when I were a lad and dinosaurs roamed the Earth, we had two male junior school teachers. The rest were women, as were all at infants school (none of your primary school nonsense: when did that happen?). And that will be the experience of most. And still is, which I guess is why you mentioned the issue in the first place.
    And at mine, at, I suspect, a bit earlier.
    Mrs C was, when I met her, a student of nursery and infant teaching, so I've lived with designations for a long time.
    Nursery schools cater for under 5's.
    Infant schools deal with years 1 and 2.... 5 & 6 year olds.
    Primary schools deal with years 3-6 7-11yrs old.
    Junior schools deal with 5 - 11year olds. In other word. they combine Infant and Primary.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,343
    MattW said:

    Back when British Gas was in the public sector it had the slogan 'Use gas wisely'. Indeed, it was written on the side of the gas holder next to the Oval.

    Privatisation brought 'piss away as much gas as possible' as the industry mantra. Switching power generation from coal to gas gobbled up our reserves even more quickly.

    So now here we are. Highly dependant on imported gas, without the scope to switch to other options as most of the coal fired stations have shut down and the wind doesn't blow on demand.

    And it is only going to get worse. The reduced energy efficiency resulting from decarbonisation means that for the same supply at the consumer end, more primary energy is required up the chain. So, if we convert the gas grid to hydrogen, we'll need around 30% more natural gas, all other things being equal.

    We could always consider coal gasification, but where on earth would we find the coal?

    Why does decarbonisation reduce energy efficiency?
    Various factors.

    Firstly, with the hydrogen case, converting methane to hydrogen is not 100% energy efficient. Not all of the MWth in the feedstock end up as MWth of hydrogen. Therefore, to deliver the same MWth to the customer takes more natural gas than if you just supply the gas to the consumers. Also, to decarbonise the hydrogen production (so called blue hydrogen) you have to expend further energy on CO2 compression to get it into the transport pipeline to be sent for storage.

    That moves us on to carbon capture and storage more generally. For post combustion capture, for example on the flue gas from a coal or gas fired power plant, you require both electrical and thermal energy in the capture process, plus the same compression energy as mentioned above. This results in a reduction in the net output from the power station. Same fuel in, less leccy out. So you need to fire up another power station to make up the shortfall - more natural gas consumed.

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,013
    Rosie Duffield has called for Keir Starmer to meet her and other female Labour MPs to discuss the party’s policy on transgender issues, confirming she will not attend Labour’s annual conference over worries she could face abuse because of her views on the subject.

    “I took the decision a few weeks ago not to go,” the Canterbury MP told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

    “I didn’t want to be the centre of attention. This is Keir Starmer’s first conference speech since the pandemic. I think it’s really important we focus on that and the policies that emerge from conference. I really did not want to be the news story.”


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/20/rosie-duffield-calls-for-talks-with-keir-starmer-on-labour-trans-rights-stance
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225

    Rosie Duffield has called for Keir Starmer to meet her and other female Labour MPs to discuss the party’s policy on transgender issues, confirming she will not attend Labour’s annual conference over worries she could face abuse because of her views on the subject.

    “I took the decision a few weeks ago not to go,” the Canterbury MP told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

    “I didn’t want to be the centre of attention. This is Keir Starmer’s first conference speech since the pandemic. I think it’s really important we focus on that and the policies that emerge from conference. I really did not want to be the news story.”


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/20/rosie-duffield-calls-for-talks-with-keir-starmer-on-labour-trans-rights-stance

    Whereas, if she'd just not turned up......
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,196

    MattW said:

    Back when British Gas was in the public sector it had the slogan 'Use gas wisely'. Indeed, it was written on the side of the gas holder next to the Oval.

    Privatisation brought 'piss away as much gas as possible' as the industry mantra. Switching power generation from coal to gas gobbled up our reserves even more quickly.

    So now here we are. Highly dependant on imported gas, without the scope to switch to other options as most of the coal fired stations have shut down and the wind doesn't blow on demand.

    And it is only going to get worse. The reduced energy efficiency resulting from decarbonisation means that for the same supply at the consumer end, more primary energy is required up the chain. So, if we convert the gas grid to hydrogen, we'll need around 30% more natural gas, all other things being equal.

    We could always consider coal gasification, but where on earth would we find the coal?

    Why does decarbonisation reduce energy efficiency?
    Various factors.

    Firstly, with the hydrogen case, converting methane to hydrogen is not 100% energy efficient. Not all of the MWth in the feedstock end up as MWth of hydrogen. Therefore, to deliver the same MWth to the customer takes more natural gas than if you just supply the gas to the consumers. Also, to decarbonise the hydrogen production (so called blue hydrogen) you have to expend further energy on CO2 compression to get it into the transport pipeline to be sent for storage.

    That moves us on to carbon capture and storage more generally. For post combustion capture, for example on the flue gas from a coal or gas fired power plant, you require both electrical and thermal energy in the capture process, plus the same compression energy as mentioned above. This results in a reduction in the net output from the power station. Same fuel in, less leccy out. So you need to fire up another power station to make up the shortfall - more natural gas consumed.

    I thought that the big issue is variability in wind power - so we have to have a much larger installed capacity to deal with low wind days. And even then....
  • Rosie Duffield has called for Keir Starmer to meet her and other female Labour MPs to discuss the party’s policy on transgender issues, confirming she will not attend Labour’s annual conference over worries she could face abuse because of her views on the subject.

    “I took the decision a few weeks ago not to go,” the Canterbury MP told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

    “I didn’t want to be the centre of attention. This is Keir Starmer’s first conference speech since the pandemic. I think it’s really important we focus on that and the policies that emerge from conference. I really did not want to be the news story.”


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/20/rosie-duffield-calls-for-talks-with-keir-starmer-on-labour-trans-rights-stance

    One way of not "being the news story" would have been not to go on Radio 4.
  • MattW said:

    The energy crisis started in the late 80s when the sector was deregulated. We've mentioned the dash for gas - not only did it help burn off our North Sea reserves it also bust the market for coal.

    What did that mean? We went from digging coal from profitable pits a short distance from the power station to shutting the pits and importing coal from Venezuela and Brazil. Once you start importing its easy to keep doing it - suddenly imported coal is expensive so both imports and CCS are off the table and coal generation goes.

    But its alright as we have all these gas power stations. Except that the gas is increasingly imported. But its alright as we have nuclear. Yeah right, we can't build new ones. But its alright as we have these interconnectors and the energy market is regulated. Until an interconnector burns out and we quit the regulated market.

    Whilst there have been errors piled on errors this lot have been in government for 11 years. How will they blame someone else or what they have done - and haven't done - in that time?

    There are those who are demanding Cambo is stopped and the Cumbria coal mine planning refused then complain over energy supply crisis

    I really fear that we are all, not just here in the UK, but across the globe going to experience the clash between climate change demands (COP26) and the reality that most everyone wants to deal with it but then cannot accept an abrupt and sudden spike in energy prices which underpins all economic activity

    The eco warriors on the M25 have infuriated drivers and it would appear 59/25 oppose the demonstrations again indicating that you have to take the public with you and their wallets
    The Cumbrian mine is irrelevant now - we needed to not shut the pits and then not shut the power stations.

    Yes, viable green energy is a global issue. The explosive price increase in the UK and only the UK is not a global issue. We can't blame the EU or remoaners or stoppy French idiots for this. Quitting the EU regulated energy market left us wide open to this but as usual we thought it was crap as its the EU and didn't need replacing.

    Whoops.
    I have been listening to the various contributors on Sky this morning and it is fiendishly complex and is not a Brexit issue

    Indeed it seems that Ed Miliband's energy price cap enacted by Therese May is a factor in the crisis
    The "only in the UK" stuff is baloney. Here is a piece with a more European dataset:

    "A fire at a National Grid site in Sellindge near Ashford in Kent has forced the shut down of the main power cable to the continent. That means reduced electricity imports from France until March.

    In normal circumstances, the UK could rely on interconnectors linking to other countries such as Belgium, Norway, and the Netherlands to import electricity. But most of Europe is also experiencing a surge in energy prices.

    Wholesale European electricity prices have shot up, too, and natural gas futures in the Netherlands have raced past €60/megawatt hour to hit a record high this week. Dutch gas prices have risen by around 450% over the year, and French and German wholesale electricity prices are also trading at record highs. To add to the problem, gas stockpiles are at their lowest in ten years."

    https://moneyweek.com/investments/commodities/energy/603857/why-are-energy-prices-going-up-so-much

    Recovery from Covid is one cause. Russia cutting supply to speed up approval of Nordstream 2 is another. EuCo reducing the supply of carbon credits to make emissions more expensive is a third.
    Its the same as the wholesale price increases of everything from cardboard to aluminium. Everyone is getting a price increase, but the much bigger UK price increase is on us.

    Which is why we're paying double the prices paid in France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark etc etc
    Because we stopped burning coal for environmental reasons and (France aside) they didn't.

    Accordingly to live readings on Gridwatch we are currently getting 3% of our electricity from coal, which is very high for the UK nowadays. Half our energy is from Gas.

    In France below 10% is gas. Nuclear is 77% right now.

    While Germany is still coal powered.
    It's a bit of an exaggeration to say that Germany is coal-powered. Last year, coal provided 23.4% of Germany's electricity - still too much, but now exceeded by wind generation (23.5%).
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,963

    Rosie Duffield has called for Keir Starmer to meet her and other female Labour MPs to discuss the party’s policy on transgender issues, confirming she will not attend Labour’s annual conference over worries she could face abuse because of her views on the subject.

    “I took the decision a few weeks ago not to go,” the Canterbury MP told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

    “I didn’t want to be the centre of attention. This is Keir Starmer’s first conference speech since the pandemic. I think it’s really important we focus on that and the policies that emerge from conference. I really did not want to be the news story.”


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/20/rosie-duffield-calls-for-talks-with-keir-starmer-on-labour-trans-rights-stance

    She’ll not be too happy with Ed Davey, bringing the issue back to the news yesterday.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972

    Rosie Duffield has called for Keir Starmer to meet her and other female Labour MPs to discuss the party’s policy on transgender issues, confirming she will not attend Labour’s annual conference over worries she could face abuse because of her views on the subject.

    “I took the decision a few weeks ago not to go,” the Canterbury MP told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

    “I didn’t want to be the centre of attention. This is Keir Starmer’s first conference speech since the pandemic. I think it’s really important we focus on that and the policies that emerge from conference. I really did not want to be the news story.”


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/20/rosie-duffield-calls-for-talks-with-keir-starmer-on-labour-trans-rights-stance

    Whereas, if she'd just not turned up......
    I am seriously impressed by Rosie Duffield's courage.

    I wish there were more MPs like her, across a whole host of issues.
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,720
    The surge in electricity prices have been mainstream headline news here in Spainfor the past 6 weeks. So far the government has reduced IVA [VAT] until the end of the year and said that companies must reduce their profits. The idea that this is a UK specific issue is quite absurd. Spain already had very high electricity prices before the latest problems hit.
  • HYUFD said:

    On topic, good article by Nick.

    The only bet I see value in at present is SDP/Green/Linke at 6/1 (now 5/1) but I can't get myself excited enough to stake on it.

    I think both the centrist Scholz and Linke themselves would prefer SPD/Green/FDP.

    Scholz as having the pro business FDP in his government would ensure he could effectively govern as a German New Labour and stick to his image of Merkel 2, whereas if Linke not the FDP joined the government that would shift it significantly left.

    Linke as if they do not join the government they will have opposition on the left to it all to themselves which should help their vote, especially if they can squeeze the Greens, while in government as a small minority party they would end up squeezed
    Funnily enough I would say that die Linke are actually pretty desperate for an alliance with the SPD and the Greens in a bid for continued relevance. Its the greens and SPD who are attacking die Linke on foreign policy although die Linke doesn't seem to have red lines.

    In theory I agree SPD- Green-FDP should be most likely although we don't know how the FDP will behave in coalition talks.

    Grand coalition mk4 is not completely out of the question but large parts of the CDU/CSU seem to be hankering to go into opposition.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,343

    MattW said:

    The energy crisis started in the late 80s when the sector was deregulated. We've mentioned the dash for gas - not only did it help burn off our North Sea reserves it also bust the market for coal.

    What did that mean? We went from digging coal from profitable pits a short distance from the power station to shutting the pits and importing coal from Venezuela and Brazil. Once you start importing its easy to keep doing it - suddenly imported coal is expensive so both imports and CCS are off the table and coal generation goes.

    But its alright as we have all these gas power stations. Except that the gas is increasingly imported. But its alright as we have nuclear. Yeah right, we can't build new ones. But its alright as we have these interconnectors and the energy market is regulated. Until an interconnector burns out and we quit the regulated market.

    Whilst there have been errors piled on errors this lot have been in government for 11 years. How will they blame someone else or what they have done - and haven't done - in that time?

    There are those who are demanding Cambo is stopped and the Cumbria coal mine planning refused then complain over energy supply crisis

    I really fear that we are all, not just here in the UK, but across the globe going to experience the clash between climate change demands (COP26) and the reality that most everyone wants to deal with it but then cannot accept an abrupt and sudden spike in energy prices which underpins all economic activity

    The eco warriors on the M25 have infuriated drivers and it would appear 59/25 oppose the demonstrations again indicating that you have to take the public with you and their wallets
    The Cumbrian mine is irrelevant now - we needed to not shut the pits and then not shut the power stations.

    Yes, viable green energy is a global issue. The explosive price increase in the UK and only the UK is not a global issue. We can't blame the EU or remoaners or stoppy French idiots for this. Quitting the EU regulated energy market left us wide open to this but as usual we thought it was crap as its the EU and didn't need replacing.

    Whoops.
    I have been listening to the various contributors on Sky this morning and it is fiendishly complex and is not a Brexit issue

    Indeed it seems that Ed Miliband's energy price cap enacted by Therese May is a factor in the crisis
    The "only in the UK" stuff is baloney. Here is a piece with a more European dataset:

    "A fire at a National Grid site in Sellindge near Ashford in Kent has forced the shut down of the main power cable to the continent. That means reduced electricity imports from France until March.

    In normal circumstances, the UK could rely on interconnectors linking to other countries such as Belgium, Norway, and the Netherlands to import electricity. But most of Europe is also experiencing a surge in energy prices.

    Wholesale European electricity prices have shot up, too, and natural gas futures in the Netherlands have raced past €60/megawatt hour to hit a record high this week. Dutch gas prices have risen by around 450% over the year, and French and German wholesale electricity prices are also trading at record highs. To add to the problem, gas stockpiles are at their lowest in ten years."

    https://moneyweek.com/investments/commodities/energy/603857/why-are-energy-prices-going-up-so-much

    Recovery from Covid is one cause. Russia cutting supply to speed up approval of Nordstream 2 is another. EuCo reducing the supply of carbon credits to make emissions more expensive is a third.
    Its the same as the wholesale price increases of everything from cardboard to aluminium. Everyone is getting a price increase, but the much bigger UK price increase is on us.

    Which is why we're paying double the prices paid in France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark etc etc
    Because we stopped burning coal for environmental reasons and (France aside) they didn't.

    Accordingly to live readings on Gridwatch we are currently getting 3% of our electricity from coal, which is very high for the UK nowadays. Half our energy is from Gas.

    In France below 10% is gas. Nuclear is 77% right now.

    While Germany is still coal powered.
    We are currently generating from coal because it has jumped above gas in the merit order due to the high gas prices.

    The merit order is based on cost of generation without consideration of the CO2 emissions of the various generators. Something that I think needs to change. An economic merit order, rather than a cost merit order (within reason, or else you get silliness).
  • BalrogBalrog Posts: 150

    The energy crisis started in the late 80s when the sector was deregulated. We've mentioned the dash for gas - not only did it help burn off our North Sea reserves it also bust the market for coal.

    What did that mean? We went from digging coal from profitable pits a short distance from the power station to shutting the pits and importing coal from Venezuela and Brazil. Once you start importing its easy to keep doing it - suddenly imported coal is expensive so both imports and CCS are off the table and coal generation goes.

    But its alright as we have all these gas power stations. Except that the gas is increasingly imported. But its alright as we have nuclear. Yeah right, we can't build new ones. But its alright as we have these interconnectors and the energy market is regulated. Until an interconnector burns out and we quit the regulated market.

    Whilst there have been errors piled on errors this lot have been in government for 11 years. How will they blame someone else or what they have done - and haven't done - in that time?

    There are those who are demanding Cambo is stopped and the Cumbria coal mine planning refused then complain over energy supply crisis

    I really fear that we are all, not just here in the UK, but across the globe going to experience the clash between climate change demands (COP26) and the reality that most everyone wants to deal with it but then cannot accept an abrupt and sudden spike in energy prices which underpins all economic activity

    The eco warriors on the M25 have infuriated drivers and it would appear 59/25 oppose the demonstrations again indicating that you have to take the public with you and their wallets
    Perhaps it's time that public and politicians actually listened to the climate demonstrators.

    In addition to their climate changing properties, they is also, by definition, a limited supply of fossil fuels. Gas (and ultimately coal) will inevitably become increasingly scarce and expensive in the future (as well as causing climate change). What we should be doing is straining every sinew to develop replacements for fossil fuels as quickly as possible, not trying to prolong their use and delaying (and worsening) the inevitable!
    And insulating to reduce energy requirements...
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,013
    Commission spokesman says Brussels is 'analysing the impact of the AUKUS announcement' on the next round of EU-Australia trade talks, which is scheduled for next month. Comes after France's Europe Minister Clement Beaune said it would be 'unthinkable' for negotiations to go on....

    A reminder that last Thursday the EU's high representative Josep Borrell insisted 'we want to foster cooperation with countries such as Australia' and 'trade agreements with Australia will continue down their path'. Seems that French fury has shifted the dial over the weekend.

    https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1439898057546551299?s=20
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,477
    Do we have any water systems that could be turned into a significant pumped storage battery in the UK ?
    Could we create one, or do we need to go Lithium ion for storage here ?
  • Rosie Duffield has called for Keir Starmer to meet her and other female Labour MPs to discuss the party’s policy on transgender issues, confirming she will not attend Labour’s annual conference over worries she could face abuse because of her views on the subject.

    “I took the decision a few weeks ago not to go,” the Canterbury MP told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

    “I didn’t want to be the centre of attention. This is Keir Starmer’s first conference speech since the pandemic. I think it’s really important we focus on that and the policies that emerge from conference. I really did not want to be the news story.”


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/20/rosie-duffield-calls-for-talks-with-keir-starmer-on-labour-trans-rights-stance

    Whereas, if she'd just not turned up......
    I am seriously impressed by Rosie Duffield's courage.

    I wish there were more MPs like her, across a whole host of issues.
    Up to a point, Lord Copper. Online abuse is common for anyone in the public eye, from footballers to politicians. Decades before the internet, it was common for politicians to be booed or have eggs thrown at them.

    Secondly, from HMS Pinafore (probably):-
    I always voted at my party's call
    And never thought of thinking for myself at all.
    I thought so little, they rewarded me
    By making me the ruler of the Queen's navy.


    Trouble is, if MPs do think for themselves, then on what manifesto are they elected? Those who voted for Boris are entitled to expect an active and interventionist state, and great expenditure in the public sector. :wink:
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 2,783

    TOPPING said:

    theProle said:

    I also wonder about the role model question - e.g. if you've two gay blokes who adopt a girl, where is her female role model?
    Often the worst damage when family breakup occurs is to the kid who loses a role model of their own gender from regular family life.

    What about single parent families, of which there are zillions. Short one role model. Or, arguably, long a harmful role model.

    Two loving parents of any sex would seem to me to provide a hugely positive role model about relationships.
    I'm sure two parents of any sex do provide a hugely positive role model about relationships but if it's true that male role models for boys make a difference and female role models for girls make a difference then it stands to reason that having two parents of the same sex might make it more challenging to provide a proximate same-gender role model for a child in the same way it does within single parent families.

    We like to say that there's absolutely no difference between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples, because we want to be inclusive and don't want to discriminate, but the truth is we just don't know yet.

    The former is a fairly recent development (last 15 years) and we may find the difference in datasets in future to be utterly trivial or they might identify some differences.

    We don't know yet.
    Hence the need for male teachers in primary schools.
    Good luck with that. Recruitment of male teachers for young children has an unfortunate image problem, and has done since, well, probably forever. And you can't throw money at the problem because that would be illegal.
    Eldest grandson is a primary school teacher. Happily married to a female secondary school teacher.
    Yes, indeed. Even when I were a lad and dinosaurs roamed the Earth, we had two male junior school teachers. The rest were women, as were all at infants school (none of your primary school nonsense: when did that happen?). And that will be the experience of most. And still is, which I guess is why you mentioned the issue in the first place.
    And at mine, at, I suspect, a bit earlier.
    Mrs C was, when I met her, a student of nursery and infant teaching, so I've lived with designations for a long time.
    Nursery schools cater for under 5's.
    Infant schools deal with years 1 and 2.... 5 & 6 year olds.
    Primary schools deal with years 3-6 7-11yrs old.
    Junior schools deal with 5 - 11year olds. In other word. they combine Infant and Primary.
    Its been a mixed picture for a long time, I think. The first school I went to in 1974 was an infant school with the separate junior school just over the fence and linkage, more or less automatic progression, from one to the other. The second school I moved to in what we then called third year infants, now year 2, was a primary school.

    And the picture of some infant/junior school pairings and some end to end primaries is the same where I currently live. (let's not even go into the one corner of the LEA that has a First/Middle/Upper school system!).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,481

    HYUFD said:

    On topic, good article by Nick.

    The only bet I see value in at present is SDP/Green/Linke at 6/1 (now 5/1) but I can't get myself excited enough to stake on it.

    I think both the centrist Scholz and Linke themselves would prefer SPD/Green/FDP.

    Scholz as having the pro business FDP in his government would ensure he could effectively govern as a German New Labour and stick to his image of Merkel 2, whereas if Linke not the FDP joined the government that would shift it significantly left.

    Linke as if they do not join the government they will have opposition on the left to it all to themselves which should help their vote, especially if they can squeeze the Greens, while in government as a small minority party they would end up squeezed
    Funnily enough I would say that die Linke are actually pretty desperate for an alliance with the SPD and the Greens in a bid for continued relevance. Its the greens and SPD who are attacking die Linke on foreign policy although die Linke doesn't seem to have red lines.

    In theory I agree SPD- Green-FDP should be most likely although we don't know how the FDP will behave in coalition talks.

    Grand coalition mk4 is not completely out of the question but large parts of the CDU/CSU seem to be hankering to go into opposition.
    If it is a SPD-Green-FDP government the Linke would then become very relevant as the main opposition party to the government on the left with the CDU/CSU the main opposition party to the government on the right.

    I think unless the CDU/CSU win most seats, which is now very unlikely, they will go into opposition and want to do so to recharge after 16 years in power. I would also expect the Union to shift right in opposition with Merkel's heir apparent Laschet getting the blame for their expected defeat
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    Pulpstar said:

    Do we have any water systems that could be turned into a significant pumped storage battery in the UK ?
    Could we create one, or do we need to go Lithium ion for storage here ?

    There's plenty of potential in Wales and the highlands of Scotland for that, but the politics of flooding many more valleys to provide pumped storage mainly for England would (obviously) be a non-starter.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Do we have any water systems that could be turned into a significant pumped storage battery in the UK ?
    Could we create one, or do we need to go Lithium ion for storage here ?

    Expanding solar capacity would be a good move. The sun tends to shine when it's not windy, so a good complement to wind power in the UK.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972

    Rosie Duffield has called for Keir Starmer to meet her and other female Labour MPs to discuss the party’s policy on transgender issues, confirming she will not attend Labour’s annual conference over worries she could face abuse because of her views on the subject.

    “I took the decision a few weeks ago not to go,” the Canterbury MP told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

    “I didn’t want to be the centre of attention. This is Keir Starmer’s first conference speech since the pandemic. I think it’s really important we focus on that and the policies that emerge from conference. I really did not want to be the news story.”


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/20/rosie-duffield-calls-for-talks-with-keir-starmer-on-labour-trans-rights-stance

    Whereas, if she'd just not turned up......
    I am seriously impressed by Rosie Duffield's courage.

    I wish there were more MPs like her, across a whole host of issues.
    Up to a point, Lord Copper. Online abuse is common for anyone in the public eye, from footballers to politicians. Decades before the internet, it was common for politicians to be booed or have eggs thrown at them.

    Secondly, from HMS Pinafore (probably):-
    I always voted at my party's call
    And never thought of thinking for myself at all.
    I thought so little, they rewarded me
    By making me the ruler of the Queen's navy.


    Trouble is, if MPs do think for themselves, then on what manifesto are they elected? Those who voted for Boris are entitled to expect an active and interventionist state, and great expenditure in the public sector. :wink:
    I don't think abuse is ever acceptable.

    If people disagree with what their MP is saying there are respectful ways to get the point across.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 2,264
    Pulpstar said:

    Do we have any water systems that could be turned into a significant pumped storage battery in the UK ?
    Could we create one, or do we need to go Lithium ion for storage here ?

    If we could tap into the gushing over Aukus, we could power the country for a solid year.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,005

    MattW said:

    Back when British Gas was in the public sector it had the slogan 'Use gas wisely'. Indeed, it was written on the side of the gas holder next to the Oval.

    Privatisation brought 'piss away as much gas as possible' as the industry mantra. Switching power generation from coal to gas gobbled up our reserves even more quickly.

    So now here we are. Highly dependant on imported gas, without the scope to switch to other options as most of the coal fired stations have shut down and the wind doesn't blow on demand.

    And it is only going to get worse. The reduced energy efficiency resulting from decarbonisation means that for the same supply at the consumer end, more primary energy is required up the chain. So, if we convert the gas grid to hydrogen, we'll need around 30% more natural gas, all other things being equal.

    We could always consider coal gasification, but where on earth would we find the coal?

    Why does decarbonisation reduce energy efficiency?
    Various factors.

    Firstly, with the hydrogen case, converting methane to hydrogen is not 100% energy efficient. Not all of the MWth in the feedstock end up as MWth of hydrogen. Therefore, to deliver the same MWth to the customer takes more natural gas than if you just supply the gas to the consumers. Also, to decarbonise the hydrogen production (so called blue hydrogen) you have to expend further energy on CO2 compression to get it into the transport pipeline to be sent for storage.

    That moves us on to carbon capture and storage more generally. For post combustion capture, for example on the flue gas from a coal or gas fired power plant, you require both electrical and thermal energy in the capture process, plus the same compression energy as mentioned above. This results in a reduction in the net output from the power station. Same fuel in, less leccy out. So you need to fire up another power station to make up the shortfall - more natural gas consumed.

    Yes, but blue hydrogen and CCS are not the best ways forward (except for the fossil fuel industry).
    Electrification and green hydrogen are.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EA4tDYwNYo
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,343

    MattW said:

    Back when British Gas was in the public sector it had the slogan 'Use gas wisely'. Indeed, it was written on the side of the gas holder next to the Oval.

    Privatisation brought 'piss away as much gas as possible' as the industry mantra. Switching power generation from coal to gas gobbled up our reserves even more quickly.

    So now here we are. Highly dependant on imported gas, without the scope to switch to other options as most of the coal fired stations have shut down and the wind doesn't blow on demand.

    And it is only going to get worse. The reduced energy efficiency resulting from decarbonisation means that for the same supply at the consumer end, more primary energy is required up the chain. So, if we convert the gas grid to hydrogen, we'll need around 30% more natural gas, all other things being equal.

    We could always consider coal gasification, but where on earth would we find the coal?

    Why does decarbonisation reduce energy efficiency?
    Various factors.

    Firstly, with the hydrogen case, converting methane to hydrogen is not 100% energy efficient. Not all of the MWth in the feedstock end up as MWth of hydrogen. Therefore, to deliver the same MWth to the customer takes more natural gas than if you just supply the gas to the consumers. Also, to decarbonise the hydrogen production (so called blue hydrogen) you have to expend further energy on CO2 compression to get it into the transport pipeline to be sent for storage.

    That moves us on to carbon capture and storage more generally. For post combustion capture, for example on the flue gas from a coal or gas fired power plant, you require both electrical and thermal energy in the capture process, plus the same compression energy as mentioned above. This results in a reduction in the net output from the power station. Same fuel in, less leccy out. So you need to fire up another power station to make up the shortfall - more natural gas consumed.

    I thought that the big issue is variability in wind power - so we have to have a much larger installed capacity to deal with low wind days. And even then....
    This is another factor. The more renewable generation capacity we have, the more despatchable thermal plant we need to sit idle most of the time ready to be fired up when it is dark and still. These plants receive 'availability payments' to sit there doing nothing. But they tend to be spotlessly clean, as there isn't much else for the staff to do most of the time.

    This will be one of the benefits of CCGT with CCS. Power that is both low carbon and available on demand. But we'll probably have to wait until 2026 or 2027 before we see any of that on the grid.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808
    edited September 20

    MattW said:

    The energy crisis started in the late 80s when the sector was deregulated. We've mentioned the dash for gas - not only did it help burn off our North Sea reserves it also bust the market for coal.

    What did that mean? We went from digging coal from profitable pits a short distance from the power station to shutting the pits and importing coal from Venezuela and Brazil. Once you start importing its easy to keep doing it - suddenly imported coal is expensive so both imports and CCS are off the table and coal generation goes.

    But its alright as we have all these gas power stations. Except that the gas is increasingly imported. But its alright as we have nuclear. Yeah right, we can't build new ones. But its alright as we have these interconnectors and the energy market is regulated. Until an interconnector burns out and we quit the regulated market.

    Whilst there have been errors piled on errors this lot have been in government for 11 years. How will they blame someone else or what they have done - and haven't done - in that time?

    There are those who are demanding Cambo is stopped and the Cumbria coal mine planning refused then complain over energy supply crisis

    I really fear that we are all, not just here in the UK, but across the globe going to experience the clash between climate change demands (COP26) and the reality that most everyone wants to deal with it but then cannot accept an abrupt and sudden spike in energy prices which underpins all economic activity

    The eco warriors on the M25 have infuriated drivers and it would appear 59/25 oppose the demonstrations again indicating that you have to take the public with you and their wallets
    The Cumbrian mine is irrelevant now - we needed to not shut the pits and then not shut the power stations.

    Yes, viable green energy is a global issue. The explosive price increase in the UK and only the UK is not a global issue. We can't blame the EU or remoaners or stoppy French idiots for this. Quitting the EU regulated energy market left us wide open to this but as usual we thought it was crap as its the EU and didn't need replacing.

    Whoops.
    I have been listening to the various contributors on Sky this morning and it is fiendishly complex and is not a Brexit issue

    Indeed it seems that Ed Miliband's energy price cap enacted by Therese May is a factor in the crisis
    The "only in the UK" stuff is baloney. Here is a piece with a more European dataset:

    "A fire at a National Grid site in Sellindge near Ashford in Kent has forced the shut down of the main power cable to the continent. That means reduced electricity imports from France until March.

    In normal circumstances, the UK could rely on interconnectors linking to other countries such as Belgium, Norway, and the Netherlands to import electricity. But most of Europe is also experiencing a surge in energy prices.

    Wholesale European electricity prices have shot up, too, and natural gas futures in the Netherlands have raced past €60/megawatt hour to hit a record high this week. Dutch gas prices have risen by around 450% over the year, and French and German wholesale electricity prices are also trading at record highs. To add to the problem, gas stockpiles are at their lowest in ten years."

    https://moneyweek.com/investments/commodities/energy/603857/why-are-energy-prices-going-up-so-much

    Recovery from Covid is one cause. Russia cutting supply to speed up approval of Nordstream 2 is another. EuCo reducing the supply of carbon credits to make emissions more expensive is a third.
    Its the same as the wholesale price increases of everything from cardboard to aluminium. Everyone is getting a price increase, but the much bigger UK price increase is on us.

    Which is why we're paying double the prices paid in France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark etc etc
    Do you have a source for UK paying double the prices paid by those others?

    And do you mean spot wholesale price or retail? Quite difficult for retail to be suddenly paying double as half of us are on fixed price contracts.


    Because we stopped burning coal for environmental reasons and (France aside) they didn't.

    Accordingly to live readings on Gridwatch we are currently getting 3% of our electricity from coal, which is very high for the UK nowadays. Half our energy is from Gas.

    In France below 10% is gas. Nuclear is 77% right now.

    While Germany is still coal powered.

    The other factor not mentioned is quantity. Netherlands, Sweden, Norway use 2-3 times our total energy per capita, so their gas usage is multiplied up.

    If you look at the actual amount of gas used per head, we are about average in Western Europe. Gas is the pink segment.



    Link: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-stacked?country=GBR~FRA~DEU~SWE~ITA~CHE~ESP~NOR~NLD~POL~DNK~BEL

    (OWID do energy now)
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,042

    HYUFD said:

    I would be wary about that, given Morrison still leads Albanese as preferred PM.

    At the 2019 Australian general election every final poll had Shorten's Labor ahead of Morrison's Coalition on 2PP and they were expected to win, however Morrison led Shorten as preferred PM and it was indeed Morrison who was re elected. On the primary vote the latest Morgan poll also has the LNP coalition on 39.5% to just 35% for Labor even if Labour lead on 2PP
    Oh, I agree, the next Oz election is very much open. I merely meant that virtually nobody is changing their vote over submarines in 2040, however excited some people get about the deal.
    Might a new government change their mind over buying nukes, though ?
    (A previous administration favoured an extended range version of the Japanese Soryu - which would have made a great deal of sense, in terms of price, delivery schedule and capability.)
  • felix said:

    The surge in electricity prices have been mainstream headline news here in Spainfor the past 6 weeks. So far the government has reduced IVA [VAT] until the end of the year and said that companies must reduce their profits. The idea that this is a UK specific issue is quite absurd. Spain already had very high electricity prices before the latest problems hit.

    The *scale* is UK specific. I know that Spain has high costs comparatively for Spain. A "day ahead" price of €100/MWh. But in the UK it's €177...

    Like I said, there are price rises everywhere. Ours are higher than pretty much everyone else due to 30 years of policy shithousery and our reliance on a now unregulated market.

    In the very immediate future we seem to face two issues - gas prices which make strategic industry unviable, and the bankruptcy of small energy companies. The latter is simple - let them fold and sweep up customers with the supplier of last resort. The former - we either subsidise gas or find another way to make the cost tenable for those strategic industries or we have some rather more serious problems...
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 16,498
    Revealed: 15 of the UK's smaller energy suppliers have accused Ofgem, their industry regulator, of being "unfit" to oversee the crisis engulfing the industry and demanded an immediate rescue package in a letter to the PM, chancellor and business secretary.
    https://news.sky.com/story/small-energy-suppliers-lambast-regulator-ofgem-over-industry-crisis-12412846
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,196
    edited September 20

    Pulpstar said:

    Do we have any water systems that could be turned into a significant pumped storage battery in the UK ?
    Could we create one, or do we need to go Lithium ion for storage here ?

    There's plenty of potential in Wales and the highlands of Scotland for that, but the politics of flooding many more valleys to provide pumped storage mainly for England would (obviously) be a non-starter.
    The problem with pumped storage of the up-a-mountain kind is the required capacity vs the available sites.

    Not sure that chopping the tops off all the mountains in the UK would be enough.....

    Hence the interest of some on this site with tidal ponds.

    My guess is that the nimby/green types will keep the tidal ponds from moving forward.

    EDIT: The big advantage of LI-ion from the planning point of view is that you can start small, and it gets round many planning issue. Park X trailers on the parking areas of an existing (or decommissioned) power station - pretty hard to stop that. The issue with Li-ion storage is cost and availability. You'd need a significant proportion of the world production of batteries (at the moment) to really make a dent.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,369
    Mr. Pioneers, aye, decades of political idiocy from major parties has led to this.

    I'm not banking on the imbecile of Number 10 improving it. But we'll see.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808

    Commission spokesman says Brussels is 'analysing the impact of the AUKUS announcement' on the next round of EU-Australia trade talks, which is scheduled for next month. Comes after France's Europe Minister Clement Beaune said it would be 'unthinkable' for negotiations to go on....

    A reminder that last Thursday the EU's high representative Josep Borrell insisted 'we want to foster cooperation with countries such as Australia' and 'trade agreements with Australia will continue down their path'. Seems that French fury has shifted the dial over the weekend.

    https://twitter.com/nickgutteridge/status/1439898057546551299?s=20

    I think it's unthinkable because Clement Baume wasn't thinking at the time he said it.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,343
    Pulpstar said:

    Do we have any water systems that could be turned into a significant pumped storage battery in the UK ?
    Could we create one, or do we need to go Lithium ion for storage here ?

    Hydrogen can also be used as a storage vector for electricity. Run electrolysers when renewable output exceeds demand, run fuel cells or hydrogen turbines when demand is high.

    Hydrogen can also provide seasonal storage in the gas network in the same way as natural gas - salt caverns, depleted fields, line pack, etc. That way, the blue hydrogen plants can chug along in baseload, with storage used to deal with the big fluctuations between summer and winter demand for heating.



    Good grief, today is turning into a right busman's holiday!
  • MattW said:

    The energy crisis started in the late 80s when the sector was deregulated. We've mentioned the dash for gas - not only did it help burn off our North Sea reserves it also bust the market for coal.

    What did that mean? We went from digging coal from profitable pits a short distance from the power station to shutting the pits and importing coal from Venezuela and Brazil. Once you start importing its easy to keep doing it - suddenly imported coal is expensive so both imports and CCS are off the table and coal generation goes.

    But its alright as we have all these gas power stations. Except that the gas is increasingly imported. But its alright as we have nuclear. Yeah right, we can't build new ones. But its alright as we have these interconnectors and the energy market is regulated. Until an interconnector burns out and we quit the regulated market.

    Whilst there have been errors piled on errors this lot have been in government for 11 years. How will they blame someone else or what they have done - and haven't done - in that time?

    There are those who are demanding Cambo is stopped and the Cumbria coal mine planning refused then complain over energy supply crisis

    I really fear that we are all, not just here in the UK, but across the globe going to experience the clash between climate change demands (COP26) and the reality that most everyone wants to deal with it but then cannot accept an abrupt and sudden spike in energy prices which underpins all economic activity

    The eco warriors on the M25 have infuriated drivers and it would appear 59/25 oppose the demonstrations again indicating that you have to take the public with you and their wallets
    The Cumbrian mine is irrelevant now - we needed to not shut the pits and then not shut the power stations.

    Yes, viable green energy is a global issue. The explosive price increase in the UK and only the UK is not a global issue. We can't blame the EU or remoaners or stoppy French idiots for this. Quitting the EU regulated energy market left us wide open to this but as usual we thought it was crap as its the EU and didn't need replacing.

    Whoops.
    I have been listening to the various contributors on Sky this morning and it is fiendishly complex and is not a Brexit issue

    Indeed it seems that Ed Miliband's energy price cap enacted by Therese May is a factor in the crisis
    The "only in the UK" stuff is baloney. Here is a piece with a more European dataset:

    "A fire at a National Grid site in Sellindge near Ashford in Kent has forced the shut down of the main power cable to the continent. That means reduced electricity imports from France until March.

    In normal circumstances, the UK could rely on interconnectors linking to other countries such as Belgium, Norway, and the Netherlands to import electricity. But most of Europe is also experiencing a surge in energy prices.

    Wholesale European electricity prices have shot up, too, and natural gas futures in the Netherlands have raced past €60/megawatt hour to hit a record high this week. Dutch gas prices have risen by around 450% over the year, and French and German wholesale electricity prices are also trading at record highs. To add to the problem, gas stockpiles are at their lowest in ten years."

    https://moneyweek.com/investments/commodities/energy/603857/why-are-energy-prices-going-up-so-much

    Recovery from Covid is one cause. Russia cutting supply to speed up approval of Nordstream 2 is another. EuCo reducing the supply of carbon credits to make emissions more expensive is a third.
    Its the same as the wholesale price increases of everything from cardboard to aluminium. Everyone is getting a price increase, but the much bigger UK price increase is on us.

    Which is why we're paying double the prices paid in France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark etc etc
    Because we stopped burning coal for environmental reasons and (France aside) they didn't.

    Accordingly to live readings on Gridwatch we are currently getting 3% of our electricity from coal, which is very high for the UK nowadays. Half our energy is from Gas.

    In France below 10% is gas. Nuclear is 77% right now.

    While Germany is still coal powered.
    We are currently generating from coal because it has jumped above gas in the merit order due to the high gas prices.

    The merit order is based on cost of generation without consideration of the CO2 emissions of the various generators. Something that I think needs to change. An economic merit order, rather than a cost merit order (within reason, or else you get silliness).
    At the moment our CO2 emissions aren't the problem. Looking at Gridwatch the numbers right now are:
    Gas 49%
    Nuclear 14%
    Solar 14%
    Wind 7%
    Biomass 5%
    Coal 3%

    As long as gas remains at the heart of power generation needs - and its the bulk of UK generation capacity - we are subject to the unregulated gas price which has gone to the moon. There is no quick and easy fix.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,435
    HYUFD said:

    On topic, good article by Nick.

    The only bet I see value in at present is SDP/Green/Linke at 6/1 (now 5/1) but I can't get myself excited enough to stake on it.

    I think both the centrist Scholz and Linke themselves would prefer SPD/Green/FDP.

    Scholz as having the pro business FDP in his government would ensure he could effectively govern as a German New Labour and stick to his image of Merkel 2, whereas if Linke not the FDP joined the government that would shift it significantly left.

    Linke as if they do not join the government they will have opposition on the left to it all to themselves which should help their vote, especially if they can squeeze the Greens, while in government as a small minority party they would end up squeezed
    Yes, that's my analysis too. Linke need a clear role that isn't about GDR nostalgia (which was never more than about 30% of the ex-GDR population, but the plunge into capitalism hasn't been enjoyable for everyone). Being "the voice of the honest left" (as opposed to what they'd call the "pseudo-left greens, in bed with those free marketeer FDP business representatives") would be just fine.

    Conversely, Scholz has no reason whatever to seek to lurch leftwards, and it would be very un-Scholz to do anything as drastic as that, like Starmer giving Corbyn a senior Shadow Cabinet role. That in turn is why the attacks on Scholz from Merkel downwards that he might let in the dangerous Marxists haven't cut through - nobody thinks it likely so they're not bothered.
  • Rosie Duffield has called for Keir Starmer to meet her and other female Labour MPs to discuss the party’s policy on transgender issues, confirming she will not attend Labour’s annual conference over worries she could face abuse because of her views on the subject.

    “I took the decision a few weeks ago not to go,” the Canterbury MP told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

    “I didn’t want to be the centre of attention. This is Keir Starmer’s first conference speech since the pandemic. I think it’s really important we focus on that and the policies that emerge from conference. I really did not want to be the news story.”


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/20/rosie-duffield-calls-for-talks-with-keir-starmer-on-labour-trans-rights-stance

    Whereas, if she'd just not turned up......
    I am seriously impressed by Rosie Duffield's courage.

    I wish there were more MPs like her, across a whole host of issues.
    Up to a point, Lord Copper. Online abuse is common for anyone in the public eye, from footballers to politicians. Decades before the internet, it was common for politicians to be booed or have eggs thrown at them.

    Secondly, from HMS Pinafore (probably):-
    I always voted at my party's call
    And never thought of thinking for myself at all.
    I thought so little, they rewarded me
    By making me the ruler of the Queen's navy.


    Trouble is, if MPs do think for themselves, then on what manifesto are they elected? Those who voted for Boris are entitled to expect an active and interventionist state, and great expenditure in the public sector. :wink:
    I don't think abuse is ever acceptable.

    If people disagree with what their MP is saying there are respectful ways to get the point across.
    Abuse is not acceptable but is not new, either, and might be seen as milder than having eggs or milkshakes thrown over you. Nor is it unique to politicians, or to this issue. Whether more can be done to prevent it, or by individuals to block online abuse is another question.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,343

    Pulpstar said:

    Do we have any water systems that could be turned into a significant pumped storage battery in the UK ?
    Could we create one, or do we need to go Lithium ion for storage here ?

    Expanding solar capacity would be a good move. The sun tends to shine when it's not windy, so a good complement to wind power in the UK.
    I disagree. The sun doesn't shine when we need the power - dark winter evenings. Any move to heat pumps will make this worse.

    Solar makes more sense in countries where the peak power demand is linked to the use of air conditioning in summer.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,013
    Scotland Independence Voting Intention (18 September):

    Yes, for Independence: 44% (–)
    No, against Independence: 47% (–)
    Don't Know: 9% (–)

    Changes +/- (4-5 Aug)


    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1439846872630370305?s=20
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,005

    MattW said:

    Back when British Gas was in the public sector it had the slogan 'Use gas wisely'. Indeed, it was written on the side of the gas holder next to the Oval.

    Privatisation brought 'piss away as much gas as possible' as the industry mantra. Switching power generation from coal to gas gobbled up our reserves even more quickly.

    So now here we are. Highly dependant on imported gas, without the scope to switch to other options as most of the coal fired stations have shut down and the wind doesn't blow on demand.

    And it is only going to get worse. The reduced energy efficiency resulting from decarbonisation means that for the same supply at the consumer end, more primary energy is required up the chain. So, if we convert the gas grid to hydrogen, we'll need around 30% more natural gas, all other things being equal.

    We could always consider coal gasification, but where on earth would we find the coal?

    Why does decarbonisation reduce energy efficiency?
    Various factors.

    Firstly, with the hydrogen case, converting methane to hydrogen is not 100% energy efficient. Not all of the MWth in the feedstock end up as MWth of hydrogen. Therefore, to deliver the same MWth to the customer takes more natural gas than if you just supply the gas to the consumers. Also, to decarbonise the hydrogen production (so called blue hydrogen) you have to expend further energy on CO2 compression to get it into the transport pipeline to be sent for storage.

    That moves us on to carbon capture and storage more generally. For post combustion capture, for example on the flue gas from a coal or gas fired power plant, you require both electrical and thermal energy in the capture process, plus the same compression energy as mentioned above. This results in a reduction in the net output from the power station. Same fuel in, less leccy out. So you need to fire up another power station to make up the shortfall - more natural gas consumed.

    I thought that the big issue is variability in wind power - so we have to have a much larger installed capacity to deal with low wind days. And even then....
    Solar, wind and storage is the answer. Interconnectors will also help.
    Often it is windy in one part of the UK or North Sea and calm in another or sunny in one place while not in another.
    Overbuild renewables so we often have more than we can use and then convert to green hydrogen using electrolysis.
    Solar and Wind produce the cheapest electricity already and it will only get cheaper.
    Storage is improving all the time - it's not just Lithium batteries and pumped storage hydro.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zgwiQ6BoLA&t=160s
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,196

    Pulpstar said:

    Do we have any water systems that could be turned into a significant pumped storage battery in the UK ?
    Could we create one, or do we need to go Lithium ion for storage here ?

    Expanding solar capacity would be a good move. The sun tends to shine when it's not windy, so a good complement to wind power in the UK.
    I disagree. The sun doesn't shine when we need the power - dark winter evenings. Any move to heat pumps will make this worse.

    Solar makes more sense in countries where the peak power demand is linked to the use of air conditioning in summer.
    Yes - according to my Australian friends, the ratio of roof space to inhabited area in their houses makes solar to run the air con a no-brainer. Saves money in a year or 2, or something crazy like that.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 17,435
    HYUFD said:

    Nick mentioned the bad polls for Putin the other day - that problem was solved with intimidation and ballot-stuffing:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/russian-election-2021-putins-party-wins-most-corrupt-vote-yet-wz78730xt

    Also, the CCP have allowed the election of a token opposition candidate in Hong Kong to give themselves a bit of cover:

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/election-of-single-opposition-candidate-tik-chi-yuen-proves-hong-kong-democracy-says-beijing-7l8zltqvk

    Both disgusting, and shows what we're up against.

    Mind you the main opposition party in Russia is the Communist Party so even had Putin's party lost it would not have been much comfort for the West
    Yes, it's all shadow-boxing anyway since the Communists are tolerant of Putin, though Navalny recommended tactical voting for them in many areas to send a critical messsage. The official results do seem to have conceded that Putin's party has lost substantial ground, which may have some implications for his domestic policy, e.g. on pensions and social security. Authoritarians sometimes find a little bit of democracy quite useful in taking the temperature.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 549
    edited September 20
    TOPPING said:

    theProle said:

    Charles said:

    @Philip_Thompson

    The Catholic adoption centres believed that adoption by gay couples was against their religious beliefs. When they were given no choice they closed and kids who were previously adopted were less well supported with a huge cost to them.

    The compromise I pushed at the time was the requirement that if a Catholic service wasn’t willing to provide adoption services to gay couples themselves they had to have a partnership with someone who would. The Catholics were grumpy but ok with it. The activists on the gay rights side weren’t.

    The kids lost out.

    (FWIW my personal belief is that a stable two person parental unit is key to children’s success in life. The sex of each member of the parental unit is irrelevant)

    While, again FWIW, I agree with you about the stable parental unit with two people involved, I do wonder how the children's wider social group react to it, and consequently to the children, particularly as they get towards and into their teens.
    It'll probably not matter too much for those who get on reasonably well with their peers, but is it another stick with which to beat the fat girl or the asthmatic boy?

    I'm not aware of any work on this, and would be interested to learn of any.

    I also wonder about the role model question - e.g. if you've two gay blokes who adopt a girl, where is her female role model?
    Often the worst damage when family breakup occurs is to the kid who loses a role model of their own gender from regular family life.
    The kids and youngish people who I know see gender as more fluid than my generation, so the idea of a female role model would seem a bit quaint to them (I used to think as you do myself). "We're all somewhere on the male-female spectrum, and not always at the same point" is a very common assertion. And of course there are lots of mothers and fathers who are pretty awful at being models of anything.

    I now think that having loving parents trumps everything, and their sexual preference and culture is far less important.
    I think it's pretty natural and understandable for children to want to know their biological parents. If nothing else, they like to understand their genetic background and heritage - why they are who they are.

    I'm also yet to meet a child who's experienced their parents divorcing/splitting up, or who's been adopted, who hasn't at some level been affected by it - this includes within my own extended family and circle of friends.

    I think most children (even today) would in an ideal world probably prefer their biological parents to be happy together in a loving and stable relationship, although no-one likes to say so for fear of casting judgement on those who've been less fortunate.
    I don't think a gay couple who decide to have a child by one means or another are "less fortunate".

    That's your fuddy duddy, old school, Tory, red cord, shire inculcation talking.
    I don't think he means that the adopting couple is less fortunate, but that those being placed for adoption is less fortunate than growing up with both your biological parents in a stable relationship.

    In an ideal world there would be no adoption, for gays or anyone else, because all kids would be with both their biological parents - by pretty much any metric you like, this gives way better life outcomes than anything else.

    Back in the nasty world of reality, we tend to end up discussing the ideal situation, when the reality is almost any living arrangements result in better outcomes than council "care".

    Of course there is unfortunately (but unsurprisingly) also a bit of a "pecking order" that goes on within adoption - as I understand, placing a healthy newborn is usually pretty easy, finding someone who can cope with a traumatised 8 year old with learning difficulties is extremely difficult.

    I've friends who adopted a 4 year old girl with special needs about 20 years ago - they already had a natural daughter who was going (and has now gone) blind.
    Having gone through them growing up (quite traumatic at times), about 5 years ago, they adopted 3 siblings (aged about 2-6) with various special needs, from a horrific background. To say I respect them for what they've done doesn't say half how I feel about it.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808

    Pulpstar said:

    Do we have any water systems that could be turned into a significant pumped storage battery in the UK ?
    Could we create one, or do we need to go Lithium ion for storage here ?

    There's plenty of potential in Wales and the highlands of Scotland for that, but the politics of flooding many more valleys to provide pumped storage mainly for England would (obviously) be a non-starter.
    The problem with pumped storage of the up-a-mountain kind is the required capacity vs the available sites.

    Not sure that chopping the tops off all the mountains in the UK would be enough.....

    Hence the interest of some on this site with tidal ponds.

    My guess is that the nimby/green types will keep the tidal ponds from moving forward.
    I think we have alternatives to pumped storage, and that tidal ponds are a red herring. Tidal barrages, now...

    We have had a pause on new reservoirs for 30 years now, and even in the SE the famous reservoir (Abingdon?) they have been buying out property for for decades has not been needed.

    But reduction is always better than building new supply, and we have a lot of gain available on that yet.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 68,477

    Pulpstar said:

    Do we have any water systems that could be turned into a significant pumped storage battery in the UK ?
    Could we create one, or do we need to go Lithium ion for storage here ?

    Expanding solar capacity would be a good move. The sun tends to shine when it's not windy, so a good complement to wind power in the UK.
    I disagree. The sun doesn't shine when we need the power - dark winter evenings. Any move to heat pumps will make this worse.

    Solar makes more sense in countries where the peak power demand is linked to the use of air conditioning in summer.
    Yes - according to my Australian friends, the ratio of roof space to inhabited area in their houses makes solar to run the air con a no-brainer. Saves money in a year or 2, or something crazy like that.
    Christ - Just how much CO2 does air-conditioning pump out globally !
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,196

    MattW said:

    Back when British Gas was in the public sector it had the slogan 'Use gas wisely'. Indeed, it was written on the side of the gas holder next to the Oval.

    Privatisation brought 'piss away as much gas as possible' as the industry mantra. Switching power generation from coal to gas gobbled up our reserves even more quickly.

    So now here we are. Highly dependant on imported gas, without the scope to switch to other options as most of the coal fired stations have shut down and the wind doesn't blow on demand.

    And it is only going to get worse. The reduced energy efficiency resulting from decarbonisation means that for the same supply at the consumer end, more primary energy is required up the chain. So, if we convert the gas grid to hydrogen, we'll need around 30% more natural gas, all other things being equal.

    We could always consider coal gasification, but where on earth would we find the coal?

    Why does decarbonisation reduce energy efficiency?
    Various factors.

    Firstly, with the hydrogen case, converting methane to hydrogen is not 100% energy efficient. Not all of the MWth in the feedstock end up as MWth of hydrogen. Therefore, to deliver the same MWth to the customer takes more natural gas than if you just supply the gas to the consumers. Also, to decarbonise the hydrogen production (so called blue hydrogen) you have to expend further energy on CO2 compression to get it into the transport pipeline to be sent for storage.

    That moves us on to carbon capture and storage more generally. For post combustion capture, for example on the flue gas from a coal or gas fired power plant, you require both electrical and thermal energy in the capture process, plus the same compression energy as mentioned above. This results in a reduction in the net output from the power station. Same fuel in, less leccy out. So you need to fire up another power station to make up the shortfall - more natural gas consumed.

    Yes, but blue hydrogen and CCS are not the best ways forward (except for the fossil fuel industry).
    Electrification and green hydrogen are.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EA4tDYwNYo
    Green hydrogen has the further issue that all the methods of generating the hydrogen from water are extremely inefficient.

    Hydrolysis efficiency is limited by basic chemistry/thermodynamics - hence the interest in catalysed reactions to break water into H and O.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,196
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Do we have any water systems that could be turned into a significant pumped storage battery in the UK ?
    Could we create one, or do we need to go Lithium ion for storage here ?

    Expanding solar capacity would be a good move. The sun tends to shine when it's not windy, so a good complement to wind power in the UK.
    I disagree. The sun doesn't shine when we need the power - dark winter evenings. Any move to heat pumps will make this worse.

    Solar makes more sense in countries where the peak power demand is linked to the use of air conditioning in summer.
    Yes - according to my Australian friends, the ratio of roof space to inhabited area in their houses makes solar to run the air con a no-brainer. Saves money in a year or 2, or something crazy like that.
    Christ - Just how much CO2 does air-conditioning pump out globally !
    A lot. When you consider that quite a few countries are not very habitable without it.....
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,005

    Pulpstar said:

    Do we have any water systems that could be turned into a significant pumped storage battery in the UK ?
    Could we create one, or do we need to go Lithium ion for storage here ?

    Hydrogen can also be used as a storage vector for electricity. Run electrolysers when renewable output exceeds demand, run fuel cells or hydrogen turbines when demand is high.

    Hydrogen can also provide seasonal storage in the gas network in the same way as natural gas - salt caverns, depleted fields, line pack, etc. That way, the blue hydrogen plants can chug along in baseload, with storage used to deal with the big fluctuations between summer and winter demand for heating.



    Good grief, today is turning into a right busman's holiday!
    Agree with you - EXCEPT use green hydrogen from electrolysis not blue hydrogen which leaks methane (much worse than CO2) and relies on CCS which is not totally proven and reduces efficiency.
    See Blue Hydrogen. The greatest fossil fuel scam in history?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EA4tDYwNYo&t=339s
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 27,592
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Do we have any water systems that could be turned into a significant pumped storage battery in the UK ?
    Could we create one, or do we need to go Lithium ion for storage here ?

    Expanding solar capacity would be a good move. The sun tends to shine when it's not windy, so a good complement to wind power in the UK.
    I disagree. The sun doesn't shine when we need the power - dark winter evenings. Any move to heat pumps will make this worse.

    Solar makes more sense in countries where the peak power demand is linked to the use of air conditioning in summer.
    Yes - according to my Australian friends, the ratio of roof space to inhabited area in their houses makes solar to run the air con a no-brainer. Saves money in a year or 2, or something crazy like that.
    Christ - Just how much CO2 does air-conditioning pump out globally !
    About 2 billion tons annually, 13% of world electricity.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/29/the-air-conditioning-trap-how-cold-air-is-heating-the-world#:~:text=The IEA projects that as,-largest emitter, produces today.

    Ideal for solar, as mostly in sunny countries.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808
    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Do we have any water systems that could be turned into a significant pumped storage battery in the UK ?
    Could we create one, or do we need to go Lithium ion for storage here ?

    Expanding solar capacity would be a good move. The sun tends to shine when it's not windy, so a good complement to wind power in the UK.
    I disagree. The sun doesn't shine when we need the power - dark winter evenings. Any move to heat pumps will make this worse.

    Solar makes more sense in countries where the peak power demand is linked to the use of air conditioning in summer.
    Yes - according to my Australian friends, the ratio of roof space to inhabited area in their houses makes solar to run the air con a no-brainer. Saves money in a year or 2, or something crazy like that.
    Christ - Just how much CO2 does air-conditioning pump out globally !
    If you run it off renewable electricity, then potentially zero. I think.

    Reversible heat pumps are a large part of the answer to hot summers.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540
    edited September 20

    Farooq said:

    TOPPING said:

    theProle said:

    I also wonder about the role model question - e.g. if you've two gay blokes who adopt a girl, where is her female role model?
    Often the worst damage when family breakup occurs is to the kid who loses a role model of their own gender from regular family life.

    What about single parent families, of which there are zillions. Short one role model. Or, arguably, long a harmful role model.

    Two loving parents of any sex would seem to me to provide a hugely positive role model about relationships.
    I'm sure two parents of any sex do provide a hugely positive role model about relationships but if it's true that male role models for boys make a difference and female role models for girls make a difference then it stands to reason that having two parents of the same sex might make it more challenging to provide a proximate same-gender role model for a child in the same way it does within single parent families.

    We like to say that there's absolutely no difference between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples, because we want to be inclusive and don't want to discriminate, but the truth is we just don't know yet.

    The former is a fairly recent development (last 15 years) and we may find the difference in datasets in future to be utterly trivial or they might identify some differences.

    We don't know yet.
    It's worth pointing out that the nuclear family is also an innovation, albeit one with a slightly longer pedigree. It was essentially invented in the middle ages but the Western church as a means to break kinship groups and insert itself into property inheritance. A lot of consequences, good and bad, flowed from that, relating to feudalism, individual rights and rule of law.
    Society here was earlier organised in much wider family networks and role models of both sexes would have been very accessible even to children whose biological parents were dead or absent.
    Well, you can go back tens of thousands of years finding evidence of family groups within tribes, and the corollary for that are the indigenous communities living in comparative isolation today in some forests and on some remote islands.

    What I do think is true (and I think we're agreeing with each other here) is that in such tribes and communities extended families were far more common so you've have grandparents, aunties, uncles, cousins and siblings all mucking in to care for each other - particularly given the unpredictability of life and death, it made a lot of sense - and not just the mum, dad and kids by themselves alone.

    Who's to say that system was worse? In fact, it might be the answer.
    Doesn't take one long in Family Research to find that people tended to marry (breed with) people from their own or the next community (assuming that wasn't over a mountain).
    Another uncomfortable truth is the myth of "the one" - it's one we tell ourselves, we all do, because we love our partners deeply but we haven't individually reviewed all 4 billion + suitable candidates to be sure, have we?

    As this is a betting site it's probably more likely to be 1:10,000 - which means there are statistically a large number of suitable partners, worldwide - and that's then filtered by cultural entropy, language, compatibility and proximity to feel like they are "the one" within your realistic field of vision for your own life.
    That's good, though, as once you have met one of the ones your chance of running into another one of the ones is slim, and even then it would be 50:50 whether the one you have is the better one out of your one and the other one
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,343
    Right. Time for a walk in the sunshine.

    I hope that the energy crisis has been sorted by the time I get home.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,196
    MattW said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Do we have any water systems that could be turned into a significant pumped storage battery in the UK ?
    Could we create one, or do we need to go Lithium ion for storage here ?

    There's plenty of potential in Wales and the highlands of Scotland for that, but the politics of flooding many more valleys to provide pumped storage mainly for England would (obviously) be a non-starter.
    The problem with pumped storage of the up-a-mountain kind is the required capacity vs the available sites.

    Not sure that chopping the tops off all the mountains in the UK would be enough.....

    Hence the interest of some on this site with tidal ponds.

    My guess is that the nimby/green types will keep the tidal ponds from moving forward.
    I think we have alternatives to pumped storage, and that tidal ponds are a red herring. Tidal barrages, now...

    We have had a pause on new reservoirs for 30 years now, and even in the SE the famous reservoir (Abingdon?) they have been buying out property for for decades has not been needed.

    But reduction is always better than building new supply, and we have a lot of gain available on that yet.
    The war on reservoirs is another issue. But reservoirs, typically, don't store energy. They are nearly always *not* up a mountain.

    Tidal barrages have even bigger environmental/nimby problems. The big advantage of tidal ponds is that you can put them where you want, rather than be restrained too a very small number of sites by geography.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,013
    edited September 20
    Welsh Labour’s party conference in November has been cancelled due to high cases of covid and pressure on the NHS. expected at that time of year does that mean other large scale events could be in jeopardy come the winter months?

    https://twitter.com/Lily_Hewitson/status/1439903464549715975?s=20
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 618

    Rosie Duffield has called for Keir Starmer to meet her and other female Labour MPs to discuss the party’s policy on transgender issues, confirming she will not attend Labour’s annual conference over worries she could face abuse because of her views on the subject.

    “I took the decision a few weeks ago not to go,” the Canterbury MP told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

    “I didn’t want to be the centre of attention. This is Keir Starmer’s first conference speech since the pandemic. I think it’s really important we focus on that and the policies that emerge from conference. I really did not want to be the news story.”


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/20/rosie-duffield-calls-for-talks-with-keir-starmer-on-labour-trans-rights-stance

    One way of not "being the news story" would have been not to go on Radio 4.
    There seem to be a lot of people who don't want to be the news story yet put themselves up for interviews in the media. Surely the best way to not be in the news is to not be on the news?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,372

    Scotland Independence Voting Intention (18 September):

    Yes, for Independence: 44% (–)
    No, against Independence: 47% (–)
    Don't Know: 9% (–)

    Changes +/- (4-5 Aug)


    https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1439846872630370305?s=20

    The Scots giving Nicola exactly what she wants: vote her into power but able to avoid a referendum Scotland needs to lose but could, catastrophically, win.

    Boris will resist the temptation to allow a referendum at a time of his choosing, and also resist devolving huge tax and spend powers to Scotland but it would be great politics if he didn't resist the temptation.

  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,005
    Pulpstar said:

    Do we have any water systems that could be turned into a significant pumped storage battery in the UK ?
    Could we create one, or do we need to go Lithium ion for storage here ?

    https://www.electricmountain.co.uk/Dinorwig-Power-Station
    https://scottishconstructionnow.com/article/scotland-s-largest-hydro-project-approved-by-ministers
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,808

    MattW said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Do we have any water systems that could be turned into a significant pumped storage battery in the UK ?
    Could we create one, or do we need to go Lithium ion for storage here ?

    There's plenty of potential in Wales and the highlands of Scotland for that, but the politics of flooding many more valleys to provide pumped storage mainly for England would (obviously) be a non-starter.
    The problem with pumped storage of the up-a-mountain kind is the required capacity vs the available sites.

    Not sure that chopping the tops off all the mountains in the UK would be enough.....

    Hence the interest of some on this site with tidal ponds.

    My guess is that the nimby/green types will keep the tidal ponds from moving forward.
    I think we have alternatives to pumped storage, and that tidal ponds are a red herring. Tidal barrages, now...

    We have had a pause on new reservoirs for 30 years now, and even in the SE the famous reservoir (Abingdon?) they have been buying out property for for decades has not been needed.

    But reduction is always better than building new supply, and we have a lot of gain available on that yet.
    The war on reservoirs is another issue. But reservoirs, typically, don't store energy. They are nearly always *not* up a mountain.

    Tidal barrages have even bigger environmental/nimby problems. The big advantage of tidal ponds is that you can put them where you want, rather than be restrained too a very small number of sites by geography.
    Build a tidal barrage a bit higher and we can drown the Nimbys :-) .

    "I OBJECT !!! Oggle-cockle. Oggle-cockle. Oggle-cockle."

    Surely Nimby problems also apply to tidal ponds.

    But - reduce energy usage and we need far less of either of them.
  • Pulpstar said:

    Do we have any water systems that could be turned into a significant pumped storage battery in the UK ?
    Could we create one, or do we need to go Lithium ion for storage here ?

    There's plenty of potential in Wales and the highlands of Scotland for that, but the politics of flooding many more valleys to provide pumped storage mainly for England would (obviously) be a non-starter.
    Swansea tidal lagoon is an excellent scheme but too costly apparently
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,005

    MattW said:

    Back when British Gas was in the public sector it had the slogan 'Use gas wisely'. Indeed, it was written on the side of the gas holder next to the Oval.

    Privatisation brought 'piss away as much gas as possible' as the industry mantra. Switching power generation from coal to gas gobbled up our reserves even more quickly.

    So now here we are. Highly dependant on imported gas, without the scope to switch to other options as most of the coal fired stations have shut down and the wind doesn't blow on demand.

    And it is only going to get worse. The reduced energy efficiency resulting from decarbonisation means that for the same supply at the consumer end, more primary energy is required up the chain. So, if we convert the gas grid to hydrogen, we'll need around 30% more natural gas, all other things being equal.

    We could always consider coal gasification, but where on earth would we find the coal?

    Why does decarbonisation reduce energy efficiency?
    Various factors.

    Firstly, with the hydrogen case, converting methane to hydrogen is not 100% energy efficient. Not all of the MWth in the feedstock end up as MWth of hydrogen. Therefore, to deliver the same MWth to the customer takes more natural gas than if you just supply the gas to the consumers. Also, to decarbonise the hydrogen production (so called blue hydrogen) you have to expend further energy on CO2 compression to get it into the transport pipeline to be sent for storage.

    That moves us on to carbon capture and storage more generally. For post combustion capture, for example on the flue gas from a coal or gas fired power plant, you require both electrical and thermal energy in the capture process, plus the same compression energy as mentioned above. This results in a reduction in the net output from the power station. Same fuel in, less leccy out. So you need to fire up another power station to make up the shortfall - more natural gas consumed.

    Yes, but blue hydrogen and CCS are not the best ways forward (except for the fossil fuel industry).
    Electrification and green hydrogen are.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EA4tDYwNYo
    Green hydrogen has the further issue that all the methods of generating the hydrogen from water are extremely inefficient.

    Hydrolysis efficiency is limited by basic chemistry/thermodynamics - hence the interest in catalysed reactions to break water into H and O.
    Agreed, but if you overbuild renewables so that you often have more than you currently need then use the 'free or very cheap' electricity for generating hydrogen. Currently wind turbine operators are sometimes paid to switch them off when not needed.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225

    Pulpstar said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Do we have any water systems that could be turned into a significant pumped storage battery in the UK ?
    Could we create one, or do we need to go Lithium ion for storage here ?

    Expanding solar capacity would be a good move. The sun tends to shine when it's not windy, so a good complement to wind power in the UK.
    I disagree. The sun doesn't shine when we need the power - dark winter evenings. Any move to heat pumps will make this worse.

    Solar makes more sense in countries where the peak power demand is linked to the use of air conditioning in summer.
    Yes - according to my Australian friends, the ratio of roof space to inhabited area in their houses makes solar to run the air con a no-brainer. Saves money in a year or 2, or something crazy like that.
    Christ - Just how much CO2 does air-conditioning pump out globally !
    A lot. When you consider that quite a few countries are not very habitable without it.....
    Depends on who is inhabiting them, of course. Our distant ancestors migrated from the South of NW Africa and those of us whose ancestors were in the van..... ie those now in NW Europe ...... have now become habituated to much lower ambient temperatures than our ancestors lived in.
    Of course, seeking cooler climes might have been what encouraged them to leave!
  • AlistairMAlistairM Posts: 618
    Pro_Rata said:

    TOPPING said:

    theProle said:

    I also wonder about the role model question - e.g. if you've two gay blokes who adopt a girl, where is her female role model?
    Often the worst damage when family breakup occurs is to the kid who loses a role model of their own gender from regular family life.

    What about single parent families, of which there are zillions. Short one role model. Or, arguably, long a harmful role model.

    Two loving parents of any sex would seem to me to provide a hugely positive role model about relationships.
    I'm sure two parents of any sex do provide a hugely positive role model about relationships but if it's true that male role models for boys make a difference and female role models for girls make a difference then it stands to reason that having two parents of the same sex might make it more challenging to provide a proximate same-gender role model for a child in the same way it does within single parent families.

    We like to say that there's absolutely no difference between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples, because we want to be inclusive and don't want to discriminate, but the truth is we just don't know yet.

    The former is a fairly recent development (last 15 years) and we may find the difference in datasets in future to be utterly trivial or they might identify some differences.

    We don't know yet.
    Hence the need for male teachers in primary schools.
    Good luck with that. Recruitment of male teachers for young children has an unfortunate image problem, and has done since, well, probably forever. And you can't throw money at the problem because that would be illegal.
    Eldest grandson is a primary school teacher. Happily married to a female secondary school teacher.
    Yes, indeed. Even when I were a lad and dinosaurs roamed the Earth, we had two male junior school teachers. The rest were women, as were all at infants school (none of your primary school nonsense: when did that happen?). And that will be the experience of most. And still is, which I guess is why you mentioned the issue in the first place.
    And at mine, at, I suspect, a bit earlier.
    Mrs C was, when I met her, a student of nursery and infant teaching, so I've lived with designations for a long time.
    Nursery schools cater for under 5's.
    Infant schools deal with years 1 and 2.... 5 & 6 year olds.
    Primary schools deal with years 3-6 7-11yrs old.
    Junior schools deal with 5 - 11year olds. In other word. they combine Infant and Primary.
    Its been a mixed picture for a long time, I think. The first school I went to in 1974 was an infant school with the separate junior school just over the fence and linkage, more or less automatic progression, from one to the other. The second school I moved to in what we then called third year infants, now year 2, was a primary school.

    And the picture of some infant/junior school pairings and some end to end primaries is the same where I currently live. (let's not even go into the one corner of the LEA that has a First/Middle/Upper school system!).
    Where I live...

    Infant - YR-Y2
    Juniors - Y3-Y6
    Primaries - YR-Y6
    Secondaries - Y7-Y13

    Generally there are mostly Infant/Junior schools but with a few Primaries which handle all the way up to Y6.

    I went to my son's U9 away football match yesterday morning at a complex of schools. On the same site they had Nursery, Infant, Junior & Secondary. You could be a child who lived locally and attend education there from the age of 3 to 18!
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 25,225

    Welsh Labour’s party conference in November has been cancelled due to high cases of covid and pressure on the NHS. expected at that time of year does that mean other large scale events could be in jeopardy come the winter months?

    https://twitter.com/Lily_Hewitson/status/1439903464549715975?s=20

    Christmas (parties) cancelled?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,196
    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Do we have any water systems that could be turned into a significant pumped storage battery in the UK ?
    Could we create one, or do we need to go Lithium ion for storage here ?

    There's plenty of potential in Wales and the highlands of Scotland for that, but the politics of flooding many more valleys to provide pumped storage mainly for England would (obviously) be a non-starter.
    The problem with pumped storage of the up-a-mountain kind is the required capacity vs the available sites.

    Not sure that chopping the tops off all the mountains in the UK would be enough.....

    Hence the interest of some on this site with tidal ponds.

    My guess is that the nimby/green types will keep the tidal ponds from moving forward.
    I think we have alternatives to pumped storage, and that tidal ponds are a red herring. Tidal barrages, now...

    We have had a pause on new reservoirs for 30 years now, and even in the SE the famous reservoir (Abingdon?) they have been buying out property for for decades has not been needed.

    But reduction is always better than building new supply, and we have a lot of gain available on that yet.
    The war on reservoirs is another issue. But reservoirs, typically, don't store energy. They are nearly always *not* up a mountain.

    Tidal barrages have even bigger environmental/nimby problems. The big advantage of tidal ponds is that you can put them where you want, rather than be restrained too a very small number of sites by geography.
    Build a tidal barrage a bit higher and we can drown the Nimbys :-) .

    "I OBJECT !!! Oggle-cockle. Oggle-cockle. Oggle-cockle."

    Surely Nimby problems also apply to tidal ponds.

    But - reduce energy usage and we need far less of either of them.
    There are some gains to be made in insulating homes etc. But that is not going to solve this issue.

    As to the Nimbys, when I am unDictator of Britain, they will have an important role in supporting national infrastructure.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 46,308
    edited September 20
    Interesting todays poll on the NI NHS and social care rise shows 48%/41% opposed

    The 41% approval is higher than I expected after all the controversy

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1439891311973306370?s=19
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,481

    Welsh Labour’s party conference in November has been cancelled due to high cases of covid and pressure on the NHS. expected at that time of year does that mean other large scale events could be in jeopardy come the winter months?

    https://twitter.com/Lily_Hewitson/status/1439903464549715975?s=20

    No, just Drakeford is a wet blanket, hospitalisations still low due to the vaccinations
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 651
    AlistairM said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    TOPPING said:

    theProle said:

    I also wonder about the role model question - e.g. if you've two gay blokes who adopt a girl, where is her female role model?
    Often the worst damage when family breakup occurs is to the kid who loses a role model of their own gender from regular family life.

    What about single parent families, of which there are zillions. Short one role model. Or, arguably, long a harmful role model.

    Two loving parents of any sex would seem to me to provide a hugely positive role model about relationships.
    I'm sure two parents of any sex do provide a hugely positive role model about relationships but if it's true that male role models for boys make a difference and female role models for girls make a difference then it stands to reason that having two parents of the same sex might make it more challenging to provide a proximate same-gender role model for a child in the same way it does within single parent families.

    We like to say that there's absolutely no difference between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples, because we want to be inclusive and don't want to discriminate, but the truth is we just don't know yet.

    The former is a fairly recent development (last 15 years) and we may find the difference in datasets in future to be utterly trivial or they might identify some differences.

    We don't know yet.
    Hence the need for male teachers in primary schools.
    Good luck with that. Recruitment of male teachers for young children has an unfortunate image problem, and has done since, well, probably forever. And you can't throw money at the problem because that would be illegal.
    Eldest grandson is a primary school teacher. Happily married to a female secondary school teacher.
    Yes, indeed. Even when I were a lad and dinosaurs roamed the Earth, we had two male junior school teachers. The rest were women, as were all at infants school (none of your primary school nonsense: when did that happen?). And that will be the experience of most. And still is, which I guess is why you mentioned the issue in the first place.
    And at mine, at, I suspect, a bit earlier.
    Mrs C was, when I met her, a student of nursery and infant teaching, so I've lived with designations for a long time.
    Nursery schools cater for under 5's.
    Infant schools deal with years 1 and 2.... 5 & 6 year olds.
    Primary schools deal with years 3-6 7-11yrs old.
    Junior schools deal with 5 - 11year olds. In other word. they combine Infant and Primary.
    Its been a mixed picture for a long time, I think. The first school I went to in 1974 was an infant school with the separate junior school just over the fence and linkage, more or less automatic progression, from one to the other. The second school I moved to in what we then called third year infants, now year 2, was a primary school.

    And the picture of some infant/junior school pairings and some end to end primaries is the same where I currently live. (let's not even go into the one corner of the LEA that has a First/Middle/Upper school system!).
    Where I live...

    Infant - YR-Y2
    Juniors - Y3-Y6
    Primaries - YR-Y6
    Secondaries - Y7-Y13

    Generally there are mostly Infant/Junior schools but with a few Primaries which handle all the way up to Y6.

    I went to my son's U9 away football match yesterday morning at a complex of schools. On the same site they had Nursery, Infant, Junior & Secondary. You could be a child who lived locally and attend education there from the age of 3 to 18!
    That seems to be increasingly common with schools provision as part of new housing developments.

    I've only ever been associated with establishments divided along the "Pre-school/nursery"/"Primaries"/"Secondaries" as both child and parent.

    There are also "6th Form Colleges" (Yr 12/13) which seem to be a very popular way for privately educated children to get back into "state education" before applying to University, round our way.

    (Though my other half went to a state-sector 6th Form College in the NW 30+ years ago which was/is rated as one of the best in the country.)
  • eekeek Posts: 15,818
    AlistairM said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    TOPPING said:

    theProle said:

    I also wonder about the role model question - e.g. if you've two gay blokes who adopt a girl, where is her female role model?
    Often the worst damage when family breakup occurs is to the kid who loses a role model of their own gender from regular family life.

    What about single parent families, of which there are zillions. Short one role model. Or, arguably, long a harmful role model.

    Two loving parents of any sex would seem to me to provide a hugely positive role model about relationships.
    I'm sure two parents of any sex do provide a hugely positive role model about relationships but if it's true that male role models for boys make a difference and female role models for girls make a difference then it stands to reason that having two parents of the same sex might make it more challenging to provide a proximate same-gender role model for a child in the same way it does within single parent families.

    We like to say that there's absolutely no difference between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples, because we want to be inclusive and don't want to discriminate, but the truth is we just don't know yet.

    The former is a fairly recent development (last 15 years) and we may find the difference in datasets in future to be utterly trivial or they might identify some differences.

    We don't know yet.
    Hence the need for male teachers in primary schools.
    Good luck with that. Recruitment of male teachers for young children has an unfortunate image problem, and has done since, well, probably forever. And you can't throw money at the problem because that would be illegal.
    Eldest grandson is a primary school teacher. Happily married to a female secondary school teacher.
    Yes, indeed. Even when I were a lad and dinosaurs roamed the Earth, we had two male junior school teachers. The rest were women, as were all at infants school (none of your primary school nonsense: when did that happen?). And that will be the experience of most. And still is, which I guess is why you mentioned the issue in the first place.
    And at mine, at, I suspect, a bit earlier.
    Mrs C was, when I met her, a student of nursery and infant teaching, so I've lived with designations for a long time.
    Nursery schools cater for under 5's.
    Infant schools deal with years 1 and 2.... 5 & 6 year olds.
    Primary schools deal with years 3-6 7-11yrs old.
    Junior schools deal with 5 - 11year olds. In other word. they combine Infant and Primary.
    Its been a mixed picture for a long time, I think. The first school I went to in 1974 was an infant school with the separate junior school just over the fence and linkage, more or less automatic progression, from one to the other. The second school I moved to in what we then called third year infants, now year 2, was a primary school.

    And the picture of some infant/junior school pairings and some end to end primaries is the same where I currently live. (let's not even go into the one corner of the LEA that has a First/Middle/Upper school system!).
    Where I live...

    Infant - YR-Y2
    Juniors - Y3-Y6
    Primaries - YR-Y6
    Secondaries - Y7-Y13

    Generally there are mostly Infant/Junior schools but with a few Primaries which handle all the way up to Y6.

    I went to my son's U9 away football match yesterday morning at a complex of schools. On the same site they had Nursery, Infant, Junior & Secondary. You could be a child who lived locally and attend education there from the age of 3 to 18!
    There was an era where "education villages" were built with everything on one site for that housing estate(s). The East side of Darlington has one. The west side has secondary schools built on the edge of the estate with primary schools (separate infants and Juniors) in the middle of the estate.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,883
    The average energy usage is £1,600 per year? Christ - I pay £600 and that was a bad year due to wfh. Shows how important insulation is (my home was built in 2018).
  • theProletheProle Posts: 549

    Farooq said:

    TOPPING said:

    theProle said:

    I also wonder about the role model question - e.g. if you've two gay blokes who adopt a girl, where is her female role model?
    Often the worst damage when family breakup occurs is to the kid who loses a role model of their own gender from regular family life.

    What about single parent families, of which there are zillions. Short one role model. Or, arguably, long a harmful role model.

    Two loving parents of any sex would seem to me to provide a hugely positive role model about relationships.
    I'm sure two parents of any sex do provide a hugely positive role model about relationships but if it's true that male role models for boys make a difference and female role models for girls make a difference then it stands to reason that having two parents of the same sex might make it more challenging to provide a proximate same-gender role model for a child in the same way it does within single parent families.

    We like to say that there's absolutely no difference between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples, because we want to be inclusive and don't want to discriminate, but the truth is we just don't know yet.

    The former is a fairly recent development (last 15 years) and we may find the difference in datasets in future to be utterly trivial or they might identify some differences.

    We don't know yet.
    It's worth pointing out that the nuclear family is also an innovation, albeit one with a slightly longer pedigree. It was essentially invented in the middle ages but the Western church as a means to break kinship groups and insert itself into property inheritance. A lot of consequences, good and bad, flowed from that, relating to feudalism, individual rights and rule of law.
    Society here was earlier organised in much wider family networks and role models of both sexes would have been very accessible even to children whose biological parents were dead or absent.
    Well, you can go back tens of thousands of years finding evidence of family groups within tribes, and the corollary for that are the indigenous communities living in comparative isolation today in some forests and on some remote islands.

    What I do think is true (and I think we're agreeing with each other here) is that in such tribes and communities extended families were far more common so you've have grandparents, aunties, uncles, cousins and siblings all mucking in to care for each other - particularly given the unpredictability of life and death, it made a lot of sense - and not just the mum, dad and kids by themselves alone.

    Who's to say that system was worse? In fact, it might be the answer.
    Doesn't take one long in Family Research to find that people tended to marry (breed with) people from their own or the next community (assuming that wasn't over a mountain).
    Another uncomfortable truth is the myth of "the one" - it's one we tell ourselves, we all do, because we love our partners deeply but we haven't individually reviewed all 4 billion + suitable candidates to be sure, have we?

    As this is a betting site it's probably more likely to be 1:10,000 - which means there are statistically a large number of suitable partners, worldwide - and that's then filtered by cultural entropy, language, compatibility and proximity to feel like they are "the one" within your realistic field of vision for your own life.
    I'm not sure we all tell ourselves that. I'm very fond of my young lady - she seems to be quite fond of me. I don't think either of us would say it would be impossible to have found someone else we got on with well enough to consider marriage - nor even that it's impossible that their might be people out there better suited to each of us than each other.

    The thing about committed marriage relationships is that you should be saying to each other - even if a better prospect drifts into view, I won't run off and leave you - and you've promised the same to me. It should be that being in this position provides a strength to marriage that you pretty much can't find anywhere else.

    Unfortunately in the last 50 years as a society we've pretty much trashed this, with the net result of a lot of unhappiness, and not a lot of gain - and kids have easily paid the highest prices.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 34,927

    Charles said:

    @Philip_Thompson

    The Catholic adoption centres believed that adoption by gay couples was against their religious beliefs. When they were given no choice they closed and kids who were previously adopted were less well supported with a huge cost to them.

    The compromise I pushed at the time was the requirement that if a Catholic service wasn’t willing to provide adoption services to gay couples themselves they had to have a partnership with someone who would. The Catholics were grumpy but ok with it. The activists on the gay rights side weren’t.

    The kids lost out.

    (FWIW my personal belief is that a stable two person parental unit is key to children’s success in life. The sex of each member of the parental unit is irrelevant)

    While, again FWIW, I agree with you about the stable parental unit with two people involved, I do wonder how the children's wider social group react to it, and consequently to the children, particularly as they get towards and into their teens.
    It'll probably not matter too much for those who get on reasonably well with their peers, but is it another stick with which to beat the fat girl or the asthmatic boy?

    I'm not aware of any work on this, and would be interested to learn of any.

    I’m not aware of research, but I’d take the view that haters will hate.

    If the fat girl / asthmatic boy isn’t beaten up for same sex parents they will be beaten up for something else. Kids can be vile.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,481
    edited September 20

    Interesting todays poll on the NI NHS and social care rise shows 48%/41% opposed

    The 41% approval is higher than I expected after all the controversy

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1439891311973306370?s=19

    60% of over 65s in favour and 57% of Tory voters in favour, 68% of Labour voters and 57% of 25 to 49 year olds opposed.

    However remember Labour won most voters under 45 even at the last general election, Boris' Tory party is dominated by the over 50s, Cameron did less well with them leaking to UKIP but better with voters of working age. In 2015 Cameron won most voters over 35
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 1,691
    edited September 20

    Pulpstar said:

    Do we have any water systems that could be turned into a significant pumped storage battery in the UK ?
    Could we create one, or do we need to go Lithium ion for storage here ?

    https://www.electricmountain.co.uk/Dinorwig-Power-Station
    https://scottishconstructionnow.com/article/scotland-s-largest-hydro-project-approved-by-ministers
    Ruining wild land again? That isn't a renewable resource by any means.

    I'll have to dig out my pictures from Sron a' Choire Ghairbh, the Loch Lochy Munro which will be affected by the Coire Glas scheme.

    Loch Lochy is still a natural loch, so I'm not sure how any level changes will be managed. Perhaps there will have to be some scheme using a compensation flow from Loch Garry (which does have a dam) to ensure the River Lochy doesn't flow backwards (or the Caledonian canal, for that matter).
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,699
    Ah, it was Brexit all along. Who would have thunk it.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,540

    Interesting todays poll on the NI NHS and social care rise shows 48%/41% opposed

    The 41% approval is higher than I expected after all the controversy

    https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1439891311973306370?s=19

    There are quite a lot of pensioners
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,615
    Heat pumps are so great, here's an account to follow for the external units:
    https://twitter.com/AIRCON_INVERTER

    I'm not sure who to follow for the internal units, I'll post again if I find out.
This discussion has been closed.