Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
We need to know whether this claim is true or not.
I once had some dealings with the aviation fuel distribution system at Heathrow. It was fiendishly complex. Wouldn't surprise me if the power generation and provision system is equally Byzantine...
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
There really is no end to it.
Human civilisation on Earth? Well that's the hope if we get serious about demilitarisation and climate change.
Not that I want to hark back to l*ckd*wn but young children were isolated from their friends and social groups and one of, if not the only way for them to communicate was via mobile phones.
Lab (and the Cons tbf) are now saying that having created the conditions whereby young children were forced onto their phones, that phones are pernicious and should be taken away from young children.
Yes circumstances might be different and people can socialise now, but that is playing fast and loose with peoples' wellbeing. And of course lockdown was the most pernicious of pernicious acts that any government has imposed on its population and we all lapped it up and wanted more.
Rather than trying (and probably failing) to ban smartphones for teens (whether wholesale or while at schools), can we first at least attempt a campaign to educate on the dangers of social media and other addictive aspects of technology? For both parents and children.
Treat is like smoking. Legal but highly damaging.
I think it's much better to aid parents by wholesale banning them. It's simple, very beneficial, easily understood, and won't cause issues between parents and children. We had Gameboys as kids - they were absolutely not allowed in classrooms, so why would a far more advanced and far-reaching entertainment device be allowed? They need to be out of the picture from arrival until hometime. Smart watches with screens under a certain size could be permissible for parents worried about their kids being incommunicado.
I don't see why there should be a blanket policy one way or another. It should be up to the school/teacher how they want the lesson to go in their room.
There's a time and a place for technology. If you're using the phone in a lesson to go on Snapchat or play Candy Crush or whatever then yes that's problematic.
If on the other hand it's being used in a productive manner as a useful tool with an educational app etc then I see absolutely no harm in that whatsoever.
I see it just like calculators. When I was in school the norm was that calculators were not permitted in Maths lessons, but there were times when they were and we'd be told when we could use them and when we could not.
They are nothing like calculators. The most you can muck around with a calculator is writing BOOBS on the screen. No teacher is going to use an educational app that demands the use of kids' own smartphones, as not all kids have them and it would be discrimintory. And frankly any teacher who just sticks their pupils infront of a smartphone shouldn't be in a job. They habe no place in a classroom, and frankly no place in a playground either.
Just heard the news about Heathrow. Is anyone else astonished that a fire at one electricity substation can knock out the second busiest airport in the world? It shouldn't be so reliant on one source of supply to say the obvious. At least now it's happened they can do something about it in the future.
If Andy Burnham returned to parliament though he would be a strong contender to be next Labour leader, Ed Miliband unlikely to want to do the role again.
The LabourList survey of Labour members had Burnham favoured to take over from Starmer with 56%, then Rayner on 21%, then Cooper and Streeting tied on just 5% and Nandy last on 3%
It'll be interesting to see whether planners at Heathrow Airport had even considered whether having the airport powered by one substation was a good idea or not. And if they had discussed it, why they thought it was appropriate. At the very least, you'd have expected each terminal to have had its own power source.
It's interesting how much armchair experts are jumping to conclusions about Heathrow's electricity supply based on nothing.
We are the PB Brains Trust. We are experts on absolutely everything.
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
I went to see Kyoto (the play) the other day. About the negotiating of the Kyoto Agreement. Some great performances and the play illustrates the delay and obfuscating tactics of those opposed to any limit on, or reduction of carbon emissions. There is a great passage about the hypocrisy of the carbon trading scam.
During the interval, there were two young people, a boy and a girl, sitting next to me and they were chattering about this and that. In particular, the boy was telling the girl about his impressive travel plans. He was going to go on a tour of the US and South America, fly here, then there, then come back via somewhere else, and this compared to his equally impressive travels this year (Iceland, then Amsterdam).
I turned to them and asked them, as representative of "youngsters" (we all laughed - they were young lawyers), what they thought about the play's subject matter and they both voiced enthusiastic approval.
I then said I couldn't help but overhear them talking about flying all over the world, to which the male responded "well obviously I'm a vegan on account of the planet, and..." and then blathered on, quite embarrassed.
I assured them that they didn't need to explain themselves to me and we settled down to watch the second half of the play.
But that is the reality of life and net zero and whatnot. People don't want to reduce their own activities while encouraging others to cut back theirs.
I'm quite tight when it comes to money. I think that helps the environment much more than if I was vegan or gave £10 weekly to Greenpeace, as I often don't buy the same sort of unnecessary tat other people do. Like a new iPhone each year...
It also means we have much more than £1k in savings.
no pockets in a shroud
That's a great quote.
But that's not what I see 'tight' as being about. I spend money, and I have a good life. I have hobbies and fun.
As an example: I know a couple of triathletes who got top-end triathlon bikes for a song. Including one guy who bought a triathlon bike worth over £8k for £3k from a neighbour. The neighbour bought it to do a triathlon race, got bored in the training before using it, and sold it new at a massive discount in a garage sale.
That's the sort of waste I cannot stand. It's stupid. Try the hobby as cheaply as possible to see if you enjoy it, and *then* spend the money.
When I set out to do a sprint triathlon last year, I bought a cheap £450 road bike. I have enough money in the bank to buy something an order of magnitude more expensive, but that would have been stupid, as my bike racing skills were non-existent. So I raced the cheap bike and learnt skills on it, knowing that if I trashed it, or it got stolen, it would not matter much. This year, as I have enjoyed my triathlon races, I bought a Zwift Ride indoor bike setup for a grand - as it is safer and more convenient than riding on the roads, especially in winter. And I'm spending a couple of hundred on a bike fit, so I know what sort of second-hand triathlon or high-end road bikes to look for. Technically a waste of money, but far better than buying the wrong-sized bike.
I could easily have spent ten grand on kit for my triathlon hobby - and in fact know people only slightly above my level who have. £500 wetsuits instead of £150 ones. £3,000 bikes instead of £450 ones. Stuff that does not actually make them much faster, especially as they don't train much.
So 'being tight' in my view is not about not spending money: it is about being cautious about spending money. And that caution can save you a lot of money.
Ha, yes
A chap I know bought a huge CNC mill (second hand, but was high 4 figures) - he was rightly terrified of the thing. He didn't buy a bench top hand mill first and learn properly.
So it sat there gathering dust.
What he actually wanted, for most of the things he wanted to do, was a good drill press. Not even a mill.
With me and bikes, it's a case of what bang I get for my bucks - in that case, how much extra speed.
I'd expect a £1k bike to be much faster than my £450 bike, for the same power/skill level. The components are so much better. A £2k bike will be faster than a £1k bike, but not by as much. And a £4k bike will be faster again, but again by a reduced amount. It increasingly becomes about expensive marginal gains.
The problem is the 'marginal gains' also look cool.
As I'm new to this cycle racing malarkey, the most improvement will not be got from an ultra-expensive bike, but by improving my skills. Hence the Zwift setup. I've decided that when I get to 2.5 watts per kg, I'll buy a new bike...
(And yes, i know 2.5 is low. But I'm a newbie and in my fifties...)
Ask the French - it's all down to how round the (British) wheels are....
Shashank Joshi @shashj.bsky.social · 52s See also Tom Shugart and Mike Dahm's excellent paper. They write that the barges, plus other developments, "suggests the PLA may have significantly advanced its timetable to have sufficient capabilities to conduct a large-scale cross-strait operation" digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cmsi-notes/14/
Those things look as though they'd be a pretty easy target for Taiwan's defence forces if they came anywhere near to Taiwan's coast.
They probably are not a first tranche force, in the way our Mulberry Harbours were. I'd expect them to get used weeks, rather than days, after an invasion. Perhaps even after localised victory, as they will expect Taiwan to destroy their ports if they lose.
Also, I wonder about the number of these things. The two Mulberry Harbous were massive, and a couple of ships really do not replicate their capabilities - even with the larger ship sizes nowadays. But they may have more than a couple.
Apparently Musk is going to be given access to the super Top Secret US plan for what happens if war with China.
How do you give a major defense contractor, who does business in China, access to Top Secret contingency planning for war with CHINA? It's such an obvious, audacious and egregious conflict of interest, it takes your breath away.
Disability politics: what party does PB think has the greatest prevalence of people on some form of working-age incapacity benefit? Once upon a time the answer was obvious - but now?
- Age profile suggests Conservatives, with voter base dominated by 50-64 year olds - Education level suggests Reform - Social grade suggests Reform - Housing tenure suggests Reform (lots of council house tenants) - Employment status suggests Reform (Labour close second) - Household income suggests Reform (Conservative second)
I just wonder if we are witnessing a rather startling shift in Labour party values. Are they abandoning these kinds of people? This could be quite a dangerous path for the country.
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
The Tice thing sounds like standard multidimensional Tice-bollocks; he wants a bit of attention and to excite his demographic by making pompous sounding but irrelevant claims. We don't even know whether diesel generators could supply sufficient power for the "airport".
On the Net Zero plan, that's just how continuous improvement happens, by making sure that relevant things are considered, surely?
We start from here, and keep chipping away at it, and over a long period of time make progress to where we need to be.
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
The Tice thing sounds like standard multidimensional Tice-bollocks; he wants a bit of attention and to excite his demographic by making pompous sounding but irrelevant claims. We don't even know whether diesel generators could supply sufficient power for the "airport".
On the Net Zero plan, that's just how continuous improvement happens, by making sure that relevant things are considered, surely?
We start from here, and keep chipping away at it, and over a long period of time make progress to where we need to be.
The early reports seemed to imply the backup generators were in the physical vicinity of and were taken out by the fire in the primary. Which would be a clear weak point. Let's see.
On topic anyone who thinks Ed Miliband is the answer is asking some bloody stupid questions.
When you're up against the Minister for Cutting Benefits, the Minister for Rising Taxes and the Minister for Long Waiting Lists, being popular as Minister for Green Energy isn't such a big achievement.
How long does +ve news take to feed through?
Waiting list numbers for Jan 2025 came out last week and were down by another notch over December - that is 30k, which is something but Not a Lot.
IMO it's still Strategy OK, Tactics Hmmm, Communications Missing.
True, but then a) the minister for NHS is almost never popular, per se, and b) many Labour members - who are the people polled here - don't like Streeting for his Blairite past (and present!)
Wes goes out of his way to wind up members who are even vaguely left of centre. I can't imagine him winning a leadership election.
You're of the left. Are you not even slightly concerned at the way this government is targeting the disabled?
Yes, I dislike the targeting of the disabled, and more generally I'm not a fan of quite a bit of the Government's agenda (e.g. the huge increase in defence spending strikes me as unbalanced), though I don't see a realistic alternative. The practical effect (mirrored by numerous other members) is that I'm less active in canvassing etc. than I would otherwise be. FPTP and a sense that neither the LibDems nor the Greens are serious deter me from alternatives.
I think the rows over PIP, and the absolute apoplexy of many on the left, is a sign of just how hard it is to govern these days.
I'm pretty sure that throughout most of Labour's history, if you said that some areas of the country had 5 times as many people too ill to work than others, then it would be obvious that they'd try to tackle that.
In some ways it's a victory for the right that many on the left are fighting desperately for the status quo.
It'll be interesting to see whether planners at Heathrow Airport had even considered whether having the airport powered by one substation was a good idea or not. And if they had discussed it, why they thought it was appropriate. At the very least, you'd have expected each terminal to have had its own power source.
It's interesting how much armchair experts are jumping to conclusions about Heathrow's electricity supply based on nothing.
Based on nothing? We know that one fire at one substation has shut the airport completely.
We do, but do you know what the fire affected? Do you know how Heathrow's power supply is organised? Do you know anything about electricity supplies for major infrastructure?
On topic anyone who thinks Ed Miliband is the answer is asking some bloody stupid questions.
When you're up against the Minister for Cutting Benefits, the Minister for Rising Taxes and the Minister for Long Waiting Lists, being popular as Minister for Green Energy isn't such a big achievement.
How long does +ve news take to feed through?
Waiting list numbers for Jan 2025 came out last week and were down by another notch over December - that is 30k, which is something but Not a Lot.
IMO it's still Strategy OK, Tactics Hmmm, Communications Missing.
True, but then a) the minister for NHS is almost never popular, per se, and b) many Labour members - who are the people polled here - don't like Streeting for his Blairite past (and present!)
Wes goes out of his way to wind up members who are even vaguely left of centre. I can't imagine him winning a leadership election.
You're of the left. Are you not even slightly concerned at the way this government is targeting the disabled?
Yes, I dislike the targeting of the disabled, and more generally I'm not a fan of quite a bit of the Government's agenda (e.g. the huge increase in defence spending strikes me as unbalanced), though I don't see a realistic alternative. The practical effect (mirrored by numerous other members) is that I'm less active in canvassing etc. than I would otherwise be. FPTP and a sense that neither the LibDems nor the Greens are serious deter me from alternatives.
I think the rows over PIP, and the absolute apoplexy of many on the left, is a sign of just how hard it is to govern these days.
I'm pretty sure that throughout most of Labour's history, if you said that some areas of the country had 5 times as many people too ill to work than others, then it would be obvious that they'd try to tackle that.
In some ways it's a victory for the right that many on the left are fighting desperately for the status quo.
It seems that many of the left regard being on benefits as something to be proud of.
All linked into some cult of victimhood and oppression with those not on benefits being some sort of 'exploiter'.
Disability politics: what party does PB think has the greatest prevalence of people on some form of working-age incapacity benefit? Once upon a time the answer was obvious - but now?
- Age profile suggests Conservatives, with voter base dominated by 50-64 year olds - Education level suggests Reform - Social grade suggests Reform - Housing tenure suggests Reform (lots of council house tenants) - Employment status suggests Reform (Labour close second) - Household income suggests Reform (Conservative second)
I just wonder if we are witnessing a rather startling shift in Labour party values. Are they abandoning these kinds of people? This could be quite a dangerous path for the country.
People who vote Labour because their parents did voting for someone else for a change is to be welcomed. Once broken that bond won't be remade and Labour will have to stand on their own two feet.
Wish it was someone better than Reform, but there we are. "Me mam were Labour, me gran were Labour, so I'm Labour. We're a Labour family, we are." needs to die. Unheathly for democracy.
It'll be interesting to see whether planners at Heathrow Airport had even considered whether having the airport powered by one substation was a good idea or not. And if they had discussed it, why they thought it was appropriate. At the very least, you'd have expected each terminal to have had its own power source.
It's interesting how much armchair experts are jumping to conclusions about Heathrow's electricity supply based on nothing.
Based on nothing? We know that one fire at one substation has shut the airport completely.
We do, but do you know what the fire affected? Do you know how Heathrow's power supply is organised? Do you know anything about electricity supplies for major infrastructure?
No but the question is if you were inclined to find out such things would it be ways, difficult or impossible to do so?
Now it’s perfectly possible that it was a completely random accident but given how few electrical substation fires occur you have to ask if the fire was dubious
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
We need to know whether this claim is true or not.
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
We need to know whether this claim is true or not.
I once had some dealings with the aviation fuel distribution system at Heathrow. It was fiendishly complex. Wouldn't surprise me if the power generation and provision system is equally Byzantine...
I had a customer who provided the facilities to power planes and ships when in port. It was serious stuff. I know how we know everything here, but would it be presumptuous of me to suggest that most of us (including me) don't actually have a clue?
Disability politics: what party does PB think has the greatest prevalence of people on some form of working-age incapacity benefit? Once upon a time the answer was obvious - but now?
- Age profile suggests Conservatives, with voter base dominated by 50-64 year olds - Education level suggests Reform - Social grade suggests Reform - Housing tenure suggests Reform (lots of council house tenants) - Employment status suggests Reform (Labour close second) - Household income suggests Reform (Conservative second)
I just wonder if we are witnessing a rather startling shift in Labour party values. Are they abandoning these kinds of people? This could be quite a dangerous path for the country.
And ideologically they will lose some to the Greens too
If Andy Burnham returned to parliament though he would be a strong contender to be next Labour leader, Ed Miliband unlikely to want to do the role again.
The LabourList survey of Labour members had Burnham favoured to take over from Starmer with 56%, then Rayner on 21%, then Cooper and Streeting tied on just 5% and Nandy last on 3%
Disability politics: what party does PB think has the greatest prevalence of people on some form of working-age incapacity benefit? Once upon a time the answer was obvious - but now?
- Age profile suggests Conservatives, with voter base dominated by 50-64 year olds - Education level suggests Reform - Social grade suggests Reform - Housing tenure suggests Reform (lots of council house tenants) - Employment status suggests Reform (Labour close second) - Household income suggests Reform (Conservative second)
I just wonder if we are witnessing a rather startling shift in Labour party values. Are they abandoning these kinds of people? This could be quite a dangerous path for the country.
I think the natural inclination of those on the left is to help people who are vulnerable. This is tempered by questions of affordability and the knowledge that a minority of claimants are taking the piss and/or risk falling into a dependency mindset.
Disability politics: what party does PB think has the greatest prevalence of people on some form of working-age incapacity benefit? Once upon a time the answer was obvious - but now?
- Age profile suggests Conservatives, with voter base dominated by 50-64 year olds - Education level suggests Reform - Social grade suggests Reform - Housing tenure suggests Reform (lots of council house tenants) - Employment status suggests Reform (Labour close second) - Household income suggests Reform (Conservative second)
I just wonder if we are witnessing a rather startling shift in Labour party values. Are they abandoning these kinds of people? This could be quite a dangerous path for the country.
The problem is since COVID, sorry I meant since the last GE, a significant number of new claimants have absolutely taken the piss. Whether this Government throw the baby out with the bathwater remains to be seen, but a couple earning £75,000 and taking £400 a month each because they have ADHD is a piss take. The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net rather than a fund for the entitled.
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
We need to know whether this claim is true or not.
I once had some dealings with the aviation fuel distribution system at Heathrow. It was fiendishly complex. Wouldn't surprise me if the power generation and provision system is equally Byzantine...
I had a customer who provided the facilities to power planes and ships when in port. It was serious stuff. I know how we know everything here, but would it be presumptuous of me to suggest that most of us (including me) don't actually have a clue?
As long as you defer to people who DO know, there is much to be learnt here. The breadth of deailed stuff you can glean from here is immense.
Admitting you generally start from a position of knowing bugger all!
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
I went to see Kyoto (the play) the other day. About the negotiating of the Kyoto Agreement. Some great performances and the play illustrates the delay and obfuscating tactics of those opposed to any limit on, or reduction of carbon emissions. There is a great passage about the hypocrisy of the carbon trading scam.
During the interval, there were two young people, a boy and a girl, sitting next to me and they were chattering about this and that. In particular, the boy was telling the girl about his impressive travel plans. He was going to go on a tour of the US and South America, fly here, then there, then come back via somewhere else, and this compared to his equally impressive travels this year (Iceland, then Amsterdam).
I turned to them and asked them, as representative of "youngsters" (we all laughed - they were young lawyers), what they thought about the play's subject matter and they both voiced enthusiastic approval.
I then said I couldn't help but overhear them talking about flying all over the world, to which the male responded "well obviously I'm a vegan on account of the planet, and..." and then blathered on, quite embarrassed.
I assured them that they didn't need to explain themselves to me and we settled down to watch the second half of the play.
But that is the reality of life and net zero and whatnot. People don't want to reduce their own activities while encouraging others to cut back theirs.
He said he was vegan for that reason, so he was willing to reduce some of his own activities.
Why not look at people in the round? I admit I like to travel, although to date it has mostly been short haul. And I eat a lot of meat. However I drive very little (my 15 year old Megane has done about 72000 miles), often travel by train and rarely use the tumble dryer, in fact Octopus has recently given me some money back and allowed me to reduce my monthly payments to £64.
I am not sure what proportion of carbon outputs are due to aviation but I bet it is very little compared with other sources, which will be easier to reduce. Access to cheap aviation gives many people a lot of benefits. So I am not sure it should be a priority
I suspect aviation use is a skewed distribution, with a small set of people who fly a lot, but many more who take onoy a couple of flights a year (and of course globally many many who don't fly at all because they can't afford to). So knocking some of that frequent flyer business travel on the head would be where I would start. (Also apparently flight is twice as energy efficient per passenger kilometre as it was in 1990, so it's not been impossible to reduce its carbon emissions. Better engines, bigger planes, fewer empty seats.)
I have always thought that flight tax should be a proportion of the price of the flight, so those of us going to Thailand in steerage will pay a lot less than the people in Business
From 1 April
Economy £94, Business £224, Private £673
Not quite proportionate but solidly in that direction.
Has Sturgeon having been cleared of facing charges helped do you think?
A tiny bit maybe, it was announced midday yesterday when voting had already started. I think the continuing backround of policy reversals and the latest PIP stushie would have more effect. As I believe one Glasgow newspaper columnist has said, he has finally been cured of his Labour nostalgia.
Has Sturgeon having been cleared of facing charges helped do you think?
Murrell's trial might drop in time for the Holyrood elections. Nippy's dropped charges will by then be a historical irrelevance. I suppose the only issue might be the unusual interpretation of SNP treasures's innocence by Scottish juries. He's dead now so I can comment, but how the **** was Eck acquitted?
Disability politics: what party does PB think has the greatest prevalence of people on some form of working-age incapacity benefit? Once upon a time the answer was obvious - but now?
- Age profile suggests Conservatives, with voter base dominated by 50-64 year olds - Education level suggests Reform - Social grade suggests Reform - Housing tenure suggests Reform (lots of council house tenants) - Employment status suggests Reform (Labour close second) - Household income suggests Reform (Conservative second)
I just wonder if we are witnessing a rather startling shift in Labour party values. Are they abandoning these kinds of people? This could be quite a dangerous path for the country.
The problem is since COVID, sorry I meant since the last GE, a significant number of new claimants have absolutely taken the piss. Whether this Government throw the baby out with the bathwater remains to be seen, but a couple earning £75,000 and taking £400 a month each because they have ADHD is a piss take. The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net rather than a fund for the entitled.
Disability politics: what party does PB think has the greatest prevalence of people on some form of working-age incapacity benefit? Once upon a time the answer was obvious - but now?
- Age profile suggests Conservatives, with voter base dominated by 50-64 year olds - Education level suggests Reform - Social grade suggests Reform - Housing tenure suggests Reform (lots of council house tenants) - Employment status suggests Reform (Labour close second) - Household income suggests Reform (Conservative second)
I just wonder if we are witnessing a rather startling shift in Labour party values. Are they abandoning these kinds of people? This could be quite a dangerous path for the country.
The problem is since COVID, sorry I meant since the last GE, a significant number of new claimants have absolutely taken the piss. Whether this Government throw the baby out with the bathwater remains to be seen, but a couple earning £75,000 and taking £400 a month each because they have ADHD is a piss take. The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net rather than a fund for the entitled.
He later updated that line in a further interview on LBC, saying: “There’s no suggestion that there is foul play.” Asked whether it was a “catastrophic accident”, Miliband said: “The conversation I’ve had is with the National Grid, the chief executive of the National Grid and certainly, that’s what he said to me.” More to add shortly no doubt…
UPDATE: London Fire Brigade take a different tack to Miliband – a senior fire officer wouldn’t comment on the cause of the fire in a press conference which began around 11:00 a.m. Meanwhile The Times reports counter-terror police are part of the investigation.
He later updated that line in a further interview on LBC, saying: “There’s no suggestion that there is foul play.” Asked whether it was a “catastrophic accident”, Miliband said: “The conversation I’ve had is with the National Grid, the chief executive of the National Grid and certainly, that’s what he said to me.” More to add shortly no doubt…
UPDATE: London Fire Brigade take a different tack to Miliband – a senior fire officer wouldn’t comment on the cause of the fire in a press conference which began around 11:00 a.m. Meanwhile The Times reports counter-terror police are part of the investigation.
He shouldn't have said something categorical when it isn't known what caused the fire. Rather than phrases like "there are no indications of foul play", they should just say that the investigation is ongoing.
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
I went to see Kyoto (the play) the other day. About the negotiating of the Kyoto Agreement. Some great performances and the play illustrates the delay and obfuscating tactics of those opposed to any limit on, or reduction of carbon emissions. There is a great passage about the hypocrisy of the carbon trading scam.
During the interval, there were two young people, a boy and a girl, sitting next to me and they were chattering about this and that. In particular, the boy was telling the girl about his impressive travel plans. He was going to go on a tour of the US and South America, fly here, then there, then come back via somewhere else, and this compared to his equally impressive travels this year (Iceland, then Amsterdam).
I turned to them and asked them, as representative of "youngsters" (we all laughed - they were young lawyers), what they thought about the play's subject matter and they both voiced enthusiastic approval.
I then said I couldn't help but overhear them talking about flying all over the world, to which the male responded "well obviously I'm a vegan on account of the planet, and..." and then blathered on, quite embarrassed.
I assured them that they didn't need to explain themselves to me and we settled down to watch the second half of the play.
But that is the reality of life and net zero and whatnot. People don't want to reduce their own activities while encouraging others to cut back theirs.
I'm quite tight when it comes to money. I think that helps the environment much more than if I was vegan or gave £10 weekly to Greenpeace, as I often don't buy the same sort of unnecessary tat other people do. Like a new iPhone each year...
It also means we have much more than £1k in savings.
no pockets in a shroud
You can have fun while not pissing money up against the wall. Which allows you to retire and become a net spender rather than a net saver earlier. And, for example, my £200 Nokia XR20 serves me as well as an iPhone would *and* it's waterproof and bounces off concrete
Difference between being tight and pissing it up the wall, happy medium is much more sensible as you prove.
Disability politics: what party does PB think has the greatest prevalence of people on some form of working-age incapacity benefit? Once upon a time the answer was obvious - but now?
- Age profile suggests Conservatives, with voter base dominated by 50-64 year olds - Education level suggests Reform - Social grade suggests Reform - Housing tenure suggests Reform (lots of council house tenants) - Employment status suggests Reform (Labour close second) - Household income suggests Reform (Conservative second)
I just wonder if we are witnessing a rather startling shift in Labour party values. Are they abandoning these kinds of people? This could be quite a dangerous path for the country.
I doubt whether there is much of a political bias across the set of all people claiming working age disability benefits. Do you have evidence of the demographic breakdown of such claimaints for those 'suggestions' above?
It'll be interesting to see whether planners at Heathrow Airport had even considered whether having the airport powered by one substation was a good idea or not. And if they had discussed it, why they thought it was appropriate. At the very least, you'd have expected each terminal to have had its own power source.
It's interesting how much armchair experts are jumping to conclusions about Heathrow's electricity supply based on nothing.
Based on nothing? We know that one fire at one substation has shut the airport completely.
Which should be impossible given the commercial importance of it to the country. Too many eggs in one basket
He later updated that line in a further interview on LBC, saying: “There’s no suggestion that there is foul play.” Asked whether it was a “catastrophic accident”, Miliband said: “The conversation I’ve had is with the National Grid, the chief executive of the National Grid and certainly, that’s what he said to me.” More to add shortly no doubt…
UPDATE: London Fire Brigade take a different tack to Miliband – a senior fire officer wouldn’t comment on the cause of the fire in a press conference which began around 11:00 a.m. Meanwhile The Times reports counter-terror police are part of the investigation.
He shouldn't have said something categorical when it isn't known what caused the fire. Rather than phrases like "there are no indications of foul play", they should just say that the investigation is ongoing.
And people who expect accurate, real time updates on the cause of a major incident should chill out.
He later updated that line in a further interview on LBC, saying: “There’s no suggestion that there is foul play.” Asked whether it was a “catastrophic accident”, Miliband said: “The conversation I’ve had is with the National Grid, the chief executive of the National Grid and certainly, that’s what he said to me.” More to add shortly no doubt…
UPDATE: London Fire Brigade take a different tack to Miliband – a senior fire officer wouldn’t comment on the cause of the fire in a press conference which began around 11:00 a.m. Meanwhile The Times reports counter-terror police are part of the investigation.
He shouldn't have said something categorical when it isn't known what caused the fire. Rather than phrases like "there are no indications of foul play", they should just say that the investigation is ongoing.
And people who expect accurate, real time updates after a major incident should chill out.
It'll be interesting to see whether planners at Heathrow Airport had even considered whether having the airport powered by one substation was a good idea or not. And if they had discussed it, why they thought it was appropriate. At the very least, you'd have expected each terminal to have had its own power source.
It's interesting how much armchair experts are jumping to conclusions about Heathrow's electricity supply based on nothing.
Today's outage is not nothing. What you sneer at is ordinary people asking obvious questions, the first of which is why no-one asked the obvious question.
It'll be interesting to see whether planners at Heathrow Airport had even considered whether having the airport powered by one substation was a good idea or not. And if they had discussed it, why they thought it was appropriate. At the very least, you'd have expected each terminal to have had its own power source.
It's interesting how much armchair experts are jumping to conclusions about Heathrow's electricity supply based on nothing.
Today's outage is not nothing. What you sneer at is ordinary people asking obvious questions, the first of which is why no-one asked the obvious question.
I'm curious, what is the obvious question?
Regarding why there isn't more redundancy, I guess the answer is money.
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
I went to see Kyoto (the play) the other day. About the negotiating of the Kyoto Agreement. Some great performances and the play illustrates the delay and obfuscating tactics of those opposed to any limit on, or reduction of carbon emissions. There is a great passage about the hypocrisy of the carbon trading scam.
During the interval, there were two young people, a boy and a girl, sitting next to me and they were chattering about this and that. In particular, the boy was telling the girl about his impressive travel plans. He was going to go on a tour of the US and South America, fly here, then there, then come back via somewhere else, and this compared to his equally impressive travels this year (Iceland, then Amsterdam).
I turned to them and asked them, as representative of "youngsters" (we all laughed - they were young lawyers), what they thought about the play's subject matter and they both voiced enthusiastic approval.
I then said I couldn't help but overhear them talking about flying all over the world, to which the male responded "well obviously I'm a vegan on account of the planet, and..." and then blathered on, quite embarrassed.
I assured them that they didn't need to explain themselves to me and we settled down to watch the second half of the play.
But that is the reality of life and net zero and whatnot. People don't want to reduce their own activities while encouraging others to cut back theirs.
I'm quite tight when it comes to money. I think that helps the environment much more than if I was vegan or gave £10 weekly to Greenpeace, as I often don't buy the same sort of unnecessary tat other people do. Like a new iPhone each year...
It also means we have much more than £1k in savings.
no pockets in a shroud
That's a great quote.
But that's not what I see 'tight' as being about. I spend money, and I have a good life. I have hobbies and fun.
As an example: I know a couple of triathletes who got top-end triathlon bikes for a song. Including one guy who bought a triathlon bike worth over £8k for £3k from a neighbour. The neighbour bought it to do a triathlon race, got bored in the training before using it, and sold it new at a massive discount in a garage sale.
That's the sort of waste I cannot stand. It's stupid. Try the hobby as cheaply as possible to see if you enjoy it, and *then* spend the money.
When I set out to do a sprint triathlon last year, I bought a cheap £450 road bike. I have enough money in the bank to buy something an order of magnitude more expensive, but that would have been stupid, as my bike racing skills were non-existent. So I raced the cheap bike and learnt skills on it, knowing that if I trashed it, or it got stolen, it would not matter much. This year, as I have enjoyed my triathlon races, I bought a Zwift Ride indoor bike setup for a grand - as it is safer and more convenient than riding on the roads, especially in winter. And I'm spending a couple of hundred on a bike fit, so I know what sort of second-hand triathlon or high-end road bikes to look for. Technically a waste of money, but far better than buying the wrong-sized bike.
I could easily have spent ten grand on kit for my triathlon hobby - and in fact know people only slightly above my level who have. £500 wetsuits instead of £150 ones. £3,000 bikes instead of £450 ones. Stuff that does not actually make them much faster, especially as they don't train much.
So 'being tight' in my view is not about not spending money: it is about being cautious about spending money. And that caution can save you a lot of money.
Ha, yes
A chap I know bought a huge CNC mill (second hand, but was high 4 figures) - he was rightly terrified of the thing. He didn't buy a bench top hand mill first and learn properly.
So it sat there gathering dust.
What he actually wanted, for most of the things he wanted to do, was a good drill press. Not even a mill.
With me and bikes, it's a case of what bang I get for my bucks - in that case, how much extra speed.
I'd expect a £1k bike to be much faster than my £450 bike, for the same power/skill level. The components are so much better. A £2k bike will be faster than a £1k bike, but not by as much. And a £4k bike will be faster again, but again by a reduced amount. It increasingly becomes about expensive marginal gains.
The problem is the 'marginal gains' also look cool.
As I'm new to this cycle racing malarkey, the most improvement will not be got from an ultra-expensive bike, but by improving my skills. Hence the Zwift setup. I've decided that when I get to 2.5 watts per kg, I'll buy a new bike...
(And yes, i know 2.5 is low. But I'm a newbie and in my fifties...)
The commuting version of this is decent brakes (eg TRP Spyre), SKS mudguards and Marathon Plus deliver huge marginal gains. After that, it's probably not worth spending much more.
I *mostly* ride a mountain bike - pot holes and stop start riding in London.
This seems to upset some people - I've had people, at Richmond Park, who think that they own the roads as a private velodrome and everything not made of carbon fibre should be banned. Which is farcical - there's tons of nice smooth road for everyone to use. And if over taking is such a pain, how can you ever be a competitive cyclist?
To be fair to the Telegraph's writer, if not its headline writer, the text makes it clear that the £1,000 cap was lifted five years ago when (iirc) Boris was minding the shop.
To be fair to the Telegraph's writer, if not its headline writer, the text makes it clear that the £1,000 cap was lifted five years ago when (iirc) Boris was minding the shop.
This looks like the latest instalment of the Telegraph's campaign to demonstrate that "bollocks", for their writers, is also a verb.
It's not as off the wall as their front page last summer claiming that there were cyclists doing 52mph (which is about 50% faster than the Tour de France short course time record) and creating death traps all over London, but it's quite high up the fabrications list.
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
I went to see Kyoto (the play) the other day. About the negotiating of the Kyoto Agreement. Some great performances and the play illustrates the delay and obfuscating tactics of those opposed to any limit on, or reduction of carbon emissions. There is a great passage about the hypocrisy of the carbon trading scam.
During the interval, there were two young people, a boy and a girl, sitting next to me and they were chattering about this and that. In particular, the boy was telling the girl about his impressive travel plans. He was going to go on a tour of the US and South America, fly here, then there, then come back via somewhere else, and this compared to his equally impressive travels this year (Iceland, then Amsterdam).
I turned to them and asked them, as representative of "youngsters" (we all laughed - they were young lawyers), what they thought about the play's subject matter and they both voiced enthusiastic approval.
I then said I couldn't help but overhear them talking about flying all over the world, to which the male responded "well obviously I'm a vegan on account of the planet, and..." and then blathered on, quite embarrassed.
I assured them that they didn't need to explain themselves to me and we settled down to watch the second half of the play.
But that is the reality of life and net zero and whatnot. People don't want to reduce their own activities while encouraging others to cut back theirs.
I'm quite tight when it comes to money. I think that helps the environment much more than if I was vegan or gave £10 weekly to Greenpeace, as I often don't buy the same sort of unnecessary tat other people do. Like a new iPhone each year...
It also means we have much more than £1k in savings.
no pockets in a shroud
That's a great quote.
But that's not what I see 'tight' as being about. I spend money, and I have a good life. I have hobbies and fun.
As an example: I know a couple of triathletes who got top-end triathlon bikes for a song. Including one guy who bought a triathlon bike worth over £8k for £3k from a neighbour. The neighbour bought it to do a triathlon race, got bored in the training before using it, and sold it new at a massive discount in a garage sale.
That's the sort of waste I cannot stand. It's stupid. Try the hobby as cheaply as possible to see if you enjoy it, and *then* spend the money.
When I set out to do a sprint triathlon last year, I bought a cheap £450 road bike. I have enough money in the bank to buy something an order of magnitude more expensive, but that would have been stupid, as my bike racing skills were non-existent. So I raced the cheap bike and learnt skills on it, knowing that if I trashed it, or it got stolen, it would not matter much. This year, as I have enjoyed my triathlon races, I bought a Zwift Ride indoor bike setup for a grand - as it is safer and more convenient than riding on the roads, especially in winter. And I'm spending a couple of hundred on a bike fit, so I know what sort of second-hand triathlon or high-end road bikes to look for. Technically a waste of money, but far better than buying the wrong-sized bike.
I could easily have spent ten grand on kit for my triathlon hobby - and in fact know people only slightly above my level who have. £500 wetsuits instead of £150 ones. £3,000 bikes instead of £450 ones. Stuff that does not actually make them much faster, especially as they don't train much.
So 'being tight' in my view is not about not spending money: it is about being cautious about spending money. And that caution can save you a lot of money.
So you are not "tight", just sensible and careful and look for value for money. Tight people ar emiserable and die with lots of money having been miserable forever.
Not that I want to hark back to l*ckd*wn but young children were isolated from their friends and social groups and one of, if not the only way for them to communicate was via mobile phones.
Lab (and the Cons tbf) are now saying that having created the conditions whereby young children were forced onto their phones, that phones are pernicious and should be taken away from young children.
Yes circumstances might be different and people can socialise now, but that is playing fast and loose with peoples' wellbeing. And of course lockdown was the most pernicious of pernicious acts that any government has imposed on its population and we all lapped it up and wanted more.
Rather than trying (and probably failing) to ban smartphones for teens (whether wholesale or while at schools), can we first at least attempt a campaign to educate on the dangers of social media and other addictive aspects of technology? For both parents and children.
Treat is like smoking. Legal but highly damaging.
I think it's much better to aid parents by wholesale banning them. It's simple, very beneficial, easily understood, and won't cause issues between parents and children. We had Gameboys as kids - they were absolutely not allowed in classrooms, so why would a far more advanced and far-reaching entertainment device be allowed? They need to be out of the picture from arrival until hometime. Smart watches with screens under a certain size could be permissible for parents worried about their kids being incommunicado.
I don't see why there should be a blanket policy one way or another. It should be up to the school/teacher how they want the lesson to go in their room.
There's a time and a place for technology. If you're using the phone in a lesson to go on Snapchat or play Candy Crush or whatever then yes that's problematic.
If on the other hand it's being used in a productive manner as a useful tool with an educational app etc then I see absolutely no harm in that whatsoever.
I see it just like calculators. When I was in school the norm was that calculators were not permitted in Maths lessons, but there were times when they were and we'd be told when we could use them and when we could not.
They are nothing like calculators. The most you can muck around with a calculator is writing BOOBS on the screen. No teacher is going to use an educational app that demands the use of kids' own smartphones, as not all kids have them and it would be discrimintory. And frankly any teacher who just sticks their pupils infront of a smartphone shouldn't be in a job. They habe no place in a classroom, and frankly no place in a playground either.
Disability politics: what party does PB think has the greatest prevalence of people on some form of working-age incapacity benefit? Once upon a time the answer was obvious - but now?
- Age profile suggests Conservatives, with voter base dominated by 50-64 year olds - Education level suggests Reform - Social grade suggests Reform - Housing tenure suggests Reform (lots of council house tenants) - Employment status suggests Reform (Labour close second) - Household income suggests Reform (Conservative second)
I just wonder if we are witnessing a rather startling shift in Labour party values. Are they abandoning these kinds of people? This could be quite a dangerous path for the country.
The problem is since COVID, sorry I meant since the last GE, a significant number of new claimants have absolutely taken the piss. Whether this Government throw the baby out with the bathwater remains to be seen, but a couple earning £75,000 and taking £400 a month each because they have ADHD is a piss take. The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net rather than a fund for the entitled.
I'd agree with that, but they are not talking about means-testing PIP. Just changing the amount and the kind of conditions which make you eligible.
I don't see a problem with that either. There is only so much that can be done. What may have been affordable with a healthy set of demographics and a strong economy, may not be affordable any longer. So change it. Or get further into debt and eventually the changes will come and be more drastic anyway.
Disability politics: what party does PB think has the greatest prevalence of people on some form of working-age incapacity benefit? Once upon a time the answer was obvious - but now?
- Age profile suggests Conservatives, with voter base dominated by 50-64 year olds - Education level suggests Reform - Social grade suggests Reform - Housing tenure suggests Reform (lots of council house tenants) - Employment status suggests Reform (Labour close second) - Household income suggests Reform (Conservative second)
I just wonder if we are witnessing a rather startling shift in Labour party values. Are they abandoning these kinds of people? This could be quite a dangerous path for the country.
I doubt whether there is much of a political bias across the set of all people claiming working age disability benefits. Do you have evidence of the demographic breakdown of such claimaints for those 'suggestions' above?
Nothing substantial on the claimants themselves - just a vague recollection of things like the FRS and Scottish Household Survey. I think household income, age, employment status are reasonable assumptions given the OBRs welfare trends report, for example. Social grade, education and housing tenure are more tenuous.
Even if those assumptions are correct, we won't know for certain unless YouGov etc polled it directly as a characteristic.
He later updated that line in a further interview on LBC, saying: “There’s no suggestion that there is foul play.” Asked whether it was a “catastrophic accident”, Miliband said: “The conversation I’ve had is with the National Grid, the chief executive of the National Grid and certainly, that’s what he said to me.” More to add shortly no doubt…
UPDATE: London Fire Brigade take a different tack to Miliband – a senior fire officer wouldn’t comment on the cause of the fire in a press conference which began around 11:00 a.m. Meanwhile The Times reports counter-terror police are part of the investigation.
If I was involved in the investigation, I would definitely be saying "nothing is ruled out"/"No comment on cause" until some actual facts had emerged. And that might take a while - testing for evidence of accelerants would be a lab job, probably.
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
I went to see Kyoto (the play) the other day. About the negotiating of the Kyoto Agreement. Some great performances and the play illustrates the delay and obfuscating tactics of those opposed to any limit on, or reduction of carbon emissions. There is a great passage about the hypocrisy of the carbon trading scam.
During the interval, there were two young people, a boy and a girl, sitting next to me and they were chattering about this and that. In particular, the boy was telling the girl about his impressive travel plans. He was going to go on a tour of the US and South America, fly here, then there, then come back via somewhere else, and this compared to his equally impressive travels this year (Iceland, then Amsterdam).
I turned to them and asked them, as representative of "youngsters" (we all laughed - they were young lawyers), what they thought about the play's subject matter and they both voiced enthusiastic approval.
I then said I couldn't help but overhear them talking about flying all over the world, to which the male responded "well obviously I'm a vegan on account of the planet, and..." and then blathered on, quite embarrassed.
I assured them that they didn't need to explain themselves to me and we settled down to watch the second half of the play.
But that is the reality of life and net zero and whatnot. People don't want to reduce their own activities while encouraging others to cut back theirs.
He said he was vegan for that reason, so he was willing to reduce some of his own activities.
Why not look at people in the round? I admit I like to travel, although to date it has mostly been short haul. And I eat a lot of meat. However I drive very little (my 15 year old Megane has done about 72000 miles), often travel by train and rarely use the tumble dryer, in fact Octopus has recently given me some money back and allowed me to reduce my monthly payments to £64.
I am not sure what proportion of carbon outputs are due to aviation but I bet it is very little compared with other sources, which will be easier to reduce. Access to cheap aviation gives many people a lot of benefits. So I am not sure it should be a priority
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
I went to see Kyoto (the play) the other day. About the negotiating of the Kyoto Agreement. Some great performances and the play illustrates the delay and obfuscating tactics of those opposed to any limit on, or reduction of carbon emissions. There is a great passage about the hypocrisy of the carbon trading scam.
During the interval, there were two young people, a boy and a girl, sitting next to me and they were chattering about this and that. In particular, the boy was telling the girl about his impressive travel plans. He was going to go on a tour of the US and South America, fly here, then there, then come back via somewhere else, and this compared to his equally impressive travels this year (Iceland, then Amsterdam).
I turned to them and asked them, as representative of "youngsters" (we all laughed - they were young lawyers), what they thought about the play's subject matter and they both voiced enthusiastic approval.
I then said I couldn't help but overhear them talking about flying all over the world, to which the male responded "well obviously I'm a vegan on account of the planet, and..." and then blathered on, quite embarrassed.
I assured them that they didn't need to explain themselves to me and we settled down to watch the second half of the play.
But that is the reality of life and net zero and whatnot. People don't want to reduce their own activities while encouraging others to cut back theirs.
I'm quite tight when it comes to money. I think that helps the environment much more than if I was vegan or gave £10 weekly to Greenpeace, as I often don't buy the same sort of unnecessary tat other people do. Like a new iPhone each year...
It also means we have much more than £1k in savings.
no pockets in a shroud
That's a great quote.
But that's not what I see 'tight' as being about. I spend money, and I have a good life. I have hobbies and fun.
As an example: I know a couple of triathletes who got top-end triathlon bikes for a song. Including one guy who bought a triathlon bike worth over £8k for £3k from a neighbour. The neighbour bought it to do a triathlon race, got bored in the training before using it, and sold it new at a massive discount in a garage sale.
That's the sort of waste I cannot stand. It's stupid. Try the hobby as cheaply as possible to see if you enjoy it, and *then* spend the money.
When I set out to do a sprint triathlon last year, I bought a cheap £450 road bike. I have enough money in the bank to buy something an order of magnitude more expensive, but that would have been stupid, as my bike racing skills were non-existent. So I raced the cheap bike and learnt skills on it, knowing that if I trashed it, or it got stolen, it would not matter much. This year, as I have enjoyed my triathlon races, I bought a Zwift Ride indoor bike setup for a grand - as it is safer and more convenient than riding on the roads, especially in winter. And I'm spending a couple of hundred on a bike fit, so I know what sort of second-hand triathlon or high-end road bikes to look for. Technically a waste of money, but far better than buying the wrong-sized bike.
I could easily have spent ten grand on kit for my triathlon hobby - and in fact know people only slightly above my level who have. £500 wetsuits instead of £150 ones. £3,000 bikes instead of £450 ones. Stuff that does not actually make them much faster, especially as they don't train much.
So 'being tight' in my view is not about not spending money: it is about being cautious about spending money. And that caution can save you a lot of money.
Ha, yes
A chap I know bought a huge CNC mill (second hand, but was high 4 figures) - he was rightly terrified of the thing. He didn't buy a bench top hand mill first and learn properly.
So it sat there gathering dust.
What he actually wanted, for most of the things he wanted to do, was a good drill press. Not even a mill.
With me and bikes, it's a case of what bang I get for my bucks - in that case, how much extra speed.
I'd expect a £1k bike to be much faster than my £450 bike, for the same power/skill level. The components are so much better. A £2k bike will be faster than a £1k bike, but not by as much. And a £4k bike will be faster again, but again by a reduced amount. It increasingly becomes about expensive marginal gains.
The problem is the 'marginal gains' also look cool.
As I'm new to this cycle racing malarkey, the most improvement will not be got from an ultra-expensive bike, but by improving my skills. Hence the Zwift setup. I've decided that when I get to 2.5 watts per kg, I'll buy a new bike...
(And yes, i know 2.5 is low. But I'm a newbie and in my fifties...)
The commuting version of this is decent brakes (eg TRP Spyre), SKS mudguards and Marathon Plus deliver huge marginal gains. After that, it's probably not worth spending much more.
I *mostly* ride a mountain bike - pot holes and stop start riding in London.
This seems to upset some people - I've had people, at Richmond Park, who think that they own the roads as a private velodrome and everything not made of carbon fibre should be banned. Which is farcical - there's tons of nice smooth road for everyone to use. And if over taking is such a pain, how can you ever be a competitive cyclist?
That's a bit like locals blasting the horn at tourists on the A82. Arseholes will be arseholes.
Has Sturgeon having been cleared of facing charges helped do you think?
Doubt it , she was a busted flush some time ago, more she was the SNP problem in the past and now she has gone , even if her henchman is running teh show, things can only get better.
According to the Beeb... ...The BBC understands that Heathrow does have back-up power for its key systems, but kickstarting these alternative power supplies for the whole airport takes time. A source said it was not possible to switch the power back on immediately. And even once the power is back on, there are countless systems which need to be rebooted and checked to ensure they are working properly and are stable...
The Jerusalem Post @Jerusalem_Post Opinion | Netanyahu’s fear is everywhere—fear of truth, justice, and the people’s wrath. Once a leader, now a coward, he flees responsibility and history’s judgment.
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
I went to see Kyoto (the play) the other day. About the negotiating of the Kyoto Agreement. Some great performances and the play illustrates the delay and obfuscating tactics of those opposed to any limit on, or reduction of carbon emissions. There is a great passage about the hypocrisy of the carbon trading scam.
During the interval, there were two young people, a boy and a girl, sitting next to me and they were chattering about this and that. In particular, the boy was telling the girl about his impressive travel plans. He was going to go on a tour of the US and South America, fly here, then there, then come back via somewhere else, and this compared to his equally impressive travels this year (Iceland, then Amsterdam).
I turned to them and asked them, as representative of "youngsters" (we all laughed - they were young lawyers), what they thought about the play's subject matter and they both voiced enthusiastic approval.
I then said I couldn't help but overhear them talking about flying all over the world, to which the male responded "well obviously I'm a vegan on account of the planet, and..." and then blathered on, quite embarrassed.
I assured them that they didn't need to explain themselves to me and we settled down to watch the second half of the play.
But that is the reality of life and net zero and whatnot. People don't want to reduce their own activities while encouraging others to cut back theirs.
He said he was vegan for that reason, so he was willing to reduce some of his own activities.
Why not look at people in the round? I admit I like to travel, although to date it has mostly been short haul. And I eat a lot of meat. However I drive very little (my 15 year old Megane has done about 72000 miles), often travel by train and rarely use the tumble dryer, in fact Octopus has recently given me some money back and allowed me to reduce my monthly payments to £64.
I am not sure what proportion of carbon outputs are due to aviation but I bet it is very little compared with other sources, which will be easier to reduce. Access to cheap aviation gives many people a lot of benefits. So I am not sure it should be a priority
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
I went to see Kyoto (the play) the other day. About the negotiating of the Kyoto Agreement. Some great performances and the play illustrates the delay and obfuscating tactics of those opposed to any limit on, or reduction of carbon emissions. There is a great passage about the hypocrisy of the carbon trading scam.
During the interval, there were two young people, a boy and a girl, sitting next to me and they were chattering about this and that. In particular, the boy was telling the girl about his impressive travel plans. He was going to go on a tour of the US and South America, fly here, then there, then come back via somewhere else, and this compared to his equally impressive travels this year (Iceland, then Amsterdam).
I turned to them and asked them, as representative of "youngsters" (we all laughed - they were young lawyers), what they thought about the play's subject matter and they both voiced enthusiastic approval.
I then said I couldn't help but overhear them talking about flying all over the world, to which the male responded "well obviously I'm a vegan on account of the planet, and..." and then blathered on, quite embarrassed.
I assured them that they didn't need to explain themselves to me and we settled down to watch the second half of the play.
But that is the reality of life and net zero and whatnot. People don't want to reduce their own activities while encouraging others to cut back theirs.
He said he was vegan for that reason, so he was willing to reduce some of his own activities.
Why not look at people in the round? I admit I like to travel, although to date it has mostly been short haul. And I eat a lot of meat. However I drive very little (my 15 year old Megane has done about 72000 miles), often travel by train and rarely use the tumble dryer, in fact Octopus has recently given me some money back and allowed me to reduce my monthly payments to £64.
I am not sure what proportion of carbon outputs are due to aviation but I bet it is very little compared with other sources, which will be easier to reduce. Access to cheap aviation gives many people a lot of benefits. So I am not sure it should be a priority
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
We need to know whether this claim is true or not.
I once had some dealings with the aviation fuel distribution system at Heathrow. It was fiendishly complex. Wouldn't surprise me if the power generation and provision system is equally Byzantine...
I had a customer who provided the facilities to power planes and ships when in port. It was serious stuff. I know how we know everything here, but would it be presumptuous of me to suggest that most of us (including me) don't actually have a clue?
I've touched on marinas and inland waterways, but only because I was looking at applying Passive Haus principles to narrow boats to see how low energy they could become and how easily fossil fuel could be stripped out, and working through it with floaty-boaty peeps.
Yes - it's somewhat serious stuff even at that level. It would need quite significant amounts of container-sized Tesla Megapacks for marinas in the country.
(Electric narrow boat will cost about the same as an average house without extensive DIY. You need serious money if you plan a return to the land.)
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
I went to see Kyoto (the play) the other day. About the negotiating of the Kyoto Agreement. Some great performances and the play illustrates the delay and obfuscating tactics of those opposed to any limit on, or reduction of carbon emissions. There is a great passage about the hypocrisy of the carbon trading scam.
During the interval, there were two young people, a boy and a girl, sitting next to me and they were chattering about this and that. In particular, the boy was telling the girl about his impressive travel plans. He was going to go on a tour of the US and South America, fly here, then there, then come back via somewhere else, and this compared to his equally impressive travels this year (Iceland, then Amsterdam).
I turned to them and asked them, as representative of "youngsters" (we all laughed - they were young lawyers), what they thought about the play's subject matter and they both voiced enthusiastic approval.
I then said I couldn't help but overhear them talking about flying all over the world, to which the male responded "well obviously I'm a vegan on account of the planet, and..." and then blathered on, quite embarrassed.
I assured them that they didn't need to explain themselves to me and we settled down to watch the second half of the play.
But that is the reality of life and net zero and whatnot. People don't want to reduce their own activities while encouraging others to cut back theirs.
He said he was vegan for that reason, so he was willing to reduce some of his own activities.
Why not look at people in the round? I admit I like to travel, although to date it has mostly been short haul. And I eat a lot of meat. However I drive very little (my 15 year old Megane has done about 72000 miles), often travel by train and rarely use the tumble dryer, in fact Octopus has recently given me some money back and allowed me to reduce my monthly payments to £64.
I am not sure what proportion of carbon outputs are due to aviation but I bet it is very little compared with other sources, which will be easier to reduce. Access to cheap aviation gives many people a lot of benefits. So I am not sure it should be a priority
Disability politics: what party does PB think has the greatest prevalence of people on some form of working-age incapacity benefit? Once upon a time the answer was obvious - but now?
- Age profile suggests Conservatives, with voter base dominated by 50-64 year olds - Education level suggests Reform - Social grade suggests Reform - Housing tenure suggests Reform (lots of council house tenants) - Employment status suggests Reform (Labour close second) - Household income suggests Reform (Conservative second)
I just wonder if we are witnessing a rather startling shift in Labour party values. Are they abandoning these kinds of people? This could be quite a dangerous path for the country.
The problem is since COVID, sorry I meant since the last GE, a significant number of new claimants have absolutely taken the piss. Whether this Government throw the baby out with the bathwater remains to be seen, but a couple earning £75,000 and taking £400 a month each because they have ADHD is a piss take. The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net rather than a fund for the entitled.
I'd agree with that, but they are not talking about means-testing PIP. Just changing the amount and the kind of conditions which make you eligible.
This pair should be nowhere near £400 pip each per month even if they were earning just ten bob a week.
I am not entirely unsympathetic to your point @Mexicanpete but you seem to be raising two issues here: should they get PIP for their conditions and should they get it if they are high earners.
This is nothing to do with "a significant number of new claimants have absolutely taken the piss" - the rules are the rules, any government can change them (and this government is tightening the criteria) but unless and until they do the assessors, and more significantly the tribunals, will apply the rules as written.
As I have freely mentioned on here, I have been a paraplegic since a road traffic accident in 1979. Since then I have always claimed whatever disability payments I qualified for. Given in later life I became a high-earner, I did sometimes consider whether I should refuse the payment but there is absolutely no doubt (to me at least) that life is more expensive with a disability in a myriad of ways, some obvious, some more subtle. So, rightly or wrongly, I rationalise it as a kind of tax allowance acknowledge those extra costs. Swings and roundabouts though - we don't have kids, so have since 18 used the education service we contribute too.
I do think PIP (and Attendance Allowance for those over pension age) should be taxed however, but which government wants to have the media screaming "disability tax!" at them?
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
I went to see Kyoto (the play) the other day. About the negotiating of the Kyoto Agreement. Some great performances and the play illustrates the delay and obfuscating tactics of those opposed to any limit on, or reduction of carbon emissions. There is a great passage about the hypocrisy of the carbon trading scam.
During the interval, there were two young people, a boy and a girl, sitting next to me and they were chattering about this and that. In particular, the boy was telling the girl about his impressive travel plans. He was going to go on a tour of the US and South America, fly here, then there, then come back via somewhere else, and this compared to his equally impressive travels this year (Iceland, then Amsterdam).
I turned to them and asked them, as representative of "youngsters" (we all laughed - they were young lawyers), what they thought about the play's subject matter and they both voiced enthusiastic approval.
I then said I couldn't help but overhear them talking about flying all over the world, to which the male responded "well obviously I'm a vegan on account of the planet, and..." and then blathered on, quite embarrassed.
I assured them that they didn't need to explain themselves to me and we settled down to watch the second half of the play.
But that is the reality of life and net zero and whatnot. People don't want to reduce their own activities while encouraging others to cut back theirs.
He said he was vegan for that reason, so he was willing to reduce some of his own activities.
Why not look at people in the round? I admit I like to travel, although to date it has mostly been short haul. And I eat a lot of meat. However I drive very little (my 15 year old Megane has done about 72000 miles), often travel by train and rarely use the tumble dryer, in fact Octopus has recently given me some money back and allowed me to reduce my monthly payments to £64.
I am not sure what proportion of carbon outputs are due to aviation but I bet it is very little compared with other sources, which will be easier to reduce. Access to cheap aviation gives many people a lot of benefits. So I am not sure it should be a priority
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
I went to see Kyoto (the play) the other day. About the negotiating of the Kyoto Agreement. Some great performances and the play illustrates the delay and obfuscating tactics of those opposed to any limit on, or reduction of carbon emissions. There is a great passage about the hypocrisy of the carbon trading scam.
During the interval, there were two young people, a boy and a girl, sitting next to me and they were chattering about this and that. In particular, the boy was telling the girl about his impressive travel plans. He was going to go on a tour of the US and South America, fly here, then there, then come back via somewhere else, and this compared to his equally impressive travels this year (Iceland, then Amsterdam).
I turned to them and asked them, as representative of "youngsters" (we all laughed - they were young lawyers), what they thought about the play's subject matter and they both voiced enthusiastic approval.
I then said I couldn't help but overhear them talking about flying all over the world, to which the male responded "well obviously I'm a vegan on account of the planet, and..." and then blathered on, quite embarrassed.
I assured them that they didn't need to explain themselves to me and we settled down to watch the second half of the play.
But that is the reality of life and net zero and whatnot. People don't want to reduce their own activities while encouraging others to cut back theirs.
He said he was vegan for that reason, so he was willing to reduce some of his own activities.
Why not look at people in the round? I admit I like to travel, although to date it has mostly been short haul. And I eat a lot of meat. However I drive very little (my 15 year old Megane has done about 72000 miles), often travel by train and rarely use the tumble dryer, in fact Octopus has recently given me some money back and allowed me to reduce my monthly payments to £64.
I am not sure what proportion of carbon outputs are due to aviation but I bet it is very little compared with other sources, which will be easier to reduce. Access to cheap aviation gives many people a lot of benefits. So I am not sure it should be a priority
Multiple factors - demographics, an aging population driving less, young people having more options especially in cities and not learning to drive, train travel increasing, more tram systems.
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
I went to see Kyoto (the play) the other day. About the negotiating of the Kyoto Agreement. Some great performances and the play illustrates the delay and obfuscating tactics of those opposed to any limit on, or reduction of carbon emissions. There is a great passage about the hypocrisy of the carbon trading scam.
During the interval, there were two young people, a boy and a girl, sitting next to me and they were chattering about this and that. In particular, the boy was telling the girl about his impressive travel plans. He was going to go on a tour of the US and South America, fly here, then there, then come back via somewhere else, and this compared to his equally impressive travels this year (Iceland, then Amsterdam).
I turned to them and asked them, as representative of "youngsters" (we all laughed - they were young lawyers), what they thought about the play's subject matter and they both voiced enthusiastic approval.
I then said I couldn't help but overhear them talking about flying all over the world, to which the male responded "well obviously I'm a vegan on account of the planet, and..." and then blathered on, quite embarrassed.
I assured them that they didn't need to explain themselves to me and we settled down to watch the second half of the play.
But that is the reality of life and net zero and whatnot. People don't want to reduce their own activities while encouraging others to cut back theirs.
He said he was vegan for that reason, so he was willing to reduce some of his own activities.
Why not look at people in the round? I admit I like to travel, although to date it has mostly been short haul. And I eat a lot of meat. However I drive very little (my 15 year old Megane has done about 72000 miles), often travel by train and rarely use the tumble dryer, in fact Octopus has recently given me some money back and allowed me to reduce my monthly payments to £64.
I am not sure what proportion of carbon outputs are due to aviation but I bet it is very little compared with other sources, which will be easier to reduce. Access to cheap aviation gives many people a lot of benefits. So I am not sure it should be a priority
6,000 miles a year? It would be interesting to see the distribution.
Commuting is being reduced by WFH. Sales reps bombing up and down motorways can now use email or Zoom calls. What is left? A weekly trip to the supermarket? The school run?
Good news for purveyors of electric cars, perhaps, since there is no range anxiety if you are just pootling around town.
Another day, another mysterious fire at an electrical substation. Funny how these incidents keep happening, knocking out power for thousands, yet we’re all supposed to believe it’s just bad luck?
Meanwhile, National Grid and the woke energy companies are more focused on hitting their net-zero targets and enforcing pronoun training than actually keeping the lights on. Maybe if they spent less time pushing green pipe dreams at North London vegan dinner parties with their luvvie mates in the media/electricity wokerati complex, and more time maintaining infrastructure, we wouldn’t have to deal with power cuts every time a substation so much as overheats.
But sure, let’s keep pretending this is all just a coincidence. Nothing to see here.
According to the Beeb... ...The BBC understands that Heathrow does have back-up power for its key systems, but kickstarting these alternative power supplies for the whole airport takes time. A source said it was not possible to switch the power back on immediately. And even once the power is back on, there are countless systems which need to be rebooted and checked to ensure they are working properly and are stable...
I was curious how much electricity Heathrow uses. The latest "sustainability report" redacts that information, but a couple of years back the annual usage was put at 272,610 MWh - which is around 747MWh per day, or an average demand of a bit over 30MW. So the peak demand would likely be double that.
The main hospital in Istanbul has 50MW of backup generation, so it's certainly quite doable. https://www.himoinsa.com/50-mw-turkey/case-studies/news-list/news/109/eng.html ...Due to the site's seismic activity, more than 2,000 seismic isolators have been incorporated to protect the facilities from possible seismic movement, making it the largest building in the world protected by seismic isolators.
HIMOINSA, together with Yanmar Turkey, has provided 25 HTW-2295 T5 diesel generator sets to provide 50 MW of standby power, in order to guarantee the continuous operation of the facilities in the event of a grid outage...
Their backup power sounds more reliable than Heathrow's.
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
I went to see Kyoto (the play) the other day. About the negotiating of the Kyoto Agreement. Some great performances and the play illustrates the delay and obfuscating tactics of those opposed to any limit on, or reduction of carbon emissions. There is a great passage about the hypocrisy of the carbon trading scam.
During the interval, there were two young people, a boy and a girl, sitting next to me and they were chattering about this and that. In particular, the boy was telling the girl about his impressive travel plans. He was going to go on a tour of the US and South America, fly here, then there, then come back via somewhere else, and this compared to his equally impressive travels this year (Iceland, then Amsterdam).
I turned to them and asked them, as representative of "youngsters" (we all laughed - they were young lawyers), what they thought about the play's subject matter and they both voiced enthusiastic approval.
I then said I couldn't help but overhear them talking about flying all over the world, to which the male responded "well obviously I'm a vegan on account of the planet, and..." and then blathered on, quite embarrassed.
I assured them that they didn't need to explain themselves to me and we settled down to watch the second half of the play.
But that is the reality of life and net zero and whatnot. People don't want to reduce their own activities while encouraging others to cut back theirs.
He said he was vegan for that reason, so he was willing to reduce some of his own activities.
Why not look at people in the round? I admit I like to travel, although to date it has mostly been short haul. And I eat a lot of meat. However I drive very little (my 15 year old Megane has done about 72000 miles), often travel by train and rarely use the tumble dryer, in fact Octopus has recently given me some money back and allowed me to reduce my monthly payments to £64.
I am not sure what proportion of carbon outputs are due to aviation but I bet it is very little compared with other sources, which will be easier to reduce. Access to cheap aviation gives many people a lot of benefits. So I am not sure it should be a priority
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
I went to see Kyoto (the play) the other day. About the negotiating of the Kyoto Agreement. Some great performances and the play illustrates the delay and obfuscating tactics of those opposed to any limit on, or reduction of carbon emissions. There is a great passage about the hypocrisy of the carbon trading scam.
During the interval, there were two young people, a boy and a girl, sitting next to me and they were chattering about this and that. In particular, the boy was telling the girl about his impressive travel plans. He was going to go on a tour of the US and South America, fly here, then there, then come back via somewhere else, and this compared to his equally impressive travels this year (Iceland, then Amsterdam).
I turned to them and asked them, as representative of "youngsters" (we all laughed - they were young lawyers), what they thought about the play's subject matter and they both voiced enthusiastic approval.
I then said I couldn't help but overhear them talking about flying all over the world, to which the male responded "well obviously I'm a vegan on account of the planet, and..." and then blathered on, quite embarrassed.
I assured them that they didn't need to explain themselves to me and we settled down to watch the second half of the play.
But that is the reality of life and net zero and whatnot. People don't want to reduce their own activities while encouraging others to cut back theirs.
He said he was vegan for that reason, so he was willing to reduce some of his own activities.
Why not look at people in the round? I admit I like to travel, although to date it has mostly been short haul. And I eat a lot of meat. However I drive very little (my 15 year old Megane has done about 72000 miles), often travel by train and rarely use the tumble dryer, in fact Octopus has recently given me some money back and allowed me to reduce my monthly payments to £64.
I am not sure what proportion of carbon outputs are due to aviation but I bet it is very little compared with other sources, which will be easier to reduce. Access to cheap aviation gives many people a lot of benefits. So I am not sure it should be a priority
Multiple factors - demographics, an aging population driving less, young people having more options especially in cities and not learning to drive, train travel increasing, more tram systems.
Isn't it simply that there are more two-car households? That would drive the average per car down, which is what that stat shows.
He later updated that line in a further interview on LBC, saying: “There’s no suggestion that there is foul play.” Asked whether it was a “catastrophic accident”, Miliband said: “The conversation I’ve had is with the National Grid, the chief executive of the National Grid and certainly, that’s what he said to me.” More to add shortly no doubt…
UPDATE: London Fire Brigade take a different tack to Miliband – a senior fire officer wouldn’t comment on the cause of the fire in a press conference which began around 11:00 a.m. Meanwhile The Times reports counter-terror police are part of the investigation.
If I was involved in the investigation, I would definitely be saying "nothing is ruled out"/"No comment on cause" until some actual facts had emerged. And that might take a while - testing for evidence of accelerants would be a lab job, probably.
Disability politics: what party does PB think has the greatest prevalence of people on some form of working-age incapacity benefit? Once upon a time the answer was obvious - but now?
- Age profile suggests Conservatives, with voter base dominated by 50-64 year olds - Education level suggests Reform - Social grade suggests Reform - Housing tenure suggests Reform (lots of council house tenants) - Employment status suggests Reform (Labour close second) - Household income suggests Reform (Conservative second)
I just wonder if we are witnessing a rather startling shift in Labour party values. Are they abandoning these kinds of people? This could be quite a dangerous path for the country.
The problem is since COVID, sorry I meant since the last GE, a significant number of new claimants have absolutely taken the piss. Whether this Government throw the baby out with the bathwater remains to be seen, but a couple earning £75,000 and taking £400 a month each because they have ADHD is a piss take. The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net rather than a fund for the entitled.
I'd agree with that, but they are not talking about means-testing PIP. Just changing the amount and the kind of conditions which make you eligible.
This pair should be nowhere near £400 pip each per month even if they were earning just ten bob a week.
I am not entirely unsympathetic to your point @Mexicanpete but you seem to be raising two issues here: should they get PIP for their conditions and should they get it if they are high earners.
This is nothing to do with "a significant number of new claimants have absolutely taken the piss" - the rules are the rules, any government can change them (and this government is tightening the criteria) but unless and until they do the assessors, and more significantly the tribunals, will apply the rules as written.
As I have freely mentioned on here, I have been a paraplegic since a road traffic accident in 1979. Since then I have always claimed whatever disability payments I qualified for. Given in later life I became a high-earner, I did sometimes consider whether I should refuse the payment but there is absolutely no doubt (to me at least) that life is more expensive with a disability in a myriad of ways, some obvious, some more subtle. So, rightly or wrongly, I rationalise it as a kind of tax allowance acknowledge those extra costs. Swings and roundabouts though - we don't have kids, so have since 18 used the education service we contribute too.
I do think PIP (and Attendance Allowance for those over pension age) should be taxed however, but which government wants to have the media screaming "disability tax!" at them?
It seems to me that a non-stupid method of dealing with this is to make all benefits taxable income.
With an extra personal allowance for those in certain categories.
Combine this with getting rid of personal NI, removing the anomalies in the rates, fixing the pension at the personal allowance....
Disability politics: what party does PB think has the greatest prevalence of people on some form of working-age incapacity benefit? Once upon a time the answer was obvious - but now?
- Age profile suggests Conservatives, with voter base dominated by 50-64 year olds - Education level suggests Reform - Social grade suggests Reform - Housing tenure suggests Reform (lots of council house tenants) - Employment status suggests Reform (Labour close second) - Household income suggests Reform (Conservative second)
I just wonder if we are witnessing a rather startling shift in Labour party values. Are they abandoning these kinds of people? This could be quite a dangerous path for the country.
The problem is since COVID, sorry I meant since the last GE, a significant number of new claimants have absolutely taken the piss. Whether this Government throw the baby out with the bathwater remains to be seen, but a couple earning £75,000 and taking £400 a month each because they have ADHD is a piss take. The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net rather than a fund for the entitled.
I'd agree with that, but they are not talking about means-testing PIP. Just changing the amount and the kind of conditions which make you eligible.
This pair should be nowhere near £400 pip each per month even if they were earning just ten bob a week.
I am not entirely unsympathetic to your point @Mexicanpete but you seem to be raising two issues here: should they get PIP for their conditions and should they get it if they are high earners.
This is nothing to do with "a significant number of new claimants have absolutely taken the piss" - the rules are the rules, any government can change them (and this government is tightening the criteria) but unless and until they do the assessors, and more significantly the tribunals, will apply the rules as written.
As I have freely mentioned on here, I have been a paraplegic since a road traffic accident in 1979. Since then I have always claimed whatever disability payments I qualified for. Given in later life I became a high-earner, I did sometimes consider whether I should refuse the payment but there is absolutely no doubt (to me at least) that life is more expensive with a disability in a myriad of ways, some obvious, some more subtle. So, rightly or wrongly, I rationalise it as a kind of tax allowance acknowledge those extra costs. Swings and roundabouts though - we don't have kids, so have since 18 used the education service we contribute too.
I do think PIP (and Attendance Allowance for those over pension age) should be taxed however, but which government wants to have the media screaming "disability tax!" at them?
Instictively whether it continues for higher earners should vary by circumstance. Particularly with mental health I suspect shifting money from direct payments for the well off to funding better and more treatment seems likely to yield good results for both taxpayer and claimants.
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
I went to see Kyoto (the play) the other day. About the negotiating of the Kyoto Agreement. Some great performances and the play illustrates the delay and obfuscating tactics of those opposed to any limit on, or reduction of carbon emissions. There is a great passage about the hypocrisy of the carbon trading scam.
During the interval, there were two young people, a boy and a girl, sitting next to me and they were chattering about this and that. In particular, the boy was telling the girl about his impressive travel plans. He was going to go on a tour of the US and South America, fly here, then there, then come back via somewhere else, and this compared to his equally impressive travels this year (Iceland, then Amsterdam).
I turned to them and asked them, as representative of "youngsters" (we all laughed - they were young lawyers), what they thought about the play's subject matter and they both voiced enthusiastic approval.
I then said I couldn't help but overhear them talking about flying all over the world, to which the male responded "well obviously I'm a vegan on account of the planet, and..." and then blathered on, quite embarrassed.
I assured them that they didn't need to explain themselves to me and we settled down to watch the second half of the play.
But that is the reality of life and net zero and whatnot. People don't want to reduce their own activities while encouraging others to cut back theirs.
He said he was vegan for that reason, so he was willing to reduce some of his own activities.
Why not look at people in the round? I admit I like to travel, although to date it has mostly been short haul. And I eat a lot of meat. However I drive very little (my 15 year old Megane has done about 72000 miles), often travel by train and rarely use the tumble dryer, in fact Octopus has recently given me some money back and allowed me to reduce my monthly payments to £64.
I am not sure what proportion of carbon outputs are due to aviation but I bet it is very little compared with other sources, which will be easier to reduce. Access to cheap aviation gives many people a lot of benefits. So I am not sure it should be a priority
6,000 miles a year? It would be interesting to see the distribution.
Commuting is being reduced by WFH. Sales reps bombing up and down motorways can now use email or Zoom calls. What is left? A weekly trip to the supermarket? The school run?
Good news for purveyors of electric cars, perhaps, since there is no range anxiety if you are just pootling around town.
Quite a number of those I work with, who live out in the sticks, have had an electric car for years as the "station car". Charge at home, just used for backward and forward to the rail station.
Disability politics: what party does PB think has the greatest prevalence of people on some form of working-age incapacity benefit? Once upon a time the answer was obvious - but now?
- Age profile suggests Conservatives, with voter base dominated by 50-64 year olds - Education level suggests Reform - Social grade suggests Reform - Housing tenure suggests Reform (lots of council house tenants) - Employment status suggests Reform (Labour close second) - Household income suggests Reform (Conservative second)
I just wonder if we are witnessing a rather startling shift in Labour party values. Are they abandoning these kinds of people? This could be quite a dangerous path for the country.
The problem is since COVID, sorry I meant since the last GE, a significant number of new claimants have absolutely taken the piss. Whether this Government throw the baby out with the bathwater remains to be seen, but a couple earning £75,000 and taking £400 a month each because they have ADHD is a piss take. The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net rather than a fund for the entitled.
I'd agree with that, but they are not talking about means-testing PIP. Just changing the amount and the kind of conditions which make you eligible.
This pair should be nowhere near £400 pip each per month even if they were earning just ten bob a week.
I am not entirely unsympathetic to your point @Mexicanpete but you seem to be raising two issues here: should they get PIP for their conditions and should they get it if they are high earners.
This is nothing to do with "a significant number of new claimants have absolutely taken the piss" - the rules are the rules, any government can change them (and this government is tightening the criteria) but unless and until they do the assessors, and more significantly the tribunals, will apply the rules as written.
As I have freely mentioned on here, I have been a paraplegic since a road traffic accident in 1979. Since then I have always claimed whatever disability payments I qualified for. Given in later life I became a high-earner, I did sometimes consider whether I should refuse the payment but there is absolutely no doubt (to me at least) that life is more expensive with a disability in a myriad of ways, some obvious, some more subtle. So, rightly or wrongly, I rationalise it as a kind of tax allowance acknowledge those extra costs. Swings and roundabouts though - we don't have kids, so have since 18 used the education service we contribute too.
I do think PIP (and Attendance Allowance for those over pension age) should be taxed however, but which government wants to have the media screaming "disability tax!" at them?
Can you give a brief summary of your extra costs, Ben?
I'm interested because I know people with significant costs who do *not* qualify for Higher Rate PIP, and cannot walk much other than round the house. One has to have an e-assist tricycle and an adapted car, but has to self-fund.
Getting rid of the incapacity test is good, as it is such a dodgy, capriciously administered thing. As is not repeating assessment for permanent impacts - an amputee is not suddenly going to regrow a limb. OTOH progressive conditions need repeated evaluations.
I suspect we need a greater medical input from qualified staff, as happens in some other countries.
I'm still not clear exactly what changes have been made and their implications. Obviously running with "you became disabled due to random happenstance, and we require you to pay the extra costs yourself" is at best questionable from an equality / ethics point of view.
According to the Beeb... ...The BBC understands that Heathrow does have back-up power for its key systems, but kickstarting these alternative power supplies for the whole airport takes time. A source said it was not possible to switch the power back on immediately. And even once the power is back on, there are countless systems which need to be rebooted and checked to ensure they are working properly and are stable...
So, if we think the main secondary backup generators have been taken out, those would be tertiary systems for this scenario?
Disability politics: what party does PB think has the greatest prevalence of people on some form of working-age incapacity benefit? Once upon a time the answer was obvious - but now?
- Age profile suggests Conservatives, with voter base dominated by 50-64 year olds - Education level suggests Reform - Social grade suggests Reform - Housing tenure suggests Reform (lots of council house tenants) - Employment status suggests Reform (Labour close second) - Household income suggests Reform (Conservative second)
I just wonder if we are witnessing a rather startling shift in Labour party values. Are they abandoning these kinds of people? This could be quite a dangerous path for the country.
I doubt whether there is much of a political bias across the set of all people claiming working age disability benefits. Do you have evidence of the demographic breakdown of such claimaints for those 'suggestions' above?
Nothing substantial on the claimants themselves - just a vague recollection of things like the FRS and Scottish Household Survey. I think household income, age, employment status are reasonable assumptions given the OBRs welfare trends report, for example. Social grade, education and housing tenure are more tenuous.
Even if those assumptions are correct, we won't know for certain unless YouGov etc polled it directly as a characteristic.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary I'd beg to disagree on your assumptions, or at least limit them to ESA (or the UC equivalent: the succinctly named 'Limited Capability for Work Related Activity'). This benefit: specifically for those who cannot work due to illness/disability, is means-tested.
PIP, which is a disability payment assessed irrespective of an individual's capability for work, is not mean-tested or treated as taxable income. Neither is Attendance Allowance which is paid to those over state pension age who need care. Both should be treated as taxable income imo - a simple and fair, if potentially controversial, change. that would effectively reduce the cost of these benefits at a stroke.
Disability politics: what party does PB think has the greatest prevalence of people on some form of working-age incapacity benefit? Once upon a time the answer was obvious - but now?
- Age profile suggests Conservatives, with voter base dominated by 50-64 year olds - Education level suggests Reform - Social grade suggests Reform - Housing tenure suggests Reform (lots of council house tenants) - Employment status suggests Reform (Labour close second) - Household income suggests Reform (Conservative second)
I just wonder if we are witnessing a rather startling shift in Labour party values. Are they abandoning these kinds of people? This could be quite a dangerous path for the country.
The problem is since COVID, sorry I meant since the last GE, a significant number of new claimants have absolutely taken the piss. Whether this Government throw the baby out with the bathwater remains to be seen, but a couple earning £75,000 and taking £400 a month each because they have ADHD is a piss take. The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net rather than a fund for the entitled.
I'd agree with that, but they are not talking about means-testing PIP. Just changing the amount and the kind of conditions which make you eligible.
This pair should be nowhere near £400 pip each per month even if they were earning just ten bob a week.
I am not entirely unsympathetic to your point @Mexicanpete but you seem to be raising two issues here: should they get PIP for their conditions and should they get it if they are high earners.
This is nothing to do with "a significant number of new claimants have absolutely taken the piss" - the rules are the rules, any government can change them (and this government is tightening the criteria) but unless and until they do the assessors, and more significantly the tribunals, will apply the rules as written.
As I have freely mentioned on here, I have been a paraplegic since a road traffic accident in 1979. Since then I have always claimed whatever disability payments I qualified for. Given in later life I became a high-earner, I did sometimes consider whether I should refuse the payment but there is absolutely no doubt (to me at least) that life is more expensive with a disability in a myriad of ways, some obvious, some more subtle. So, rightly or wrongly, I rationalise it as a kind of tax allowance acknowledge those extra costs. Swings and roundabouts though - we don't have kids, so have since 18 used the education service we contribute too.
I do think PIP (and Attendance Allowance for those over pension age) should be taxed however, but which government wants to have the media screaming "disability tax!" at them?
I am not really a fan of means testing. Although I can understand why people would consider means testing under current financial circumstances. That isn't my point.
If you listen to the clip this guy Daniel is demanding pip for a condition that doesn't appear to affect people over a certain age. Now I understand that as someone with a family member who is significantly disadvantaged by autism, discounting neuro diverse conditions as substantially less worthy in compensation terms than physical disability has its dangers, although I do.
The increase in benefits over the last four years for dubious neuro diverse conditions is problematic and unsustainable.
Disability politics: what party does PB think has the greatest prevalence of people on some form of working-age incapacity benefit? Once upon a time the answer was obvious - but now?
- Age profile suggests Conservatives, with voter base dominated by 50-64 year olds - Education level suggests Reform - Social grade suggests Reform - Housing tenure suggests Reform (lots of council house tenants) - Employment status suggests Reform (Labour close second) - Household income suggests Reform (Conservative second)
I just wonder if we are witnessing a rather startling shift in Labour party values. Are they abandoning these kinds of people? This could be quite a dangerous path for the country.
The problem is since COVID, sorry I meant since the last GE, a significant number of new claimants have absolutely taken the piss. Whether this Government throw the baby out with the bathwater remains to be seen, but a couple earning £75,000 and taking £400 a month each because they have ADHD is a piss take. The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net rather than a fund for the entitled.
I'd agree with that, but they are not talking about means-testing PIP. Just changing the amount and the kind of conditions which make you eligible.
This pair should be nowhere near £400 pip each per month even if they were earning just ten bob a week.
I am not entirely unsympathetic to your point @Mexicanpete but you seem to be raising two issues here: should they get PIP for their conditions and should they get it if they are high earners.
This is nothing to do with "a significant number of new claimants have absolutely taken the piss" - the rules are the rules, any government can change them (and this government is tightening the criteria) but unless and until they do the assessors, and more significantly the tribunals, will apply the rules as written.
As I have freely mentioned on here, I have been a paraplegic since a road traffic accident in 1979. Since then I have always claimed whatever disability payments I qualified for. Given in later life I became a high-earner, I did sometimes consider whether I should refuse the payment but there is absolutely no doubt (to me at least) that life is more expensive with a disability in a myriad of ways, some obvious, some more subtle. So, rightly or wrongly, I rationalise it as a kind of tax allowance acknowledge those extra costs. Swings and roundabouts though - we don't have kids, so have since 18 used the education service we contribute too.
I do think PIP (and Attendance Allowance for those over pension age) should be taxed however, but which government wants to have the media screaming "disability tax!" at them?
I wouldn’t go as far as treating it as taxable income but if you are in the 40% tax band it’s a bit much. Not sure how you would resolve it though.
It’s one of those things where you look at the issue, look at what you are trying to fix and go - wish we had a different starting point
Disability politics: what party does PB think has the greatest prevalence of people on some form of working-age incapacity benefit? Once upon a time the answer was obvious - but now?
- Age profile suggests Conservatives, with voter base dominated by 50-64 year olds - Education level suggests Reform - Social grade suggests Reform - Housing tenure suggests Reform (lots of council house tenants) - Employment status suggests Reform (Labour close second) - Household income suggests Reform (Conservative second)
I just wonder if we are witnessing a rather startling shift in Labour party values. Are they abandoning these kinds of people? This could be quite a dangerous path for the country.
The problem is since COVID, sorry I meant since the last GE, a significant number of new claimants have absolutely taken the piss. Whether this Government throw the baby out with the bathwater remains to be seen, but a couple earning £75,000 and taking £400 a month each because they have ADHD is a piss take. The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net rather than a fund for the entitled.
I'd agree with that, but they are not talking about means-testing PIP. Just changing the amount and the kind of conditions which make you eligible.
This pair should be nowhere near £400 pip each per month even if they were earning just ten bob a week.
I am not entirely unsympathetic to your point @Mexicanpete but you seem to be raising two issues here: should they get PIP for their conditions and should they get it if they are high earners.
This is nothing to do with "a significant number of new claimants have absolutely taken the piss" - the rules are the rules, any government can change them (and this government is tightening the criteria) but unless and until they do the assessors, and more significantly the tribunals, will apply the rules as written.
As I have freely mentioned on here, I have been a paraplegic since a road traffic accident in 1979. Since then I have always claimed whatever disability payments I qualified for. Given in later life I became a high-earner, I did sometimes consider whether I should refuse the payment but there is absolutely no doubt (to me at least) that life is more expensive with a disability in a myriad of ways, some obvious, some more subtle. So, rightly or wrongly, I rationalise it as a kind of tax allowance acknowledge those extra costs. Swings and roundabouts though - we don't have kids, so have since 18 used the education service we contribute too.
I do think PIP (and Attendance Allowance for those over pension age) should be taxed however, but which government wants to have the media screaming "disability tax!" at them?
From each according to his ability, to each according to his rationalisation.
According to the Beeb... ...The BBC understands that Heathrow does have back-up power for its key systems, but kickstarting these alternative power supplies for the whole airport takes time. A source said it was not possible to switch the power back on immediately. And even once the power is back on, there are countless systems which need to be rebooted and checked to ensure they are working properly and are stable...
I was curious how much electricity Heathrow uses. The latest "sustainability report" redacts that information, but a couple of years back the annual usage was put at 272,610 MWh - which is around 747MWh per day, or an average demand of a bit over 30MW. So the peak demand would likely be double that.
The main hospital in Istanbul has 50MW of backup generation, so it's certainly quite doable. https://www.himoinsa.com/50-mw-turkey/case-studies/news-list/news/109/eng.html ...Due to the site's seismic activity, more than 2,000 seismic isolators have been incorporated to protect the facilities from possible seismic movement, making it the largest building in the world protected by seismic isolators.
HIMOINSA, together with Yanmar Turkey, has provided 25 HTW-2295 T5 diesel generator sets to provide 50 MW of standby power, in order to guarantee the continuous operation of the facilities in the event of a grid outage...
Their backup power sounds more reliable than Heathrow's.
A 2 Megawatt generator can be bought in an ISO container form. So you could buy 30 of those, put them on 6 sites scattered around the airport....
Disability politics: what party does PB think has the greatest prevalence of people on some form of working-age incapacity benefit? Once upon a time the answer was obvious - but now?
- Age profile suggests Conservatives, with voter base dominated by 50-64 year olds - Education level suggests Reform - Social grade suggests Reform - Housing tenure suggests Reform (lots of council house tenants) - Employment status suggests Reform (Labour close second) - Household income suggests Reform (Conservative second)
I just wonder if we are witnessing a rather startling shift in Labour party values. Are they abandoning these kinds of people? This could be quite a dangerous path for the country.
The problem is since COVID, sorry I meant since the last GE, a significant number of new claimants have absolutely taken the piss. Whether this Government throw the baby out with the bathwater remains to be seen, but a couple earning £75,000 and taking £400 a month each because they have ADHD is a piss take. The benefits system is supposed to be a safety net rather than a fund for the entitled.
I'd agree with that, but they are not talking about means-testing PIP. Just changing the amount and the kind of conditions which make you eligible.
This pair should be nowhere near £400 pip each per month even if they were earning just ten bob a week.
I am not entirely unsympathetic to your point @Mexicanpete but you seem to be raising two issues here: should they get PIP for their conditions and should they get it if they are high earners.
This is nothing to do with "a significant number of new claimants have absolutely taken the piss" - the rules are the rules, any government can change them (and this government is tightening the criteria) but unless and until they do the assessors, and more significantly the tribunals, will apply the rules as written.
As I have freely mentioned on here, I have been a paraplegic since a road traffic accident in 1979. Since then I have always claimed whatever disability payments I qualified for. Given in later life I became a high-earner, I did sometimes consider whether I should refuse the payment but there is absolutely no doubt (to me at least) that life is more expensive with a disability in a myriad of ways, some obvious, some more subtle. So, rightly or wrongly, I rationalise it as a kind of tax allowance acknowledge those extra costs. Swings and roundabouts though - we don't have kids, so have since 18 used the education service we contribute too.
I do think PIP (and Attendance Allowance for those over pension age) should be taxed however, but which government wants to have the media screaming "disability tax!" at them?
FWIW I think PIP should not be means tested for those with permanent conditions for which they are not at fault. It's my one exception - it's a levelling of the playing field and just the fair thing to do.
It also neutralises all the perverse incentives you get with other benefits, which is exactly what's needed if you want disabled people to be contributing to the economy.
It'll be interesting to see whether planners at Heathrow Airport had even considered whether having the airport powered by one substation was a good idea or not. And if they had discussed it, why they thought it was appropriate. At the very least, you'd have expected each terminal to have had its own power source.
It's interesting how much armchair experts are jumping to conclusions about Heathrow's electricity supply based on nothing.
Today's outage is not nothing. What you sneer at is ordinary people asking obvious questions, the first of which is why no-one asked the obvious question.
I'm curious, what is the obvious question?
Regarding why there isn't more redundancy, I guess the answer is money.
I worked on the connection project for Heathrow T4. From what I remember the site was connected to the distribution substation at Slough which was in turn was fed from the 400kV National Grid substation at Laleham, not North Hyde. I thought the other terminals at Heathrow were fed from a different distribution substation which might be where the problem arises. I find it odd that the loss of this small National Grid 275kV substation should cause problems on the distribution network lasting more than a day especially at winter time when one would expect their network to be intact (and not with bits out for maintenance).
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
I went to see Kyoto (the play) the other day. About the negotiating of the Kyoto Agreement. Some great performances and the play illustrates the delay and obfuscating tactics of those opposed to any limit on, or reduction of carbon emissions. There is a great passage about the hypocrisy of the carbon trading scam.
During the interval, there were two young people, a boy and a girl, sitting next to me and they were chattering about this and that. In particular, the boy was telling the girl about his impressive travel plans. He was going to go on a tour of the US and South America, fly here, then there, then come back via somewhere else, and this compared to his equally impressive travels this year (Iceland, then Amsterdam).
I turned to them and asked them, as representative of "youngsters" (we all laughed - they were young lawyers), what they thought about the play's subject matter and they both voiced enthusiastic approval.
I then said I couldn't help but overhear them talking about flying all over the world, to which the male responded "well obviously I'm a vegan on account of the planet, and..." and then blathered on, quite embarrassed.
I assured them that they didn't need to explain themselves to me and we settled down to watch the second half of the play.
But that is the reality of life and net zero and whatnot. People don't want to reduce their own activities while encouraging others to cut back theirs.
He said he was vegan for that reason, so he was willing to reduce some of his own activities.
Why not look at people in the round? I admit I like to travel, although to date it has mostly been short haul. And I eat a lot of meat. However I drive very little (my 15 year old Megane has done about 72000 miles), often travel by train and rarely use the tumble dryer, in fact Octopus has recently given me some money back and allowed me to reduce my monthly payments to £64.
I am not sure what proportion of carbon outputs are due to aviation but I bet it is very little compared with other sources, which will be easier to reduce. Access to cheap aviation gives many people a lot of benefits. So I am not sure it should be a priority
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
I went to see Kyoto (the play) the other day. About the negotiating of the Kyoto Agreement. Some great performances and the play illustrates the delay and obfuscating tactics of those opposed to any limit on, or reduction of carbon emissions. There is a great passage about the hypocrisy of the carbon trading scam.
During the interval, there were two young people, a boy and a girl, sitting next to me and they were chattering about this and that. In particular, the boy was telling the girl about his impressive travel plans. He was going to go on a tour of the US and South America, fly here, then there, then come back via somewhere else, and this compared to his equally impressive travels this year (Iceland, then Amsterdam).
I turned to them and asked them, as representative of "youngsters" (we all laughed - they were young lawyers), what they thought about the play's subject matter and they both voiced enthusiastic approval.
I then said I couldn't help but overhear them talking about flying all over the world, to which the male responded "well obviously I'm a vegan on account of the planet, and..." and then blathered on, quite embarrassed.
I assured them that they didn't need to explain themselves to me and we settled down to watch the second half of the play.
But that is the reality of life and net zero and whatnot. People don't want to reduce their own activities while encouraging others to cut back theirs.
He said he was vegan for that reason, so he was willing to reduce some of his own activities.
Why not look at people in the round? I admit I like to travel, although to date it has mostly been short haul. And I eat a lot of meat. However I drive very little (my 15 year old Megane has done about 72000 miles), often travel by train and rarely use the tumble dryer, in fact Octopus has recently given me some money back and allowed me to reduce my monthly payments to £64.
I am not sure what proportion of carbon outputs are due to aviation but I bet it is very little compared with other sources, which will be easier to reduce. Access to cheap aviation gives many people a lot of benefits. So I am not sure it should be a priority
Multiple factors - demographics, an aging population driving less, young people having more options especially in cities and not learning to drive, train travel increasing, more tram systems.
Isn't it simply that there are more two-car households? That would drive the average per car down, which is what that stat shows.
Disability politics: what party does PB think has the greatest prevalence of people on some form of working-age incapacity benefit? Once upon a time the answer was obvious - but now?
- Age profile suggests Conservatives, with voter base dominated by 50-64 year olds - Education level suggests Reform - Social grade suggests Reform - Housing tenure suggests Reform (lots of council house tenants) - Employment status suggests Reform (Labour close second) - Household income suggests Reform (Conservative second)
I just wonder if we are witnessing a rather startling shift in Labour party values. Are they abandoning these kinds of people? This could be quite a dangerous path for the country.
I doubt whether there is much of a political bias across the set of all people claiming working age disability benefits. Do you have evidence of the demographic breakdown of such claimaints for those 'suggestions' above?
Nothing substantial on the claimants themselves - just a vague recollection of things like the FRS and Scottish Household Survey. I think household income, age, employment status are reasonable assumptions given the OBRs welfare trends report, for example. Social grade, education and housing tenure are more tenuous.
Even if those assumptions are correct, we won't know for certain unless YouGov etc polled it directly as a characteristic.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary I'd beg to disagree on your assumptions, or at least limit them to ESA (or the UC equivalent: the succinctly named 'Limited Capability for Work Related Activity'). This benefit: specifically for those who cannot work due to illness/disability, is means-tested.
PIP, which is a disability payment assessed irrespective of an individual's capability for work, is not mean-tested or treated as taxable income. Neither is Attendance Allowance which is paid to those over state pension age who need care. Both should be treated as taxable income imo - a simple and fair, if potentially controversial, change. that would effectively reduce the cost of these benefits at a stroke.
Yes, that's a fair point. I'll see if I can find some stats on PIP in particular.
According to the Beeb... ...The BBC understands that Heathrow does have back-up power for its key systems, but kickstarting these alternative power supplies for the whole airport takes time. A source said it was not possible to switch the power back on immediately. And even once the power is back on, there are countless systems which need to be rebooted and checked to ensure they are working properly and are stable...
So, if we think the main secondary backup generators have been taken out, those would be tertiary systems for this scenario?
LOL
A proper system would have a big pile of batteries, stabilising the Heathrow local grid. So if a source of external power goes down. you don't even see a flicker.
When the batteries start getting demand, after x seconds, the generators would then fire up.
For reference, you can buy 3MWh of batteries in an ISO container - for something like a million quid each. So 20 of those would power Heathrow at peak demand for an hour.
He later updated that line in a further interview on LBC, saying: “There’s no suggestion that there is foul play.” Asked whether it was a “catastrophic accident”, Miliband said: “The conversation I’ve had is with the National Grid, the chief executive of the National Grid and certainly, that’s what he said to me.” More to add shortly no doubt…
UPDATE: London Fire Brigade take a different tack to Miliband – a senior fire officer wouldn’t comment on the cause of the fire in a press conference which began around 11:00 a.m. Meanwhile The Times reports counter-terror police are part of the investigation.
He shouldn't have said something categorical when it isn't known what caused the fire. Rather than phrases like "there are no indications of foul play", they should just say that the investigation is ongoing.
Unless there really are no indications of foul play.
Given Russia has previous, that's where the suspicion would lie, and it makes sense that they would double and triple check causes, and involve counter-terrorism - but it's still possible that the first indications are that it was an accident/failure.
If they're 95% sure, then suggesting that we are investigating/don't know, creates arguably an even bigger vacuum for the numpties who want to exploit this kind of incident.
According to the Beeb... ...The BBC understands that Heathrow does have back-up power for its key systems, but kickstarting these alternative power supplies for the whole airport takes time. A source said it was not possible to switch the power back on immediately. And even once the power is back on, there are countless systems which need to be rebooted and checked to ensure they are working properly and are stable...
So, if we think the main secondary backup generators have been taken out, those would be tertiary systems for this scenario?
I don't think the backup generator reported as taken out was Heathrow's, as the substation is some way from the airport itself.
From the BBC reports it's evident than they don't have the kind of backup (instantaneous power) provided to the Istanbul hospital, which I found as an example.
As with many (most ?) UK assets, Heathrow is largely overseas owned. The current ownership is as follows:
Ardian (France) 22.61% Qatar Investment Authority 20% Public Investment Fund (Saudi) 15.01% GIC (Singapore) 11.2% Australian Retirement Trust 11.18% China Investment Corporation 10% Ferrovial (Spain) 5.25% Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec 2.65% Universities Superannuation Scheme 2.1%
On the subject of PIP and "people taking the piss" I coincidentally received this in my weekly Citizens Advice news update:
Successful initial claim rate drops for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) - In response to a written question, Stephen Timms has revealed statistics that show that the success of PIP claims has fallen from 70% in 2016 to 55% in 2024. These statistics relate to initial decisions made on new PIP claims. In contrast, tribunal statistics show that 7 in 10 PIP decisions are changed, in favour of the claimant, at the appeal stage.
What I don't know is what proportion of rejected claims are taken to appeal.
On the subject of PIP and "people taking the piss" I coincidentally received this in my weekly Citizens Advice news update:
Successful initial claim rate drops for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) - In response to a written question, Stephen Timms has revealed statistics that show that the success of PIP claims has fallen from 70% in 2016 to 55% in 2024. These statistics relate to initial decisions made on new PIP claims. In contrast, tribunal statistics show that 7 in 10 PIP decisions are changed, in favour of the claimant, at the appeal stage.
What I don't know is what proportion of rejected claims are taken to appeal.
A higher fraction of refusals could indeed indicate more people taking this piss.
According to the Beeb... ...The BBC understands that Heathrow does have back-up power for its key systems, but kickstarting these alternative power supplies for the whole airport takes time. A source said it was not possible to switch the power back on immediately. And even once the power is back on, there are countless systems which need to be rebooted and checked to ensure they are working properly and are stable...
I was curious how much electricity Heathrow uses. The latest "sustainability report" redacts that information, but a couple of years back the annual usage was put at 272,610 MWh - which is around 747MWh per day, or an average demand of a bit over 30MW. So the peak demand would likely be double that.
The main hospital in Istanbul has 50MW of backup generation, so it's certainly quite doable. https://www.himoinsa.com/50-mw-turkey/case-studies/news-list/news/109/eng.html ...Due to the site's seismic activity, more than 2,000 seismic isolators have been incorporated to protect the facilities from possible seismic movement, making it the largest building in the world protected by seismic isolators.
HIMOINSA, together with Yanmar Turkey, has provided 25 HTW-2295 T5 diesel generator sets to provide 50 MW of standby power, in order to guarantee the continuous operation of the facilities in the event of a grid outage...
Their backup power sounds more reliable than Heathrow's.
A 2 Megawatt generator can be bought in an ISO container form. So you could buy 30 of those, put them on 6 sites scattered around the airport....
We don't know that they don't have some; the BBC story suggests they might. What they don't seem to have is any kind of uninterruptible power backup arrangement.
And if the power goes down unexpectedly, restarting all the airport information systems is probably a great deal more complicated than just switching them back on.
According to the Beeb... ...The BBC understands that Heathrow does have back-up power for its key systems, but kickstarting these alternative power supplies for the whole airport takes time. A source said it was not possible to switch the power back on immediately. And even once the power is back on, there are countless systems which need to be rebooted and checked to ensure they are working properly and are stable...
I was curious how much electricity Heathrow uses. The latest "sustainability report" redacts that information, but a couple of years back the annual usage was put at 272,610 MWh - which is around 747MWh per day, or an average demand of a bit over 30MW. So the peak demand would likely be double that.
The main hospital in Istanbul has 50MW of backup generation, so it's certainly quite doable. https://www.himoinsa.com/50-mw-turkey/case-studies/news-list/news/109/eng.html ...Due to the site's seismic activity, more than 2,000 seismic isolators have been incorporated to protect the facilities from possible seismic movement, making it the largest building in the world protected by seismic isolators.
HIMOINSA, together with Yanmar Turkey, has provided 25 HTW-2295 T5 diesel generator sets to provide 50 MW of standby power, in order to guarantee the continuous operation of the facilities in the event of a grid outage...
Their backup power sounds more reliable than Heathrow's.
A 2 Megawatt generator can be bought in an ISO container form. So you could buy 30 of those, put them on 6 sites scattered around the airport....
We don't know that they don't have some; the BBC story suggests they might. What they don't seem to have is any kind of uninterruptible power backup arrangement.
And if the power goes down unexpectedly, restarting all the airport information systems is probably a great deal more complicated than just switching them back on.
Cost cutting ?
backups that don't backup are useless.
So, you generally have a battery to give you time to fire up the backup generators. If they exist. The batteries act as a UPS - so you shouldn't even get a flicker.
Reading further on the Turkish hospital, above, that is exactly what they have.
Has Sturgeon having been cleared of facing charges helped do you think?
Murrell's trial might drop in time for the Holyrood elections. Nippy's dropped charges will by then be a historical irrelevance. I suppose the only issue might be the unusual interpretation of SNP treasures's innocence by Scottish juries. He's dead now so I can comment, but how the **** was Eck acquitted?
Of the two really serious charges, one incident had been exhaustively investigated before, an apology made and the complainant elected to remain in Salmond's office team. The other had all the hallmarks of a fabrication by a spurned would-be Holyrood candidate (and indeed Salmond's only defence to this was one of alibi, i.e. the complainant was not present when the alleged offence took place). AFAIK, there is still an open investigation into the latter's evidence.
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
I went to see Kyoto (the play) the other day. About the negotiating of the Kyoto Agreement. Some great performances and the play illustrates the delay and obfuscating tactics of those opposed to any limit on, or reduction of carbon emissions. There is a great passage about the hypocrisy of the carbon trading scam.
During the interval, there were two young people, a boy and a girl, sitting next to me and they were chattering about this and that. In particular, the boy was telling the girl about his impressive travel plans. He was going to go on a tour of the US and South America, fly here, then there, then come back via somewhere else, and this compared to his equally impressive travels this year (Iceland, then Amsterdam).
I turned to them and asked them, as representative of "youngsters" (we all laughed - they were young lawyers), what they thought about the play's subject matter and they both voiced enthusiastic approval.
I then said I couldn't help but overhear them talking about flying all over the world, to which the male responded "well obviously I'm a vegan on account of the planet, and..." and then blathered on, quite embarrassed.
I assured them that they didn't need to explain themselves to me and we settled down to watch the second half of the play.
But that is the reality of life and net zero and whatnot. People don't want to reduce their own activities while encouraging others to cut back theirs.
He said he was vegan for that reason, so he was willing to reduce some of his own activities.
Why not look at people in the round? I admit I like to travel, although to date it has mostly been short haul. And I eat a lot of meat. However I drive very little (my 15 year old Megane has done about 72000 miles), often travel by train and rarely use the tumble dryer, in fact Octopus has recently given me some money back and allowed me to reduce my monthly payments to £64.
I am not sure what proportion of carbon outputs are due to aviation but I bet it is very little compared with other sources, which will be easier to reduce. Access to cheap aviation gives many people a lot of benefits. So I am not sure it should be a priority
Apparently (my dad is telling me this), Richard Tice has claimed that Heathrow has ditched diesel back up generators in the name of net zero. A quick Google finds this from 2022:
Stand-by generators currently operate using diesel as they need an independent power source to maintain resilient operations. They are used predominantly as back-up power for airfield ground lighting. We are investigating renewable-based alternatives that can still meet the stringent performance criteria for such a safety critical airport asset.
That suggests that any back up generators wouldn't be for the whole airport, so perhaps Heathrow is vulnerable to a single point of failure.
That said, Heathrow having a net zero plan is quite funny.
I went to see Kyoto (the play) the other day. About the negotiating of the Kyoto Agreement. Some great performances and the play illustrates the delay and obfuscating tactics of those opposed to any limit on, or reduction of carbon emissions. There is a great passage about the hypocrisy of the carbon trading scam.
During the interval, there were two young people, a boy and a girl, sitting next to me and they were chattering about this and that. In particular, the boy was telling the girl about his impressive travel plans. He was going to go on a tour of the US and South America, fly here, then there, then come back via somewhere else, and this compared to his equally impressive travels this year (Iceland, then Amsterdam).
I turned to them and asked them, as representative of "youngsters" (we all laughed - they were young lawyers), what they thought about the play's subject matter and they both voiced enthusiastic approval.
I then said I couldn't help but overhear them talking about flying all over the world, to which the male responded "well obviously I'm a vegan on account of the planet, and..." and then blathered on, quite embarrassed.
I assured them that they didn't need to explain themselves to me and we settled down to watch the second half of the play.
But that is the reality of life and net zero and whatnot. People don't want to reduce their own activities while encouraging others to cut back theirs.
He said he was vegan for that reason, so he was willing to reduce some of his own activities.
Why not look at people in the round? I admit I like to travel, although to date it has mostly been short haul. And I eat a lot of meat. However I drive very little (my 15 year old Megane has done about 72000 miles), often travel by train and rarely use the tumble dryer, in fact Octopus has recently given me some money back and allowed me to reduce my monthly payments to £64.
I am not sure what proportion of carbon outputs are due to aviation but I bet it is very little compared with other sources, which will be easier to reduce. Access to cheap aviation gives many people a lot of benefits. So I am not sure it should be a priority
Multiple factors - demographics, an aging population driving less, young people having more options especially in cities and not learning to drive, train travel increasing, more tram systems.
I think we do about 4k per year. Short trips ferrying kids to activities, a weekly trip to Sainsburys and a few times a year long drives up north or to Cornwall on holiday or seeing family. No commuting or school run.
He later updated that line in a further interview on LBC, saying: “There’s no suggestion that there is foul play.” Asked whether it was a “catastrophic accident”, Miliband said: “The conversation I’ve had is with the National Grid, the chief executive of the National Grid and certainly, that’s what he said to me.” More to add shortly no doubt…
UPDATE: London Fire Brigade take a different tack to Miliband – a senior fire officer wouldn’t comment on the cause of the fire in a press conference which began around 11:00 a.m. Meanwhile The Times reports counter-terror police are part of the investigation.
He shouldn't have said something categorical when it isn't known what caused the fire. Rather than phrases like "there are no indications of foul play", they should just say that the investigation is ongoing.
Yes, leave the categorical statements of what happened to commentators on PB.com!
It'll be interesting to see whether planners at Heathrow Airport had even considered whether having the airport powered by one substation was a good idea or not. And if they had discussed it, why they thought it was appropriate. At the very least, you'd have expected each terminal to have had its own power source.
It's interesting how much armchair experts are jumping to conclusions about Heathrow's electricity supply based on nothing.
Today's outage is not nothing. What you sneer at is ordinary people asking obvious questions, the first of which is why no-one asked the obvious question.
I’m not sneering at “ordinary people”. I’m suggesting commentators on PB, who are demonstrably not “ordinary people”, should slow down before rushing to blame the Russians, net zero or poor planning.
It'll be interesting to see whether planners at Heathrow Airport had even considered whether having the airport powered by one substation was a good idea or not. And if they had discussed it, why they thought it was appropriate. At the very least, you'd have expected each terminal to have had its own power source.
It's interesting how much armchair experts are jumping to conclusions about Heathrow's electricity supply based on nothing.
Today's outage is not nothing. What you sneer at is ordinary people asking obvious questions, the first of which is why no-one asked the obvious question.
I’m not sneering at “ordinary people”. I’m suggesting commentators on PB, who are demonstrably not “ordinary people”, should slow down before rushing to blame the Russians, net zero or poor planning.
Nobody has blamed Nat Zero for the substation blowing up.
It'll be interesting to see whether planners at Heathrow Airport had even considered whether having the airport powered by one substation was a good idea or not. And if they had discussed it, why they thought it was appropriate. At the very least, you'd have expected each terminal to have had its own power source.
It's interesting how much armchair experts are jumping to conclusions about Heathrow's electricity supply based on nothing.
Today's outage is not nothing. What you sneer at is ordinary people asking obvious questions, the first of which is why no-one asked the obvious question.
I’m not sneering at “ordinary people”. I’m suggesting commentators on PB, who are demonstrably not “ordinary people”, should slow down before rushing to blame the Russians, net zero or poor planning.
But we can absolutely blame poor planning, that a critical piece of infrastructure is out of action for at least a day because of a single fire means it has been poorly planned. Anything that important can't have a single critical point of failure. If this wasn't terrorists or Russians the next one will be because they'll all be looking for other critical infrastructure that has these single points of failure.
Comments
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/21/heathrow-airport-closed-latest-news-fire-power-outage/
Why was the back-up generator so close to the main generator that the same fire could disable it?
https://x.com/GBNEWS/status/1903012757915480341
- Age profile suggests Conservatives, with voter base dominated by 50-64 year olds
- Education level suggests Reform
- Social grade suggests Reform
- Housing tenure suggests Reform (lots of council house tenants)
- Employment status suggests Reform (Labour close second)
- Household income suggests Reform (Conservative second)
I just wonder if we are witnessing a rather startling shift in Labour party values. Are they abandoning these kinds of people? This could be quite a dangerous path for the country.
On the Net Zero plan, that's just how continuous improvement happens, by making sure that relevant things are considered, surely?
We start from here, and keep chipping away at it, and over a long period of time make progress to where we need to be.
I'm pretty sure that throughout most of Labour's history, if you said that some areas of the country had 5 times as many people too ill to work than others, then it would be obvious that they'd try to tackle that.
In some ways it's a victory for the right that many on the left are fighting desperately for the status quo.
https://x.com/rosscolquhoun/status/1903041494585311418
All linked into some cult of victimhood and oppression with those not on benefits being some sort of 'exploiter'.
Wish it was someone better than Reform, but there we are. "Me mam were Labour, me gran were Labour, so I'm Labour. We're a Labour family, we are." needs to die. Unheathly for democracy.
Now it’s perfectly possible that it was a completely random accident but given how few electrical substation fires occur you have to ask if the fire was dubious
https://morrisf1.blogspot.com/2025/03/chinese-grand-prix-2025-pre.html
https://youtu.be/72pl3rKWe9M?si=qtQbah-iRNDNIafE
Admitting you generally start from a position of knowing bugger all!
Economy £94, Business £224, Private £673
Not quite proportionate but solidly in that direction.
As I believe one Glasgow newspaper columnist has said, he has finally been cured of his Labour nostalgia.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/transport/article/heathrow-airport-latest-news-fire-l6s6mlwsc
https://order-order.com/2025/03/21/miliband-no-suggestion-of-foul-play-in-heathrow-substation-fire/
He later updated that line in a further interview on LBC, saying: “There’s no suggestion that there is foul play.” Asked whether it was a “catastrophic accident”, Miliband said: “The conversation I’ve had is with the National Grid, the chief executive of the National Grid and certainly, that’s what he said to me.” More to add shortly no doubt…
UPDATE: London Fire Brigade take a different tack to Miliband – a senior fire officer wouldn’t comment on the cause of the fire in a press conference which began around 11:00 a.m. Meanwhile The Times reports counter-terror police are part of the investigation.
Regarding why there isn't more redundancy, I guess the answer is money.
This seems to upset some people - I've had people, at Richmond Park, who think that they own the roads as a private velodrome and everything not made of carbon fibre should be banned. Which is farcical - there's tons of nice smooth road for everyone to use. And if over taking is such a pain, how can you ever be a competitive cyclist?
It's not as off the wall as their front page last summer claiming that there were cyclists doing 52mph (which is about 50% faster than the Tour de France short course time record) and creating death traps all over London, but it's quite high up the fabrications list.
Even if those assumptions are correct, we won't know for certain unless YouGov etc polled it directly as a characteristic.
https://www.carbuyer.co.uk/tips-and-advice/303702/used-car-mileage-uk-average-and-how-much-is-too-much
...The BBC understands that Heathrow does have back-up power for its key systems, but kickstarting these alternative power supplies for the whole airport takes time.
A source said it was not possible to switch the power back on immediately.
And even once the power is back on, there are countless systems which need to be rebooted and checked to ensure they are working properly and are stable...
The Jerusalem Post
@Jerusalem_Post
Opinion | Netanyahu’s fear is everywhere—fear of truth, justice, and the people’s wrath. Once a leader, now a coward, he flees responsibility and history’s judgment.
https://x.com/Jerusalem_Post/status/1903023822216802330
Yes - it's somewhat serious stuff even at that level. It would need quite significant amounts of container-sized Tesla Megapacks for marinas in the country.
(Electric narrow boat will cost about the same as an average house without extensive DIY. You need serious money if you plan a return to the land.)
This is nothing to do with "a significant number of new claimants have absolutely taken the piss" - the rules are the rules, any government can change them (and this government is tightening the criteria) but unless and until they do the assessors, and more significantly the tribunals, will apply the rules as written.
As I have freely mentioned on here, I have been a paraplegic since a road traffic accident in 1979. Since then I have always claimed whatever disability payments I qualified for. Given in later life I became a high-earner, I did sometimes consider whether I should refuse the payment but there is absolutely no doubt (to me at least) that life is more expensive with a disability in a myriad of ways, some obvious, some more subtle. So, rightly or wrongly, I rationalise it as a kind of tax allowance acknowledge those extra costs. Swings and roundabouts though - we don't have kids, so have since 18 used the education service we contribute too.
I do think PIP (and Attendance Allowance for those over pension age) should be taxed however, but which government wants to have the media screaming "disability tax!" at them?
A reduction has been a continent-wide trend since about 2000 iirc, except perhaps for some Eastern countries. The UK is down from 9200 to 7400, says one source.
https://www.cuvva.com/how-insurance-works/annual-mileage
Multiple factors - demographics, an aging population driving less, young people having more options especially in cities and not learning to drive, train travel increasing, more tram systems.
Commuting is being reduced by WFH. Sales reps bombing up and down motorways can now use email or Zoom calls. What is left? A weekly trip to the supermarket? The school run?
Good news for purveyors of electric cars, perhaps, since there is no range anxiety if you are just pootling around town.
Meanwhile, National Grid and the woke energy companies are more focused on hitting their net-zero targets and enforcing pronoun training than actually keeping the lights on. Maybe if they spent less time pushing green pipe dreams at North London vegan dinner parties with their luvvie mates in the media/electricity wokerati complex, and more time maintaining infrastructure, we wouldn’t have to deal with power cuts every time a substation so much as overheats.
But sure, let’s keep pretending this is all just a coincidence. Nothing to see here.
(Am I doing this right?)
The latest "sustainability report" redacts that information, but a couple of years back the annual usage was put at 272,610 MWh - which is around 747MWh per day, or an average demand of a bit over 30MW.
So the peak demand would likely be double that.
The main hospital in Istanbul has 50MW of backup generation, so it's certainly quite doable.
https://www.himoinsa.com/50-mw-turkey/case-studies/news-list/news/109/eng.html
...Due to the site's seismic activity, more than 2,000 seismic isolators have been incorporated to protect the facilities from possible seismic movement, making it the largest building in the world protected by seismic isolators.
HIMOINSA, together with Yanmar Turkey, has provided 25 HTW-2295 T5 diesel generator sets to provide 50 MW of standby power, in order to guarantee the continuous operation of the facilities in the event of a grid outage...
Their backup power sounds more reliable than Heathrow's.
(irony)
With an extra personal allowance for those in certain categories.
Combine this with getting rid of personal NI, removing the anomalies in the rates, fixing the pension at the personal allowance....
Can I be Chancellor, please?
I'm interested because I know people with significant costs who do *not* qualify for Higher Rate PIP, and cannot walk much other than round the house. One has to have an e-assist tricycle and an adapted car, but has to self-fund.
Getting rid of the incapacity test is good, as it is such a dodgy, capriciously administered thing. As is not repeating assessment for permanent impacts - an amputee is not suddenly going to regrow a limb. OTOH progressive conditions need repeated evaluations.
I suspect we need a greater medical input from qualified staff, as happens in some other countries.
I'm still not clear exactly what changes have been made and their implications. Obviously running with "you became disabled due to random happenstance, and we require you to pay the extra costs yourself" is at best questionable from an equality / ethics point of view.
PIP, which is a disability payment assessed irrespective of an individual's capability for work, is not mean-tested or treated as taxable income. Neither is Attendance Allowance which is paid to those over state pension age who need care. Both should be treated as taxable income imo - a simple and fair, if potentially controversial, change. that would effectively reduce the cost of these benefits at a stroke.
If you listen to the clip this guy Daniel is demanding pip for a condition that doesn't appear to affect people over a certain age. Now I understand that as someone with a family member who is significantly disadvantaged by autism, discounting neuro diverse conditions as substantially less worthy in compensation terms than physical disability has its dangers, although I do.
The increase in benefits over the last four years for dubious neuro diverse conditions is problematic and unsustainable.
It’s one of those things where you look at the issue, look at what you are trying to fix and go - wish we had a different starting point
It also neutralises all the perverse incentives you get with other benefits, which is exactly what's needed if you want disabled people to be contributing to the economy.
A proper system would have a big pile of batteries, stabilising the Heathrow local grid. So if a source of external power goes down. you don't even see a flicker.
When the batteries start getting demand, after x seconds, the generators would then fire up.
For reference, you can buy 3MWh of batteries in an ISO container - for something like a million quid each. So 20 of those would power Heathrow at peak demand for an hour.
Given Russia has previous, that's where the suspicion would lie, and it makes sense that they would double and triple check causes, and involve counter-terrorism - but it's still possible that the first indications are that it was an accident/failure.
If they're 95% sure, then suggesting that we are investigating/don't know, creates arguably an even bigger vacuum for the numpties who want to exploit this kind of incident.
From the BBC reports it's evident than they don't have the kind of backup (instantaneous power) provided to the Istanbul hospital, which I found as an example.
As with many (most ?) UK assets, Heathrow is largely overseas owned.
The current ownership is as follows:
Ardian (France) 22.61%
Qatar Investment Authority 20%
Public Investment Fund (Saudi) 15.01%
GIC (Singapore) 11.2%
Australian Retirement Trust 11.18%
China Investment Corporation 10%
Ferrovial (Spain) 5.25%
Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec 2.65%
Universities Superannuation Scheme 2.1%
Successful initial claim rate drops for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) - In response to a written question, Stephen Timms has revealed statistics that show that the success of PIP claims has fallen from 70% in 2016 to 55% in 2024. These statistics relate to initial decisions made on new PIP claims. In contrast, tribunal statistics show that 7 in 10 PIP decisions are changed, in favour of the claimant, at the appeal stage.
What I don't know is what proportion of rejected claims are taken to appeal.
Dr. Fiona Hill - What's Next for the Russia-Ukraine War | Prof G
(50 minutes - I'll listen with lunch)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdgvrK3zyWU
What they don't seem to have is any kind of uninterruptible power backup arrangement.
And if the power goes down unexpectedly, restarting all the airport information systems is probably a great deal more complicated than just switching them back on.
Cost cutting ?
So, you generally have a battery to give you time to fire up the backup generators. If they exist. The batteries act as a UPS - so you shouldn't even get a flicker.
Reading further on the Turkish hospital, above, that is exactly what they have.