Skip to content

The Dire Straits of Hormuz – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,998
edited 7:59AM in General
The Dire Straits of Hormuz – politicalbetting.com

Asked by reporters about oil prices and the Strait of Hormuz upon returning to Joint Base Andrews from tonight’s rally in Kentucky, President Donald J. Trump stated: “The Straits are in great shape. We’ve knocked out all of their boats. They have some missiles, but not very many.… pic.twitter.com/GhWQ6JaE4U

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • TazTaz Posts: 25,890
    edited 8:02AM
    Sultans not swinging

    Oh, and first.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 21,829
    Runs the subtle pun-o-meter over TSE's header.

    Nope, nothing there.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,621
    edited 8:05AM
    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 61,430
    Stuartinromford said:

    Runs the subtle pun-o-meter over TSE's header.

    Nope, nothing there.

    I did get an advisory to call the police over someone wearing loud shoes in a built up area…

    My mistake. Used the Met Police Community Relations app.
  • TazTaz Posts: 25,890
    Trump is such an idiot.

    All going really well.

    Get Bart on the military planning team.


    ‘ BREAKING: New US intelligence says Iran's leadership is still "largely intact" and not at risk of collapse "any time soon," per Reuters.

    Details include:

    1. A "multitude" of intelligence reports provide "consistent analysis that the regime is not in danger" of collapse

    2. Intelligence also suggests that the Iranian government "retains control of the Iranian public"

    3. Israeli officials in closed discussions also ​have acknowledged there is "no certainty" the war will lead to the Iranian government's collapse

    4. The situation on the ground is being described as "fluid"

    Oil prices are at a new high of day.’

    https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2031914322558140653?s=61
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,621
    Taz said:

    Trump is such an idiot.

    All going really well.

    Get Bart on the military planning team.


    ‘ BREAKING: New US intelligence says Iran's leadership is still "largely intact" and not at risk of collapse "any time soon," per Reuters.

    Details include:

    1. A "multitude" of intelligence reports provide "consistent analysis that the regime is not in danger" of collapse

    2. Intelligence also suggests that the Iranian government "retains control of the Iranian public"

    3. Israeli officials in closed discussions also ​have acknowledged there is "no certainty" the war will lead to the Iranian government's collapse

    4. The situation on the ground is being described as "fluid"

    Oil prices are at a new high of day.’

    https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2031914322558140653?s=61

    Well he did take out the Ayatollah, just his son has now taken over instead
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 24,689
    A nice header from our Local Hero TSE.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 24,689
    HYUFD said:

    Taz said:

    Trump is such an idiot.

    All going really well.

    Get Bart on the military planning team.


    ‘ BREAKING: New US intelligence says Iran's leadership is still "largely intact" and not at risk of collapse "any time soon," per Reuters.

    Details include:

    1. A "multitude" of intelligence reports provide "consistent analysis that the regime is not in danger" of collapse

    2. Intelligence also suggests that the Iranian government "retains control of the Iranian public"

    3. Israeli officials in closed discussions also ​have acknowledged there is "no certainty" the war will lead to the Iranian government's collapse

    4. The situation on the ground is being described as "fluid"

    Oil prices are at a new high of day.’

    https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2031914322558140653?s=61

    Well he did take out the Ayatollah, just his son has now taken over instead
    The soon to be dead anyway Ayatollah.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,118
    The war is certainly A lot of money for nothing
  • eekeek Posts: 32,841
    Markets can stay irrational longer than punters have money.

    I suspect Iran can keep blowing up the few tankers entering the straits for years.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 70,590
    Starmer's problem is that he comes into this crisis with his ratings already at our worst PM and with the Mandelson files showing his terrible judgement there is little goodwill left in his bank

    As with Ukraine, it will be the governmemt who takes the flak, fairly or unfairly, and I have little confidence labour will win the next GE but also I have no idea who will
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,358
    That oil tanker looks in "great shape"*

    * bigly great shape
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 87,074
    Meanwhile, the private investigations into Mandelson proceed; the rapidly rising energy prices precipitate another round of industrial disease; and Starmer has no latest trick to deal with the situation.

    Public opinion walks on by.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 2,486
    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 65,731
    SKS needs to address the UK's industrial disease. And, maybe, if he had a lady writer to help him articulate his policies he'd be better able to avoid going down Telegraph road.

    Otherwise, he risks going down to the waterside - so far away.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,358
    The Trump war is money for nothing war
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 24,689
    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
    CCS on EfW and cement plants, yes.

    Building new CCGT and blue hydrogen projects with CCS, locking us in to natural gas consumption for decades, no.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 32,581
    FPT:
    MattW said:

    Eabhal said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    nico67 said:

    Iran doing the only thing they can which is to fxck the global economy !

    The so called great master plan of Trump seemed to ignore the obvious . Iran can take huge amounts of economic pain whereas the west can’t after Covid and Ukraine.

    I'm not sure we have yet tested the level of economic pain Iran can take. If they want to fuck about with the world economy, they should be made to find out.

    But not with boots on the ground (bar a properly devised plan to take and hold Kharg Island).
    We've learnt absolutely nothing from Ukraine.

    1) People are incredibly resilient. Ukraine is a corrupt, poor, undeveloped country that is currently putting up an unbelievable fight against the Russians despite weeks of power cuts in mid-winter. If they can do it, so can the Iranians.
    2) Drones are basically unstoppable and it's trivially easy for quite a basic economy to generate an endless supply of them (or to import them other countries)
    3) Our economy was shafted by our exposure to fossil fuels in 2022, and again in 2026, and yet we're still pissing about. Imagine if the £40 billion on energy support had instead gone on batteries, wind, EV chargers etc etc - we'd be much better placed than we are now to ride this out. And it's a permanent investment.
    1 Yes.

    2 I don't believe that drones are unstoppable. Ukraine achieves stop rates of 80-90% on occasions. The USAF could perhaps do it if their their low cost (especially targeting) systems are in place yet, but it perhaps needs them before the USN.

    But it may be the usual USA "not invented here", or unwillingness to pay the price for layers of the capabiltiy.

    If Trump were to properly lean on Russia, rather than feeding them, and giving authority to, EffWitcoff, things could happen. Unfortunately Trump is the key cork in the bottle, as with everything.

    3 is another sunk cost fallacy amongst the many that came into this Govt.

    The impression I get is that the current Govt is moving as fast as they possibly can on energy security by the shift to renewables, and that is probably the best we can get. That is a process of years, unfortunately - another case of doing the right things, but history and Mad Trump not cooperating.

    One add on would be to change the terms of the Covid tax regime to tip it towards maintaining current production.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 58,529
    "the Strait of Hormuz needs to become a tunnel of love not a tunnel of war."

    LOL - that's laboured, even for you!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 87,074
    edited 8:25AM
    MattW said:

    FPT:
    Iran doing the only thing they can which is to fxck the global economy !

    The so called great master plan of Trump seemed to ignore the obvious . Iran can take huge amounts of economic pain whereas the west can’t after Covid and Ukraine.

    I'm not sure we have yet tested the level of economic pain Iran can take. If they want to fuck about with the world economy, they should be made to find out.

    But not with boots on the ground (bar a properly devised plan to take and hold Kharg Island).

    We've learnt absolutely nothing from Ukraine.

    1) People are incredibly resilient. Ukraine is a corrupt, poor, undeveloped country that is currently putting up an unbelievable fight against the Russians despite weeks of power cuts in mid-winter. If they can do it, so can the Iranians.
    2) Drones are basically unstoppable and it's trivially easy for quite a basic economy to generate an endless supply of them (or to import them other countries)
    3) Our economy was shafted by our exposure to fossil fuels in 2022, and again in 2026, and yet we're still pissing about. Imagine if the £40 billion on energy support had instead gone on batteries, wind, EV chargers etc etc - we'd be much better placed than we are now to ride this out. And it's a permanent investment.
    1 Yes.

    2 I don't believe that drones are unstoppable. Ukraine achieves stop rates of 80-90% on occasions. The USAF could perhaps do it if their their low cost (especially targeting) systems are in place yet, but it perhaps needs them before the USN.

    But it may be the usual USA "not invented here", or unwillingness to pay the price for layers of the capabiltiy.

    If Trump were to properly lean on Russia, rather than feeding them, and giving authority to, EffWitcoff, things could happen. Unfortunately Trump is the key cork in the bottle, as with everything.

    3 is another sunk cost fallacy amongst the many that came into this Govt.

    The impression I get is that the current Govt is moving as fast as they possibly can on energy security by the shift to renewables, and that is probably the best we can get. That is a process of years, unfortunately - another case of doing the right things, but history and Mad Trump not cooperating.

    One add on would be to change the terms of the Covid tax regime to tip it towards maintaining current production.

    Ukraine is going to do a f*ckton of business with the Gulf states.

    (edit - wow, you really did a number with the blockquotes.)
  • RogerRoger Posts: 22,532
    For never was a story of more woe
    Than for Sir Keir and his imbroglio


    (Apologies to Will Act 5 scene 3)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,621
    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
    Will they? They haven't so far.

    Ed Miliband should certainly be blamed we cannot afford full net zero at the moment, it should be full on 'drill baby drill' in the North Sea. If energy prices rise at home and SKS refuses to do that and lets Miliband dictate then he will be blamed and Reform and the Tories will rightly ensure that.

    It is oil the issue not gas so the Spanish and Portuguese comparison is not relevant
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 13,658
    edited 8:29AM
    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
    There were a lot of histrionics about the strike price for floating wind but it's a novel technology developed in the UK that could have a transformative impact on energy both here and around the world. Worth a punt I reckon, exactly the kind of risk government should be taking in given the wider social and economic benefits if it succeeds.

    The problem is that people can't decouple consumption and production in their minds. We should immediately reduce the former, the latter I think the government should stay out of except where it impedes the transition on consumption. Miliband's biggest failure is wimping out on market reform - where is the nodal pricing? Why am I still paying a standing charge? Why isn't everyone on a time-variable tariff?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,547
    SandyRentool said:

    Knopfler the first time, TSE has given us a morning punathon.

    Yea, and there's the winner!
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,809
    SandyRentool said:

    Knopfler the first time, TSE has given us a morning punathon.

    When Les Boys do cabaret in post-war Teheran we'll finally know we've won.

    Until then it's all looking a bit bleak.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 126,802
    MarqueeMark said:

    "the Strait of Hormuz needs to become a tunnel of love not a tunnel of war."

    LOL - that's laboured, even for you!

    I had to get my two favourite Dire Straits songs in somehow.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 87,074
    SandyRentool said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
    CCS on EfW and cement plants, yes.

    Building new CCGT and blue hydrogen projects with CCS, locking us in to natural gas consumption for decades, no.
    CCS - no.
    There are better uses for the money.
  • TazTaz Posts: 25,890
    HYUFD said:

    Taz said:

    Trump is such an idiot.

    All going really well.

    Get Bart on the military planning team.


    ‘ BREAKING: New US intelligence says Iran's leadership is still "largely intact" and not at risk of collapse "any time soon," per Reuters.

    Details include:

    1. A "multitude" of intelligence reports provide "consistent analysis that the regime is not in danger" of collapse

    2. Intelligence also suggests that the Iranian government "retains control of the Iranian public"

    3. Israeli officials in closed discussions also ​have acknowledged there is "no certainty" the war will lead to the Iranian government's collapse

    4. The situation on the ground is being described as "fluid"

    Oil prices are at a new high of day.’

    https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2031914322558140653?s=61

    Well he did take out the Ayatollah, just his son has now taken over instead
    Another Nepo child
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 126,802
    Anyhoo, I am delighted so many of yoi have spotted the subtle Dire Straits references.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 32,581
    Nigelb said:

    MattW said:

    FPT:
    Iran doing the only thing they can which is to fxck the global economy !

    The so called great master plan of Trump seemed to ignore the obvious . Iran can take huge amounts of economic pain whereas the west can’t after Covid and Ukraine.

    I'm not sure we have yet tested the level of economic pain Iran can take. If they want to fuck about with the world economy, they should be made to find out.

    But not with boots on the ground (bar a properly devised plan to take and hold Kharg Island).

    We've learnt absolutely nothing from Ukraine.

    1) People are incredibly resilient. Ukraine is a corrupt, poor, undeveloped country that is currently putting up an unbelievable fight against the Russians despite weeks of power cuts in mid-winter. If they can do it, so can the Iranians.
    2) Drones are basically unstoppable and it's trivially easy for quite a basic economy to generate an endless supply of them (or to import them other countries)
    3) Our economy was shafted by our exposure to fossil fuels in 2022, and again in 2026, and yet we're still pissing about. Imagine if the £40 billion on energy support had instead gone on batteries, wind, EV chargers etc etc - we'd be much better placed than we are now to ride this out. And it's a permanent investment.
    1 Yes.

    2 I don't believe that drones are unstoppable. Ukraine achieves stop rates of 80-90% on occasions. The USAF could perhaps do it if their their low cost (especially targeting) systems are in place yet, but it perhaps needs them before the USN.

    But it may be the usual USA "not invented here", or unwillingness to pay the price for layers of the capabiltiy.

    If Trump were to properly lean on Russia, rather than feeding them, and giving authority to, EffWitcoff, things could happen. Unfortunately Trump is the key cork in the bottle, as with everything.

    3 is another sunk cost fallacy amongst the many that came into this Govt.

    The impression I get is that the current Govt is moving as fast as they possibly can on energy security by the shift to renewables, and that is probably the best we can get. That is a process of years, unfortunately - another case of doing the right things, but history and Mad Trump not cooperating.

    One add on would be to change the terms of the Covid tax regime to tip it towards maintaining current production.

    Ukraine is going to do a f*ckton of business with the Gulf states.

    (edit - wow, you really did a number with the blockquotes.)
    I have hidden HTML skills ! (Sorry)
  • eekeek Posts: 32,841
    Nigelb said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
    CCS on EfW and cement plants, yes.

    Building new CCGT and blue hydrogen projects with CCS, locking us in to natural gas consumption for decades, no.
    CCS - no.
    There are better uses for the money.
    CCS is the classic case of an (expensive) solution looking for an actual problem
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 87,074
    This is ... quite something.

    https://x.com/gnoble79/status/2031757996510839191
    ...In February, Nasdaq published a "consultation" proposing sweeping changes to how companies enter the index. The timing is pure coincidence, of course.

    Just like it's pure coincidence that SpaceX has reportedly made fast index inclusion a CONDITION of listing on Nasdaq.

    Here's what they're proposing:

    A new "Fast Entry" rule would let any newly listed company whose market cap ranks in the top 40 of current Nasdaq-100 members get added to the index after just 15 trading days.

    No seasoning period. No liquidity requirements. Completely exempt from the standards every other company had to meet.

    Currently, new public companies typically wait up to a year before they're eligible for major index inclusion.

    That waiting period exists for a reason. It lets the market establish real price discovery. It protects passive investors from being forced into untested, illiquid stocks.

    And Nasdaq wants to throw all of that out. For ONE listing.

    But the Fast Entry rule isn't even the worst part...

    The real scandal is the 5x float multiplier.

    Right now, the S&P 500 uses a free-float adjusted methodology. If only 5% of a company's shares are available for public trading, the index weights you at 5% of total market cap.

    That's common sense. You weight a company based on what investors can actually buy.

    Nasdaq's current methodology already uses total market cap rather than free-float for weighting. But for very low-float stocks, they at least had a 10% minimum float threshold.

    Under the new proposal, that threshold DISAPPEARS entirely.

    Instead, any stock with less than 20% free float gets weighted at FIVE TIMES its actual float percentage, capped at 100%.

    Do the math on SpaceX:

    If SpaceX IPOs at $1.75 trillion and floats 5% of its shares, there would be roughly $87.5 billion worth of stock available for public trading.

    Under Nasdaq's proposed 5x multiplier, the index would weight SpaceX at 25% of its total market cap. That means passive funds would be forced to buy as if SpaceX were a $437.5 billion company.

    But only $87.5 billion of stock actually exists in the market.

    You are forcing hundreds of billions in passive buying into a $87.5 billion float    ...

    The pricing will sort itself out... in time.
    But the new 15 day rule will create an extremely artificial market for quite some time.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 87,074
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Just heard that clunking old military trope ‘no plan survives contact with the enemy’ on R4.
    In a stroke of breathtaking genius, Trump and Whisky Breath Pete have solved this by having no plan.

    There was no plan.
    And it hasn't really survived contact with the enemy.

    Thus invalidating the trope.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 32,581
    edited 8:36AM
    Your daily summary and detailed update from "What's Going on with Shipping":

    (He deliberately tries to be non-political; currently it is nearly working). He notes that China's former "This is a Chinese Ship" on the AIS ID that worked in the Red Sea is not working here. There's diplomatic work for Beijing to do there.

    "It Was A Bad Day for Merchant Mariners in the Strait of Hormuz | March 11, 2026
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXNHYWyRAl0

    This is taken in the Port of Salalah in Oman (which faces the Indian Ocean at the Western end of Oman):


  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 2,486
    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
    There were a lot of histrionics about the strike price for floating wind but it's a novel technology developed in the UK that could have a transformative impact on energy both here and around the world. Worth a punt I reckon, exactly the kind of risk government should be taking in given the wider social and economic benefits if it succeeds.

    The problem is that people can't decouple consumption and production in their minds. We should immediately reduce the former, the latter I think the government should stay out of except where it impedes the transition on consumption. Miliband's biggest failure is dumping out on market reform - where is the nodal pricing? Why am I still paying a standing charge? Why isn't everyone on a time-variable tariff?
    On FWT unfortunately you're wrong, the size of the floating foundation, amount of mooring line, unbelievably complicated analyses to get the design right and that the body setting the standards has just upped that complication tenfold means that they're decades away from being price competitive with fixed offshore wind.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 65,731
    MarqueeMark said:

    "the Strait of Hormuz needs to become a tunnel of love not a tunnel of war."

    LOL - that's laboured, even for you!

    It was a good effort.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 87,074
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I was taken on a tour of an Armitage Shanks factory over the week by an ex army chap.

    Unbeknownst to me they just had a huge order for toilets from Whipsnade.

    I pointed to the multitude of crates and asked “What’s that over there?”

    To which the ex army chap guide said:

    “Zoo Loos… Thousands of them.”

    Are you trying to make the header appear subtle ?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 58,529
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Anyhoo, I am delighted so many of yoi have spotted the subtle Dire Straits references.

    Not sure so many spotted an actual thread...
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,859
    SandyRentool said:

    HYUFD said:

    Taz said:

    Trump is such an idiot.

    All going really well.

    Get Bart on the military planning team.


    ‘ BREAKING: New US intelligence says Iran's leadership is still "largely intact" and not at risk of collapse "any time soon," per Reuters.

    Details include:

    1. A "multitude" of intelligence reports provide "consistent analysis that the regime is not in danger" of collapse

    2. Intelligence also suggests that the Iranian government "retains control of the Iranian public"

    3. Israeli officials in closed discussions also ​have acknowledged there is "no certainty" the war will lead to the Iranian government's collapse

    4. The situation on the ground is being described as "fluid"

    Oil prices are at a new high of day.’

    https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2031914322558140653?s=61

    Well he did take out the Ayatollah, just his son has now taken over instead
    The soon to be dead anyway Ayatollah.

    You'd have thought some consideration would be paid to the depth of the governing apparatus.

    It's like Russia assassinating the entire Labour cabinet and hoping that leads to a government that is supportive of Russia.

    What would follow (probably a government of national unity excluding Reform) would of course be even more strongly against Russia. Being at war and all.

    For some reason it was assumed it'd be different in Iran. Or in Afghanistan. Or in...

    I'd love for Iran to have a secular, democratic government. But the supporters of such don't own the guns. And the most vocal ones were killed in January.

    The US either needs to invade, with all the death, cost and uncertainty that comes from that, or sue for peace. This bombing campaign has achieved about as much as it can without escalating further.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 87,074
    Dopermean said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
    There were a lot of histrionics about the strike price for floating wind but it's a novel technology developed in the UK that could have a transformative impact on energy both here and around the world. Worth a punt I reckon, exactly the kind of risk government should be taking in given the wider social and economic benefits if it succeeds.

    The problem is that people can't decouple consumption and production in their minds. We should immediately reduce the former, the latter I think the government should stay out of except where it impedes the transition on consumption. Miliband's biggest failure is dumping out on market reform - where is the nodal pricing? Why am I still paying a standing charge? Why isn't everyone on a time-variable tariff?
    On FWT unfortunately you're wrong, the size of the floating foundation, amount of mooring line, unbelievably complicated analyses to get the design right and that the body setting the standards has just upped that complication tenfold means that they're decades away from being price competitive with fixed offshore wind.
    It's at least fairly likely that the plummeting price of solar will render floating offshore wind uneconomic indefinitely, except in niche cases.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 13,658
    edited 8:37AM
    Dopermean said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
    There were a lot of histrionics about the strike price for floating wind but it's a novel technology developed in the UK that could have a transformative impact on energy both here and around the world. Worth a punt I reckon, exactly the kind of risk government should be taking in given the wider social and economic benefits if it succeeds.

    The problem is that people can't decouple consumption and production in their minds. We should immediately reduce the former, the latter I think the government should stay out of except where it impedes the transition on consumption. Miliband's biggest failure is dumping out on market reform - where is the nodal pricing? Why am I still paying a standing charge? Why isn't everyone on a time-variable tariff?
    On FWT unfortunately you're wrong, the size of the floating foundation, amount of mooring line, unbelievably complicated analyses to get the design right and that the body setting the standards has just upped that complication tenfold means that they're decades away from being price competitive with fixed offshore wind.
    That's a bit depressing. I'm just a bit of a optimistic on things like this - there were similar sentiments about solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, EVs not long ago...
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 28,052
    Ratters said:

    SandyRentool said:

    HYUFD said:

    Taz said:

    Trump is such an idiot.

    All going really well.

    Get Bart on the military planning team.


    ‘ BREAKING: New US intelligence says Iran's leadership is still "largely intact" and not at risk of collapse "any time soon," per Reuters.

    Details include:

    1. A "multitude" of intelligence reports provide "consistent analysis that the regime is not in danger" of collapse

    2. Intelligence also suggests that the Iranian government "retains control of the Iranian public"

    3. Israeli officials in closed discussions also ​have acknowledged there is "no certainty" the war will lead to the Iranian government's collapse

    4. The situation on the ground is being described as "fluid"

    Oil prices are at a new high of day.’

    https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2031914322558140653?s=61

    Well he did take out the Ayatollah, just his son has now taken over instead
    The soon to be dead anyway Ayatollah.

    You'd have thought some consideration would be paid to the depth of the governing apparatus.

    It's like Russia assassinating the entire Labour cabinet and hoping that leads to a government that is supportive of Russia.

    What would follow (probably a government of national unity excluding Reform) would of course be even more strongly against Russia. Being at war and all.

    For some reason it was assumed it'd be different in Iran. Or in Afghanistan. Or in...

    I'd love for Iran to have a secular, democratic government. But the supporters of such don't own the guns. And the most vocal ones were killed in January.

    The US either needs to invade, with all the death, cost and uncertainty that comes from that, or sue for peace. This bombing campaign has achieved about as much as it can without escalating further.
    Invade is the right answer then.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,859
    Scott_xP said:

    The US and Israeli brothers in arms have really fucked this one up.

    There is a reason Israel wanted to do this for forty years and they couldn't find a US President stupid enough to agree, until now...

    It's almost as if Iran, while clearly militarily weaker than the US and Israel, did in fact hold some of the cards.

    Perhaps this can be a lesson for Trump on the limitations of US power.
  • isamisam Posts: 43,832
    Vape shops — I can share some disturbing new claims about rogue vape shops and an ‘epidemic’ of grooming.

    Trading standards officers tell us
    of complaints children are being handed free vapes in return for ‘sexual favours.’🧵

    https://x.com/c4ciaran/status/2031690101936275830?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,621
    edited 8:44AM
    Ratters said:

    SandyRentool said:

    HYUFD said:

    Taz said:

    Trump is such an idiot.

    All going really well.

    Get Bart on the military planning team.


    ‘ BREAKING: New US intelligence says Iran's leadership is still "largely intact" and not at risk of collapse "any time soon," per Reuters.

    Details include:

    1. A "multitude" of intelligence reports provide "consistent analysis that the regime is not in danger" of collapse

    2. Intelligence also suggests that the Iranian government "retains control of the Iranian public"

    3. Israeli officials in closed discussions also ​have acknowledged there is "no certainty" the war will lead to the Iranian government's collapse

    4. The situation on the ground is being described as "fluid"

    Oil prices are at a new high of day.’

    https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2031914322558140653?s=61

    Well he did take out the Ayatollah, just his son has now taken over instead
    The soon to be dead anyway Ayatollah.

    You'd have thought some consideration would be paid to the depth of the governing apparatus.

    It's like Russia assassinating the entire Labour cabinet and hoping that leads to a government that is supportive of Russia.

    What would follow (probably a government of national unity excluding Reform) would of course be even more strongly against Russia. Being at war and all.

    For some reason it was assumed it'd be different in Iran. Or in Afghanistan. Or in...

    I'd love for Iran to have a secular, democratic government. But the supporters of such don't own the guns. And the most vocal ones were killed in January.

    The US either needs to invade, with all the death, cost and uncertainty that comes from that, or sue for peace. This bombing campaign has achieved about as much as it can without escalating further.
    We had boots on the ground in Afghanistan and removed the Taliban and killed Bin Laden. The mistake was withdrawing them. So yes to ensure regime change Trump and Netanyahu need boots on the ground in Iran
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,993
    Nigelb said:

    This is ... quite something.

    https://x.com/gnoble79/status/2031757996510839191
    ...In February, Nasdaq published a "consultation" proposing sweeping changes to how companies enter the index. The timing is pure coincidence, of course.

    Just like it's pure coincidence that SpaceX has reportedly made fast index inclusion a CONDITION of listing on Nasdaq.

    Here's what they're proposing:

    A new "Fast Entry" rule would let any newly listed company whose market cap ranks in the top 40 of current Nasdaq-100 members get added to the index after just 15 trading days.

    No seasoning period. No liquidity requirements. Completely exempt from the standards every other company had to meet.

    Currently, new public companies typically wait up to a year before they're eligible for major index inclusion.

    That waiting period exists for a reason. It lets the market establish real price discovery. It protects passive investors from being forced into untested, illiquid stocks.

    And Nasdaq wants to throw all of that out. For ONE listing.

    But the Fast Entry rule isn't even the worst part...

    The real scandal is the 5x float multiplier.

    Right now, the S&P 500 uses a free-float adjusted methodology. If only 5% of a company's shares are available for public trading, the index weights you at 5% of total market cap.

    That's common sense. You weight a company based on what investors can actually buy.

    Nasdaq's current methodology already uses total market cap rather than free-float for weighting. But for very low-float stocks, they at least had a 10% minimum float threshold.

    Under the new proposal, that threshold DISAPPEARS entirely.

    Instead, any stock with less than 20% free float gets weighted at FIVE TIMES its actual float percentage, capped at 100%.

    Do the math on SpaceX:

    If SpaceX IPOs at $1.75 trillion and floats 5% of its shares, there would be roughly $87.5 billion worth of stock available for public trading.

    Under Nasdaq's proposed 5x multiplier, the index would weight SpaceX at 25% of its total market cap. That means passive funds would be forced to buy as if SpaceX were a $437.5 billion company.

    But only $87.5 billion of stock actually exists in the market.

    You are forcing hundreds of billions in passive buying into a $87.5 billion float    ...

    The pricing will sort itself out... in time.
    But the new 15 day rule will create an extremely artificial market for quite some time.

    I'm enjoying the "Instead, any stock with less than 20% free float gets weighted at FIVE TIMES its actual float percentage, capped at 100%."

    Capping 5x<20% at 100% is belt and braces and super glue on the inside of the waistband just in case
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 87,074
    Biden is clearly the most influential president in history.

    Ted Cruz: "As we sit here right now tonight, the threat of terrorist attack is higher now than it has been for decades. There's two causes of it. Number one, Joe Biden ... "
    https://x.com/atrupar/status/2031903283455889478
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,993
    edited 8:44AM
    On topic, away from these Dire Straits, can Trump get the troops Going Home and be a Local Hero?
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,859
    HYUFD said:

    Ratters said:

    SandyRentool said:

    HYUFD said:

    Taz said:

    Trump is such an idiot.

    All going really well.

    Get Bart on the military planning team.


    ‘ BREAKING: New US intelligence says Iran's leadership is still "largely intact" and not at risk of collapse "any time soon," per Reuters.

    Details include:

    1. A "multitude" of intelligence reports provide "consistent analysis that the regime is not in danger" of collapse

    2. Intelligence also suggests that the Iranian government "retains control of the Iranian public"

    3. Israeli officials in closed discussions also ​have acknowledged there is "no certainty" the war will lead to the Iranian government's collapse

    4. The situation on the ground is being described as "fluid"

    Oil prices are at a new high of day.’

    https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2031914322558140653?s=61

    Well he did take out the Ayatollah, just his son has now taken over instead
    The soon to be dead anyway Ayatollah.

    You'd have thought some consideration would be paid to the depth of the governing apparatus.

    It's like Russia assassinating the entire Labour cabinet and hoping that leads to a government that is supportive of Russia.

    What would follow (probably a government of national unity excluding Reform) would of course be even more strongly against Russia. Being at war and all.

    For some reason it was assumed it'd be different in Iran. Or in Afghanistan. Or in...

    I'd love for Iran to have a secular, democratic government. But the supporters of such don't own the guns. And the most vocal ones were killed in January.

    The US either needs to invade, with all the death, cost and uncertainty that comes from that, or sue for peace. This bombing campaign has achieved about as much as it can without escalating further.
    We had boots on the ground in Afghanistan and removed the Taliban and killed Bin Laden. The mistake was withdrawing them
    Yes but "We can achieve regime change in Iran if we have an occupying force not just for 20 years but indefinitely " is perhaps not a good precedent for the "invade" option.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,655
    £75,000 for Lord Mandelson ?

    Money for nothing.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 32,581
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Just heard that clunking old military trope ‘no plan survives contact with the enemy’ on R4.
    In a stroke of breathtaking genius, Trump and Whisky Breath Pete have solved this by having no plan.

    What does that remind me of?

    https://youtu.be/MuPgeavBkd4?t=108
  • eekeek Posts: 32,841
    isam said:

    Vape shops — I can share some disturbing new claims about rogue vape shops and an ‘epidemic’ of grooming.

    Trading standards officers tell us
    of complaints children are being handed free vapes in return for ‘sexual favours.’🧵

    https://x.com/c4ciaran/status/2031690101936275830?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    Surely that was frigging obvious - dubious shops doing dubious things because of their dubious owners.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 87,074
    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
    There were a lot of histrionics about the strike price for floating wind but it's a novel technology developed in the UK that could have a transformative impact on energy both here and around the world. Worth a punt I reckon, exactly the kind of risk government should be taking in given the wider social and economic benefits if it succeeds.

    The problem is that people can't decouple consumption and production in their minds. We should immediately reduce the former, the latter I think the government should stay out of except where it impedes the transition on consumption. Miliband's biggest failure is dumping out on market reform - where is the nodal pricing? Why am I still paying a standing charge? Why isn't everyone on a time-variable tariff?
    On FWT unfortunately you're wrong, the size of the floating foundation, amount of mooring line, unbelievably complicated analyses to get the design right and that the body setting the standards has just upped that complication tenfold means that they're decades away from being price competitive with fixed offshore wind.
    That's a bit depressing. I'm just a bit of a optimistic on things like this - there were similar sentiments about solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, EVs not long ago...
    I was too.
    But the cost curves for solar and wind are now quite evidently very different. And there's no good way to iterate around the simple physical constraints of offshore wind, while solar continues to evolve very quickly through both production and materials science innovation.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,621
    Ratters said:

    HYUFD said:

    Ratters said:

    SandyRentool said:

    HYUFD said:

    Taz said:

    Trump is such an idiot.

    All going really well.

    Get Bart on the military planning team.


    ‘ BREAKING: New US intelligence says Iran's leadership is still "largely intact" and not at risk of collapse "any time soon," per Reuters.

    Details include:

    1. A "multitude" of intelligence reports provide "consistent analysis that the regime is not in danger" of collapse

    2. Intelligence also suggests that the Iranian government "retains control of the Iranian public"

    3. Israeli officials in closed discussions also ​have acknowledged there is "no certainty" the war will lead to the Iranian government's collapse

    4. The situation on the ground is being described as "fluid"

    Oil prices are at a new high of day.’

    https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2031914322558140653?s=61

    Well he did take out the Ayatollah, just his son has now taken over instead
    The soon to be dead anyway Ayatollah.

    You'd have thought some consideration would be paid to the depth of the governing apparatus.

    It's like Russia assassinating the entire Labour cabinet and hoping that leads to a government that is supportive of Russia.

    What would follow (probably a government of national unity excluding Reform) would of course be even more strongly against Russia. Being at war and all.

    For some reason it was assumed it'd be different in Iran. Or in Afghanistan. Or in...

    I'd love for Iran to have a secular, democratic government. But the supporters of such don't own the guns. And the most vocal ones were killed in January.

    The US either needs to invade, with all the death, cost and uncertainty that comes from that, or sue for peace. This bombing campaign has achieved about as much as it can without escalating further.
    We had boots on the ground in Afghanistan and removed the Taliban and killed Bin Laden. The mistake was withdrawing them
    Yes but "We can achieve regime change in Iran if we have an occupying force not just for 20 years but indefinitely " is perhaps not a good precedent for the "invade" option.
    It is the right choice to deliver regime change though
  • RogerRoger Posts: 22,532
    edited 8:47AM
    Theuniondivvie said:

    Just heard that clunking old military trope ‘no plan survives contact with the enemy’ on R4.
    In a stroke of breathtaking genius, Trump and Whisky Breath Pete have solved this by having no plan.

    Don't put it past the Iranians to 'win' this war. They have brains which the Americans are desperately short of. An interesting interview from everyone's favourite Iranian

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skcPc9HDLBU&t=159s
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,655
    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
    There were a lot of histrionics about the strike price for floating wind but it's a novel technology developed in the UK that could have a transformative impact on energy both here and around the world. Worth a punt I reckon, exactly the kind of risk government should be taking in given the wider social and economic benefits if it succeeds.

    The problem is that people can't decouple consumption and production in their minds. We should immediately reduce the former, the latter I think the government should stay out of except where it impedes the transition on consumption. Miliband's biggest failure is dumping out on market reform - where is the nodal pricing? Why am I still paying a standing charge? Why isn't everyone on a time-variable tariff?
    On FWT unfortunately you're wrong, the size of the floating foundation, amount of mooring line, unbelievably complicated analyses to get the design right and that the body setting the standards has just upped that complication tenfold means that they're decades away from being price competitive with fixed offshore wind.
    That's a bit depressing. I'm just a bit of a optimistic on things like this - there were similar sentiments about solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, EVs not long ago...
    I was too.
    But the cost curves for solar and wind are now quite evidently very different. And there's no good way to iterate around the simple physical constraints of offshore wind, while solar continues to evolve very quickly through both production and materials science innovation.
    For the UK specifically we have dreadful solar insolation whilst having decent wind power potential. If the economics long term favour solar power we are in a weak position for relative advantage long term particularly during the winter.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 9,796
    Ratters said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The US and Israeli brothers in arms have really fucked this one up.

    There is a reason Israel wanted to do this for forty years and they couldn't find a US President stupid enough to agree, until now...

    It's almost as if Iran, while clearly militarily weaker than the US and Israel, did in fact hold some of the cards.

    Perhaps this can be a lesson for Trump on the limitations of US power.
    Iran, being clearly militarily weaker than the US and Israel, is likely to go asymmetric.
    Wait for it ......
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 13,658
    edited 8:57AM
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
    There were a lot of histrionics about the strike price for floating wind but it's a novel technology developed in the UK that could have a transformative impact on energy both here and around the world. Worth a punt I reckon, exactly the kind of risk government should be taking in given the wider social and economic benefits if it succeeds.

    The problem is that people can't decouple consumption and production in their minds. We should immediately reduce the former, the latter I think the government should stay out of except where it impedes the transition on consumption. Miliband's biggest failure is dumping out on market reform - where is the nodal pricing? Why am I still paying a standing charge? Why isn't everyone on a time-variable tariff?
    On FWT unfortunately you're wrong, the size of the floating foundation, amount of mooring line, unbelievably complicated analyses to get the design right and that the body setting the standards has just upped that complication tenfold means that they're decades away from being price competitive with fixed offshore wind.
    That's a bit depressing. I'm just a bit of a optimistic on things like this - there were similar sentiments about solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, EVs not long ago...
    I was too.
    But the cost curves for solar and wind are now quite evidently very different. And there's no good way to iterate around the simple physical constraints of offshore wind, while solar continues to evolve very quickly through both production and materials science innovation.
    For the UK specifically we have dreadful solar insolation whilst having decent wind power potential. If the economics long term favour solar power we are in a weak position for relative advantage long term particularly during the winter.
    I think the point about solar/batteries is they are now so cheap that they beat everything else, even in the UK. You're right about the long term disadvantage but there's not much avoiding that, and it's not a reason to build wind/nuclear if that are more expensive.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 19,387
    Some former members of Dire Straits, minus Knopfler, have a legacy/continuation band called Dire Straits Legacy. They then did an album of new material, 3 Chord Trick, under the name Legacy: https://open.spotify.com/artist/5tMIKlxZoj7ZSZtTpTOh7q It is good. I recommend it.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 87,074
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
    There were a lot of histrionics about the strike price for floating wind but it's a novel technology developed in the UK that could have a transformative impact on energy both here and around the world. Worth a punt I reckon, exactly the kind of risk government should be taking in given the wider social and economic benefits if it succeeds.

    The problem is that people can't decouple consumption and production in their minds. We should immediately reduce the former, the latter I think the government should stay out of except where it impedes the transition on consumption. Miliband's biggest failure is dumping out on market reform - where is the nodal pricing? Why am I still paying a standing charge? Why isn't everyone on a time-variable tariff?
    On FWT unfortunately you're wrong, the size of the floating foundation, amount of mooring line, unbelievably complicated analyses to get the design right and that the body setting the standards has just upped that complication tenfold means that they're decades away from being price competitive with fixed offshore wind.
    That's a bit depressing. I'm just a bit of a optimistic on things like this - there were similar sentiments about solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, EVs not long ago...
    I was too.
    But the cost curves for solar and wind are now quite evidently very different. And there's no good way to iterate around the simple physical constraints of offshore wind, while solar continues to evolve very quickly through both production and materials science innovation.
    For the UK specifically we have dreadful solar insolation whilst having decent wind power potential. If the economics long term favour solar power we are in a weak position for relative advantage long term particularly during the winter.
    I acknowledge that.
    We should build all the onshore wind we can, and any offshore projects with favourable cost/benefit.
    But offshore floating wind just doesn't begin to compete with any alternative energy source, unfortunately.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,252
    This whole thread needs Les Boys to carry out a Private Investigation.

    For my Latest Trick, I'm going to get me some Espresso Love from the coffee machine.

    Time for me to Skate Away and spend some time on the Cheltenham form.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 26,205
    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
    There were a lot of histrionics about the strike price for floating wind but it's a novel technology developed in the UK that could have a transformative impact on energy both here and around the world. Worth a punt I reckon, exactly the kind of risk government should be taking in given the wider social and economic benefits if it succeeds.

    The problem is that people can't decouple consumption and production in their minds. We should immediately reduce the former, the latter I think the government should stay out of except where it impedes the transition on consumption. Miliband's biggest failure is dumping out on market reform - where is the nodal pricing? Why am I still paying a standing charge? Why isn't everyone on a time-variable tariff?
    On FWT unfortunately you're wrong, the size of the floating foundation, amount of mooring line, unbelievably complicated analyses to get the design right and that the body setting the standards has just upped that complication tenfold means that they're decades away from being price competitive with fixed offshore wind.
    That's a bit depressing. I'm just a bit of a optimistic on things like this - there were similar sentiments about solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, EVs not long ago...
    I was too.
    But the cost curves for solar and wind are now quite evidently very different. And there's no good way to iterate around the simple physical constraints of offshore wind, while solar continues to evolve very quickly through both production and materials science innovation.
    For the UK specifically we have dreadful solar insolation whilst having decent wind power potential. If the economics long term favour solar power we are in a weak position for relative advantage long term particularly during the winter.
    I acknowledge that.
    We should build all the onshore wind we can, and any offshore projects with favourable cost/benefit.
    But offshore floating wind just doesn't begin to compete with any alternative energy source, unfortunately.
    Or we could just scrap the lot, save the Net Zero subsidies and reduce energy prices. That way we might have an industrial base still.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 61,430
    edited 9:00AM
    Pulpstar said:

    £75,000 for Lord Mandelson ?

    Money for nothing.

    On the contrary, a valuable investment.

    When the next #NU10Ker gets binned for gross lies and deception* on the information provided to their employers, there is a precedent of a £75k payout.

    It’s also valuable for the social contract of being a NU10Ker (“did right by Mandy. Stuck up for a proper chap”).

    *The stuff about literally selling out the country came out later.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 87,074
    I served on the staff of Third U.S. Army as an operations officer, Chief of Future Ops, and Special Assistant to the Commanding General from 1998-2000. It’s the Army headquarters for Central Command. We planned and trained constantly for various scenarios that could occur in the Gulf region. The Strait of Hormuz is the single most vulnerable stretch of water in the entire region and nearly the world. Iran has spent decades fortifying their coast and preparing to close it. The idea that Trump and his sweaty bro idiot Hegseth launched this war seemingly unprepared for it to be shut down and the barrage of missiles and drones that would rain on the region is the most irresponsible and idiotic military mistake imaginable. Hegseth spent the last year working out and fighting wokeness instead of preparing for war. He must go. Now.
    https://x.com/FPWellman/status/2031719329725616609

    The only large scale precedent we have is unpromising, to say the least.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Earnest_Will

    And I think the US navy has less mine clearing capacity than it had back then.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 21,829
    Nigelb said:

    Theuniondivvie said:

    Just heard that clunking old military trope ‘no plan survives contact with the enemy’ on R4.
    In a stroke of breathtaking genius, Trump and Whisky Breath Pete have solved this by having no plan.

    There was no plan.
    And it hasn't really survived contact with the enemy.

    Thus invalidating the trope.
    Or what king, going out to wage war against another king, will not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to oppose the one who comes against him with twenty thousand? If he cannot, then, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for the terms of peace.

    Sometimes, That Man really hit the nail on the head.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 58,373
    Selebian said:

    On topic, away from these Dire Straits, can Trump get the troops Going Home and be a Local Hero?

    "That ain't workin', that's the way you do it
    Money for nothing and your chicks for free"
  • UnpopularUnpopular Posts: 953
    Scott_xP said:

    The US and Israeli brothers in arms have really fucked this one up.

    There is a reason Israel wanted to do this for forty years and they couldn't find a US President stupid enough to agree, until now...

    I saw a reel on Instagram with an interview with Blinken talking about how the Israelis tried to bounce Obama and Biden into bombing Iran that then cut to Rubio saying that the Israelis were going to go ahead anyway. I had hoped Rubio would be a moderating force on the Administration, but he's either as stupid as the rest, or a coward.

    Even the ghouls around Bush never actually went through with this shit, though some of them clearly wanted to!
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,118
    Scott_xP said:

    The US and Israeli brothers in arms have really fucked this one up.

    There is a reason Israel wanted to do this for forty years and they couldn't find a US President stupid enough to agree, until now...

    Not sure Israel has fucked up. Seems to me they have got exactly what they wanted.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 13,658
    Alanbrooke said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
    There were a lot of histrionics about the strike price for floating wind but it's a novel technology developed in the UK that could have a transformative impact on energy both here and around the world. Worth a punt I reckon, exactly the kind of risk government should be taking in given the wider social and economic benefits if it succeeds.

    The problem is that people can't decouple consumption and production in their minds. We should immediately reduce the former, the latter I think the government should stay out of except where it impedes the transition on consumption. Miliband's biggest failure is dumping out on market reform - where is the nodal pricing? Why am I still paying a standing charge? Why isn't everyone on a time-variable tariff?
    On FWT unfortunately you're wrong, the size of the floating foundation, amount of mooring line, unbelievably complicated analyses to get the design right and that the body setting the standards has just upped that complication tenfold means that they're decades away from being price competitive with fixed offshore wind.
    That's a bit depressing. I'm just a bit of a optimistic on things like this - there were similar sentiments about solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, EVs not long ago...
    I was too.
    But the cost curves for solar and wind are now quite evidently very different. And there's no good way to iterate around the simple physical constraints of offshore wind, while solar continues to evolve very quickly through both production and materials science innovation.
    For the UK specifically we have dreadful solar insolation whilst having decent wind power potential. If the economics long term favour solar power we are in a weak position for relative advantage long term particularly during the winter.
    I acknowledge that.
    We should build all the onshore wind we can, and any offshore projects with favourable cost/benefit.
    But offshore floating wind just doesn't begin to compete with any alternative energy source, unfortunately.
    Or we could just scrap the lot, save the Net Zero subsidies and reduce energy prices. That way we might have an industrial base still.
    You are Mojtaba Khamenei and I claim my £5.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 63,480
    Taz said:

    Trump is such an idiot.

    All going really well.

    Get Bart on the military planning team.


    ‘ BREAKING: New US intelligence says Iran's leadership is still "largely intact" and not at risk of collapse "any time soon," per Reuters.

    Details include:

    1. A "multitude" of intelligence reports provide "consistent analysis that the regime is not in danger" of collapse

    2. Intelligence also suggests that the Iranian government "retains control of the Iranian public"

    3. Israeli officials in closed discussions also ​have acknowledged there is "no certainty" the war will lead to the Iranian government's collapse

    4. The situation on the ground is being described as "fluid"

    Oil prices are at a new high of day.’

    https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2031914322558140653?s=61

    The problem is that it is really hard to enact regime change by bombing alone.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 29,025
    So is the number of ships sunk by Iran still at precisely zero ?

    If so then that's less than the number of Russian ships sunk by Ukraine in the Mediterranean this month.

    Hormuz is not the equivalent of Malta 1942, its simply a matter of Trump or the Gulf Arabs paying the extra risk money to the shipping companies.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 60,538
    MattW said:

    Your daily summary and detailed update from "What's Going on with Shipping":

    (He deliberately tries to be non-political; currently it is nearly working). He notes that China's former "This is a Chinese Ship" on the AIS ID that worked in the Red Sea is not working here. There's diplomatic work for Beijing to do there.

    "It Was A Bad Day for Merchant Mariners in the Strait of Hormuz | March 11, 2026
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXNHYWyRAl0

    This is taken in the Port of Salalah in Oman (which faces the Indian Ocean at the Western end of Oman):

    Salalah is a *long* way from Iran. It’s 1,000km South of Muscat.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 65,731
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
    There were a lot of histrionics about the strike price for floating wind but it's a novel technology developed in the UK that could have a transformative impact on energy both here and around the world. Worth a punt I reckon, exactly the kind of risk government should be taking in given the wider social and economic benefits if it succeeds.

    The problem is that people can't decouple consumption and production in their minds. We should immediately reduce the former, the latter I think the government should stay out of except where it impedes the transition on consumption. Miliband's biggest failure is dumping out on market reform - where is the nodal pricing? Why am I still paying a standing charge? Why isn't everyone on a time-variable tariff?
    On FWT unfortunately you're wrong, the size of the floating foundation, amount of mooring line, unbelievably complicated analyses to get the design right and that the body setting the standards has just upped that complication tenfold means that they're decades away from being price competitive with fixed offshore wind.
    That's a bit depressing. I'm just a bit of a optimistic on things like this - there were similar sentiments about solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, EVs not long ago...
    I was too.
    But the cost curves for solar and wind are now quite evidently very different. And there's no good way to iterate around the simple physical constraints of offshore wind, while solar continues to evolve very quickly through both production and materials science innovation.
    For the UK specifically we have dreadful solar insolation whilst having decent wind power potential. If the economics long term favour solar power we are in a weak position for relative advantage long term particularly during the winter.
    I'm still paying off £12k of solar panels on my house from 2.5 years ago.

    I've saved some money, but that's between April and September really and whilst "cool" I can't really say I'm going to come out quids up.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 5,164
    edited 9:08AM
    SandyRentool said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
    CCS on EfW and cement plants, yes.

    Building new CCGT and blue hydrogen projects with CCS, locking us in to natural gas consumption for decades, no.
    I'd tentatively support that. There may indeed be a use case for CCS in areas where it is very difficult to avoid CO2 release such as the ones you mention, but there's an awful lot of lower hanging fruit to be picked first. The first priority has got to be electrification of everything that can be electrified and a corresponding massive expansion of low emission electricity generation, transport and storage.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 17,988
    Ratters said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The US and Israeli brothers in arms have really fucked this one up.

    There is a reason Israel wanted to do this for forty years and they couldn't find a US President stupid enough to agree, until now...

    It's almost as if Iran, while clearly militarily weaker than the US and Israel, did in fact hold some of the cards.

    Perhaps this can be a lesson for Trump on the limitations of US power.
    Remind me again, who won the Vietnam war?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,655
    Alanbrooke said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
    There were a lot of histrionics about the strike price for floating wind but it's a novel technology developed in the UK that could have a transformative impact on energy both here and around the world. Worth a punt I reckon, exactly the kind of risk government should be taking in given the wider social and economic benefits if it succeeds.

    The problem is that people can't decouple consumption and production in their minds. We should immediately reduce the former, the latter I think the government should stay out of except where it impedes the transition on consumption. Miliband's biggest failure is dumping out on market reform - where is the nodal pricing? Why am I still paying a standing charge? Why isn't everyone on a time-variable tariff?
    On FWT unfortunately you're wrong, the size of the floating foundation, amount of mooring line, unbelievably complicated analyses to get the design right and that the body setting the standards has just upped that complication tenfold means that they're decades away from being price competitive with fixed offshore wind.
    That's a bit depressing. I'm just a bit of a optimistic on things like this - there were similar sentiments about solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, EVs not long ago...
    I was too.
    But the cost curves for solar and wind are now quite evidently very different. And there's no good way to iterate around the simple physical constraints of offshore wind, while solar continues to evolve very quickly through both production and materials science innovation.
    For the UK specifically we have dreadful solar insolation whilst having decent wind power potential. If the economics long term favour solar power we are in a weak position for relative advantage long term particularly during the winter.
    I acknowledge that.
    We should build all the onshore wind we can, and any offshore projects with favourable cost/benefit.
    But offshore floating wind just doesn't begin to compete with any alternative energy source, unfortunately.
    Or we could just scrap the lot, save the Net Zero subsidies and reduce energy prices. That way we might have an industrial base still.
    Binning off subsidies and restrictions still leads to solar I think. NIMBYs/ Restrictions are going to be a bigger issue for solar than a lack of subsidies in the future.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 29,025
    rcs1000 said:

    Taz said:

    Trump is such an idiot.

    All going really well.

    Get Bart on the military planning team.


    ‘ BREAKING: New US intelligence says Iran's leadership is still "largely intact" and not at risk of collapse "any time soon," per Reuters.

    Details include:

    1. A "multitude" of intelligence reports provide "consistent analysis that the regime is not in danger" of collapse

    2. Intelligence also suggests that the Iranian government "retains control of the Iranian public"

    3. Israeli officials in closed discussions also ​have acknowledged there is "no certainty" the war will lead to the Iranian government's collapse

    4. The situation on the ground is being described as "fluid"

    Oil prices are at a new high of day.’

    https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2031914322558140653?s=61

    The problem is that it is really hard to enact regime change by bombing alone.
    Its harder still to keep your new regime in power unless the locals will accept it.

    Afghanistan being the prime example.
  • eekeek Posts: 32,841
    Either my advertising algorithms are screwed or there is a serious hidden unemployment crisis

    I’ve just seen an advert by Evri trying to recruit drivers in a Times new article
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 26,205
    edited 9:14AM
    Eabhal said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
    There were a lot of histrionics about the strike price for floating wind but it's a novel technology developed in the UK that could have a transformative impact on energy both here and around the world. Worth a punt I reckon, exactly the kind of risk government should be taking in given the wider social and economic benefits if it succeeds.

    The problem is that people can't decouple consumption and production in their minds. We should immediately reduce the former, the latter I think the government should stay out of except where it impedes the transition on consumption. Miliband's biggest failure is dumping out on market reform - where is the nodal pricing? Why am I still paying a standing charge? Why isn't everyone on a time-variable tariff?
    On FWT unfortunately you're wrong, the size of the floating foundation, amount of mooring line, unbelievably complicated analyses to get the design right and that the body setting the standards has just upped that complication tenfold means that they're decades away from being price competitive with fixed offshore wind.
    That's a bit depressing. I'm just a bit of a optimistic on things like this - there were similar sentiments about solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, EVs not long ago...
    I was too.
    But the cost curves for solar and wind are now quite evidently very different. And there's no good way to iterate around the simple physical constraints of offshore wind, while solar continues to evolve very quickly through both production and materials science innovation.
    For the UK specifically we have dreadful solar insolation whilst having decent wind power potential. If the economics long term favour solar power we are in a weak position for relative advantage long term particularly during the winter.
    I acknowledge that.
    We should build all the onshore wind we can, and any offshore projects with favourable cost/benefit.
    But offshore floating wind just doesn't begin to compete with any alternative energy source, unfortunately.
    Or we could just scrap the lot, save the Net Zero subsidies and reduce energy prices. That way we might have an industrial base still.
    You are Mojtaba Khamenei and I claim my £5.
    No Im just someone who runs factories who is pissed off at why my government wants to cripple our competitiveness by pointless virtue signalling.

    I have a factory in Aberdeen mostly dependent on the oil industry. Any good reason these people should have their livelihoods put at risk just because some ideologue in North London wants to please activists ?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 22,532
    Barnesian said:

    Ratters said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The US and Israeli brothers in arms have really fucked this one up.

    There is a reason Israel wanted to do this for forty years and they couldn't find a US President stupid enough to agree, until now...

    It's almost as if Iran, while clearly militarily weaker than the US and Israel, did in fact hold some of the cards.

    Perhaps this can be a lesson for Trump on the limitations of US power.
    Iran, being clearly militarily weaker than the US and Israel, is likely to go asymmetric.
    Wait for it ......
    It's difficult for us on the soft left not to listen to what Marandi has to say and disagree with any of it. That is the American problem. This is becoming a culture war and many of us-probably a majority -do not sign up to Trump's version of the world.

    I strongly recomend listening to his interview posted by me at 8.45 this morning
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 26,205
    Pulpstar said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
    There were a lot of histrionics about the strike price for floating wind but it's a novel technology developed in the UK that could have a transformative impact on energy both here and around the world. Worth a punt I reckon, exactly the kind of risk government should be taking in given the wider social and economic benefits if it succeeds.

    The problem is that people can't decouple consumption and production in their minds. We should immediately reduce the former, the latter I think the government should stay out of except where it impedes the transition on consumption. Miliband's biggest failure is dumping out on market reform - where is the nodal pricing? Why am I still paying a standing charge? Why isn't everyone on a time-variable tariff?
    On FWT unfortunately you're wrong, the size of the floating foundation, amount of mooring line, unbelievably complicated analyses to get the design right and that the body setting the standards has just upped that complication tenfold means that they're decades away from being price competitive with fixed offshore wind.
    That's a bit depressing. I'm just a bit of a optimistic on things like this - there were similar sentiments about solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, EVs not long ago...
    I was too.
    But the cost curves for solar and wind are now quite evidently very different. And there's no good way to iterate around the simple physical constraints of offshore wind, while solar continues to evolve very quickly through both production and materials science innovation.
    For the UK specifically we have dreadful solar insolation whilst having decent wind power potential. If the economics long term favour solar power we are in a weak position for relative advantage long term particularly during the winter.
    I acknowledge that.
    We should build all the onshore wind we can, and any offshore projects with favourable cost/benefit.
    But offshore floating wind just doesn't begin to compete with any alternative energy source, unfortunately.
    Or we could just scrap the lot, save the Net Zero subsidies and reduce energy prices. That way we might have an industrial base still.
    Binning off subsidies and restrictions still leads to solar I think. NIMBYs/ Restrictions are going to be a bigger issue for solar than a lack of subsidies in the future.
    If solar is competitive then get on with it, no need for subsidy. But I suspect thats not the case as the infrastructure needed hasnt been built and nobody wants to fund it.
  • eekeek Posts: 32,841
    Roger said:

    Barnesian said:

    Ratters said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The US and Israeli brothers in arms have really fucked this one up.

    There is a reason Israel wanted to do this for forty years and they couldn't find a US President stupid enough to agree, until now...

    It's almost as if Iran, while clearly militarily weaker than the US and Israel, did in fact hold some of the cards.

    Perhaps this can be a lesson for Trump on the limitations of US power.
    Iran, being clearly militarily weaker than the US and Israel, is likely to go asymmetric.
    Wait for it ......
    It's difficult for us on the soft left not to listen to what Marandi has to say and disagree with any of it. That is the American problem. This is becoming a culture war and many of us-probably a majority -do not sign up to Trump's version of the world.

    I strongly recomend listening to his interview posted by me at 8.45 this morning
    There problem there is the idea that Trump has a vision.

    Trump just wants his name to be in the news when he switches it on in the morning
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 24,689
    ThomasNashe said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Knopfler the first time, TSE has given us a morning punathon.

    Yea, and there's the winner!
    The caffeine must have kicked in!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 61,430
    FeersumEnjineeya said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
    CCS on EfW and cement plants, yes.

    Building new CCGT and blue hydrogen projects with CCS, locking us in to natural gas consumption for decades, no.
    I'd tentatively support that. There may indeed be a use case for CCS in areas where it is very difficult to avoid CO2 release such as the ones you mention, but there's an awful lot of lower hanging fruit to be picked first. The first priority has got to be electrification of everything that can be electrified and a corresponding massive expansion of low emission electricity generation, transport and storage.
    The big gaps are transport (transmission) and storage.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,252
    another_richard said:

    So is the number of ships sunk by Iran still at precisely zero ?

    If so then that's less than the number of Russian ships sunk by Ukraine in the Mediterranean this month.

    Hormuz is not the equivalent of Malta 1942, its simply a matter of Trump or the Gulf Arabs paying the extra risk money to the shipping companies.

    Ships have been attacked and oil refineries have been as well. If it was as one sided as you portray, oil would be $50 a barrel and we wouldn't be taking about it.

    Clearly, there's a degree of risk aversion going on and I don't know why the US hasn't offered to escort tankers through Hormuz or, as you say, agreed to cover the extra insurance.

    Anyone with a cynical mind would think they benefit from higher oil prices as well - indeed, apart from the poor consumers, who doesn't?
  • flanner2flanner2 Posts: 36
    Finkelstein, of course, has a job to keep. And his Brexiteer boss can't be that delighted that poor little Danny's going soft on Trump just as his readers are getting a lot warmer on aligning with Europe.

    Like the rest of the gutter press: they're all going to be very miserable on May 8 (the morning after the catastrophe they'll face at the May 7 elections)
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 29,025
    FF43 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The US and Israeli brothers in arms have really fucked this one up.

    There is a reason Israel wanted to do this for forty years and they couldn't find a US President stupid enough to agree, until now...

    Not sure Israel has fucked up. Seems to me they have got exactly what they wanted.
    Israel has never before been as relatively strong compared to the other MENA countries as it is now.

    Egypt, Jordan, Saudi, the Gulf states now accept Israel's existence.

    Syria, Iraq and Iran are militarily crushed.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 22,532
    eek said:

    Roger said:

    Barnesian said:

    Ratters said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The US and Israeli brothers in arms have really fucked this one up.

    There is a reason Israel wanted to do this for forty years and they couldn't find a US President stupid enough to agree, until now...

    It's almost as if Iran, while clearly militarily weaker than the US and Israel, did in fact hold some of the cards.

    Perhaps this can be a lesson for Trump on the limitations of US power.
    Iran, being clearly militarily weaker than the US and Israel, is likely to go asymmetric.
    Wait for it ......
    It's difficult for us on the soft left not to listen to what Marandi has to say and disagree with any of it. That is the American problem. This is becoming a culture war and many of us-probably a majority -do not sign up to Trump's version of the world.

    I strongly recomend listening to his interview posted by me at 8.45 this morning
    There problem there is the idea that Trump has a vision.

    Trump just wants his name to be in the news when he switches it on in the morning
    That's the point. It is a collision of cultures. One is of power and vanity and the other believes in a code that we should all live by.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 26,205
    Roger said:

    eek said:

    Roger said:

    Barnesian said:

    Ratters said:

    Scott_xP said:

    The US and Israeli brothers in arms have really fucked this one up.

    There is a reason Israel wanted to do this for forty years and they couldn't find a US President stupid enough to agree, until now...

    It's almost as if Iran, while clearly militarily weaker than the US and Israel, did in fact hold some of the cards.

    Perhaps this can be a lesson for Trump on the limitations of US power.
    Iran, being clearly militarily weaker than the US and Israel, is likely to go asymmetric.
    Wait for it ......
    It's difficult for us on the soft left not to listen to what Marandi has to say and disagree with any of it. That is the American problem. This is becoming a culture war and many of us-probably a majority -do not sign up to Trump's version of the world.

    I strongly recomend listening to his interview posted by me at 8.45 this morning
    There problem there is the idea that Trump has a vision.

    Trump just wants his name to be in the news when he switches it on in the morning
    That's the point. It is a collision of cultures. One is of power and vanity and the other believes in a code that we should all live by.
    So you'll be converting to Shia Islam then Roger ?
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,252
    Morning all :)

    The third day of Cheltenham approaches and my thoughts on the day as follows:
    .
    Mares Novices Hurdle: BAMBINO FEVER

    Jack Richards Novices Handicap Chase: SIXMILEBRIDGE

    Mares Hurdle - WODHOOH

    Stayers Hurdle - MA SHANTOU (win), IMPOSE TOI (each way)

    Ryanair Chase: IMPAIRE ET PASSE
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 5,164
    Malmesbury said:

    FeersumEnjineeya said:

    SandyRentool said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
    CCS on EfW and cement plants, yes.

    Building new CCGT and blue hydrogen projects with CCS, locking us in to natural gas consumption for decades, no.
    I'd tentatively support that. There may indeed be a use case for CCS in areas where it is very difficult to avoid CO2 release such as the ones you mention, but there's an awful lot of lower hanging fruit to be picked first. The first priority has got to be electrification of everything that can be electrified and a corresponding massive expansion of low emission electricity generation, transport and storage.
    The big gaps are transport (transmission) and storage.

    Indeed, though I gather the problems with expansion of transmission are largely political in nature in that people don't want pylons, etc, whereas storage is a more technical issue in that it's just really hard to do.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 5,164
    Dura_Ace said:

    I like how the solution of right wing suits to economic disruption caused by dependence on hydrocarbons is to increase dependence on hydrocarbons.

    If the right wing idealogues had had their way over the past couple of decades, we'd be in really deep shit now with total reliance on hydrocarbons and an almost completely depleted North Sea.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 13,658
    edited 9:29AM
    Alanbrooke said:

    Eabhal said:

    Alanbrooke said:

    Nigelb said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    Eabhal said:

    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Given the UK has not taken part in the strikes on Iran I expect Starmer can largely blame Trump if the oil price rise leads to increased cost of living at home. Though he might want to sack Ed Miliband and push for more oil drills in the North Sea just to be on the safe side!

    I think the point is that regardless of his total blamelessness for this global crisis, the voters will blame him.

    Also FFS the whole point of the renewables transition is to isolate the UK from these oil price shocks. Spain and Portugal will fare better, having decoupled their energy market from gas prices, generally Ed Milliband is right, on some of the details CCS, floating wind, he's not, but generally big picture "get off fossil fuels" is correct. Support and guidance on better options, not opposition.
    There were a lot of histrionics about the strike price for floating wind but it's a novel technology developed in the UK that could have a transformative impact on energy both here and around the world. Worth a punt I reckon, exactly the kind of risk government should be taking in given the wider social and economic benefits if it succeeds.

    The problem is that people can't decouple consumption and production in their minds. We should immediately reduce the former, the latter I think the government should stay out of except where it impedes the transition on consumption. Miliband's biggest failure is dumping out on market reform - where is the nodal pricing? Why am I still paying a standing charge? Why isn't everyone on a time-variable tariff?
    On FWT unfortunately you're wrong, the size of the floating foundation, amount of mooring line, unbelievably complicated analyses to get the design right and that the body setting the standards has just upped that complication tenfold means that they're decades away from being price competitive with fixed offshore wind.
    That's a bit depressing. I'm just a bit of a optimistic on things like this - there were similar sentiments about solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, EVs not long ago...
    I was too.
    But the cost curves for solar and wind are now quite evidently very different. And there's no good way to iterate around the simple physical constraints of offshore wind, while solar continues to evolve very quickly through both production and materials science innovation.
    For the UK specifically we have dreadful solar insolation whilst having decent wind power potential. If the economics long term favour solar power we are in a weak position for relative advantage long term particularly during the winter.
    I acknowledge that.
    We should build all the onshore wind we can, and any offshore projects with favourable cost/benefit.
    But offshore floating wind just doesn't begin to compete with any alternative energy source, unfortunately.
    Or we could just scrap the lot, save the Net Zero subsidies and reduce energy prices. That way we might have an industrial base still.
    You are Mojtaba Khamenei and I claim my £5.
    No Im just someone who runs factories who is pissed off at why my government wants to cripple our competitiveness by pointless virtue signalling.

    I have a factory in Aberdeen mostly dependent on the oil industry. Any good reason these people should have their livelihoods put at risk just because some ideologue in North London wants to please activists ?
    I agree on North Sea oil. But the idea our electricity generation should come from gas or coal in the future, or our transport rely on oil, looks even more stupid this week than it has done previously.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 19,387
    another_richard said:

    So is the number of ships sunk by Iran still at precisely zero ?

    If so then that's less than the number of Russian ships sunk by Ukraine in the Mediterranean this month.

    Hormuz is not the equivalent of Malta 1942, its simply a matter of Trump or the Gulf Arabs paying the extra risk money to the shipping companies.

    Three ships have been struck, but not sunk: Skylight, Hercules Star and the MKD Vyom.
Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2026