I suppose their argument is that drugs (inc alcohol) should be legal, but MPs shouldn't be taking them at work
Not a terrible argument, but I doubt they would criticise someone who smoked or ate cannabis at lunchtime.
Many people work in places where the rules say that an open alcohol container at work is a sackable offence. Being drunk at work is a sacking offence. Etc.
Smart politics from Polanski
There are bars in the HofC though, it’s not like a regular workplace
One thing I’ve been pondering recently; how would it be if someone in an office sat there drinking 0% alcohol lager/Guinness/wine at their desk, 2-3 a day as other people do tea or coffee? It would look odd, but really it’s just like a can of coke
To be fair, there is a valid point here. I will drink, but not on an evening where I am working the following day. Just as it might be appropriate to smoke cannabis under some circumstances but not before getting behind the wheel of an artic.
I don’t think MPs should be drunk while voting on laws that affect us all. After they have, if they’re not driving, that’s their decision.
It is about learning there is a time and a place for everything, as I told the Russian who got drunk on the school trip.
Someone who decided how to vote three weeks ago going through the lobby drunk is nothing. Are they weighing it up ten minutes before? It's admin.
I am struggling to remember of the hotel I stayed in when at the Supreme Court but it was in reasonable proximity to both the SC and the Houses of Parliament. In the bar there was a bell which rang when there was a division/vote in the Commons so that the MPs enjoying the hospitality of the bar could stagger back to the House and (hopefully) through the right corridor.
It was all very cosy and there were certainly a few Honourable Members somewhat in their cups that I recognised.
Indeed. Famously also in the Red Lion. No idea what the communication mechanism is/was.
I got the distinct impression that there was a direct electrical connection between the bells that would ring in Parliament itself and the bells in the bar in the hotel. There was internet in those days but if anyone was watching the Parliamentary channel it wasn't obvious. Needless to say those in the bar did not show any obvious interest in what was being said in the House.
Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.
Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.
I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.
Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.
As long as not to Farage.
But that is your dilemma.
My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.
Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.
It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.
Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.
I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.
Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.
As long as not to Farage.
But that is your dilemma.
My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.
Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.
It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
That's a view. Alternatively, having Farage, Tice, Yusuf, Jenrick, Braverman, Anderson and similar running the country would be such a shitshow that the populus would be begging for the return of Starmer, Reeves and their mates, despite all their faults.
Given how woeful Labour have been in Government, the populus would be begging for the return of the Tories before Starmer, Reeves and their mates - despite all their faults.
Which is why the Tories need to keep well clear of Reform.
The Tories and Reform should be very separate and competitive until the result is announced. If the result is then that either the Tories enter some sort of arrangement with Reform, or a Labour/Green alliance will form the Government, I don't think they would ever be forgiven for staying out.
I don’t think the Tories would survive being Reform’s servants much in the way the Lib Dems couldn’t cope with being in the coalition
I think it would be a situation where the Tories would be damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
The only way out is to do well enough in the next few years not to end up in that position.
Politics doesn't work that way - the Conservatives are now facing the same issues and questions which have bedevilled the LDs and before them the Alliance. What is the point of the Conservatives and why should anyone vote for them?
IF Badenoch positions the party too close to Reform, there will be no point voting Conservative as you might as well vote Reform. IF, however, she positions the party distant from Reform, those among the Conservative electorate who want to see the back of Labour will justifiably ask how voting Conservative brings that about when voting Reform looks the best and safest way?
It may be many Conservatives would put up with Reform to be rid of Labour but is that true of all Conservative voters? I suspect not so Badenoch and Davey can sit together on the Equidistance Express but both will face difficult questions IF the post-election arithmetic works out and it may be both have more in common with each other than with prospective allies or partners.
The more I think about it, the more I see that bloc of 150-170 Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs sitting between the emerging Reform and the broken Labour parties as a powerful force in the next Parliament.
Which underlines the huge strategic opportunity Cameron was gifted by the coalition, squandered for short (and tbf medium) term party political advantage.
In my experience, Conservatives do understand where liberals are coming from, even if they often disregard their concerns to shoot for their favoured ends rather than the means; the gulf is largest when Tories stop thinking of people as individuals and look for ways to look after “their people” - whether oldies or the already wealthy. People think liberals and socialists live on the same planet, because the ends they aspire to are broadly similar; but in terms of means and methods, the socialists are always the aliens of the pack.
The convergence of Cameron's "liberal conservatism" and Clegg "Orange Book" was brief but it created the Coalition even though many in both parties never liked or signed up to the philosophical coming-together.
Some of the Conservatives on here claim we are now far apart - I'm not so sure and once Badenoch (and Davey to an extent) stop playing for cheap headlines and start thinking about the issues, we may see a renewed convergence (not a coalition by any means) which may be hard to imagine now but perhaps less so in the next 18-24 months.
O’Sullivan cruising like a US Senator in a red light district here.
I think Hendry was a better player than O’Sullivan, but what is extraordinary about him is his ability to still play at this level aged 50. Hendry was retired at 43 and Williams and Higgins are both in clear decline.
Yeah. Ronnie's a clear threat to win the title. Most impressive player at the Crucible this year thus far.
I think it became very clear during last week that Starmer was done. It's over. Maybe he resigns after the locals, maybe he staggers on a bit longer as the Cabinet all look at each other and will someone else to do the dirty deed of forcing him out. Either way Starmer's political career is now over and the contest to replace him is in full swing.
There's a new start in the offing, it's all quite refreshing.
I suppose their argument is that drugs (inc alcohol) should be legal, but MPs shouldn't be taking them at work
Not a terrible argument, but I doubt they would criticise someone who smoked or ate cannabis at lunchtime.
Many people work in places where the rules say that an open alcohol container at work is a sackable offence. Being drunk at work is a sacking offence. Etc.
Smart politics from Polanski
There are bars in the HofC though, it’s not like a regular workplace
One thing I’ve been pondering recently; how would it be if someone in an office sat there drinking 0% alcohol lager/Guinness/wine at their desk, 2-3 a day as other people do tea or coffee? It would look odd, but really it’s just like a can of coke
Alcohol free booze is in a weird place. Needs approval at the supermarket, for some reason, yet it has less alcohol than slightly gone off fruit. I think 0% drinks should be regarded as different from the low alcohol ones (less than 0.5%). And yes, no reason you shouldn’t have it a work.
Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.
Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.
I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.
Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.
As long as not to Farage.
But that is your dilemma.
My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.
Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.
It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.
Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.
I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.
Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.
As long as not to Farage.
But that is your dilemma.
My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.
Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.
It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
That's a view. Alternatively, having Farage, Tice, Yusuf, Jenrick, Braverman, Anderson and similar running the country would be such a shitshow that the populus would be begging for the return of Starmer, Reeves and their mates, despite all their faults.
Given how woeful Labour have been in Government, the populus would be begging for the return of the Tories before Starmer, Reeves and their mates - despite all their faults.
Which is why the Tories need to keep well clear of Reform.
The Tories and Reform should be very separate and competitive until the result is announced. If the result is then that either the Tories enter some sort of arrangement with Reform, or a Labour/Green alliance will form the Government, I don't think they would ever be forgiven for staying out.
I don’t think the Tories would survive being Reform’s servants much in the way the Lib Dems couldn’t cope with being in the coalition
I think it would be a situation where the Tories would be damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
The only way out is to do well enough in the next few years not to end up in that position.
Politics doesn't work that way - the Conservatives are now facing the same issues and questions which have bedevilled the LDs and before them the Alliance. What is the point of the Conservatives and why should anyone vote for them?
IF Badenoch positions the party too close to Reform, there will be no point voting Conservative as you might as well vote Reform. IF, however, she positions the party distant from Reform, those among the Conservative electorate who want to see the back of Labour will justifiably ask how voting Conservative brings that about when voting Reform looks the best and safest way?
It may be many Conservatives would put up with Reform to be rid of Labour but is that true of all Conservative voters? I suspect not so Badenoch and Davey can sit together on the Equidistance Express but both will face difficult questions IF the post-election arithmetic works out and it may be both have more in common with each other than with prospective allies or partners.
The more I think about it, the more I see that bloc of 150-170 Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs sitting between the emerging Reform and the broken Labour parties as a powerful force in the next Parliament.
Which underlines the huge strategic opportunity Cameron was gifted by the coalition, squandered for short (and tbf medium) term party political advantage.
In my experience, Conservatives do understand where liberals are coming from, even if they often disregard their concerns to shoot for their favoured ends rather than the means; the gulf is largest when Tories stop thinking of people as individuals and look for ways to look after “their people” - whether oldies or the already wealthy. People think liberals and socialists live on the same planet, because the ends they aspire to are broadly similar; but in terms of means and methods, the socialists are always the aliens of the pack.
The convergence of Cameron's "liberal conservatism" and Clegg "Orange Book" was brief but it created the Coalition even though many in both parties never liked or signed up to the philosophical coming-together.
Some of the Conservatives on here claim we are now far apart - I'm not so sure and once Badenoch (and Davey to an extent) stop playing for cheap headlines and start thinking about the issues, we may see a renewed convergence (not a coalition by any means) which may be hard to imagine now but perhaps less so in the next 18-24 months.
During the leadership battle, Badenoch concentrated on trans issues. With that and hard-line Brexit / anti-climate action, I can't see the crossover. Maybe with another leader...?
I think it became very clear during last week that Starmer was done. It's over. Maybe he resigns after the locals, maybe he staggers on a bit longer as the Cabinet all look at each other and will someone else to do the dirty deed of forcing him out. Either way Starmer's political career is now over and the contest to replace him is in full swing.
There's a new start in the offing, it's all quite refreshing.
The sun is out (well it was) , the spring flowers are running through their sequence (lilac and tulips now, and my Rhondodendron luteum is in flower). The roses will be blooming soon, the cricket season has started and all is well (ish) with the world.
O’Sullivan cruising like a US Senator in a red light district here.
I think Hendry was a better player than O’Sullivan, but what is extraordinary about him is his ability to still play at this level aged 50. Hendry was retired at 43 and Williams and Higgins are both in clear decline.
Yeah. Ronnie's a clear threat to win the title. Most impressive player at the Crucible this year thus far.
He’s had the devil’s own luck as well, it has to be said. But he does look dangerous.
It strikes me, apropos of nothing, how remarkably like George Cole he looks.
I suppose their argument is that drugs (inc alcohol) should be legal, but MPs shouldn't be taking them at work
Not a terrible argument, but I doubt they would criticise someone who smoked or ate cannabis at lunchtime.
Many people work in places where the rules say that an open alcohol container at work is a sackable offence. Being drunk at work is a sacking offence. Etc.
Smart politics from Polanski
There are bars in the HofC though, it’s not like a regular workplace
One thing I’ve been pondering recently; how would it be if someone in an office sat there drinking 0% alcohol lager/Guinness/wine at their desk, 2-3 a day as other people do tea or coffee? It would look odd, but really it’s just like a can of coke
Alcohol free booze is in a weird place. Needs approval at the supermarket, for some reason, yet it has less alcohol than slightly gone off fruit. I think 0% drinks should be regarded as different from the low alcohol ones (less than 0.5%). And yes, no reason you shouldn’t have it a work.
I remember we used to buy topdeck shandy from the local newsagent without any questions very young - maybe 10-12ish - and that was 1-2%, didn't really count back in the day (80s).
Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.
Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.
I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.
Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.
As long as not to Farage.
But that is your dilemma.
My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.
Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.
It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.
Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.
I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.
Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.
As long as not to Farage.
But that is your dilemma.
My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.
Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.
It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
That's a view. Alternatively, having Farage, Tice, Yusuf, Jenrick, Braverman, Anderson and similar running the country would be such a shitshow that the populus would be begging for the return of Starmer, Reeves and their mates, despite all their faults.
Given how woeful Labour have been in Government, the populus would be begging for the return of the Tories before Starmer, Reeves and their mates - despite all their faults.
Which is why the Tories need to keep well clear of Reform.
The Tories and Reform should be very separate and competitive until the result is announced. If the result is then that either the Tories enter some sort of arrangement with Reform, or a Labour/Green alliance will form the Government, I don't think they would ever be forgiven for staying out.
I don’t think the Tories would survive being Reform’s servants much in the way the Lib Dems couldn’t cope with being in the coalition
I think it would be a situation where the Tories would be damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
The only way out is to do well enough in the next few years not to end up in that position.
Politics doesn't work that way - the Conservatives are now facing the same issues and questions which have bedevilled the LDs and before them the Alliance. What is the point of the Conservatives and why should anyone vote for them?
IF Badenoch positions the party too close to Reform, there will be no point voting Conservative as you might as well vote Reform. IF, however, she positions the party distant from Reform, those among the Conservative electorate who want to see the back of Labour will justifiably ask how voting Conservative brings that about when voting Reform looks the best and safest way?
It may be many Conservatives would put up with Reform to be rid of Labour but is that true of all Conservative voters? I suspect not so Badenoch and Davey can sit together on the Equidistance Express but both will face difficult questions IF the post-election arithmetic works out and it may be both have more in common with each other than with prospective allies or partners.
The more I think about it, the more I see that bloc of 150-170 Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs sitting between the emerging Reform and the broken Labour parties as a powerful force in the next Parliament.
Which underlines the huge strategic opportunity Cameron was gifted by the coalition, squandered for short (and tbf medium) term party political advantage.
In my experience, Conservatives do understand where liberals are coming from, even if they often disregard their concerns to shoot for their favoured ends rather than the means; the gulf is largest when Tories stop thinking of people as individuals and look for ways to look after “their people” - whether oldies or the already wealthy. People think liberals and socialists live on the same planet, because the ends they aspire to are broadly similar; but in terms of means and methods, the socialists are always the aliens of the pack.
The convergence of Cameron's "liberal conservatism" and Clegg "Orange Book" was brief but it created the Coalition even though many in both parties never liked or signed up to the philosophical coming-together.
Some of the Conservatives on here claim we are now far apart - I'm not so sure and once Badenoch (and Davey to an extent) stop playing for cheap headlines and start thinking about the issues, we may see a renewed convergence (not a coalition by any means) which may be hard to imagine now but perhaps less so in the next 18-24 months.
During the leadership battle, Badenoch concentrated on trans issues. With that and hard-line Brexit / anti-climate action, I can't see the crossover. Maybe with another leader...?
There'll need to be some give and take in both parties. At the moment, everyone is very shouty trying to be heard but a lot of real politics happens in the background and as we approach the GE, I suspect we'll see more convergence than seems likely now.
I suppose their argument is that drugs (inc alcohol) should be legal, but MPs shouldn't be taking them at work
Not a terrible argument, but I doubt they would criticise someone who smoked or ate cannabis at lunchtime.
Many people work in places where the rules say that an open alcohol container at work is a sackable offence. Being drunk at work is a sacking offence. Etc.
Smart politics from Polanski
There are bars in the HofC though, it’s not like a regular workplace
One thing I’ve been pondering recently; how would it be if someone in an office sat there drinking 0% alcohol lager/Guinness/wine at their desk, 2-3 a day as other people do tea or coffee? It would look odd, but really it’s just like a can of coke
Alcohol free booze is in a weird place. Needs approval at the supermarket, for some reason, yet it has less alcohol than slightly gone off fruit. I think 0% drinks should be regarded as different from the low alcohol ones (less than 0.5%). And yes, no reason you shouldn’t have it a work.
I remember we used to buy topdeck shandy from the local newsagent without any questions very young - maybe 10-12ish - and that was 1-2%, didn't really count back in the day (80s).
As for work - non client facing, its fine - client facing, inappropriate as could be confusing.
Labour figures from across rival factions have begun circulating informal proposals for an “orderly transition” of power away from Keir Starmer, the Guardian understands.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
I suppose their argument is that drugs (inc alcohol) should be legal, but MPs shouldn't be taking them at work
Not a terrible argument, but I doubt they would criticise someone who smoked or ate cannabis at lunchtime.
Many people work in places where the rules say that an open alcohol container at work is a sackable offence. Being drunk at work is a sacking offence. Etc.
Smart politics from Polanski
There are bars in the HofC though, it’s not like a regular workplace
One thing I’ve been pondering recently; how would it be if someone in an office sat there drinking 0% alcohol lager/Guinness/wine at their desk, 2-3 a day as other people do tea or coffee? It would look odd, but really it’s just like a can of coke
Alcohol free booze is in a weird place. Needs approval at the supermarket, for some reason, yet it has less alcohol than slightly gone off fruit. I think 0% drinks should be regarded as different from the low alcohol ones (less than 0.5%). And yes, no reason you shouldn’t have it a work.
I remember we used to buy topdeck shandy from the local newsagent without any questions very young - maybe 10-12ish - and that was 1-2%, didn't really count back in the day (80s).
Shandy seems to have disappeared from the nearest Sainsbury's which is annoying as I've just given up Coke.
Labour figures from across rival factions have begun circulating informal proposals for an “orderly transition” of power away from Keir Starmer, the Guardian understands.
If there are rival factions such proposals seem unlikely to be successful.
I suppose their argument is that drugs (inc alcohol) should be legal, but MPs shouldn't be taking them at work
Not a terrible argument, but I doubt they would criticise someone who smoked or ate cannabis at lunchtime.
Many people work in places where the rules say that an open alcohol container at work is a sackable offence. Being drunk at work is a sacking offence. Etc.
Smart politics from Polanski
There are bars in the HofC though, it’s not like a regular workplace
One thing I’ve been pondering recently; how would it be if someone in an office sat there drinking 0% alcohol lager/Guinness/wine at their desk, 2-3 a day as other people do tea or coffee? It would look odd, but really it’s just like a can of coke
Alcohol free booze is in a weird place. Needs approval at the supermarket, for some reason, yet it has less alcohol than slightly gone off fruit. I think 0% drinks should be regarded as different from the low alcohol ones (less than 0.5%). And yes, no reason you shouldn’t have it a work.
I remember we used to buy topdeck shandy from the local newsagent without any questions very young - maybe 10-12ish - and that was 1-2%, didn't really count back in the day (80s).
Shandy seems to have disappeared from the nearest Sainsbury's which is annoying as I've just given up Coke.
Talk to me nicely and I'll let you in on a little secret concerning beer and lemonade one of these days.
Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.
Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.
I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.
Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.
As long as not to Farage.
But that is your dilemma.
My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.
Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.
It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.
Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.
I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.
Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.
As long as not to Farage.
But that is your dilemma.
My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.
Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.
It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
That's a view. Alternatively, having Farage, Tice, Yusuf, Jenrick, Braverman, Anderson and similar running the country would be such a shitshow that the populus would be begging for the return of Starmer, Reeves and their mates, despite all their faults.
Given how woeful Labour have been in Government, the populus would be begging for the return of the Tories before Starmer, Reeves and their mates - despite all their faults.
Which is why the Tories need to keep well clear of Reform.
The Tories and Reform should be very separate and competitive until the result is announced. If the result is then that either the Tories enter some sort of arrangement with Reform, or a Labour/Green alliance will form the Government, I don't think they would ever be forgiven for staying out.
I don’t think the Tories would survive being Reform’s servants much in the way the Lib Dems couldn’t cope with being in the coalition
Perhaps - but in Canada they effected a backwards takeover and it's now just the Conservatives again.
It is the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) but all the leaders of the party, including now Poilievre, have been from the old Canadian Reform wing expect for O'Toole and even he was not a Progressive Conservative he just joined the CPC after it was formed.
The CPC have also only won one general election majority in Canada this century an last year the Liberals won their fourth successive Canadian general election. Which isn't a great omen for the UK right if Reform overtake the Tories on seats here and take them over
Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.
Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.
I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.
Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.
As long as not to Farage.
But that is your dilemma.
My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.
Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.
It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
Dude who ran the London Marathon under 2 hours is 31 years old and his wikipedia page only lists info about long distance running career since he turned 28. What a late bloomer I guess.
Hopefully it won't go downhill like that political late bloomer, Sir Keir Starmer.
I hope Keir sticks around though, changing PMs all the time is just boring, and policy changes that will happen seem likely to be for the worse not the better, as it'll be to ditch things the Members don't like and I don't trust party memberships.
Changing PMs all the time is boring? BORING??? Cameron then May then Boris then Truss then Sunak then Starmer, all in a decade - are you not entertained?
Cameron fell on his sword because he made a single catastrophic error of judgement (the Referendum). May was hounded out by the venal Johnson, she didn't really do anything majorly wrong. Johnson and Truss were certainly popcorn events but Rishi merely lost an election. Starmer needs to do like Cameron.
I'd rather he did like Rishi - stuck around to lose an election.
As long as not to Farage.
But that is your dilemma.
My dilemma is more profound. Starmer staying is catastrophic. Starmer being replaced by Milliband is catastrophic, A Reform government would be catastrophic and the Reform-lite Conservatives under Badenoch would be equally catastrophic.
Starmer going is the first piece of the jigsaw, followed by an anyone but Ed Prime Minister. I'd take my chances after that.
Reform wouldn't be catastrophic. It is usual in other countries to have working borders and deport people who have arrived illegally. It is usual to balance the needs of the environment against the need of the country to continue to eat. It is normal if people are invading shops that they get a bloody good hiding. Reform represents a return to normality, not a revolution. It will be smoother if they don't get a majority and they govern with the Tories, because the latter have more experience. But either way, it'll be better than what we have now.
It will certainly be portrayed as a disaster in some quarters though. But hopefully we will be disastering ourselves richer rather than progressing ourselves into the poorhouse.
That's a view. Alternatively, having Farage, Tice, Yusuf, Jenrick, Braverman, Anderson and similar running the country would be such a shitshow that the populus would be begging for the return of Starmer, Reeves and their mates, despite all their faults.
Given how woeful Labour have been in Government, the populus would be begging for the return of the Tories before Starmer, Reeves and their mates - despite all their faults.
Which is why the Tories need to keep well clear of Reform.
The Tories and Reform should be very separate and competitive until the result is announced. If the result is then that either the Tories enter some sort of arrangement with Reform, or a Labour/Green alliance will form the Government, I don't think they would ever be forgiven for staying out.
Nah. You have that very wrong. Standing aloof from a tacky doomed coalition will ultimately stand Kemi in good stead with the voters. In an election that would come along in short order. The people that will be MPs if they get 250+ elected will be ample reason to sit it out.
'Tacky' is an absolutely you word to describe it. Dripping with snobbery and desperation to appeal to luvviedom - meanwhile the country goes to hell with Zack. Hopefully the party has some wiser people than you in it.
A Labour and LD government would almost certainly have more MPs combined than the Greens anyway
NEW: Keir Starmer is planning to whip Labour MPs to vote down any motion to refer him to the Privileges Committee for potentially misleading Parliament
I suppose their argument is that drugs (inc alcohol) should be legal, but MPs shouldn't be taking them at work
Not a terrible argument, but I doubt they would criticise someone who smoked or ate cannabis at lunchtime.
Many people work in places where the rules say that an open alcohol container at work is a sackable offence. Being drunk at work is a sacking offence. Etc.
Smart politics from Polanski
There are bars in the HofC though, it’s not like a regular workplace
One thing I’ve been pondering recently; how would it be if someone in an office sat there drinking 0% alcohol lager/Guinness/wine at their desk, 2-3 a day as other people do tea or coffee? It would look odd, but really it’s just like a can of coke
Alcohol free booze is in a weird place. Needs approval at the supermarket, for some reason, yet it has less alcohol than slightly gone off fruit. I think 0% drinks should be regarded as different from the low alcohol ones (less than 0.5%). And yes, no reason you shouldn’t have it a work.
I remember we used to buy topdeck shandy from the local newsagent without any questions very young - maybe 10-12ish - and that was 1-2%, didn't really count back in the day (80s).
Shandy seems to have disappeared from the nearest Sainsbury's which is annoying as I've just given up Coke.
Shandy is an under rated drink. Very refreshing on a hot day.
I suppose their argument is that drugs (inc alcohol) should be legal, but MPs shouldn't be taking them at work
Not a terrible argument, but I doubt they would criticise someone who smoked or ate cannabis at lunchtime.
Many people work in places where the rules say that an open alcohol container at work is a sackable offence. Being drunk at work is a sacking offence. Etc.
Smart politics from Polanski
There are bars in the HofC though, it’s not like a regular workplace
One thing I’ve been pondering recently; how would it be if someone in an office sat there drinking 0% alcohol lager/Guinness/wine at their desk, 2-3 a day as other people do tea or coffee? It would look odd, but really it’s just like a can of coke
Alcohol free booze is in a weird place. Needs approval at the supermarket, for some reason, yet it has less alcohol than slightly gone off fruit. I think 0% drinks should be regarded as different from the low alcohol ones (less than 0.5%). And yes, no reason you shouldn’t have it a work.
I remember we used to buy topdeck shandy from the local newsagent without any questions very young - maybe 10-12ish - and that was 1-2%, didn't really count back in the day (80s).
Shandy seems to have disappeared from the nearest Sainsbury's which is annoying as I've just given up Coke.
Shandy is an under rated drink. Very refreshing on a hot day.
Yep. Was my go to after cricket, partly because nice and partly so I could have two or three pints (favouring the lemonade side) and drive home.
I suppose their argument is that drugs (inc alcohol) should be legal, but MPs shouldn't be taking them at work
Not a terrible argument, but I doubt they would criticise someone who smoked or ate cannabis at lunchtime.
Many people work in places where the rules say that an open alcohol container at work is a sackable offence. Being drunk at work is a sacking offence. Etc.
Smart politics from Polanski
There are bars in the HofC though, it’s not like a regular workplace
One thing I’ve been pondering recently; how would it be if someone in an office sat there drinking 0% alcohol lager/Guinness/wine at their desk, 2-3 a day as other people do tea or coffee? It would look odd, but really it’s just like a can of coke
Alcohol free booze is in a weird place. Needs approval at the supermarket, for some reason, yet it has less alcohol than slightly gone off fruit. I think 0% drinks should be regarded as different from the low alcohol ones (less than 0.5%). And yes, no reason you shouldn’t have it a work.
I remember we used to buy topdeck shandy from the local newsagent without any questions very young - maybe 10-12ish - and that was 1-2%, didn't really count back in the day (80s).
Shandy seems to have disappeared from the nearest Sainsbury's which is annoying as I've just given up Coke.
Shandy is an under rated drink. Very refreshing on a hot day.
The Germans do it even better with a decent range of radlers available everywhere.
O’Sullivan cruising like a US Senator in a red light district here.
I think Hendry was a better player than O’Sullivan, but what is extraordinary about him is his ability to still play at this level aged 50. Hendry was retired at 43 and Williams and Higgins are both in clear decline.
Yeah. Ronnie's a clear threat to win the title. Most impressive player at the Crucible this year thus far.
He’s had the devil’s own luck as well, it has to be said. But he does look dangerous.
It strikes me, apropos of nothing, how remarkably like George Cole he looks.
I must be the only person in the country concentrating on Selby v Wu Yize. (I've money on Wu). Which is tactically fascinating if not spectacular.
NEW: Keir Starmer is planning to whip Labour MPs to vote down any motion to refer him to the Privileges Committee for potentially misleading Parliament
Isnt this sort of the move that got Boris in lots of trouble.
Lord Hermer wrote to Anna Crowther, a solicitor at Leigh Day: “You should not feel too low about it. There is a much more important big picture: you are making an extraordinary contribution to securing redress for torture victims in Iraq. Your hard work, dedication and ability are outstanding and have made a real difference to people’s lives – something that Forbes, Neil Garnham or his clients can never say.”
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
NEW: Keir Starmer is planning to whip Labour MPs to vote down any motion to refer him to the Privileges Committee for potentially misleading Parliament
Isnt this sort of the move that got Boris in lots of trouble.
Bet Jonny Reynolds is so delighted he was made whip last year.
He doesn’t need to whip the vote . Exactly what grounds would he be referred to the Privileges Committee ?
He didn’t lie about not knowing and the so called pressure on the FCDO is hard to prove as it’s quite subjective. It’s now getting ridiculous. I’m no fan of Starmer but really it’s now just tedious .
Tony Diver @Tony_Diver · 21m EXC: Andy Burnham’s allies want a new Granita pact with Angela Rayner.
Two Labour sources said they discussed it at their recent meeting at Rayner’s constituency home. Friends say it would be “very useful” to avoid a split on the soft Left in a leadership contest.
Tony Diver @Tony_Diver · 21m EXC: Andy Burnham’s allies want a new Granita pact with Angela Rayner.
Two Labour sources said they discussed it at their recent meeting at Rayner’s constituency home. Friends say it would be “very useful” to avoid a split on the soft Left in a leadership contest.
Tony Diver @Tony_Diver · 21m EXC: Andy Burnham’s allies want a new Granita pact with Angela Rayner.
Two Labour sources said they discussed it at their recent meeting at Rayner’s constituency home. Friends say it would be “very useful” to avoid a split on the soft Left in a leadership contest.
I think I need to do a thread on the alternative vote system as Ange and Andy seem to forget that Labour use AV to elect their leaders which avoids splits that we see under FPTP.
Lord Hermer wrote to Anna Crowther, a solicitor at Leigh Day: “You should not feel too low about it. There is a much more important big picture: you are making an extraordinary contribution to securing redress for torture victims in Iraq. Your hard work, dedication and ability are outstanding and have made a real difference to people’s lives – something that Forbes, Neil Garnham or his clients can never say.”
Tony Diver @Tony_Diver · 21m EXC: Andy Burnham’s allies want a new Granita pact with Angela Rayner.
Two Labour sources said they discussed it at their recent meeting at Rayner’s constituency home. Friends say it would be “very useful” to avoid a split on the soft Left in a leadership contest.
I think I need to do a thread on the alternative vote system as Ange and Andy seem to forget that Labour use AV to elect their leaders which avoids splits that we see under FPTP.
I think this more about a Dream Ticket Coronation that avoids Wes and Ed running than the actual members voting
Tony Diver @Tony_Diver · 21m EXC: Andy Burnham’s allies want a new Granita pact with Angela Rayner.
Two Labour sources said they discussed it at their recent meeting at Rayner’s constituency home. Friends say it would be “very useful” to avoid a split on the soft Left in a leadership contest.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
Civil service didn't like it and advised against. Probably a little too sensible for them.
Starmer seems to have crossed the threshold where he's simply made too many enemies. It will be interesting to see whether any of the people giving evidence on Tuesday feel emboldened to criticise him more directly.
NEW: Keir Starmer is planning to whip Labour MPs to vote down any motion to refer him to the Privileges Committee for potentially misleading Parliament
Yes but the majority of Brits think he is a decent man!
Tony Diver @Tony_Diver · 21m EXC: Andy Burnham’s allies want a new Granita pact with Angela Rayner.
Two Labour sources said they discussed it at their recent meeting at Rayner’s constituency home. Friends say it would be “very useful” to avoid a split on the soft Left in a leadership contest.
That, Burnham handing over to Rayner one day, seems like an awful deal for her. Most likely that he gets a free run at being PM now and, if they lose the next GE, she gets to be LotO. She might as well just run herself now
Tony Diver @Tony_Diver · 21m EXC: Andy Burnham’s allies want a new Granita pact with Angela Rayner.
Two Labour sources said they discussed it at their recent meeting at Rayner’s constituency home. Friends say it would be “very useful” to avoid a split on the soft Left in a leadership contest.
Burnham can have his pact, just as long as he endorses Rayner.
Was that not what he was proposing?
Granita has been closed for at least a decade.
Just saying...
It went from being famous to being infamous, which wasn't good for business.
It had notoriously narrow, hard seats - better suited to Blair's physiology than to Brown's. I'm sure that's why the latter gave up arguing and went home.
I suppose their argument is that drugs (inc alcohol) should be legal, but MPs shouldn't be taking them at work
Not a terrible argument, but I doubt they would criticise someone who smoked or ate cannabis at lunchtime.
Many people work in places where the rules say that an open alcohol container at work is a sackable offence. Being drunk at work is a sacking offence. Etc.
Smart politics from Polanski
There are bars in the HofC though, it’s not like a regular workplace
One thing I’ve been pondering recently; how would it be if someone in an office sat there drinking 0% alcohol lager/Guinness/wine at their desk, 2-3 a day as other people do tea or coffee? It would look odd, but really it’s just like a can of coke
You could do similar with a pipe that you sucked on but never lit. No rules actually broken. You could even every so often strike a match and make as if to light it but then just stop and blow it out. HR could do nothing. Or maybe they could, I'm not sure. One for Doug Seal
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
A couple of reasons:
Firstly, unless you had a series of barrages around the UK, then while you knew when the electricity was coming, it was still intermittent.
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Thirdly, tidal fell into an awkward gap: it was cheaper than nuclear, but still a fair amount more expensive than other intermittent sources like wind.
NEW: Keir Starmer is planning to whip Labour MPs to vote down any motion to refer him to the Privileges Committee for potentially misleading Parliament
I suppose their argument is that drugs (inc alcohol) should be legal, but MPs shouldn't be taking them at work
Not a terrible argument, but I doubt they would criticise someone who smoked or ate cannabis at lunchtime.
Many people work in places where the rules say that an open alcohol container at work is a sackable offence. Being drunk at work is a sacking offence. Etc.
Smart politics from Polanski
There are bars in the HofC though, it’s not like a regular workplace
One thing I’ve been pondering recently; how would it be if someone in an office sat there drinking 0% alcohol lager/Guinness/wine at their desk, 2-3 a day as other people do tea or coffee? It would look odd, but really it’s just like a can of coke
You could do similar with a pipe that you sucked on but never lit. No rules actually broken. You could even every so often strike a match and make as if to light it but then just stop and blow it out. HR could do nothing. Or maybe they could, I'm not sure. One for Doug Seal
A chess player took out a cigar and placed it ostentatiously on the table. His opponent, a noted anti-smoker, complained. "He hasn't actually lit it," ruled the tournament director. "But in chess," argued the injured party, "it's not what you do that matters, it's what you threaten to do."
I suppose their argument is that drugs (inc alcohol) should be legal, but MPs shouldn't be taking them at work
Not a terrible argument, but I doubt they would criticise someone who smoked or ate cannabis at lunchtime.
Many people work in places where the rules say that an open alcohol container at work is a sackable offence. Being drunk at work is a sacking offence. Etc.
Smart politics from Polanski
There are bars in the HofC though, it’s not like a regular workplace
One thing I’ve been pondering recently; how would it be if someone in an office sat there drinking 0% alcohol lager/Guinness/wine at their desk, 2-3 a day as other people do tea or coffee? It would look odd, but really it’s just like a can of coke
You could do similar with a pipe that you sucked on but never lit. No rules actually broken. You could even every so often strike a match and make as if to light it but then just stop and blow it out. HR could do nothing. Or maybe they could, I'm not sure. One for Doug Seal
I think the difference is that other people in the office are sitting at their desk drinking non alcoholic drinks, so why shouldn’t you crack open a Guinness Zero? It would look so weird, I would like someone to do it… I DARE someone to do it at work tomorrow
Lord Hermer wrote to Anna Crowther, a solicitor at Leigh Day: “You should not feel too low about it. There is a much more important big picture: you are making an extraordinary contribution to securing redress for torture victims in Iraq. Your hard work, dedication and ability are outstanding and have made a real difference to people’s lives – something that Forbes, Neil Garnham or his clients can never say.”
Tony Diver @Tony_Diver · 21m EXC: Andy Burnham’s allies want a new Granita pact with Angela Rayner.
Two Labour sources said they discussed it at their recent meeting at Rayner’s constituency home. Friends say it would be “very useful” to avoid a split on the soft Left in a leadership contest.
Burnham can have his pact, just as long as he endorses Rayner.
Was that not what he was proposing?
Granita has been closed for at least a decade.
Just saying...
It went from being famous to being infamous, which wasn't good for business.
It had notoriously narrow, hard seats - better suited to Blair's physiology than to Brown's. I'm sure that's why the latter gave up arguing and went home.
As a son of the kirk I suspect Brown had spent a hell of a lot more time on wood hard seats than Blair.
I suppose their argument is that drugs (inc alcohol) should be legal, but MPs shouldn't be taking them at work
Not a terrible argument, but I doubt they would criticise someone who smoked or ate cannabis at lunchtime.
Many people work in places where the rules say that an open alcohol container at work is a sackable offence. Being drunk at work is a sacking offence. Etc.
Smart politics from Polanski
There are bars in the HofC though, it’s not like a regular workplace
One thing I’ve been pondering recently; how would it be if someone in an office sat there drinking 0% alcohol lager/Guinness/wine at their desk, 2-3 a day as other people do tea or coffee? It would look odd, but really it’s just like a can of coke
You could do similar with a pipe that you sucked on but never lit. No rules actually broken. You could even every so often strike a match and make as if to light it but then just stop and blow it out. HR could do nothing. Or maybe they could, I'm not sure. One for Doug Seal
I think the difference is that other people in the office are sitting at their desk drinking non alcoholic drinks, so why shouldn’t you crack open a Guinness Zero? It would look so weird, I would like someone to do it… I DARE someone to do it at work tomorrow
I once worked for a company who prided themselves on providing full stocked kitchens including beer / wine. Now people didnt sit at their desks pounding the booze but certainly not uncommon for people to have a cold beer on a summers afternoon.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
A couple of reasons:
Firstly, unless you had a series of barrages around the UK, then while you knew when the electricity was coming, it was still intermittent.
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Thirdly, tidal fell into an awkward gap: it was cheaper than nuclear, but still a fair amount more expensive than other intermittent sources like wind.
For what it's worth, I think it probably would have been worth a try. Too often we -as a country- worry too much about failure.
Tony Diver @Tony_Diver · 21m EXC: Andy Burnham’s allies want a new Granita pact with Angela Rayner.
Two Labour sources said they discussed it at their recent meeting at Rayner’s constituency home. Friends say it would be “very useful” to avoid a split on the soft Left in a leadership contest.
That, Burnham handing over to Rayner one day, seems like an awful deal for her. Most likely that he gets a free run at being PM now and, if they lose the next GE, she gets to be LotO. She might as well just run herself now
Yes, it's muddled thinking. Rayner just needs to ask herself 2 questions:
Do I want to be PM? Can I challenge and win?
If it's a yes to both she should go for it. If not, don't. Just come back to cabinet in a suitable role.
I suppose their argument is that drugs (inc alcohol) should be legal, but MPs shouldn't be taking them at work
Not a terrible argument, but I doubt they would criticise someone who smoked or ate cannabis at lunchtime.
Many people work in places where the rules say that an open alcohol container at work is a sackable offence. Being drunk at work is a sacking offence. Etc.
Smart politics from Polanski
There are bars in the HofC though, it’s not like a regular workplace
One thing I’ve been pondering recently; how would it be if someone in an office sat there drinking 0% alcohol lager/Guinness/wine at their desk, 2-3 a day as other people do tea or coffee? It would look odd, but really it’s just like a can of coke
You could do similar with a pipe that you sucked on but never lit. No rules actually broken. You could even every so often strike a match and make as if to light it but then just stop and blow it out. HR could do nothing. Or maybe they could, I'm not sure. One for Doug Seal
I think the difference is that other people in the office are sitting at their desk drinking non alcoholic drinks, so why shouldn’t you crack open a Guinness Zero? It would look so weird, I would like someone to do it… I DARE someone to do it at work tomorrow
Tempted. The campus CO-OP sells cold Guinness Zero and it’s about 50 yards from my office… I’ll use my picture for the day as proof.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
A couple of reasons:
Firstly, unless you had a series of barrages around the UK, then while you knew when the electricity was coming, it was still intermittent.
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Thirdly, tidal fell into an awkward gap: it was cheaper than nuclear, but still a fair amount more expensive than other intermittent sources like wind.
For what it's worth, I think it probably would have been worth a try. Too often we -as a country- worry too much about failure.
Success always starts with failure.
There is very little technological development required. The turbines would be a derivative of systems for dams. Building the sea walls (more like a continuous spit of land) is a standard operation.
Perhaps there were concerns that it would be difficult to get the proper cost escalation (contractor enrichment) going.
The oil companies get fixed price contracts for building such sea walls/artificial spits of land.
Tony Diver @Tony_Diver · 21m EXC: Andy Burnham’s allies want a new Granita pact with Angela Rayner.
Two Labour sources said they discussed it at their recent meeting at Rayner’s constituency home. Friends say it would be “very useful” to avoid a split on the soft Left in a leadership contest.
Brown and Blair were both MPs and Shadow Cabinet members when they made the Granita pact, Burnham is not even an MP now so ineligible in any contest and Rayner not in the Shadow Cabinet
Tony Diver @Tony_Diver · 21m EXC: Andy Burnham’s allies want a new Granita pact with Angela Rayner.
Two Labour sources said they discussed it at their recent meeting at Rayner’s constituency home. Friends say it would be “very useful” to avoid a split on the soft Left in a leadership contest.
Brown and Blair were both MPs and Shadow Cabinet members when they made the Granita pact, Burnham is not even an MP now so ineligible in any contest and Rayner not in the Shadow Cabinet
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
Civil service didn't like it and advised against. Probably a little too sensible for them.
They were on record as saying we need more nuclear, Minister. Come to your own conclusions.
I suppose their argument is that drugs (inc alcohol) should be legal, but MPs shouldn't be taking them at work
Not a terrible argument, but I doubt they would criticise someone who smoked or ate cannabis at lunchtime.
Many people work in places where the rules say that an open alcohol container at work is a sackable offence. Being drunk at work is a sacking offence. Etc.
Smart politics from Polanski
There are bars in the HofC though, it’s not like a regular workplace
One thing I’ve been pondering recently; how would it be if someone in an office sat there drinking 0% alcohol lager/Guinness/wine at their desk, 2-3 a day as other people do tea or coffee? It would look odd, but really it’s just like a can of coke
You could do similar with a pipe that you sucked on but never lit. No rules actually broken. You could even every so often strike a match and make as if to light it but then just stop and blow it out. HR could do nothing. Or maybe they could, I'm not sure. One for Doug Seal
I think the difference is that other people in the office are sitting at their desk drinking non alcoholic drinks, so why shouldn’t you crack open a Guinness Zero? It would look so weird, I would like someone to do it… I DARE someone to do it at work tomorrow
I once worked for a company who prided themselves on providing full stocked kitchens including beer / wine. Now people didnt sit at their desks pounding the booze but certainly not uncommon for people to have a cold beer on a summers afternoon.
Every employment contract I've ever had has been very clear that drinking alcohol at work would result in summary dismissal. There's always been quite a hard drinking culture for corporate events, but strictly for after the day's work is done.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
A couple of reasons:
Firstly, unless you had a series of barrages around the UK, then while you knew when the electricity was coming, it was still intermittent.
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Thirdly, tidal fell into an awkward gap: it was cheaper than nuclear, but still a fair amount more expensive than other intermittent sources like wind.
For what it's worth, I think it probably would have been worth a try. Too often we -as a country- worry too much about failure.
Success always starts with failure.
We should embrace the uncertainty of the future and allow it to free us to try a variety of things so that we can discover by experience what works best.
One of the things that slows down decision-making in Britain is the paralysis of trying to work out what the perfect decision for the future will be, when it's often impossible to be sure. So decisions are delayed.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
Civil service didn't like it and advised against. Probably a little too sensible for them.
They were on record as saying we need more nuclear, Minister. Come to your own conclusions.
But I've heard in recent days that the CS also has a 'go slow' on all nuclear projects.
I think they're just a deeply damaging organisation really. They're complacent, arrogant, lazy, ignorant, expensive and slow. And those are their better qualities. An energy task force with Kate Bingham would probably turn the lot round in a year. Then just make it permanent and just sack everyone in DEIC.
Tony Diver @Tony_Diver · 21m EXC: Andy Burnham’s allies want a new Granita pact with Angela Rayner.
Two Labour sources said they discussed it at their recent meeting at Rayner’s constituency home. Friends say it would be “very useful” to avoid a split on the soft Left in a leadership contest.
I think I need to do a thread on the alternative vote system as Ange and Andy seem to forget that Labour use AV to elect their leaders which avoids splits that we see under FPTP.
Prime Minister David Cameron branded the alternative vote (AV) system "undemocratic, obscure, unfair and crazy".
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
A couple of reasons:
Firstly, unless you had a series of barrages around the UK, then while you knew when the electricity was coming, it was still intermittent.
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Thirdly, tidal fell into an awkward gap: it was cheaper than nuclear, but still a fair amount more expensive than other intermittent sources like wind.
For what it's worth, I think it probably would have been worth a try. Too often we -as a country- worry too much about failure.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
A couple of reasons:
Firstly, unless you had a series of barrages around the UK, then while you knew when the electricity was coming, it was still intermittent.
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Thirdly, tidal fell into an awkward gap: it was cheaper than nuclear, but still a fair amount more expensive than other intermittent sources like wind.
For what it's worth, I think it probably would have been worth a try. Too often we -as a country- worry too much about failure.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
A couple of reasons:
Firstly, unless you had a series of barrages around the UK, then while you knew when the electricity was coming, it was still intermittent.
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Thirdly, tidal fell into an awkward gap: it was cheaper than nuclear, but still a fair amount more expensive than other intermittent sources like wind.
Surely it has the *massive* advantage over wind and solar of its intermittancy being predictable, and of it always outputing roughly the same amount of power daily, just at varying times of the day.
The big, expensive problem we have is power generation on cold still days in winter, which our climate is won't to do for periods of a week at a time most winters.
Stack some tidal systems located in different parts of the UK (thus being out of phase with each other) and a big pile of batteries and you've basically got reliable, dispatchable power.
IMHO, it's not happened because it would be utterly impossible to get planning permission within the current system, and everyone knows that. Look at the ridiculous saga of the Hinckley point cooling system (basically engineered for "not one fish may die"), and scale that up x1000, and that's before you've started dealing with the RSPB...
Starmer seems to have crossed the threshold where he's simply made too many enemies. It will be interesting to see whether any of the people giving evidence on Tuesday feel emboldened to criticise him more directly.
Lots of enemies matter less if you have lots of friends.
The best way to have a friend is to be a friend, but I think Starmer's problem is that he is a ruthlessly ambitious, unpleasant, untrustworthy and incompetent man, even for a senior politician. And that's transparently obvious to everyone who works for him.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Given how nonsense estimates for many projects get waved through the uncertainty must have been off the charts there.
Tony Diver @Tony_Diver · 21m EXC: Andy Burnham’s allies want a new Granita pact with Angela Rayner.
Two Labour sources said they discussed it at their recent meeting at Rayner’s constituency home. Friends say it would be “very useful” to avoid a split on the soft Left in a leadership contest.
I think I need to do a thread on the alternative vote system as Ange and Andy seem to forget that Labour use AV to elect their leaders which avoids splits that we see under FPTP.
Prime Minister David Cameron branded the alternative vote (AV) system "undemocratic, obscure, unfair and crazy".
All voting systems have their pros and cons. Politicians are fooling themselves, and condescending to us, if they act like one or another will solve all our problems, or be a cause of them.
Tony Diver @Tony_Diver · 21m EXC: Andy Burnham’s allies want a new Granita pact with Angela Rayner.
Two Labour sources said they discussed it at their recent meeting at Rayner’s constituency home. Friends say it would be “very useful” to avoid a split on the soft Left in a leadership contest.
I think I need to do a thread on the alternative vote system as Ange and Andy seem to forget that Labour use AV to elect their leaders which avoids splits that we see under FPTP.
Prime Minister David Cameron branded the alternative vote (AV) system "undemocratic, obscure, unfair and crazy".
Tony Diver @Tony_Diver · 21m EXC: Andy Burnham’s allies want a new Granita pact with Angela Rayner.
Two Labour sources said they discussed it at their recent meeting at Rayner’s constituency home. Friends say it would be “very useful” to avoid a split on the soft Left in a leadership contest.
I think I need to do a thread on the alternative vote system as Ange and Andy seem to forget that Labour use AV to elect their leaders which avoids splits that we see under FPTP.
Prime Minister David Cameron branded the alternative vote (AV) system "undemocratic, obscure, unfair and crazy".
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Given how nonsense estimates for many projects get waved through the uncertainty must have been off the charts there.
I'm in favour of tidal but they don't deliver the nameplate power 24/7, you can find presentations on la Rance online and it's generating for a surprisingly small % of the tidal cycle.
The Trump administration provided a lower level of security for the White House correspondents’ dinner than it has for other gatherings of high-ranking officials, even though the president and many Cabinet members were in attendance, according to officials familiar with the plan.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
A couple of reasons:
Firstly, unless you had a series of barrages around the UK, then while you knew when the electricity was coming, it was still intermittent.
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Thirdly, tidal fell into an awkward gap: it was cheaper than nuclear, but still a fair amount more expensive than other intermittent sources like wind.
Surely it has the *massive* advantage over wind and solar of its intermittancy being predictable, and of it always outputing roughly the same amount of power daily, just at varying times of the day.
The big, expensive problem we have is power generation on cold still days in winter, which our climate is won't to do for periods of a week at a time most winters.
Stack some tidal systems located in different parts of the UK (thus being out of phase with each other) and a big pile of batteries and you've basically got reliable, dispatchable power.
IMHO, it's not happened because it would be utterly impossible to get planning permission within the current system, and everyone knows that. Look at the ridiculous saga of the Hinckley point cooling system (basically engineered for "not one fish may die"), and scale that up x1000, and that's before you've started dealing with the RSPB...
You would be amazed how accurate forecasting is for solar and wind these days: the grid operator usually knows within 2-3% what output will be a couple of hours in advance.
Re multiple tidal barrages, you are absolutely right - with the proviso that not all parts of the UK have equally suitable locations, and some would be significantly more expensive than the Severn barrage.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
A couple of reasons:
Firstly, unless you had a series of barrages around the UK, then while you knew when the electricity was coming, it was still intermittent.
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Thirdly, tidal fell into an awkward gap: it was cheaper than nuclear, but still a fair amount more expensive than other intermittent sources like wind.
Surely it has the *massive* advantage over wind and solar of its intermittancy being predictable, and of it always outputing roughly the same amount of power daily, just at varying times of the day.
The big, expensive problem we have is power generation on cold still days in winter, which our climate is won't to do for periods of a week at a time most winters.
Stack some tidal systems located in different parts of the UK (thus being out of phase with each other) and a big pile of batteries and you've basically got reliable, dispatchable power.
IMHO, it's not happened because it would be utterly impossible to get planning permission within the current system, and everyone knows that. Look at the ridiculous saga of the Hinckley point cooling system (basically engineered for "not one fish may die"), and scale that up x1000, and that's before you've started dealing with the RSPB...
You would be amazed how accurate forecasting is for solar and wind these days: the grid operator usually knows within 2-3% what output will be a couple of hours in advance.
Re multiple tidal barrages, you are absolutely right - with the proviso that not all parts of the UK have equally suitable locations, and some would be significantly more expensive than the Severn barrage.
I think we're slightly at cross purposes. My point about predictablity is that a tidal scheme with a fairly modest battery effectively becomes dispatchable energy. The battery will *always* get recharged twice in a 24hr cycle, so you can always draw down pretty much the same total amount of power, every single day. (Spring and Neap tides vary it a bit, but the basic concept is valid as an approximation).
This is simply not the case for wind or solar - some days you get loads, other days nothing. Sometimes, in the UK climate, you get a week where it's bitterly cold (so demand is up) and deadly still, whilst the days are short and dull. Yes, we can forecast this a couple of days ahead very well, but it doesn't solve the problem of the power not being available.
The only solutions are massive batteries (~14x the size of the tidal battery to be able to support the same daily output for a week with no generation), overbuilding (not really viable with solar in the depths of winter, you'd need around 100 panels per house, useless with wind in a dead calm), or fossil fuel generation (eg CCGT).
It's the absence of significant day to day variability that makes tidal + 12hr battery such a strong contender, compared to wind and solar.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
A couple of reasons:
Firstly, unless you had a series of barrages around the UK, then while you knew when the electricity was coming, it was still intermittent.
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Thirdly, tidal fell into an awkward gap: it was cheaper than nuclear, but still a fair amount more expensive than other intermittent sources like wind.
Surely it has the *massive* advantage over wind and solar of its intermittancy being predictable, and of it always outputing roughly the same amount of power daily, just at varying times of the day.
The big, expensive problem we have is power generation on cold still days in winter, which our climate is won't to do for periods of a week at a time most winters.
Stack some tidal systems located in different parts of the UK (thus being out of phase with each other) and a big pile of batteries and you've basically got reliable, dispatchable power.
IMHO, it's not happened because it would be utterly impossible to get planning permission within the current system, and everyone knows that. Look at the ridiculous saga of the Hinckley point cooling system (basically engineered for "not one fish may die"), and scale that up x1000, and that's before you've started dealing with the RSPB...
You would be amazed how accurate forecasting is for solar and wind these days: the grid operator usually knows within 2-3% what output will be a couple of hours in advance.
Re multiple tidal barrages, you are absolutely right - with the proviso that not all parts of the UK have equally suitable locations, and some would be significantly more expensive than the Severn barrage.
The wind power forecasts are pretty good a few days ahead.
Most of the time if there's a variation between the wind power forecast and the wind power delivered to the (Irish) grid it's because the grid can't use all the available wind power.
One advantage of tidal over wind is that the tidal cycle is just over twelve hours. This means that if you use batteries to time-shift the tidal output to when you want to use it you potentially get two charge-discharge cycles every day, which makes it an even more economic use of batteries than solar (one charge-discharge cycle per day), and much more economic than wind (maybe one charge-discharge cycle every week on average).
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
A couple of reasons:
Firstly, unless you had a series of barrages around the UK, then while you knew when the electricity was coming, it was still intermittent.
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Thirdly, tidal fell into an awkward gap: it was cheaper than nuclear, but still a fair amount more expensive than other intermittent sources like wind.
Surely it has the *massive* advantage over wind and solar of its intermittancy being predictable, and of it always outputing roughly the same amount of power daily, just at varying times of the day.
The big, expensive problem we have is power generation on cold still days in winter, which our climate is won't to do for periods of a week at a time most winters.
Stack some tidal systems located in different parts of the UK (thus being out of phase with each other) and a big pile of batteries and you've basically got reliable, dispatchable power.
IMHO, it's not happened because it would be utterly impossible to get planning permission within the current system, and everyone knows that. Look at the ridiculous saga of the Hinckley point cooling system (basically engineered for "not one fish may die"), and scale that up x1000, and that's before you've started dealing with the RSPB...
You would be amazed how accurate forecasting is for solar and wind these days: the grid operator usually knows within 2-3% what output will be a couple of hours in advance.
Re multiple tidal barrages, you are absolutely right - with the proviso that not all parts of the UK have equally suitable locations, and some would be significantly more expensive than the Severn barrage.
I think we're slightly at cross purposes. My point about predictablity is that a tidal scheme with a fairly modest battery effectively becomes dispatchable energy. The battery will *always* get recharged twice in a 24hr cycle, so you can always draw down pretty much the same total amount of power, every single day. (Spring and Neap tides vary it a bit, but the basic concept is valid as an approximation).
This is simply not the case for wind or solar - some days you get loads, other days nothing. Sometimes, in the UK climate, you get a week where it's bitterly cold (so demand is up) and deadly still, whilst the days are short and dull. Yes, we can forecast this a couple of days ahead very well, but it doesn't solve the problem of the power not being available.
The only solutions are massive batteries (~14x the size of the tidal battery to be able to support the same daily output for a week with no generation), overbuilding (not really viable with solar in the depths of winter, you'd need around 100 panels per house, useless with wind in a dead calm), or fossil fuel generation (eg CCGT).
It's the absence of significant day to day variability that makes tidal + 12hr battery such a strong contender, compared to wind and solar.
The solution I favour for storing wind power is to convert it to methane, have large amounts of methane storage, and have CCGTs on standby.
If the grid also has done nuclear and tidal then the amount of storage/CCGT you would need is reduced. You can also use this methane production with excess wind for domestic space heating and other applications, which reduces the pressure to electrify those uses.
If you fit CCS to the CCGT then you have a way to remove carbon from the atmosphere, which is useful if you're worried about the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and want to aim for a lower level of overall warming.
So I noticed that the Prince and Princess of Wales haven't carried out any royal engagements in the last month. I do hope that they're both well.
I get the impression that William could be a much more distant King at the head of a much less visible royal family. Maybe it doesn't matter. Is that what the other European monarchies are like?
So I noticed that the Prince and Princess of Wales haven't carried out any royal engagements in the last month. I do hope that they're both well.
I get the impression that William could be a much more distant King at the head of a much less visible royal family. Maybe it doesn't matter. Is that what the other European monarchies are like?
Huh, my mistake. They have been doing things, it's just not in the court circular for some reason. Odd.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
A couple of reasons:
Firstly, unless you had a series of barrages around the UK, then while you knew when the electricity was coming, it was still intermittent.
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Thirdly, tidal fell into an awkward gap: it was cheaper than nuclear, but still a fair amount more expensive than other intermittent sources like wind.
Surely it has the *massive* advantage over wind and solar of its intermittancy being predictable, and of it always outputing roughly the same amount of power daily, just at varying times of the day.
The big, expensive problem we have is power generation on cold still days in winter, which our climate is won't to do for periods of a week at a time most winters.
Stack some tidal systems located in different parts of the UK (thus being out of phase with each other) and a big pile of batteries and you've basically got reliable, dispatchable power.
IMHO, it's not happened because it would be utterly impossible to get planning permission within the current system, and everyone knows that. Look at the ridiculous saga of the Hinckley point cooling system (basically engineered for "not one fish may die"), and scale that up x1000, and that's before you've started dealing with the RSPB...
The testbed project at Swansea - powering 80,000 homes (versus 1.4 million homes in Cardiff, for example) - got its DCO (planning permission) through within two and a half years. With 83% favaourablty from the local population.
The Swansea scheme had Greenpeace and Wildlife and Wetlands backing. You have to build a new nearby nature reserve, for the extra time the foreshore is covered up with the stored water. All factored in to the development costs.
The one thing where the predictability of wind power breaks down is that if you have a high pressure ystem sat over the country for ten days - then I can predict that the turbines will be producing zero power for those ten days. Couple that with Sizewell B changing out the rods and we came close - very close - to brown-outs.
The UK has a far more certain power supply if it has a four legged stool - solar, wind, nuclear and tidal - than it does with its current system without tidal. That is undeniable.
One vision of the UK’s future involves a decarbonised economy powered by clean, renewable energy. Another involves making the UK an AI superpower.
The government departments responsible for these two visions do not appear to have agreed on their numbers.
The Department of Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) thinks AI datacentres will consume 6GW of electricity by 2030. The Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) appears to think they will use less than a tenth of that.
Tim Squirrell, the head of strategy for the NGO Foxglove, said: “The government’s cluelessness over the environmental impact of datacentres would be laughable, if it weren’t so alarming.”
But repeat after me, all process was followed in full and triplicate.....
Given the expansion of electricity supply required to electrify transport and heating it's a bit concerning they government departments are quibbling over 6GW for datacentres.
You'd have hoped they had planned to over supply electricity to bring the price down and support an expansion of electrical-powered manufacturing.
You will need the equivalent of two nuclear power stations - Sizewell C sized, not the mini-nukes - to power the nations fleet of electric vehicles.
Same again for AI data centres.
If you don't have the power for AI, it iwll go elsewhere.
You could have all that - and more - from our tides by 2035. If you start building tidal lagoons now.
But it would probably be more economic to build two Sizewell C sized nuclear power stations. Or lots more wind turbines.
It so would not.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
So why did the governments of multiple complexions turn them down?
A couple of reasons:
Firstly, unless you had a series of barrages around the UK, then while you knew when the electricity was coming, it was still intermittent.
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Thirdly, tidal fell into an awkward gap: it was cheaper than nuclear, but still a fair amount more expensive than other intermittent sources like wind.
Surely it has the *massive* advantage over wind and solar of its intermittancy being predictable, and of it always outputing roughly the same amount of power daily, just at varying times of the day.
The big, expensive problem we have is power generation on cold still days in winter, which our climate is won't to do for periods of a week at a time most winters.
Stack some tidal systems located in different parts of the UK (thus being out of phase with each other) and a big pile of batteries and you've basically got reliable, dispatchable power.
IMHO, it's not happened because it would be utterly impossible to get planning permission within the current system, and everyone knows that. Look at the ridiculous saga of the Hinckley point cooling system (basically engineered for "not one fish may die"), and scale that up x1000, and that's before you've started dealing with the RSPB...
You would be amazed how accurate forecasting is for solar and wind these days: the grid operator usually knows within 2-3% what output will be a couple of hours in advance.
Re multiple tidal barrages, you are absolutely right - with the proviso that not all parts of the UK have equally suitable locations, and some would be significantly more expensive than the Severn barrage.
I think we're slightly at cross purposes. My point about predictablity is that a tidal scheme with a fairly modest battery effectively becomes dispatchable energy. The battery will *always* get recharged twice in a 24hr cycle, so you can always draw down pretty much the same total amount of power, every single day. (Spring and Neap tides vary it a bit, but the basic concept is valid as an approximation).
This is simply not the case for wind or solar - some days you get loads, other days nothing. Sometimes, in the UK climate, you get a week where it's bitterly cold (so demand is up) and deadly still, whilst the days are short and dull. Yes, we can forecast this a couple of days ahead very well, but it doesn't solve the problem of the power not being available.
The only solutions are massive batteries (~14x the size of the tidal battery to be able to support the same daily output for a week with no generation), overbuilding (not really viable with solar in the depths of winter, you'd need around 100 panels per house, useless with wind in a dead calm), or fossil fuel generation (eg CCGT).
It's the absence of significant day to day variability that makes tidal + 12hr battery such a strong contender, compared to wind and solar.
The solution I favour for storing wind power is to convert it to methane, have large amounts of methane storage, and have CCGTs on standby.
If the grid also has done nuclear and tidal then the amount of storage/CCGT you would need is reduced. You can also use this methane production with excess wind for domestic space heating and other applications, which reduces the pressure to electrify those uses.
If you fit CCS to the CCGT then you have a way to remove carbon from the atmosphere, which is useful if you're worried about the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and want to aim for a lower level of overall warming.
Power to methane is one of those things you think could never work... But is shockingly close to being economic.
Comments
One thing I’ve been pondering recently; how would it be if someone in an office sat there drinking 0% alcohol lager/Guinness/wine at their desk, 2-3 a day as other people do tea or coffee? It would look odd, but really it’s just like a can of coke
Some of the Conservatives on here claim we are now far apart - I'm not so sure and once Badenoch (and Davey to an extent) stop playing for cheap headlines and start thinking about the issues, we may see a renewed convergence (not a coalition by any means) which may be hard to imagine now but perhaps less so in the next 18-24 months.
Ronnie's a clear threat to win the title. Most impressive player at the Crucible this year thus far.
I think it became very clear during last week that Starmer was done. It's over. Maybe he resigns after the locals, maybe he staggers on a bit longer as the Cabinet all look at each other and will someone else to do the dirty deed of forcing him out. Either way Starmer's political career is now over and the contest to replace him is in full swing.
There's a new start in the offing, it's all quite refreshing.
I think 0% drinks should be regarded as different from the low alcohol ones (less than 0.5%). And yes, no reason you shouldn’t have it a work.
It strikes me, apropos of nothing, how remarkably like George Cole he looks.
Labour figures from across rival factions have begun circulating informal proposals for an “orderly transition” of power away from Keir Starmer, the Guardian understands.
£12 billion for a 3.2 GW tidal lagoon that last 120, maybe 180 years. Ready within 10 years, maybe less.
So I can build 3 tidal lagoon power station for the cost of Hinkley C - currently £35bn and not on stream until at least 2030. And to compete with tidal lagoons, nuclear will need to build a Hinkley D and probably a Hinkley E. How much is Hinkley D going to cost - £50 bn plus? Hinkley E - £100bn plus?
Your notion of the economics is massively wrong.
And that is before we talk about the abandonment costs of Hinkley C, D and E. Tens of billions. A tidal lagoon? Bugger all. Take out the turbines as scrap. Leave the sea walls for the local fishermen - who will riot if you tried to take them away.
The cost of a single tidal lagoon will be maybe 10% of the cost of nuclear over the same period. For the same power.
The wind turbines have a life span of 30 years. So twice the replacements of nuclear power stations.
The CPC have also only won one general election majority in Canada this century an last year the Liberals won their fourth successive Canadian general election. Which isn't a great omen for the UK right if Reform overtake the Tories on seats here and take them over
Stephen Fry on why Steve Jobs called him "weird"
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/55eTySMFa-0
NEW: Keir Starmer is planning to whip Labour MPs to vote down any motion to refer him to the Privileges Committee for potentially misleading Parliament
Which is tactically fascinating if not spectacular.
Lord Hermer wrote to Anna Crowther, a solicitor at Leigh Day: “You should not feel too low about it. There is a much more important big picture: you are making an extraordinary contribution to securing redress for torture victims in Iraq. Your hard work, dedication and ability are outstanding and have made a real difference to people’s lives – something that Forbes, Neil Garnham or his clients can never say.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/04/26/lord-hermer-insulted-british-war-heroes/
He didn’t lie about not knowing and the so called pressure on the FCDO is hard to prove as it’s quite subjective. It’s now getting ridiculous. I’m no fan of Starmer but really it’s now just tedious .
@Tony_Diver
·
21m
EXC: Andy Burnham’s allies want a new Granita pact with Angela Rayner.
Two Labour sources said they discussed it at their recent meeting at Rayner’s constituency home. Friends say it would be “very useful” to avoid a split on the soft Left in a leadership contest.
https://x.com/Tony_Diver/status/2048500088100561082
Was that not what he was proposing?
Just saying...
Darren Johnson
@DarrenJohnson66
No Green MP would ever dream of drinking alcohol while working, of course. They have always been far too pure for that.
https://x.com/DarrenJohnson66/status/2048504230604886193
So woke.
Where is the warrior spirit now?
The fall is coming after that.
workingallowing TSE have a peaceful holiday.....doesnt have quite the same ring to it.It had notoriously narrow, hard seats - better suited to Blair's physiology than to Brown's. I'm sure that's why the latter gave up arguing and went home.
Firstly, unless you had a series of barrages around the UK, then while you knew when the electricity was coming, it was still intermittent.
Secondly, there was a degree of scepticism that the cost estimates were achievable.
Thirdly, tidal fell into an awkward gap: it was cheaper than nuclear, but still a fair amount more expensive than other intermittent sources like wind.
https://www.briefingsforbritain.co.uk/the-guilty-men-the-ideologues-who-undermine-britain/
Success always starts with failure.
Do I want to be PM? Can I challenge and win?
If it's a yes to both she should go for it. If not, don't. Just come back to cabinet in a suitable role.
Perhaps there were concerns that it would be difficult to get the proper cost escalation (contractor enrichment) going.
The oil companies get fixed price contracts for building such sea walls/artificial spits of land.
One of the things that slows down decision-making in Britain is the paralysis of trying to work out what the perfect decision for the future will be, when it's often impossible to be sure. So decisions are delayed.
I think they're just a deeply damaging organisation really. They're complacent, arrogant, lazy, ignorant, expensive and slow. And those are their better qualities. An energy task force with Kate Bingham would probably turn the lot round in a year. Then just make it permanent and just sack everyone in DEIC.
Looks like he might outlast Patel though.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-12934509
The big, expensive problem we have is power generation on cold still days in winter, which our climate is won't to do for periods of a week at a time most winters.
Stack some tidal systems located in different parts of the UK (thus being out of phase with each other) and a big pile of batteries and you've basically got reliable, dispatchable power.
IMHO, it's not happened because it would be utterly impossible to get planning permission within the current system, and everyone knows that. Look at the ridiculous saga of the Hinckley point cooling system (basically engineered for "not one fish may die"), and scale that up x1000, and that's before you've started dealing with the RSPB...
Oh ... wait ...
The best way to have a friend is to be a friend, but I think Starmer's problem is that he is a ruthlessly ambitious, unpleasant, untrustworthy and incompetent man, even for a senior politician. And that's transparently obvious to everyone who works for him.
His trust was misplaced in some cases, admittedly. But I put that on us for the choices, not him for offering it.
Does Hanlon's Razor apply? Possibly, maybe even probably.
But there was that odd idea for winning the election in Hungary, recently.
Re multiple tidal barrages, you are absolutely right - with the proviso that not all parts of the UK have equally suitable locations, and some would be significantly more expensive than the Severn barrage.
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15765619/Lowering-voting-age-help-Green-Party-Labour-MPs-tell-Starmer.html
https://x.com/rapidresponse47/status/2048544309046116533
@POTUS SLAMS @60Minutes: "You should be ashamed of yourself, reading that — because I'm not any of those things."
This is simply not the case for wind or solar - some days you get loads, other days nothing. Sometimes, in the UK climate, you get a week where it's bitterly cold (so demand is up) and deadly still, whilst the days are short and dull.
Yes, we can forecast this a couple of days ahead very well, but it doesn't solve the problem of the power not being available.
The only solutions are massive batteries (~14x the size of the tidal battery to be able to support the same daily output for a week with no generation), overbuilding (not really viable with solar in the depths of winter, you'd need around 100 panels per house, useless with wind in a dead calm), or fossil fuel generation (eg CCGT).
It's the absence of significant day to day variability that makes tidal + 12hr battery such a strong contender, compared to wind and solar.
Most of the time if there's a variation between the wind power forecast and the wind power delivered to the (Irish) grid it's because the grid can't use all the available wind power.
One advantage of tidal over wind is that the tidal cycle is just over twelve hours. This means that if you use batteries to time-shift the tidal output to when you want to use it you potentially get two charge-discharge cycles every day, which makes it an even more economic use of batteries than solar (one charge-discharge cycle per day), and much more economic than wind (maybe one charge-discharge cycle every week on average).
If the grid also has done nuclear and tidal then the amount of storage/CCGT you would need is reduced. You can also use this methane production with excess wind for domestic space heating and other applications, which reduces the pressure to electrify those uses.
If you fit CCS to the CCGT then you have a way to remove carbon from the atmosphere, which is useful if you're worried about the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and want to aim for a lower level of overall warming.
I get the impression that William could be a much more distant King at the head of a much less visible royal family. Maybe it doesn't matter. Is that what the other European monarchies are like?
The Swansea scheme had Greenpeace and Wildlife and Wetlands backing. You have to build a new nearby nature reserve, for the extra time the foreshore is covered up with the stored water. All factored in to the development costs.
The one thing where the predictability of wind power breaks down is that if you have a high pressure ystem sat over the country for ten days - then I can predict that the turbines will be producing zero power for those ten days. Couple that with Sizewell B changing out the rods and we came close - very close - to brown-outs.
The UK has a far more certain power supply if it has a four legged stool - solar, wind, nuclear and tidal - than it does with its current system without tidal. That is undeniable.