politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn had Cameron struggling on tax credits at PMQs – but
Options
Comments
-
What is the difference between 37% (Tories have no mandate) and 39.5% - a 'stunning victory' for the Canadian Liberals (The people have spoken) - answer hypocrisy.surbiton said:
So, what's the f*cking point ?Charles said:
The point is that it should be a revising chamber, but should always bow to the will of the elected chamber.surbiton said:
It is a double-edged sword. If the second chamber cannot challenge the HoC , then why have it ?MikeSmithson said:
That point was first made by me in a post four days ago when I suggested that this was a plot to undermine the Lords.Scott_P said:@IanDunt: Has George Osborne lured the House of Lords into a trap? https://t.co/H1AD1SPZ60
If the argument is that the HoC is elected, then we should elect the second chamber too ! 108 countries cannot be wrong.
As soon as it is elected then it has its own democratic legitimacy and that can lead to deadlock.
At least, then 37% can't do whatever they want. They should have called Osborne's bluff. The Tax credit changes was not included in a Finance Bill nor was it in the manifesto.0 -
The point, as you elegantly put it, is that legislation requires detailed scrutiny and there are plenty of ways that a revising house can add value without being party political.surbiton said:
So, what's the f*cking point ?Charles said:
The point is that it should be a revising chamber, but should always bow to the will of the elected chamber.surbiton said:
It is a double-edged sword. If the second chamber cannot challenge the HoC , then why have it ?MikeSmithson said:
That point was first made by me in a post four days ago when I suggested that this was a plot to undermine the Lords.Scott_P said:@IanDunt: Has George Osborne lured the House of Lords into a trap? https://t.co/H1AD1SPZ60
If the argument is that the HoC is elected, then we should elect the second chamber too ! 108 countries cannot be wrong.
As soon as it is elected then it has its own democratic legitimacy and that can lead to deadlock.
At least, then 37% can't do whatever they want. They should have called Osborne's bluff. The Tax credit changes was not included in a Finance Bill nor was it in the manifesto.
I'm sure that there are lots of ways the tax credits legisltation could be improved - tweaks here and there, tightening up the wording, addressing small special cases etc. But the MPs elected by the voters want to implement the broad thrust of the changes and it is not the remit of unelected peers to contest that.0 -
It really isn't that.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. JEO, I'd guess it's because Labour dicked about doing nothing on energy, and the Coalition was very nearly as bad. We need to build rapidly, and the Chinese aren't muppets.
The problem is that the prevailing price of baseload electricity is £44/MW.
And no-one - anywhere in the world - will build a new nuclear plant without being guaranteed twice that price.0 -
Mr. 1000, on the plus side, it does work on a serene, overcast day
Edited extra bit: Mr. 1000, I stand corrected [on the pricing, I'm entirely right on governments dicking about].0 -
Cold & high pressure winter nights I'm guessing will be when this extra capacity is needed.JosiasJessop said:turned on very quickly when renewables generation plummets.
0 -
@Morris_Dancer
We can add new gas capacity relatively quickly. The lead-time for a new CCGT is probably five years, but you can get an OCGT up and running in about 18 months.0 -
Reliability rates for nuclear rarely exceed 75%. Unplanned downtime is just as much an issue for nuclear as it is for wind.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 1000, on the plus side, it does work on a serene, overcast day
0 -
Mr. 1000, what are the meanings of your acronyms?
Also, please stop disturbing my firmly held beliefs with factual statements to the contrary. This is the internet, there's no place for evidence-based conclusions here 0 -
WTF?
'It's difficult because that's his ex-wife who is apparently an ex-prostitute': Who WERE Jeremy Corbyn and David Cameron gossiping about as they waited for President Xi's speech?
Jeremy Corbyn chatted to PM about ex-sex worker ahead of China speech
He said: 'It was difficult because, erm, that’s his ex-wife who is, erm, apparently an ex-prostitute'
Mr Cameron replied: 'Oh!' before moving chat on to self-employment
Labour leader also told a joke about losing glasses at a school party
Mr Corbyn later wore white tie to meet the Queen but may not have bowed
See our full news coverage of David Cameron gossiping in Parliament
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3282441/It-s-difficult-s-ex-wife-apparently-ex-prostitute-Jeremy-Corbyn-David-Cameron-gossiping-waited-President-Xi-s-speech.html#ixzz3pDHBHZd40 -
When Galloway won in Bradford, it was with a lot of support from ex-Tory voters who were disillusioned with the Conservatives, wanted to give Labour a bloody nose and didn't care too much about how to do it. They returned home this year. If Galloway did stand then I don't see anything like that kind of split. Either he'll make little impact and it's something close to an 'as normal' by-election, or he does and sweeps up all the rest of the anti-Labour votes. UKIP and Galloway won't both take a quarter of the vote.rcs1000 said:
If Galloway stands, then UKIP could slip through the middle and win:isam said:
Yeah fair enough... If Galloway stands he might win? But he wants to be Mayor of London at the moThomasNashe said:
The Labour price at the Bradford West by election of 2012 would have been something like that.isam said:They've been voting for a left wing labour candidate for 30 odd years, don't see why it should change now Corbo is in charge... Big Asian and Muslim area, split UKIP and Tory vote...
Surely a walkover for lab? 1/50?
UKIP 30
Galloway 25
Labour 25
Tories 15
The Field 5%0 -
Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.JEO said:
On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.rcs1000 said:
You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.JEO said:
I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.Luckyguy1983 said:
The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?JosiasJessop said:Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.
Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.
Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.0 -
Mr. Herdson, was it?
I thought it was because Bradford was very well-suited to Galloway's particular political proclivities.0 -
See my piece earlier. The building of HPB makes it uneconomic to build new CCGTs.Pulpstar said:@rcs1000 Why aren't CCGT or OCGT plants being built right now if they seem like such a good idea ^^; ?
(Some new OCGTs have been ordered to take advantage of the government capacity charging scheme. Effectively you could get a 4% yield with an option on the price of electricity spiking.)0 -
"Gas is clean. Gas is available. Gas is cheap. Gas is reliable. Gas works at £44/MW. "
But burning gas releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere it is therefore an inherently evil fuel. Its use must be phased out and quickly otherwise the UK will not meet its mandated target of reducing filthy polluting emissions by at least 80% from 1990 levels. If we carry on burning gas all the baby polar bears will die. Will no one think of the polar bears.
Old fashioned nuclear plants of the sort EDF are trying to flog us are not only horrendously expensive but carry their own pollution risk with the dreadful waste products that need to be safely stored for thousands of years.
No the only answer, gentlemen, is wind and tidal. We may destroy irreplaceable wildlife habitats and cause ecological disasters, especially with the latter. It may be that at certain times of day there may not be enough electricity. These are prices we must be prepared to pay in order to ensure that the UK shows leadership internationally by highlighting the role it would take in contributing to urgent collective action to tackle climate change under the Kyoto Protocol.0 -
Molten salt reactors have been the future for fifty years, and will remain in the future for large-scale generation for another fifty.MaxPB said:
Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.JEO said:
On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.rcs1000 said:
You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.JEO said:
I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.Luckyguy1983 said:
The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?JosiasJessop said:Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.
Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.
Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.0 -
@Morris_Dancer
OCGTs are Open Cycle Gas Turbines - basically just jet engines that take gas and use it to directly spin a turbine. Capital costs are modest (£250-350/KW), but they are ineffiecient relative to modern CCGTSs.
CCGTs are Combined Cycle Gas Turbines. These combine the jet engine part with a boiler. Essentially the exhaust fumes of the jet engine are used to heat water, which gives you secondary energy recovery. These cost £500/KW capital cost, and require a lot, lot more land and are difficult to get planning permission for (on the basis they have cooling tower and the like). But they have much higher efficiencies.
Edit to add: the nice thing about OCGTs is that you can order a 25MW today and get it in - what - 18 months time.0 -
Why not?rcs1000 said:
It really isn't that.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. JEO, I'd guess it's because Labour dicked about doing nothing on energy, and the Coalition was very nearly as bad. We need to build rapidly, and the Chinese aren't muppets.
The problem is that the prevailing price of baseload electricity is £44/MW.
And no-one - anywhere in the world - will build a new nuclear plant without being guaranteed twice that price.
And if that's the case, why on Earth are we willing to pay it when onshore wind and gas are both cheaper? Even if you disagree, there must be some rationale.0 -
The Japanese have had AWFUL problems with their molten salt reactors.MaxPB said:
Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.JEO said:
On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.rcs1000 said:
You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.JEO said:
I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.Luckyguy1983 said:
The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?JosiasJessop said:Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.
Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.
Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.0 -
Mr. 1000, cheers.
Mr. Llama, that's sarkier than a Japanese drunkard.0 -
That's the kind of thinking which leads to £24bn spent on generating just 7% of power requirements and £34bn on cutting journey times to Birmingham by 15mins. Make do and mend is why our infrastructure is so badly behind the times. Look at the Heathrow decision, while we agonise over another runway, rival EU nations are adding capacity at a massive rate.JosiasJessop said:
Molten salt reactors have been the future for fifty years, and will remain in the future for large-scale generation for another fifty.MaxPB said:
Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.JEO said:
On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.rcs1000 said:
You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.JEO said:
I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.Luckyguy1983 said:
The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?JosiasJessop said:Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.
Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.
Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.0 -
Japan have had worse problems with their PWRs. I wouldn't use Japan as a good example of anything at this point in time. Dying industries, lack of innovation, zombie companies and an insane government.rcs1000 said:
The Japanese have had AWFUL problems with their molten salt reactors.MaxPB said:
Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.JEO said:
On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.rcs1000 said:
You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.JEO said:
I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.Luckyguy1983 said:
The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?JosiasJessop said:Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.
Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.
Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.0 -
There are three reasons:JEO said:
Why not?rcs1000 said:
It really isn't that.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. JEO, I'd guess it's because Labour dicked about doing nothing on energy, and the Coalition was very nearly as bad. We need to build rapidly, and the Chinese aren't muppets.
The problem is that the prevailing price of baseload electricity is £44/MW.
And no-one - anywhere in the world - will build a new nuclear plant without being guaranteed twice that price.
And if that's the case, why on Earth are we willing to pay it when onshore wind and gas are both cheaper? Even if you disagree, there must be some rationale.
1. Until recently, it was assumed that UK gas production was in permanent decline, and worldwide gas was going to become more expensive.
2. Energy security.
3. "Low carbon".
We now know the world (and the UK) has much, much more gas than previously realised, and that we can source it from lots of friendly countries (like the US, Norway and Australia). Longer-term, we have shale gas reserves that will probably be exploited.
Which leaves 3. Which is not a good enough reason (to my mind) on its own.0 -
The only pattern that you can see, Mr England, is a load of excitable Tories, who always think precisely the same, telling one another that their wishes have been granted.nigel4england said:
Lib Dems almost extinct and now keen on Corbyn, I can see a pattern emerging here.perdix said:OGH seems very keen to see Corbyn become a success now that his LibDem favourites are almost extinct.
This is a realistic betting site, not a dream factory.0 -
What has caused that? Is it a fundamental problem with the science, the engineering needed or perhaps non-technical reasons. I am old enough and cynical enough to know that the best technical solution is not always the one that goes forward, especially when there are big vested interests that stand to lose out.JosiasJessop said:
Molten salt reactors have been the future for fifty years, and will remain in the future for large-scale generation for another fifty.MaxPB said:
Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.JEO said:
On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.rcs1000 said:
You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.JEO said:
I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.Luckyguy1983 said:
The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?JosiasJessop said:Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.
Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.
Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.0 -
We should abandon HPB today, and remove all subsidies for building new wind capacity.Pulpstar said:@rcs1000 When the facts change, the Gov't should change it's mind. Sunk costs are sunk costs and there won't be anything we can do about those - but has a spade been laid in anger at Hinkley yet (Or a paper committing to the Chinese been signed) ?
0 -
But that section of the electorate wouldn't have been enough to secure him the win (as indeed it wasn't in May); what not only gave him the win but a stonking majority to boot was the support he won from elsewhere:Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Herdson, was it?
I thought it was because Bradford was very well-suited to Galloway's particular political proclivities.
Con: 2010 - 31.1%; 2012 - 8.4%
LD: 2010 - 11.7%; 2012 - 4.6%
Grn: 2010 - 2.3%; 2012 - 1.5%
It's true that UKIP went up slightly but they still lost their deposit, which was a far worse result for them than other by-elections at the time. Fact is that at the by-election, Galloway hoovered up the anti-Labour vote, as well as a sizable chunk of the 2010 Labour vote.0 -
Galloway must have the biggest ego in politics in what is a pretty strong field, he's addicted to the limelight. Heaven knows where the money comes from to fund all his campaigns.0
-
One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.0
-
I'm always amazed at what crap liars senior police officers are at HASCs.
They're so scared of saying something they waffle, try to answer another question, ask for stupid clarifications that provoke laughter and claim everything they did was right despite being in front of Parly for doing a poor job.0 -
Sarky it may be, but factually accurate I think. The last phrase was a direct lift from the Committee on Climate Change (which is why it is ungrammatical).Morris_Dancer said:Mr. 1000, cheers.
Mr. Llama, that's sarkier than a Japanese drunkard.0 -
I'm all for careful investment in long-shots (*). But you don't bet the house on them. MSR's are several decades away: we should look at investing in research into them, but if they can be made to work safely and economically, they'll only be ready in time to replace the reactors we are planning at the moment.MaxPB said:
That's the kind of thinking which leads to £24bn spent on generating just 7% of power requirements and £34bn on cutting journey times to Birmingham by 15mins. Make do and mend is why our infrastructure is so badly behind the times. Look at the Heathrow decision, while we agonise over another runway, rival EU nations are adding capacity at a massive rate.
We need stuff built now, not dreams. It's quite possible that MSR's will never reach the safety, economics or capacity that proponents state for them. I'm very cynical about them because the current small research projects are not going too well, and they've been trying for fifty years.
The same goes for tidal: invest relatively small sums in the research and development, but don't assume the tech will mature.
BTW, you are evidently pretty clueless on HS2. Its about much more than time savings.
(*) I've suggested the government invests a certain amount each year in carefully-selected long-shots.0 -
That was a really rude question from Laura Keunssberg to David Cameron - "how would you feel if you were a steel worker and had just lost your job?" He is not a bloody steel worker and has to govern for the whole country. These reporters are so far up themselves. Now SKY will be throwing their toys out of the pram because they weren't allowed a question.0
-
Completely impractical on any large scale but interesting to see what can be done.TGOHF said:
It can but batteries are expensive.taffys said:One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
As is wind power.
"El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores more than 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW. "
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/03/03/how-small-spanish-island-became-renewable-energy-pioneer-el-hierro
0 -
Can't be done Mr. 1000, at least not until some administration has the balls to repeal the Climate Change Act. Can you see Cameron doing that?rcs1000 said:
We should abandon HPB today, and remove all subsidies for building new wind capacity.Pulpstar said:@rcs1000 When the facts change, the Gov't should change it's mind. Sunk costs are sunk costs and there won't be anything we can do about those - but has a spade been laid in anger at Hinkley yet (Or a paper committing to the Chinese been signed) ?
0 -
You really couldn't get more direct proof that this is a politically-motivated witchhunt.
Indeed, but Witchfinder Watson can't order police officers to do anything, only huff and puff. A senior officer must have done so, and presumably should now be sacked forthwith.0 -
Who made more money betting on the strength or otherwise of the LibDem vote in May - you, or "excitable Tories who always think precisely the same, telling each other that their wishes have been granted?"PClipp said:
The only pattern that you can see, Mr England, is a load of excitable Tories, who always think precisely the same, telling one another that their wishes have been granted.nigel4england said:
Lib Dems almost extinct and now keen on Corbyn, I can see a pattern emerging here.perdix said:OGH seems very keen to see Corbyn become a success now that his LibDem favourites are almost extinct.
This is a realistic betting site, not a dream factory.0 -
TBH, I doubt DAC Rodehouse's career is going anywhere after this.
DCI Settle now has Chair of HASC to use for his.runnymede said:You really couldn't get more direct proof that this is a politically-motivated witchhunt.
Indeed, but Witchfinder Watson can't order police officers to do anything, only huff and puff. A senior officer must have done so, and presumably should now be sacked forthwith.0 -
I'm quite interested in the use of flywheels for storing energy. It seems relatively scaleable and could, I guess, be distributed (e.g. each windfarm could have a small area of flywheels) rather than big plants.rcs1000 said:
The capital cost of batteries is huge and they only have a certain number of cycles before they need to be replaced.taffys said:One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
If it can be made cheap and reliable enough.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/08/new-energy-storage-plant-could-revolutionise-renewable-sector0 -
Not sure which country is spending £34bn to make trains go faster between London and Brum but this country is spending £42bn to make massive increases in track capacity to allow for far more freight and commuter services into cities like Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and to vastly improve connectivity outside the south east by rail.MaxPB said:
That's the kind of thinking which leads to £24bn spent on generating just 7% of power requirements and £34bn on cutting journey times to Birmingham by 15mins. Make do and mend is why our infrastructure is so badly behind the times. Look at the Heathrow decision, while we agonise over another runway, rival EU nations are adding capacity at a massive rate.JosiasJessop said:
Molten salt reactors have been the future for fifty years, and will remain in the future for large-scale generation for another fifty.MaxPB said:
Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.JEO said:
On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.rcs1000 said:
You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.JEO said:
I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.Luckyguy1983 said:
The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?JosiasJessop said:Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.
Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.
Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.0 -
How much has tbe Climate Change Act punished the Steel Industry in Redcar and similar?HurstLlama said:
Can't be done Mr. 1000, at least not until some administration has the balls to repeal the Climate Change Act. Can you see Cameron doing that?rcs1000 said:
We should abandon HPB today, and remove all subsidies for building new wind capacity.Pulpstar said:@rcs1000 When the facts change, the Gov't should change it's mind. Sunk costs are sunk costs and there won't be anything we can do about those - but has a spade been laid in anger at Hinkley yet (Or a paper committing to the Chinese been signed) ?
0 -
Very nice, but what happens when the wind doesn't blow the water is released and still the wind isn't blowing?JonathanD said:
Completely impractical on any large scale but interesting to see what can be done.TGOHF said:
It can but batteries are expensive.taffys said:One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
As is wind power.
"El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores more than 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW. "
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/03/03/how-small-spanish-island-became-renewable-energy-pioneer-el-hierro0 -
The great irony is that if we abandoned the CCA, then much more gas capacity would be built, displacing more polluting coal.HurstLlama said:
Can't be done Mr. 1000, at least not until some administration has the balls to repeal the Climate Change Act. Can you see Cameron doing that?rcs1000 said:
We should abandon HPB today, and remove all subsidies for building new wind capacity.Pulpstar said:@rcs1000 When the facts change, the Gov't should change it's mind. Sunk costs are sunk costs and there won't be anything we can do about those - but has a spade been laid in anger at Hinkley yet (Or a paper committing to the Chinese been signed) ?
Abandoning HPB and offering no new subsidies would probably actually reduce our carbon footprint.0 -
I don't know enough about flywheels, but they are certainly very interesting. I've also done some work on Compressed Air Energy Storage, which looks quite interesting - especially when combined with gas generation.JosiasJessop said:
I'm quite interested in the use of flywheels for storing energy. It seems relatively scaleable and could, I guess, be distributed (e.g. each windfarm could have a small area of flywheels) rather than big plants.rcs1000 said:
The capital cost of batteries is huge and they only have a certain number of cycles before they need to be replaced.taffys said:One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
If it can be made cheap and reliable enough.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/08/new-energy-storage-plant-could-revolutionise-renewable-sector0 -
That's pump-storage. There's a fair few schemes here in the UK, including a big one at Dinorwig.JonathanD said:
Completely impractical on any large scale but interesting to see what can be done.TGOHF said:
It can but batteries are expensive.taffys said:One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
As is wind power.
"El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores more than 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW. "
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/03/03/how-small-spanish-island-became-renewable-energy-pioneer-el-hierro
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station
The problem is the number of suitable sites is limited: you need room for a large reservoir as high up as possible, with a lower area nearby so they are cheap to connect. Unfortunately whilst we have lots of hilly areas, the areas where suitable upper reservoirs can be built are limited.0 -
Ah, I'd forgotten about that - I've not seen much about it recently.rcs1000 said:
I don't know enough about flywheels, but they are certainly very interesting. I've also done some work on Compressed Air Energy Storage, which looks quite interesting - especially when combined with gas generation.JosiasJessop said:
I'm quite interested in the use of flywheels for storing energy. It seems relatively scaleable and could, I guess, be distributed (e.g. each windfarm could have a small area of flywheels) rather than big plants.rcs1000 said:
The capital cost of batteries is huge and they only have a certain number of cycles before they need to be replaced.taffys said:One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
If it can be made cheap and reliable enough.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/08/new-energy-storage-plant-could-revolutionise-renewable-sector0 -
rcs1000 said:
I don't know enough about flywheels, but they are certainly very interesting. I've also done some work on Compressed Air Energy Storage, which looks quite interesting - especially when combined with gas generation.JosiasJessop said:
I'm quite interested in the use of flywheels for storing energy. It seems relatively scaleable and could, I guess, be distributed (e.g. each windfarm could have a small area of flywheels) rather than big plants.rcs1000 said:
The capital cost of batteries is huge and they only have a certain number of cycles before they need to be replaced.taffys said:One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
If it can be made cheap and reliable enough.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/08/new-energy-storage-plant-could-revolutionise-renewable-sector
Scale up these things.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD_3QnUPvF00 -
Surely we can just build new mountains? They could double as ski slopes, and would certainly be cheaper than HPB.JosiasJessop said:
That's pump-storage. There's a fair few schemes here in the UK, including a big one at Dinorwig.JonathanD said:
Completely impractical on any large scale but interesting to see what can be done.TGOHF said:
It can but batteries are expensive.taffys said:One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
As is wind power.
"El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores more than 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW. "
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/03/03/how-small-spanish-island-became-renewable-energy-pioneer-el-hierro
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station
The problem is the number of suitable sites is limited: you need room for a large reservoir as high up as possible, with a lower area nearby so they are cheap to connect. Unfortunately whilst we have lots of hilly areas, the areas where suitable upper reservoirs can be built are limited.0 -
Watson is up: http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/210068860
-
Watson on now. http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/f2477613-2e82-4de3-b7b1-2360ca8712ca
And live on Sky0 -
Cool :-)watford30 said:rcs1000 said:
I don't know enough about flywheels, but they are certainly very interesting. I've also done some work on Compressed Air Energy Storage, which looks quite interesting - especially when combined with gas generation.JosiasJessop said:
I'm quite interested in the use of flywheels for storing energy. It seems relatively scaleable and could, I guess, be distributed (e.g. each windfarm could have a small area of flywheels) rather than big plants.rcs1000 said:
The capital cost of batteries is huge and they only have a certain number of cycles before they need to be replaced.taffys said:One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
If it can be made cheap and reliable enough.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/08/new-energy-storage-plant-could-revolutionise-renewable-sector
Scale up these things.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD_3QnUPvF00 -
Those last two coppers sounded more slippery and weaselly than a sack full of greased-up weasels....Tissue_Price said:Watson is up: http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/21006886
0 -
I didn't believe a word they said - DCI Settle was 100% credible as a witness in comparison.MarqueeMark said:
Those last two coppers sounded more slippery and weaselly than a sack full of greased-up weasels....Tissue_Price said:Watson is up: http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/21006886
0 -
Vaz "You're not Sherlock Holmes are you?" to Watson0
-
I wonder if they have bulletproof casings?watford30 said:rcs1000 said:
I don't know enough about flywheels, but they are certainly very interesting. I've also done some work on Compressed Air Energy Storage, which looks quite interesting - especially when combined with gas generation.JosiasJessop said:
I'm quite interested in the use of flywheels for storing energy. It seems relatively scaleable and could, I guess, be distributed (e.g. each windfarm could have a small area of flywheels) rather than big plants.rcs1000 said:
The capital cost of batteries is huge and they only have a certain number of cycles before they need to be replaced.taffys said:One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
If it can be made cheap and reliable enough.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/08/new-energy-storage-plant-could-revolutionise-renewable-sector
Scale up these things.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD_3QnUPvF0
There's a story - possibly apocryphal - about the early days of computing. Early disc drives had very large, heavy platters that spun very fast. One of these was in an office, and the cabinet door had been left open. The read or write head hit the platter, which disintegrated, and a piece spun out and killed a secretary.0 -
What was it someone said the other day? Abolish the police? Great idea. They are starting to resemble the corrupted shambles of an organisation you might expect to find somewhere in central America.0
-
People might have to put their tinfoil hats away:
No other parties were involved in the death of a British woman at an Istanbul airport, her family believes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-345973930 -
Lord Prescott gets a bollocking for chatting in the gallery....0
-
He's not even Watson....Plato_Says said:Vaz "You're not Sherlock Holmes are you?" to Watson
0 -
2.5 percentage points, or is this a trick question,weejonnie said:
What is the difference between 37% (Tories have no mandate) and 39.5% - a 'stunning victory' for the Canadian Liberals (The people have spoken) - answer hypocrisy.surbiton said:
So, what's the f*cking point ?Charles said:
The point is that it should be a revising chamber, but should always bow to the will of the elected chamber.surbiton said:
It is a double-edged sword. If the second chamber cannot challenge the HoC , then why have it ?MikeSmithson said:
That point was first made by me in a post four days ago when I suggested that this was a plot to undermine the Lords.Scott_P said:@IanDunt: Has George Osborne lured the House of Lords into a trap? https://t.co/H1AD1SPZ60
If the argument is that the HoC is elected, then we should elect the second chamber too ! 108 countries cannot be wrong.
As soon as it is elected then it has its own democratic legitimacy and that can lead to deadlock.
At least, then 37% can't do whatever they want. They should have called Osborne's bluff. The Tax credit changes was not included in a Finance Bill nor was it in the manifesto.0 -
More on Grid Storagercs1000 said:
Surely we can just build new mountains? They could double as ski slopes, and would certainly be cheaper than HPB.JosiasJessop said:
That's pump-storage. There's a fair few schemes here in the UK, including a big one at Dinorwig.JonathanD said:
Completely impractical on any large scale but interesting to see what can be done.TGOHF said:
It can but batteries are expensive.taffys said:One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
As is wind power.
"El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores more than 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW. "
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/03/03/how-small-spanish-island-became-renewable-energy-pioneer-el-hierro
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station
The problem is the number of suitable sites is limited: you need room for a large reservoir as high up as possible, with a lower area nearby so they are cheap to connect. Unfortunately whilst we have lots of hilly areas, the areas where suitable upper reservoirs can be built are limited.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_energy_storage0 -
It's been going on for decades.runnymede said:What was it someone said the other day? Abolish the police? Great idea. They are starting to resemble the corrupted shambles of an organisation you might expect to find somewhere in central America.
0 -
Molten Salt reactors have the problem of a lot of incredibly hot, radioactive, incredibly corrosive and reactive salts flowing around. Boosters of the tech tend to gloss over the "dealing with the molten salts" is not a solved problem.MaxPB said:
Because PWRs are risky and expensive to build and have insane insurance costs. Every single PWR has been late and over budget, this £24bn figure is going to be closer to £30bn by the end of the project.JEO said:
On gas, I have read that it is cleaner than coal, but still a lot dirtier than nuclear and renewables.rcs1000 said:
You're absolutely correct. All the pilot projects have had horrible issues with corrosion and reliability.JEO said:
I have read previously that sea-based energy generation has incredibly expensive maintenance costs.Luckyguy1983 said:
The tides do always come in and out though - I'm quite taken with the tidal lagoon idea (provided sea life can be reasonably protected). One thing we're not short of is coastline. What are your thoughts?JosiasJessop said:Some anti-nuclear idiot on DP saying that renewables are the way to go, as the wind always blows in the UK, and the sun always shines above the clouds.
Why is the strike price so high for this nuclear deal? I thought nuclear was supposed to be cheap.
We are buying ancient technology from the French and whoring out the nation to China for money to pay for it today. I'm honestly confused as to how the Hinkley Point project has got this far without someone realise how poor the value for money aspect is and how much risk is involved, not just monetary risk but now geopolitical risk with China taking ownership of 30% of it. Having a non allied nation involved in such a key industry like power generation is massive step into the dark.
Molten salt reactors are the future, we should be going guns blazing to develop it and sell it to the rest of the world, not importing old and busted technology from the French and having the Chinese pay for it.0 -
For your second question, what's the difference between 9,347,304 and 9,552,436Alistair said:
2.5 percentage points, or is this a trick question,weejonnie said:
What is the difference between 37% (Tories have no mandate) and 39.5% - a 'stunning victory' for the Canadian Liberals (The people have spoken) - answer hypocrisy.surbiton said:
So, what's the f*cking point ?Charles said:
The point is that it should be a revising chamber, but should always bow to the will of the elected chamber.surbiton said:
It is a double-edged sword. If the second chamber cannot challenge the HoC , then why have it ?MikeSmithson said:
That point was first made by me in a post four days ago when I suggested that this was a plot to undermine the Lords.Scott_P said:@IanDunt: Has George Osborne lured the House of Lords into a trap? https://t.co/H1AD1SPZ60
If the argument is that the HoC is elected, then we should elect the second chamber too ! 108 countries cannot be wrong.
As soon as it is elected then it has its own democratic legitimacy and that can lead to deadlock.
At least, then 37% can't do whatever they want. They should have called Osborne's bluff. The Tax credit changes was not included in a Finance Bill nor was it in the manifesto.
? 0 -
David Winnock is batting for Watson today. He shutdown Settle earlier and now spinning most obviously.
My respect for him is approaching zero.0 -
For the sake of argument, if we made the assumption that gas was too carbon pollutant (I know, I know, but I just won't want to rehash that argument here), what would be the best strategy? Onshore wind? Solar? Nuclear?rcs1000 said:
There are three reasons:JEO said:
Why not?rcs1000 said:
It really isn't that.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. JEO, I'd guess it's because Labour dicked about doing nothing on energy, and the Coalition was very nearly as bad. We need to build rapidly, and the Chinese aren't muppets.
The problem is that the prevailing price of baseload electricity is £44/MW.
And no-one - anywhere in the world - will build a new nuclear plant without being guaranteed twice that price.
And if that's the case, why on Earth are we willing to pay it when onshore wind and gas are both cheaper? Even if you disagree, there must be some rationale.
1. Until recently, it was assumed that UK gas production was in permanent decline, and worldwide gas was going to become more expensive.
2. Energy security.
3. "Low carbon".
We now know the world (and the UK) has much, much more gas than previously realised, and that we can source it from lots of friendly countries (like the US, Norway and Australia). Longer-term, we have shale gas reserves that will probably be exploited.
Which leaves 3. Which is not a good enough reason (to my mind) on its own.0 -
Sorry Mr. Watson, I don't believe a fecking word you are saying.0
-
I'm your ever so 'umble servant...MarqueeMark said:
Sorry Mr. Watson, I don't believe a fecking word you are saying.
0 -
As far as I'm aware there aren't any suitable sites left in the UK for economical pumped storage.JosiasJessop said:
That's pump-storage. There's a fair few schemes here in the UK, including a big one at Dinorwig.JonathanD said:
Completely impractical on any large scale but interesting to see what can be done.TGOHF said:
It can but batteries are expensive.taffys said:One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
As is wind power.
"El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores more than 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW. "
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/03/03/how-small-spanish-island-became-renewable-energy-pioneer-el-hierro
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station
The problem is the number of suitable sites is limited: you need room for a large reservoir as high up as possible, with a lower area nearby so they are cheap to connect. Unfortunately whilst we have lots of hilly areas, the areas where suitable upper reservoirs can be built are limited.0 -
He'd make Uriah Heep vomit...Plato_Says said:I'm your ever so 'umble servant...
MarqueeMark said:Sorry Mr. Watson, I don't believe a fecking word you are saying.
0 -
BBC says BBC does not crowd out competitors:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-345913080 -
At least he's had a good scrub, and decided looking like a Mafia don isn't a good idea today.MarqueeMark said:
He'd make Uriah Heep vomit...Plato_Says said:I'm your ever so 'umble servant...
MarqueeMark said:Sorry Mr. Watson, I don't believe a fecking word you are saying.
0 -
Who's the MP in pink?0
-
I'm guessing no one got any space to disagree?Morris_Dancer said:BBC says BBC does not crowd out competitors:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-345913080 -
In fact they hired an expensive consultancy with taxpayer money to make subjective judgment calls that happen to align with what their client wants to hear.Morris_Dancer said:BBC says BBC does not crowd out competitors:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-345913080 -
Mr. Charles, to be fair, it was the BBC Trust.
They hired KPMG to assess whether government fears the BBC was crowding out others was true.0 -
nice point.
So his website enquiry form leads nowhere apart from to Watson's office (who needed special training to handle requests).0 -
Victoria Atkins is pretty forensic too - another one to watch.
Has Watson gone red here? I think he has.0 -
Watson just skewered there by Victoria Atkins.0
-
Go girl!!Plato_Says said:Victoria Atkins is pretty forensic too - another one to watch.
Has Watson gone red here? I think he has.0 -
It's worth visiting Dinowig if you're in North Wales, very impressive.Alistair said:
As far as I'm aware there aren't any suitable sites left in the UK for economical pumped storage.JosiasJessop said:
That's pump-storage. There's a fair few schemes here in the UK, including a big one at Dinorwig.JonathanD said:
Completely impractical on any large scale but interesting to see what can be done.TGOHF said:
It can but batteries are expensive.taffys said:One thing I don;t understand is why Wind energy cannot be 'saved' ie stored in batteries or the like to make its usage more reliable.
As is wind power.
"El Hierro now has five wind turbines with a combined installed capacity of 11.5 megawatts soon to provide the majority of the electricity for the island. When wind production exceeds demand, excess energy will pump water from a reservoir at the bottom of a volcanic cone to another reservoir at the top of the volcano 700 meters above sea level. The upper reservoir stores more than 132 million gallons of water. The stored water acts as a battery. When demand rises and there is not enough wind power, the water will be released to four hydroelectric turbines with a total capacity of 11 MW. "
http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/03/03/how-small-spanish-island-became-renewable-energy-pioneer-el-hierro
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station
The problem is the number of suitable sites is limited: you need room for a large reservoir as high up as possible, with a lower area nearby so they are cheap to connect. Unfortunately whilst we have lots of hilly areas, the areas where suitable upper reservoirs can be built are limited.
I don't know whether you are right or not but this may be of interest:
http://www.withouthotair.com/c26/page_192.shtml0 -
what's happening with this bloke's eyebrows?0
-
I don't disagree with a lot of that, but I don't see any mileage in buying in technology that is well past it for such a huge amount of money. We should be investing in CCGTs today and researching new technologies for tomorrow. Today and for the foreseeable future CCGTs are more stable, cheaper and less risky than PWRs, plus it won't involve us whoring ourselves out to the Chinese.JosiasJessop said:
I'm all for careful investment in long-shots (*). But you don't bet the house on them. MSR's are several decades away: we should look at investing in research into them, but if they can be made to work safely and economically, they'll only be ready in time to replace the reactors we are planning at the moment.MaxPB said:
That's the kind of thinking which leads to £24bn spent on generating just 7% of power requirements and £34bn on cutting journey times to Birmingham by 15mins. Make do and mend is why our infrastructure is so badly behind the times. Look at the Heathrow decision, while we agonise over another runway, rival EU nations are adding capacity at a massive rate.
We need stuff built now, not dreams. It's quite possible that MSR's will never reach the safety, economics or capacity that proponents state for them. I'm very cynical about them because the current small research projects are not going too well, and they've been trying for fifty years.
The same goes for tidal: invest relatively small sums in the research and development, but don't assume the tech will mature.
BTW, you are evidently pretty clueless on HS2. Its about much more than time savings.
(*) I've suggested the government invests a certain amount each year in carefully-selected long-shots.
Tidal has a lot to prove but certain projects may be viable, barrages are more likely than lagoons though IMO. The Incheon lagoon is an interesting one and we should let the Koreans have a stab at it instead of going ahead with Swansea and finding we are not able to deal with the corrosion and maintenance issues.
As for HS2, as you know my issue is with scope and ambition. The current proposals are inadequate in both respects. For example, we have 8 TBMs from the Crossrail project and the crown owns all underground assets. Why are we not doing the whole of HS2 underground where noise, bridges and land purchases are no longer an issue. The scope is also far too narrow, why are we spending billions on electrifying the GWML when we should be looking at high speed rail, again underground, from London to Swansea and from Swansea to Birmingham via Cardiff. If we are going to do this, we should do it once and do it right. We did 26 miles of tunneling for Crossrail, London to Birmingha, is about 100 miles as the crow flies, add about 20 for additional stops and detours, it must be possible to make it happen, what we lack is not technical ability, but ambition.0 -
So who told you he had left the police, Mr Watson???0
-
FPTP leads to this sort of thing. Candain Libs have Electoral Reform in the manifesto. Hopefully they'll take action.Alistair said:
2.5 percentage points, or is this a trick question,weejonnie said:
What is the difference between 37% (Tories have no mandate) and 39.5% - a 'stunning victory' for the Canadian Liberals (The people have spoken) - answer hypocrisy.surbiton said:
So, what's the f*cking point ?Charles said:
The point is that it should be a revising chamber, but should always bow to the will of the elected chamber.surbiton said:
It is a double-edged sword. If the second chamber cannot challenge the HoC , then why have it ?MikeSmithson said:
That point was first made by me in a post four days ago when I suggested that this was a plot to undermine the Lords.Scott_P said:@IanDunt: Has George Osborne lured the House of Lords into a trap? https://t.co/H1AD1SPZ60
If the argument is that the HoC is elected, then we should elect the second chamber too ! 108 countries cannot be wrong.
As soon as it is elected then it has its own democratic legitimacy and that can lead to deadlock.
At least, then 37% can't do whatever they want. They should have called Osborne's bluff. The Tax credit changes was not included in a Finance Bill nor was it in the manifesto.0 -
Well indeed. If DCI Settle wants evidence that his career is parked...MarqueeMark said:
So who told you he had left the police, Mr Watson???
0 -
@BBCJLandale: The plot thickens! Lib Dems to table their own "fatal motion" against tax credit cuts. Lord Kirkwood withdraws his softer "regret motion"0
-
DPP lady seems pretty straight batting.0
-
Mr. P, Farron probably regards it as win-win, as it'll either discredit the Lords or defeat the Conservatives, or both.
Or it could make the Lib Dems appear an annoying irrelevance, when they should be seeking the mantle of responsible leftyness.0 -
That's quite a staggering proposal, and one I haven't seen seriously proposed before. The cost of tunnelling is massive, and very much depends on ground conditions. Also, what are your plans for the city-centre termini, where costs multiply massively and room (particularly in London) is limited?MaxPB said:
I don't disagree with a lot of that, but I don't see any mileage in buying in technology that is well past it for such a huge amount of money. We should be investing in CCGTs today and researching new technologies for tomorrow. Today and for the foreseeable future CCGTs are more stable, cheaper and less risky than PWRs, plus it won't involve us whoring ourselves out to the Chinese.
Tidal has a lot to prove but certain projects may be viable, barrages are more likely than lagoons though IMO. The Incheon lagoon is an interesting one and we should let the Koreans have a stab at it instead of going ahead with Swansea and finding we are not able to deal with the corrosion and maintenance issues.
As for HS2, as you know my issue is with scope and ambition. The current proposals are inadequate in both respects. For example, we have 8 TBMs from the Crossrail project and the crown owns all underground assets. Why are we not doing the whole of HS2 underground where noise, bridges and land purchases are no longer an issue. The scope is also far too narrow, why are we spending billions on electrifying the GWML when we should be looking at high speed rail, again underground, from London to Swansea and from Swansea to Birmingham via Cardiff. If we are going to do this, we should do it once and do it right. We did 26 miles of tunneling for Crossrail, London to Birmingha, is about 100 miles as the crow flies, add about 20 for additional stops and detours, it must be possible to make it happen, what we lack is not technical ability, but ambition.
The following might be of interest:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/434516/HS2_Guide_to_Tunnelling_Costs.pdf0 -
To be fair Mr D, whatever someone called Tim does, you're not going to like it!Morris_Dancer said:Mr. P, Farron probably regards it as win-win, as it'll either discredit the Lords or defeat the Conservatives, or both.
Or it could make the Lib Dems appear an annoying irrelevance, when they should be seeking the mantle of responsible leftyness.0 -
King Cole, the zebraphile of the same name (not seen for a while, actually) and the two American posters of that name seem fine fellows. 'tis an outrageous and inaccurate slur against me.0
-
I think we can take it DCI Settle's career is over. He must curse the day he ever set eyes on the sleaze-ball that is Tom Watson.
It's time David Winnick retired. Like Denis Skinner he only sits in the HoC for novelty value.0 -
I apologise for the inaccuracy. Outrageous....... that's different!Morris_Dancer said:King Cole, the zebraphile of the same name (not seen for a while, actually) and the two American posters of that name seem fine fellows. 'tis an outrageous and inaccurate slur against me.
0 -
