The Dirty Independence Question

[LJS]

A wee update on something we've discussed before on here...

Scottish tidal power station breaks world record for electricity generation

...The tidal flows between the Atlantic and the North Sea could potentially power nearly half of Scotland’s entire electricity needs, according to a study by engineers from Oxford and Edinburgh universities...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/pentland-firth-tidal-power-station-electricity-generation-energy-renewables-a7922141.html?amp

Please note, I am aware that this technology is still in its early stages, cost is not mentioned in the article and I am not claiming that the tides will dissolve Neil's £umpteen Bn deficit gap 

Good news though eh?

[eFestivals]

25 minutes ago, LJS said:

Good news though eh?

definitely good that it's doing better than expected.

But that article is some fantastic spin, unless you really think there's going to be around 1200 turbines installed there - cos that's what it would take even with that 'world record' generation.

[LJS]

On 9/1/2017 at 8:26 AM, eFestivals said:

definitely good that it's doing better than expected.

But that article is some fantastic spin, unless you really think there's going to be around 1200 turbines installed there - cos that's what it would take even with that 'world record' generation.

remember it's fairly new technology, so the turbine might get bigger/more efficient but I think there is potential there for it to be a significant predictable & reliable source of energy for  sizeable chunk of Scotland.

[LJS]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-40951607

 

Funny how things change with borders isn't it?

2014: Scotland leaves UK = hard border between Scotland & r UK.

2017 : UK leaves EU = no hard border between UK & ROI.

Funny that!

[eFestivals]

6 hours ago, LJS said:

remember it's fairly new technology, so the turbine might get bigger/more efficient but I think there is potential there for it to be a significant predictable & reliable source of energy for  sizeable chunk of Scotland.

there's still not going to be the amount of power generated in that location that the article suggests.  

The article is 100% spin in what it says about future capacity, written for people who suck it up rather than think - and probably written by someone like that, too. It sounds like an article written from a self-serving industry press release to me. I'm too smart for the article, by not accepting it at face value and putting in the tiny amount of effort to see how it stands up.

Nothing of me saying that is knocking the idea that there's decent generation potential there, tho - just not the amount being claimed. 

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, LJS said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-40951607

 

Funny how things change with borders isn't it?

2014: Scotland leaves UK = hard border between Scotland & r UK.

2017 : UK leaves EU = no hard border between UK & ROI.

Funny that!

If you take the claims of those who want to break the current set-ups, then there's (claims of) no hard border.

If you take the claims of the critics of those who want to break the current set-ups, then there's (claims of) that outcome being impossible.

You only find the contradiction by accepting the self-serving claim you support and rejecting the one you don't ... making your own claim the most self-serving of all.

Meanwhile, would you like to tell me why you think breaking up a part-union will be a disaster while breaking up a more-integrated and greater-economic union won't be?  

Why not try a consistent line and not a self-serving one? 

The stupidity of snippers rises again.

Edited September 6, 2017 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

BTW, I'll compliment Sturgeon on her nice potential policies list yesterday.

Tho I'll point out she's delivered similar lists before, but very very little of what's been written on lists like that.

And yesterday's list is much like similar lists, with lots of "we might do this" but very little of "we are doing that" (tho anyway, the SNP has quite a record of not doing what they've said they will).

Putting that part aside, my thoughts have been....

1. it's getting back to the day job, of the SNP realising they need to rebuild some of the trust they used to have.

2. Sturgeon seems to have suddenly forgotten all she said just two weeks ago when GERS was published ... tho that's probably the point, to paint over the cracks and hope others forget or don't notice.

3. If the tax rises & changes are followed thru on, it would be a great way of undermining what GERS reveals, because the more differences in each's set-up the harder it is to make the sort of direct comparison that GERS revolves around.
(it doesn't make GERS worthless, but it will help Sturgeon convince suckers that it does).

4. the tax rise ideas themselves are not (from what I've seen) being welcomed in the way Scots like to claim of themselves. The idea that I've seen coming thru strong is that "normal" people would get clobbered by raises via PAYE while "the rich" still have their normal get-outs and therefore "normal" people shouldn't be penalised by higher taxes.

5. tax rises in the way suggested would embed the indy question even deeper within Barnet and deficits, as they'd do nothing to close 'the deficit gap' but would create an extra level of services which would need to be given up on indy - seemingly making the cost of indy even greater (tho it doesn't really; it does increase that perception, tho).

6. the suggested tax rises hit 'the rich' - who are probably the same people who just voted against the SNP. It almost seems like targeted punishment being metred out at the people  who decided that the SNP wasn't the future after all.

7. and the 'left'ishness of the policies are designed to appeal to the voters who are drifting back to Labour, to help shore-up SNP support (while ensuring it will never get too big, too).

So, I'm pretty confident this is about Sturgeon not wanting indy rather than wanting it. It's about ensuring there's always a grievance can to kick down the road while also ensuring the price of indy is too high to follow thru on ... which Sturgeon is clearly hoping will be enough to keep the SNP in power.

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

On 9/6/2017 at 6:57 AM, eFestivals said:

there's still not going to be the amount of power generated in that location that the article suggests.  

The article is 100% spin in what it says about future capacity, written for people who suck it up rather than think - and probably written by someone like that, too. It sounds like an article written from a self-serving industry press release to me. I'm too smart for the article, by not accepting it at face value and putting in the tiny amount of effort to see how it stands up.

Nothing of me saying that is knocking the idea that there's decent generation potential there, tho - just not the amount being claimed. 

Here is where the nearly half Scotland's power comes from...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-25800448

Of course, there would be issues getting that power to people's toasters in the central belt  but it does seem to be based on rather more than "100% spin"

[eFestivals]

22 minutes ago, LJS said:

Here is where the nearly half Scotland's power comes from...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-25800448

Of course, there would be issues getting that power to people's toasters in the central belt  but it does seem to be based on rather more than "100% spin"

it's where half of Scotland's power *might* come from, if there's going to be one thousand two hundred tidal generators placed in those waters.

As I've said already, that's simply not going to happen. Scotland rejected the idea of losing a small beach for tidal generation, it's not going to accept losing a whole channel (and one of the more important shipping lanes, too)

And it also says "Turbines would need to be located across the entire width of the channel to fully exploit it" ... and there's not room for one thousand two hundred tidal generators in that space (at least, not to work efficiently [cos each gennie impacts onto the generation capacity of the others]).

Meanwhile Sturgeon's bigging up of 'green' (a good thing, btw, I'm not criticising that) means the full-death of Scotland's oil industry, forever. Apparently, that comes at no cost. 

It also says "but developing power from offshore tidal streams is fraught with difficulty". Translate that as "expensive", more expensive than other generation methods. Who's paying?

C'mon, don't mug yourself, again.

Edited September 7, 2017 by eFestivals

[LJS]

17 hours ago, eFestivals said:

it's where half of Scotland's power *might* come from, if there's going to be one thousand two hundred tidal generators placed in those waters.

As I've said already, that's simply not going to happen. Scotland rejected the idea of losing a small beach for tidal generation, it's not going to accept losing a whole channel (and one of the more important shipping lanes, too)

And it also says "Turbines would need to be located across the entire width of the channel to fully exploit it" ... and there's not room for one thousand two hundred tidal generators in that space (at least, not to work efficiently [cos each gennie impacts onto the generation capacity of the others]).

Meanwhile Sturgeon's bigging up of 'green' (a good thing, btw, I'm not criticising that) means the full-death of Scotland's oil industry, forever. Apparently, that comes at no cost. 

It also says "but developing power from offshore tidal streams is fraught with difficulty". Translate that as "expensive", more expensive than other generation methods. Who's paying?

C'mon, don't mug yourself, again.

 

17 hours ago, eFestivals said:

it's where half of Scotland's power *might* come from,

Yeah that's what it says. 

17 hours ago, eFestivals said:

if there's going to be one thousand two hundred tidal generators placed in those waters.

And that's not what it says. It's what you say. based, I assume on the assumption that the output of all future turbines will be the same as the current ones. I have no idea if that is correct & i'm pretty certain you don't either.

17 hours ago, eFestivals said:

As I've said already, that's simply not going to happen.

I hate to break this to you  but just because you have "already said it" doesn't make it a fact. 

17 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Scotland rejected the idea of losing a small beach for tidal generation,

Did it? I wasn't aware. 

17 hours ago, eFestivals said:

 it's not going to accept losing a whole channel (and one of the more important shipping lanes, too)

Please explain to me how putting some turbines on the sea bed means losing a "whole channel?" 

17 hours ago, eFestivals said:

And it also says "Turbines would need to be located across the entire width of the channel to fully exploit it" ... and there's not room for one thousand two hundred tidal generators in that space (at least, not to work efficiently [cos each gennie impacts onto the generation capacity of the others]).

The guys who wrote this report missed this obvious point, did they? You will note that their estimate of the potential power is significantly lower than some previous ones  - I just have a wee suspicion they might be aware that  "each gennie impacts onto the generation capacity of the others" and they might just have taken that into account.  

17 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Meanwhile Sturgeon's bigging up of 'green' (a good thing, btw, I'm not criticising that) means the full-death of Scotland's oil industry, forever.

Complete bollocks. Scotland could cease using any petroleum products tomorrow and it would have an imperceptible effect on the world's demand for oil and it is the world's demand for oil & the price it is prepared to pay for it that decides the future viability of Scotland's oil industry.

17 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Apparently, that comes at no cost. 

Everything has a cost.

17 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It also says "but developing power from offshore tidal streams is fraught with difficulty".

Yup.

17 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Translate that as "expensive", more expensive than other generation methods.

It certainly will be in the early stages. Just as wind & solar power were in their early days. Both are now much cheaper that they used  to be. I guess there are unanswered questions around the lifespan of these turbines & the cost of ongoing maintenance. There is also the question of what you include in costs & savings. we will all pay if we continue to rely on fossil fuels. but you know this.

17 hours ago, eFestivals said:

Who's paying?

At the moment, you and I are. I'm perfectly happy with that. I guess you are too really.

Who's paying if we don't pursue renewable sources like this. Our kids : that's who.

17 hours ago, eFestivals said:

C'mon, don't mug yourself, again.

This is a pretty disappointing comment. I have not made any outrageous claims for this technology. I have pointed out that we don't know the costs & there are real issues getting the power generated from off the north coast of Scotland to where people live. I just happen to think we would be crazy not to continue with it & see if we can't make it work to all out benefits.

[russycarps]

I see around half of Catalans are just as selfish as 44% of Scots then. Sad!

[eFestivals]

5 hours ago, LJS said:

And that's not what it says. It's what you say. based, I assume on the assumption that the output of all future turbines will be the same as the current ones. I have no idea if that is correct & i'm pretty certain you don't either.

and nor does the company that issued the press release that caused the news item to be written. 

Which is my whole bleedin' point.

It's spin, by an industry (and company) that needs to talk itself up if it's to have a future, because the overall costs of tidal generation are currently about 3 times the 'best' price for generation.

 

5 hours ago, LJS said:

I hate to break this to you  but just because you have "already said it" doesn't make it a fact. 

and you believing a self-serving press-release-driven article does make it a fact...? 

There's no facts here, apart from the current technology. What i said is based on the current technology.

 

5 hours ago, LJS said:

Did it? I wasn't aware. 

yup. There was a proposal for a French-style 'beach' tidal plant (goog;le it if you don't know what that is). It was rejected on environmental grounds.

That had a hell of a lot less environmental impact than what this article is suggesting.

 

5 hours ago, LJS said:

Please explain to me how putting some turbines on the sea bed means losing a "whole channel?" 

Oh, I see you didn't read the article.

 

5 hours ago, LJS said:

The guys who wrote this report missed this obvious point, did they?

It's not "a report". It's a self-serving industry press release, designed to keep the subsidies flowing.

 

5 hours ago, LJS said:

You will note that their estimate of the potential power is significantly lower than some previous ones  - I just have a wee suspicion they might be aware that  "each gennie impacts onto the generation capacity of the others" and they might just have taken that into account.  

It's not "a report". It's a self-serving industry press release, designed to keep the subsidies flowing.

 

5 hours ago, LJS said:

Complete bollocks. Scotland could cease using any petroleum products tomorrow and it would have an imperceptible effect on the world's demand for oil and it is the world's demand for oil & the price it is prepared to pay for it that decides the future viability of Scotland's oil industry.

So being green isn't about being green, it's about ensuring the world keeps burning oil?

If Scotland goes big on renewables so will everywhere else. Haven't you noticed that the oil price has halved already, because there's more sources of oil than there are people wanting oil?

And did you miss that Scotland is already about the most expensive place in the world to produce oil?

 

5 hours ago, LJS said:

It certainly will be in the early stages. Just as wind & solar power were in their early days. Both are now much cheaper that they used  to be. I guess there are unanswered questions around the lifespan of these turbines & the cost of ongoing maintenance. There is also the question of what you include in costs & savings. we will all pay if we continue to rely on fossil fuels. but you know this.

why not join up the dots between that "more expensive", the subsidies this single plant has relied on, and the press release you've swallowed whole?

Or does Scotland's green generation have the only corporate-owned non-lying non-self--serving companies in the world?

 

5 hours ago, LJS said:

At the moment, you and I are. I'm perfectly happy with that. I guess you are too really.

Who's paying if we don't pursue renewable sources like this. Our kids : that's who.

You might be happy and i might be happy but there's 30+M taxpayers who keep telling govt they feel they're paying too much tax.

And there's cheaper ways of generating 'green' energy than this scheme needs.

Fuck's sake. Work it out.

 

5 hours ago, LJS said:

This is a pretty disappointing comment. I have not made any outrageous claims for this technology. I have pointed out that we don't know the costs & there are real issues getting the power generated from off the north coast of Scotland to where people live. I just happen to think we would be crazy not to continue with it & see if we can't make it work to all out benefits.

But you have swallowed a "news" article that's been generated 100% from a self-serving industry press release, from an industry that relies on subsidies, and which isn't the cheapest generation method relying on subsidies.

Continuing to develop it is one thing.

Swallowing the press release whole is another.

[eFestivals]

35 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I see around half of Catalans are just as selfish as 44% of Scots then. Sad!

more so.

Catalans would be running away with the money, while not caring how their want impoverishes others.

In Scotland that scenario is only in their dreams - but it is what they wrongly dream, while really knowing it's a crock of shit and poverty is their future.

[LJS]

51 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

and nor does the company that issued the press release that caused the news item to be written. 

Which is my whole bleedin' point.

It's spin, by an industry (and company) that needs to talk itself up if it's to have a future, because the overall costs of tidal generation are currently about 3 times the 'best' price for generation.

 

and you believing a self-serving press-release-driven article does make it a fact...? 

There's no facts here, apart from the current technology. What i said is based on the current technology.

 

yup. There was a proposal for a French-style 'beach' tidal plant (goog;le it if you don't know what that is). It was rejected on environmental grounds.

That had a hell of a lot less environmental impact than what this article is suggesting.

 

Oh, I see you didn't read the article.

 

It's not "a report". It's a self-serving industry press release, designed to keep the subsidies flowing.

 

It's not "a report". It's a self-serving industry press release, designed to keep the subsidies flowing.

 

So being green isn't about being green, it's about ensuring the world keeps burning oil?

If Scotland goes big on renewables so will everywhere else. Haven't you noticed that the oil price has halved already, because there's more sources of oil than there are people wanting oil?

And did you miss that Scotland is already about the most expensive place in the world to produce oil?

 

why not join up the dots between that "more expensive", the subsidies this single plant has relied on, and the press release you've swallowed whole?

Or does Scotland's green generation have the only corporate-owned non-lying non-self--serving companies in the world?

 

You might be happy and i might be happy but there's 30+M taxpayers who keep telling govt they feel they're paying too much tax.

And there's cheaper ways of generating 'green' energy than this scheme needs.

Fuck's sake. Work it out.

 

But you have swallowed a "news" article that's been generated 100% from a self-serving industry press release, from an industry that relies on subsidies, and which isn't the cheapest generation method relying on subsidies.

Continuing to develop it is one thing.

Swallowing the press release whole is another.

So let's just ignore the study from Edinburgh & Cambridge uni & prattle on about press releases!

[eFestivals]

12 minutes ago, LJS said:

So let's just ignore the study from Edinburgh & Cambridge uni & prattle on about press releases!

I'm not disagreeing with anything they've said.

They've said "could".

That "could" is based in 1,200 turbines place in that channel, which amongst other things would (essentially) close that very busy shipping channel off to ship traffic so that the turbines aren't wiped out.

That "study" says where turbines would need to be placed in order to generate the amount they say. They fill the whole channel.

Meanwhile, the UK Crown Estate has identified completely different places where they'd allow turbines to be sited - meaning that the 'study' doesn't fit with the reality of what will be allowed to happen (and that's before environmentalists get in on things and water it down some more).

Feel free to google to your heart's content to dispute what I've said here. You won't be able to dispute it, cos i've already done the googling.

It "could" happen.

But it ain't going to.

[Comfy Bean]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

I'm not disagreeing with anything they've said.

They've said "could".

That "could" is based in 1,200 turbines place in that channel, which amongst other things would (essentially) close that very busy shipping channel off to ship traffic so that the turbines aren't wiped out.

That "study" says where turbines would need to be placed in order to generate the amount they say. They fill the whole channel.

Meanwhile, the UK Crown Estate has identified completely different places where they'd allow turbines to be sited - meaning that the 'study' doesn't fit with the reality of what will be allowed to happen (and that's before environmentalists get in on things and water it down some more).

Feel free to google to your heart's content to dispute what I've said here. You won't be able to dispute it, cos i've already done the googling.

It "could" happen.

But it ain't going to.

Your right to identify the UK Crown Estate here.

Clearly they have a significant interest here. 

In more ways than one I'd imagine.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

Your right to identify the UK Crown Estate here.

Clearly they have a significant interest here. 

In more ways than one I'd imagine.

PMSL - yep, it's all a conspiracy to keep Scotland down.

I reckon it was those nasty English that forced you Scots to not want the 'beach' tidal plant that a Scot proposed too.

Oh, and it was the nasty English who invented those stupid ginger wigs you lot love so much, too.

And it was the nasty English who told me 18 years ago not to stereotype Scotland with bagpipes and tartan because it was parochial and Scots aren't like that, just like it was the nasty English who now big it up in their new parochialness.

And finally, it's a big English conspiracy that forces the SNP to do Scotland down each year with the numbers the Scottish Govt publish within GERS to a Scottish Govt specified methodolgy.

Those English, utter bastards, eh?

And Scotland doesn't want an easy shipping lane around the top of it. You can start sending ships up the Caledonian again.

[kaosmark2]

7 hours ago, russycarps said:

I see around half of Catalans are just as selfish as 44% of Scots then. Sad!

While I agree with the "selfish" aspect, I think there's a lot more justification behind the Catalan desire for independence than the Scottish one. Scotland became part of the UK at Scotland's request, Catalonia was subsumed. There was also huge suppression of the region and its culture during Franco's reign, which is relatively recent in historical terms, and such bitterness makes a lot more sense to me.

An ideological stance for Catalan independence makes a lot more sense to me. It's also worth noting that the UK govt allowed the Scottish referendum and said they'd respect it, unlike the Spanish govt.

[eFestivals]

I reckon that if Catalonia broke away it'd have a similar effect onto the desire for indy in Scotland as brexit appears to have had, of pointing out the stark reality of breaking the existing ties.

Cos don't forget, the SNP said in 2014 that it would be comparatively easy and painless, as tho no one would really notice the impact of that split.

[LJS]

13 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

While I agree with the "selfish" aspect, I think there's a lot more justification behind the Catalan desire for independence than the Scottish one. Scotland became part of the UK at Scotland's request,

That's quite a claim. Of course Scottish democracy was 3 centuries ahead of its time in the early 18th century and there is definitely no question of skulduggery.

 

Fareweel to a' our Scottish fame,
Fareweel our ancient glory,
Fareweel ev'n to the Scottish name,
Sae fam'd in martial story.
Now Sark rins o'er the Solway sands,
And Tweed rins to the ocean,
To mark where England's province stands -
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation.

What force or guile could not subdue,
Thro' many warlike ages,
Is wrought now by a coward few
For hireling traitor's wages.
The English steel we could disdain;
Secure in valour's station;
But English gold has been our bane -
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation.

O would, or I had seen the day
That treason thus could sell us,
My auld gray head had lien in clay,
Wi' Bruce and loyal Wallace!
But pith and power, till my last hour,
I'll mak' this declaration;
We're bought and sold for English gold -
Such a parcel of rogues in a nation.

 

 

[Comfy Bean]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

PMSL - yep, it's all a conspiracy to keep Scotland down.

I reckon it was those nasty English that forced you Scots to not want the 'beach' tidal plant that a Scot proposed too.

Oh, and it was the nasty English who invented those stupid ginger wigs you lot love so much, too.

And it was the nasty English who told me 18 years ago not to stereotype Scotland with bagpipes and tartan because it was parochial and Scots aren't like that, just like it was the nasty English who now big it up in their new parochialness.

And finally, it's a big English conspiracy that forces the SNP to do Scotland down each year with the numbers the Scottish Govt publish within GERS to a Scottish Govt specified methodolgy.

Those English, utter bastards, eh?

And Scotland doesn't want an easy shipping lane around the top of it. You can start sending ships up the Caledonian again.

I`m glad you got all that off your chest  Especially the 18 year old bit about the bagpipes and ginger wigs  

Quite what it had to do with me agreeing with you introducing the Crown Estate into a conversation around what happens off our shores I`m not so sure ?

You might want to look into the bit about sending ships up the Caledonian again. In fairness, it`s in keeping with the rest of your post. Dear o dear 

 

 

[lost]

13 minutes ago, LJS said:

That's quite a claim. Of course Scottish democracy was 3 centuries ahead of its time in the early 18th century and there is definitely no question of skulduggery.

I'm sure they only teach history according to Mel Gibson up there, I'd be embarrassed too if my nation asked to join the union after bankrupting itself trying to set up an empire. Failed colonial power doesn't really match the nationalist image very well.

[eFestivals]

37 minutes ago, LJS said:

That's quite a claim. Of course Scottish democracy was 3 centuries ahead of its time in the early 18th century and there is definitely no question of skulduggery.

But likewise, there was no question of Scotland being a military conquest.

It's also the case that - compared to what-was - Scotland did and does very well out of it's union with England.

At the end of the day, there's not really any countries for any other country to compare with, as the particular circumstances of any 'independence' is always quite different to all of the others. The only commonality is the want to be independent.

[eFestivals]

39 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

I`m glad you got all that off your chest  Especially the 18 year old bit about the bagpipes and ginger wigs  

that always makes me laugh tho, as it's such a strong indicator of regression.

 

39 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

Quite what it had to do with me agreeing with you introducing the Crown Estate into a conversation around what happens off our shores I`m not so sure ?

Quite what difference you think a Scottish Estates would make I've no idea, unless the likes of you is suddenly going to be proud to be a don't-give-a-fuck-about-the-environment anti-green?

As i've already pointed out twice, it's Scots who shoot down almost all of Scotland's possible 'green' ideas.

 

39 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

You might want to look into the bit about sending ships up the Caledonian again. In fairness, it`s in keeping with the rest of your post. Dear o dear 

yeah, i know, it never really worked very well even back then, and it defo won't now.

Which is precisely why there'll never be those 1,200 turbines in the Pentland Firth.

Why not go and google the 'research' this talks about, and then think about what a blocked-to-shipping Pentland Firth will mean to a country that found that short route more than it wanted to handle.

[Comfy Bean]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

 

At the end of the day, there's not really any countries for any other country to compare with, as the particular circumstances of any 'independence' is always quite different to all of the others. The only commonality is the want to be independent.

Progress