UK Politics

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

If the UK builds solar, wind and toidal then the UK does not need nuclear. It really is that simple.

No nuclear takes away two things, a reason for delay as all others a re built faster and a reason for higher bills as currentl nuclear contracts are coming in higher than electric is now whereas the other stuff should be 15-20% of the cost now.

Nuclear really is not needed.

maybe don't just read the headline.

[Nobody Interesting]

5 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

maybe don't just read the headline.

 

You mean read the story that does not once mention tidal power and keeps going on about nuclear taking loads of tie to come online - that one you mean?

So I repeat what I wrote before cos I stand by it all!!

[steviewevie]

18 minutes ago, zahidf said:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/R-v-Hallam-and-others.pdf

 

Quite detailed reasons given

 

I do think the reporting is a little of in not mentioning how its not a first offence. 

the question is not whether they should have been punished, I think they should have, what they did/planned is a criminal offence, but the punishment has to be proportional...and 5 years?! 

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

You mean read the story that does not once mention tidal power and keeps going on about nuclear taking loads of tie to come online - that one you mean?

So I repeat what I wrote before cos I stand by it all!!

this is about decarbonising grid in just over 5 years.

 

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

You mean read the story that does not once mention tidal power and keeps going on about nuclear taking loads of tie to come online - that one you mean?

So I repeat what I wrote before cos I stand by it all!!

and here's the full report...

Rapid decarbonisation of the GB electricity system | Strategy recommendations (raeng.org.uk)

[Nobody Interesting]

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

this is about decarbonising grid in just over 5 years.

 

 

Yes I know, I read it and responded to what it said where it talked about using wind and solar but needed to burn gas while it waitied for new nuclear to come on line.

Did you read it?

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Yes I know, I read it and responded to what it said where it talked about using wind and solar but needed to burn gas while it waitied for new nuclear to come on line.

Did you read it?

Yes, I read it much more than you did. I really read it. Properly.

[LJS]

48 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Yes, I read it much more than you did. I really read it. Properly.

Thank you, Mr Trump.

[steviewevie]

[Nobody Interesting]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

Yes, I read it much more than you did. I really read it. Properly.

 

So if you read it properly can you tell me the following:

1) Where does it refer to tidal power?
2) Why exactly do we 'need' gas to generate electricity while we wait for nuclear?
3) Why do we have to have nuclear when other forms of energy creation are quicker and cheaper?
4) Decarbonisation of the grid is creation of electricity without producing carbon - how do you think my comments were not relevant to this?
5) If you did read it properly and you suggest I did not then please explain more, I am keen to understand how you think I did not when I am referring to questions the hole thing raises.

 

[steviewevie]

18 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

So if you read it properly can you tell me the following:

1) Where does it refer to tidal power?
2) Why exactly do we 'need' gas to generate electricity while we wait for nuclear?
3) Why do we have to have nuclear when other forms of energy creation are quicker and cheaper?
4) Decarbonisation of the grid is creation of electricity without producing carbon - how do you think my comments were not relevant to this?
5) If you did read it properly and you suggest I did not then please explain more, I am keen to understand how you think I did not when I am referring to questions the hole thing raises.

 

oh god. a lot of those are outside scope of that article...maybe look at report which has a bit on tidal

This is all short term to rapidly decarbonise grid, so provide electricity instead of gas/petrol everywhere...will probably not have enough renewables or nuclear for the supply in short term, mid/long term is different.

And these aren't my opinions but is a report by someone and might be an issue for govt going forward.

And never spell whole hole again.

 

 

Edited July 23 by steviewevie

[steviewevie]

ok, go away and read this and I will test you on it later to make sure you really did read the hole thing..

Rapid decarbonisation of the GB electricity system | Strategy recommendations (raeng.org.uk)

[Nobody Interesting]

34 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

oh god. a lot of those are outside scope of that article...maybe look at report which has a bit on tidal

This is all short term to rapidly decarbonise grid, so provide electricity instead of gas/petrol everywhere...will probably not have enough renewables or nuclear for the supply in short term, mid/long term is different.

And these aren't my opinions but is a report by someone and might be an issue for govt going forward.

And never spell whole hole again.

 

 

 

Naughty me typing a word wrong!!

The article is quite simple, it talks about having to open new gas powered stations to meet the target of 2030.
What I said was that we could do it with solar, tidal and wind cheaper and faster and I also said that saying we need to do it while we wait for nuclear is foily when we do not need nuclear at all and that it is expensive.

In short I responded to the article and said why I disagree with it - the scope of the article is about how the UK generates electricity into the future both short and long term.

I have read all the report says on tidal, many times now and in the past - I have also read numerous reports about how tidal needs to be part of the solution for an island nation. Had we actually built those projects the Tories and Bliar's Labour rejected then we would already be able to meet 2030 targets without having to buidl anything else.

You obviously have read the article with a different view point - I look at the whole picture, not just one small part of it in isolation.

Either way, 2030 will not be met (and never stood any chance of being met) unless the UK builds and builds fast and does not at any point go down the route of gas, coal or anything that produces C02 as a short term part fo the picture.

and if you really want to go full circle it brings it all back to where the grid stations should go or whether we simply upgrade exis9itn ones and add thousands of onshore pylons. It is all part of the same picture.

[Nobody Interesting]

42 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

ok, go away and read this and I will test you on it later to make sure you really did read the hole thing..

Rapid decarbonisation of the GB electricity system | Strategy recommendations (raeng.org.uk)

 

It talks lots about Carbon Capture and Storage - technology those who work in the sector openly tell us all does not exist at any scale and even if we progress as they hope will fall far far short of what is needed.

It also makes no mention in the storage section about battery storage - which is quicker and cheaper to put in place that hydrogen.

Just two reasons quickly found why it is far from being what is needed even if the government actions everything listed for it to do.

I will read it all later when I have time.

As you like links for others to read you might like some to read yourself - I will not test you on them though cos I have better things to do 🙂

https://givenergy.co.uk/great-grid-upgrade-what-is-it-and-why-do-we-need-it/
https://greenallianceblog.org.uk/2024/07/22/a-collaborative-report-on-planning-to-achieve-net-zero/
https://www.aldersgategroup.org.uk/content/uploads/2024/07/Insights-for-the-decarbonised-electricity-system-journeys-through-planning.pdf
https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/progress-in-reducing-emissions-2024-report-to-parliament/

Some of these do have cross over agreement - some are very different in many places as the industry cannot agree the best way forward, partly cos the industry want to also have the most profitable way forward as well. There are hundreds more rep[orts where all these come from as well.

Hope there are no typos or spelling mistakes.

[steviewevie]

could be a vote in parliament on the two child benefit cap...how many Labour MPs will rebel?

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

Edited July 23 by steviewevie

[steviewevie]

 

[Neil]

7 hours ago, LJS said:

How do you feel about the sentences these guys got?

the sentences  were harsh, but if you do stuff like that, you've got to expect some consequences back at you.

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

Apparently Jenrick is the new favourite for next Tory leader.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[steviewevie]

Jeez man they really f**ked this up, and probably won't get reversed. Another legacy from the sh*t the Tories have done to this country. 

 

[LJS]

51 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

It's ok to discipline MPs for voting in favour of a measure to partly address child poverty, because ... No idea.

 

Can someone help me?

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

It's ok to discipline MPs for voting in favour of a measure to partly address child poverty, because ... No idea.

 

Can someone help me?

well...actually I think ok for MPs of other parties to vote to change the two child benefit cap, but actually maybe a bit rich of Labour MPs to win their seats on the labour manifesto and then vote against that same manifesto a few weeks later.

But I guess it will possibly push Starmer/Reeves to scrap the cap sooner rather than later, or does it actually delay it as becomes an internal party battle and not actually about poor kids?

[LJS]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

well...actually I think ok for MPs of other parties to vote to change the two child benefit cap, but actually maybe a bit rich of Labour MPs to win their seats on the labour manifesto and then vote against that same manifesto a few weeks later.

But I guess it will possibly push Starmer/Reeves to scrap the cap sooner rather than later, or does it actually delay it as becomes an internal party battle and not actually about poor kids?

Did the Labour manifesto mention the 2cbc?