Are we all Trussed up...

[Jdsk]

...

But also, Ms Truss was warned (in writing) yesterday about this by the Chief Executive of FullFact, so if she is still repeating misleading information (despite having been warned) then she is also at fault and needs to go public and apologise and correct her misleading information.

So I consider criticism of Ms Truss on this as quite right.

The fact checking organisation Full Fact has criticised Truss for misleading voters. Will Moy, the organisation’s chief executive, said:

We wrote to the prime minister about getting this wrong only yesterday. The government’s energy plans will affect every household in Britain this winter. And yet Liz Truss has repeatedly misled listeners this morning.
She must now publicly correct her mistake to make sure people are not misled about their energy prices and hit with unexpected and unaffordable energy bills this winter.

FullFact today:

"Liz Truss wrong to repeatedly say energy bills are capped at £2,500":
https://fullfact.org/economy/liz-truss- ... -cap-2500/

And the subsequent letter:



Jonathan

PS: Would it now be sensible to address these to "The Occupant"?

[jois]

a. I didn't say over-fishing I said fishing techniques which is very different.

b. I have seen no evidence that turbines shred fish.

c. Preserving a healthy marine environment is far more complex that a single species. Some areas are more sensitive than others so there needs to be planning to minimise the impact. But even plonking them everywhere without any environmental considerations will likely cause less environmental damage that climate change will cause unless we dramatically reduce climate gas emissions pronto (which in part means not following your suggestion to keep and expand extracting an burning hydrocarbons).

Ian

The fishing techniques you refere to result in over fishing, there is no difference, it will probably calapse the eco system from the bottom up, though the report I read definely identified shredded fish as a likely out come.

This is my entire knowledge on the topic_______

Small amount of power for many billions in investment, calapsed eco systems and shredded fish, sounds a great plan, were do I sign up

Over fishing is a very complex subject. Just the way quota are set can determine is the MSY is stable or unstable (e.g. do you license catch or gear). Damage from certain fishing techniques destroys ecosystems rather than cause over catch. Environmental damage is very different from over fishing.

I don't doubt that turbines may kill some fish just as there are some bird strikes on wind turbines. But overall impact compared to continued and increased hydrocarbon extraction and burning makes the damage trivial. And as quoted above (that you seem to have completely ignored) "Totting everything up, the barrage, the lagoons, and the tidal stream farms could deliver something like 11 kWh/d per person (figure 14.10)." is not a bad amount of power generation.

Please provide your sources for the "small amount of power" and "billions in investment" - sources which I assume take into account how just like with other renewable generation it becomes dramatically cheaper as it becomes more widespread and also how the UK is in a position to take a lead and thus generate export potential from its expertise were we to develop the technology.

Ian

Wave generating gets progressively dearer the more you do it

15 % of power is what I mean by small. At its absolute maximum. God's knows how many dead fish that entails

Your turn ! what's the unit price for lecy generated this way

[Psamathe]

The fishing techniques you refere to result in over fishing, there is no difference, it will probably calapse the eco system from the bottom up, though the report I read definely identified shredded fish as a likely out come.

This is my entire knowledge on the topic_______

Small amount of power for many billions in investment, calapsed eco systems and shredded fish, sounds a great plan, were do I sign up

Over fishing is a very complex subject. Just the way quota are set can determine is the MSY is stable or unstable (e.g. do you license catch or gear). Damage from certain fishing techniques destroys ecosystems rather than cause over catch. Environmental damage is very different from over fishing.

I don't doubt that turbines may kill some fish just as there are some bird strikes on wind turbines. But overall impact compared to continued and increased hydrocarbon extraction and burning makes the damage trivial. And as quoted above (that you seem to have completely ignored) "Totting everything up, the barrage, the lagoons, and the tidal stream farms could deliver something like 11 kWh/d per person (figure 14.10)." is not a bad amount of power generation.

Please provide your sources for the "small amount of power" and "billions in investment" - sources which I assume take into account how just like with other renewable generation it becomes dramatically cheaper as it becomes more widespread and also how the UK is in a position to take a lead and thus generate export potential from its expertise were we to develop the technology.

Ian

Wave generating gets progressively dearer the more you do it

15 % of power is what I mean by small. At its absolute maximum. God's knows how many dead fish that entails

Your turn ! what's the unit price for lecy generated this way

Except I was talking about tidal generation which is different from wave generation. I pointed this out earlier but it seems you are not bothering to read my posts.

The cost per unit of generation goes down dramatically the more widespread it becomes. Just look at how the price of wind generation has dropped since the initial wind farms. So cost per unit for tidal generation now is a daft question to ask - makes no sense atall.

If you want to discuss things at least read my posts and stop just countering what I didn't even say!

Ian

[roubaixtuesday]

I know this is dreadfully old fashioned, but this thread is about Liz Truss rather than renewable energy analysis.

I'm sure there's an appropriate thread somewhere already and if not, I'll happily start one, perhaps "Humpty Dumpty's Energy Policy: Fossil fuels are Renewable!"

[Biospace]

Wave power does not have significant potential in the UK.

See for instance https://www.withouthotair.com/c12/page_73.shtml

David McKay wrote a very readable book which reduced the energy debate to a level which, at the time, seemed entirely plausible to most. He was a brilliant academic in subjects quite unrelated to a country's energy policies, but this book was understood and appreciated by civil servants and the government of the time (2008) and he was appointed to advise the UK's energy policy.

I remember hearing multiple critics (from within academia and industry, with a broad range of opinions on how to proceed) of the book at the time, more often than not because he did not factor in changes in human behaviour or advancing technologies, because he assumed CCS was possible to roll out on a massive scale quite rapidly and that nuclear was the sensible long term energy combined with fossil fuel, especially given a UK population "concerned with the cost of their energy". I did agree that renewable energy and nuclear were the poorest of bedfellows.

By 2015 the UK had largely abandoned his advice, an engineer replaced him. The five years we lost following McKay's thinking look even more serious now than a few years ago, given our relations with Russia and post-Covid economics. An atrociously bad deal was made with EDF and the Chinese because we were in a fix, a deal for a nuclear reactor design which has such serious problems the French cannot run at capacity their own (as yet unfinished, delayed by over a decade) EPR reactor at Flamanville.

[roubaixtuesday]

Wave power does not have significant potential in the UK.

See for instance https://www.withouthotair.com/c12/page_73.shtml

David McKay wrote a very readable book which reduced the energy debate to a level which, at the time, seemed entirely plausible to most. He was a brilliant academic in subjects quite unrelated to a country's energy policies, but this book was understood and appreciated by civil servants and the government of the time (2008) and he was appointed to advise the UK's energy policy.

I remember reading multiple critics (within academia and industry, with a broad range of opinions on how to proceed) of the book at the time, more often than not because he did not factor in changes in human behaviour or advancing technologies, because he assumed CCS was possible to roll out on a massive scale quite rapidly and that nuclear was the sensible long term energy combined with fossil fuel, especially given a UK population "concerned with the cost of their energy". I did agree that renewable energy and nuclear were the poorest of bedfellows.

By 2015 the UK had largely abandoned his advice, an engineer replaced him. The five years we lost following McKay's thinking look even more serious now than a few years ago, given our relations with Russia and post-Covid economics. An atrociously bad deal was made with EDF and the Chinese because we were in a fix, a deal for a nuclear reactor design which has such serious problems the French cannot run at capacity their own (as yet unfinished, delayed by over a decade) EPR reactor at Flamanville.

My point was about the potential of wave power being insignificant. Do you agree with that?

[Biospace]

I've started a separate topic, viewtopic.php?t=153324

Apols if this forum netiquette has been overlooked.

[Jdsk]

I've started a separate topic, viewtopic.php?t=153324
...

Thankyou

Jonathan

[Jdsk]

...
"Liz Truss will hold emergency talks with the head of Britain’s independent fiscal watchdog after failing to dampen panic in the financial markets or shore up support from Tory MPs on her radical economic plan.":
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... lm-markets

Tomorrow! We're now down to hour by hour stuff.

OBR public response (you posted above and Guardian reported) is pretty bad for Gov. - the "we provided draft in advance and could have done it all but were not asked". Shows Gov. had no intention of telling anybody the consequences of their "not a budget".

The meeting took 48 minutes...

Jonathan

[Psamathe]

...
"Liz Truss will hold emergency talks with the head of Britain’s independent fiscal watchdog after failing to dampen panic in the financial markets or shore up support from Tory MPs on her radical economic plan.":
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... lm-markets

Tomorrow! We're now down to hour by hour stuff.

OBR public response (you posted above and Guardian reported) is pretty bad for Gov. - the "we provided draft in advance and could have done it all but were not asked". Shows Gov. had no intention of telling anybody the consequences of their "not a budget".

The meeting took 48 minutes...

Jonathan

My understanding is that they were inside No 11 for 48 minutes. We don't know how long they were sitting waiting for Truss/Kwarteng to arrive.

Ian

[Jdsk]

OBR public response (you posted above and Guardian reported) is pretty bad for Gov. - the "we provided draft in advance and could have done it all but were not asked". Shows Gov. had no intention of telling anybody the consequences of their "not a budget".

The meeting took 48 minutes...

My understanding is that they were inside No 11 for 48 minutes. We don't know how long they were sitting waiting for Truss/Kwarteng to arrive.

I stand corrected... as indeed they might have done.

: - )

Jonathan

[Psamathe]

The meeting took 48 minutes...

My understanding is that they were inside No 11 for 48 minutes. We don't know how long they were sitting waiting for Truss/Kwarteng to arrive.

I stand corrected... as indeed they might have done.

: - )

Jonathan

(We're racing with the ongoing headlines)
Yet again the "excuses" politicians keep spouting are shown to be complete rubbish. Earlier today a Treasury Minister was claiming the OBR did not have time to provide their forecasts (despite the OBR saying they could) https://www.theguardian.com/politics/li ... b4a78eb8b7.

But after this meeting the OBR will be providing initial forecasts next week. So yet again politicians are just spouting rubbish to try and counter reality.

Ian

[Psamathe]

So Gov. is getting OBR forecasts on 7 Oct but is going to leave the markets in turmoil and not publish those forecasts until 23 Nov!

Treasury will not publish OBR forecast delivered to them on 7 October until 23 November

Information the markets need is going to be sat on bu Gov. unpublished for over 1.5 months!

Ian

[Jdsk]

Further avoidance of scrutiny. Or rather further attempted avoidance of scrutiny.

And very silly politics: "We know and we aren't telling you" won't go down well.

Jonathan

[Psamathe]

More news on our economy

UK is only G7 country with smaller economy than before Covid-19

Conservatives must be very proud of their record.

Ian