[Politics] The Labour Government

[rogersix]

Out of interest, why will we never need batteries? Assuming that we continue to use wind and solar as the main sources of renewable energy, there will certainly be periods (we had one this year) when for a week or more there is little wind and little sun. Where will the power come from if there are no batteries (which I doubt will ever be practical anyway)?

Store the energy as hydrogen

 

[Peteinblack]

My view is that Labour are keen to reduce the voting age down to 16 because at that age they are far more likely to vote Labour then Conservative.

Whereas the last Tory government extended the right to vote to about 2 million Brits who had emigrated more than 15 years ago - doubtless calculating that most of these retirees would be staunch Tory voters (just as most of them voted for Brexit, thinking it wouldn't affect them).

 

[beorhthelm]

Because a net zero plan is gradual and should include nuclear.

Rampion wind farm generates electricity for around 85% of the time. Solar cells lose between 25% and 50% during the summer.

You can then have geothermal, hydro, tidal, and biomass energy operating to some extent too.

The right wing media would have you believe that Just Stop Oil want fossil fuels stopped now. But their core message is that we shouldn't open up new oil fields etc. Even they believe that the route to fossil fuel free energy generation should be gradual.

The game changer will be nuclear fusion. I suspect that we are only a decade or so away from seeing it become efficient and commercial. Obviously, British companies are at the cutting edge of this technology.

First Light Fusion | Enabling Inertial Fusion Energy | Home

First Light Fusion is the UK’s leading inertial fusion company, advancing fusion technology to unlock clean, limitless energy for the future.

firstlightfusion.com

The battery thing is scaremongering from bad actors, paid for by the oil and gas companies, to influence those who lack the ability for critical thinking.

Net Zero has been added to the culture wars by the exact same people who want you to believe that the biggest threat to women is a trans women going into their changing room or toilets.

you forgot to explain the reason against batteries, what happens when low/no wind or low/no solar. it's not scaremongering, it's vital to explain how future energy needs will be met. if the solution is geothermal, hydro, tidal then can they be built to scale and replace wind, which would be necessary to avoid outages? i believe the solution is hydrogen, but for some reasons this is shunned, and probably expensive. but then all the options are expensive.

 

[rogersix]

you forgot to explain the reason against batteries, what happens when low/no wind or low/no solar. it's not scaremongering, it's vital to explain how future energy needs will be met. if the solution is geothermal, hydro, tidal then can they be built to scale and replace wind, which would be necessary to avoid outages? i believe the solution is hydrogen, but for some reasons this is shunned, and probably expensive. but then all the options are expensive.

Most hydrogen is produced chemically as it's cheaper than electrolysis, but scaled up I'm guessing it must be a lot cheaper and politicaly expedient than batts

 

[Curious Orange]

you forgot to explain the reason against batteries, what happens when low/no wind or low/no solar. it's not scaremongering, it's vital to explain how future energy needs will be met. if the solution is geothermal, hydro, tidal then can they be built to scale and replace wind, which would be necessary to avoid outages? i believe the solution is hydrogen, but for some reasons this is shunned, and probably expensive. but then all the options are expensive.

There are two problems as I see it. The price of energy is a problem now, and the solution(s) to the dunkleflaute issue is 'in the future'. So there is a gap there that is tricky to reconcile, particularly if you start taking options off the table now on the basis of a crossed fingers hope in future technology. There isn't any reason to say that there aren't further efficiencies to be gained from current technologies that could be helpful towards the end goal.

It has been obvious for quite some time that nuclear would have to be a major part of the solution, and I'm pleased that Labour have been making noises about sorting out the planning barriers that currently make building new plants problematic. I'd take planning decisions completely out of local control if it was up to me.

The way the wholesale price of electricity is priced is frankly mad as it bases it entirely on the most expensive component, this needs urgent reform.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Because a net zero plan is gradual and should include nuclear.

Rampion wind farm generates electricity for around 85% of the time. Solar cells lose between 25% and 50% during the summer.

You can then have geothermal, hydro, tidal, and biomass energy operating to some extent too.

The right wing media would have you believe that Just Stop Oil want fossil fuels stopped now. But their core message is that we shouldn't open up new oil fields etc. Even they believe that the route to fossil fuel free energy generation should be gradual.

The game changer will be nuclear fusion. I suspect that we are only a decade or so away from seeing it become efficient and commercial. Obviously, British companies are at the cutting edge of this technology.

First Light Fusion | Enabling Inertial Fusion Energy | Home

First Light Fusion is the UK’s leading inertial fusion company, advancing fusion technology to unlock clean, limitless energy for the future.

firstlightfusion.com

The battery thing is scaremongering from bad actors, paid for by the oil and gas companies, to influence those who lack the ability for critical thinking.

Net Zero has been added to the culture wars by the exact same people who want you to believe that the biggest threat to women is a trans women going into their changing room or toilets.

But if we have enough alternative sources of energy (nuclear and other renewables) to power the country when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, then why do we need wind and solar at all? The running costs of nuclear and most other forms of electricity are similar whether they are producing or not, so having redundant capacity is just going to increase the prices, isn't it?

(I wouldn't hold out great hopes for nuclear fusion. We've been 10 years away from it since last century.)

 

[rogersix]

But if we have enough alternative sources of energy (nuclear and other renewables) to power the country when the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining, then why do we need wind and solar at all? The running costs of nuclear and most other forms of electricity are similar whether they are producing or not, so having redundant capacity is just going to increase the prices, isn't it?

(I wouldn't hold out great hopes for nuclear fusion. We've been 10 years away from it since last century.)

Cos wind and solar are extremely cost effective

 

[Curious Orange]

Cos wind and solar are extremely cost effective

... and very profitable for the energy providers given the way they are paid and subsidised.

Not for the humble homeowner of course, our feed in tariffs will only head in one direction.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Not a Labour issue as such, but just looking at getting down to Newquay for a few days.

Flying from LGW a return ticket is £80 - 45 mins
Train from LGW to Newquay for the times I need is close to £200 - 6 hours and a number of changes

If they want people to take net zero seriously they need to sort out the railways, starting with the cost.

 

[jimhigham]

Not a Labour issue as such, but just looking at getting down to Newquay for a few days.

Flying from LGW a return ticket is £80 - 45 mins
Train from LGW to Newquay for the times I need is close to £200 - 6 hours an a number of changes

If they want people to take net zero serious they need to sort out the railways, starting with the cost.

Abso-bloody-exactly!

 

[Chicken Run]

Not a Labour issue as such, but just looking at getting down to Newquay for a few days.

Flying from LGW a return ticket is £80 - 45 mins
Train from LGW to Newquay for the times I need is close to £200 - 6 hours an a number of changes

If they want people to take net zero serious they need to sort out the railways, starting with the cost.

Same for me and LGW-Inverness a couple of years ago!

 

[SouthSaxon]

Not a Labour issue as such, but just looking at getting down to Newquay for a few days.

Flying from LGW a return ticket is £80 - 45 mins
Train from LGW to Newquay for the times I need is close to £200 - 6 hours and a number of changes

If they want people to take net zero seriously they need to sort out the railways, starting with the cost.

The rules around rail ticketing are so complex, it’s absurd. They’re (of course) designed to maximise profits, not benefit the user.

As to this measures in some places to manage excessive demand by raising prices and it’s a mess.

That cost will be a peak time weekday journey during the daily commute. That’s when they take all their season ticket money from a captive audience, so they charge anyone with a one-off journey a whacking great premium, basically double.

For trips like yours, they expect you to plan at least 12 weeks ahead and buy one of the discounted advance tickets.

 

[Is it PotG?]

https://www.theguardian.com/technol...searchers-access-half-a-million-uk-gp-records

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

The rules around rail ticketing are so complex, it’s absurd. They’re (of course) designed to maximise profits, not benefit the user.

As to this measures in some places to manage excessive demand by raising prices and it’s a mess.

That cost will be a peak time weekday journey during the daily commute. That’s when they take all their season ticket money from a captive audience, so they charge anyone with a one-off journey a whacking great premium, basically double.

For trips like yours, they expect you to plan at least 12 weeks ahead and buy one of the discounted advance tickets.

My trip is for start of June, so a good distance off still, I appreciate I could be more flexible to get a cheaper ticket, but I'm pretty stuck with times/dates I need to travel, should that really matter.

Would government control railways be better?

 

[abc]

Would government control railways be better?

I dont think so, but government has plenty of power to impose a much better framework within which the rail companies have to work that would provide better value for both traveller and taxpayer

 

[SouthSaxon]

My trip is for start of June, so a good distance off still, I appreciate I could be more flexible to get a cheaper ticket, but I'm pretty stuck with times/dates I need to travel, should that really matter.

Would government control railways be better?

Ticketing is directed by government, so it’s no guarantee. It might reduce the emphasis on pure profit, but that remains to be seen.

 

[beorhthelm]

Ticketing is directed by government, so it’s no guarantee. It might reduce the emphasis on pure profit, but that remains to be seen.

rail is subsidised £12bn, the only profit seen is some ToC doing accounting to show that.

 

[SouthSaxon]

rail is subsidised £12bn, the only profit seen is some ToC doing accounting to show that.

Yeah, I meant TOCs really. I’ll bow to others on this bit, I know more about using the system than about how it uses the passenger!