General News

[izzymuzzet]

17 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

But that's because we don't REALLY own our energy infrastructure isn't it.  We privatised everything. 

 

Lots of people in the UK will have EDF as their energy provider.  Literally providing profits to France for them to invest in their own country.  It's a situation of our own making and successive governments have failed to invest in providing more of our own energy solutions. 

 

I'm hoping that this changes, with the creation of GB Energy, albeit, clearly, that is just an investment vehicle for supporting UK producers in the future. 

 

We are also the only country in the world with a fully privatised water sector.  Which is mental.

 

as a country we missed the opportunity to invest hugely in our infrastructure when interest rates were so low and we are all paying the price for it now. 

 

I can see the current government are trying to do things to set us up for growth in the future, but the pain is going to be felt for years to come yet and living standards will continue to fall. 

 

The creation of GB Energy is perhaps the most significant thing this government has done so far I think. We're starting from way behind other nations and as you say it would have been easier to do this stuff 10-15 years ago when interest rates were rock bottom. But nations who can provide for their own energy needs (and ideally export some as well) will be more secure over the coming decades than those who can't.

[Parafox]

10 hours ago, Parafox said:

 

 

 

 

 

You seem to have plenty of time on your hands. 

 

2 hours ago, SpacedX said:

 

 But I'm retired. I have all the time, every day. 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, izzymuzzet said:

The creation of GB Energy is perhaps the most significant thing this government has done so far I think. We're starting from way behind other nations and as you say it would have been easier to do this stuff 10-15 years ago when interest rates were rock bottom. But nations who can provide for their own energy needs (and ideally export some as well) will be more secure over the coming decades than those who can't.

And do it in a sustainable fashion.

 

Getting more serious on fission power is something else this government is doing right, along with other non fossil fuel solutions.

 

It's just a shame that the UK is going to be playing catchup on that.

[davieG]

32 minutes ago, Greg2607 said:

We are also the only country in the world with a fully privatised water sector.  Which is mental.

Especially when the new owners sold off all their surplus land reaping in big profits for no effort. Then they've barely invested because they are monopolies for the areas they cover. Absolutely criminal both in selling and ownership.

[bovril]

1 hour ago, foxile5 said:

No 10 defends decision to change name of HMS Agincourt submarine | Royal Navy | The Guardian

 

Oh thank GOODNESS we've renamed a nuclear death submarine to avoid upsetting the French over a centuries old, factual battle.

 

Why on earth have we become this weird apologetic blob of a country. Who, precisely, feels better about that? Are the French population rejoicing? 

 

It could literally wipe out a country; being named after a historical event is the least of the concern.

On balance I'm probably in favour of the name change. And I never really understood why we venerate Agincourt so much, as good a victory as it was. We shouldn't have been there and we lost the war anyway.

 

I agree though we have become very apologetic and embarrassed of our history which I think is partially a byproduct of the country becoming significantly poorer and less influential in the past decades. 

[Foxdiamond]

3 hours ago, foxile5 said:

No 10 defends decision to change name of HMS Agincourt submarine | Royal Navy | The Guardian

 

Oh thank GOODNESS we've renamed a nuclear death submarine to avoid upsetting the French over a centuries old, factual battle.

 

Why on earth have we become this weird apologetic blob of a country. Who, precisely, feels better about that? Are the French population rejoicing? 

 

It could literally wipe out a country; being named after a historical event is the least of the concern.

Just to clarify this sub is nuclear powered but is not a Vanguard class boat which are the nuclear deterrent boats. 

[Tommy G]

1 hour ago, izzymuzzet said:

The creation of GB Energy is perhaps the most significant thing this government has done so far I think. We're starting from way behind other nations and as you say it would have been easier to do this stuff 10-15 years ago when interest rates were rock bottom. But nations who can provide for their own energy needs (and ideally export some as well) will be more secure over the coming decades than those who can't.

But it won't lower energy bills for 20 years nor employ ''1,000 people'' it's nonsense.

 

It was a nice sound bite during the election but in fact is just another Westminster white elephant. I'd encourage anyone to read around what GB energy is likely to deliver and when, furthermore it will be horizons even beyond another runway at Heathrow 

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

But it won't lower energy bills for 20 years nor employ ''1,000 people'' it's nonsense.

 

It was a nice sound bite during the election but in fact is just another Westminster white elephant. I'd encourage anyone to read around what GB energy is likely to deliver and when, furthermore it will be horizons even beyond another runway at Heathrow 

If this isn't the solution in principle (if perhaps not in practice), then I wouldn't mind hearing suggestions as to what the solution is for undergoing a necessary change to sustainable energy generation while keeping costs down.

[Dahnsouff]

Batteries, it’s always batteries. Energy is useless if it’s only available  when it’s source is available.

 

You just have to being to capture and store any energy you create.

Edited 7 February by Dahnsouff

[kenny]

21 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If this isn't the solution in principle (if perhaps not in practice), then I wouldn't mind hearing suggestions as to what the solution is for undergoing a necessary change to sustainable energy generation while keeping costs down.

We should become the world leaders in tidal energy. We have masses of sea and tidal rather than wave power is consistent and predictable.

 

Also the long cables to Morocco is a clever idea as they can provide 23 hours or renewable energy per day consistently due to their more predictable weather.

 

If we are looking at new reservoirs then we ought to looking at building another Dinorwig as a storage device for both water and electricity.

[Greg2607]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

But it won't lower energy bills for 20 years nor employ ''1,000 people'' it's nonsense.

 

It was a nice sound bite during the election but in fact is just another Westminster white elephant. I'd encourage anyone to read around what GB energy is likely to deliver and when, furthermore it will be horizons even beyond another runway at Heathrow 

i'll make it easier for people - 

 

GB Energy is not exactly an incubator, but it does have some characteristics of one. Instead of acting like a traditional incubator that nurtures startups from early-stage development, GB Energy functions more like a public investment and co-development vehicle for renewable energy projects.

How GB Energy Works:

• Co-Investment Model: GB Energy will take minority stakes in renewable energy projects rather than developing them from scratch. This means it partners with private sector firms to accelerate large-scale renewable energy deployment.
• Public Ownership with Private Collaboration: The company is publicly funded (£8.3 billion over five years) but will leverage private sector expertise in energy technologies like offshore wind, nuclear, and hydrogen.
• Focus on National Energy Strategy: Unlike an incubator that helps small businesses scale, GB Energy is designed to secure energy independence and reduce energy costs by directing investments into projects that contribute to the UK’s net-zero goals.

Is There Any Incubator-Like Role?

While it isn’t an incubator in the startup sense, it could act as a catalyst for innovation by:

• Funding emerging technologies in renewables.
• Partnering with innovative energy firms.
• Accelerating commercialization of new energy solutions.

In short, GB Energy is more of a strategic investor than an incubator, but its investments could help stimulate innovation in the sector.

 

It may or may not be the solution to our problems, but at least it could help lead to innovation.   It doesn't "really" matter how many people GB Energy itself employs, if it leads to new industries  / technologies that THEN creates mass jobs.   

 

I don't mind the direction of travel of this government so far.... since the new year they've: - 

 

• started to remove barriers for SMR's in Nuclear
• Announced a focus on AI
• agreed a heathrow expansion in principal
• looked at Gatwick and Luton Expansions
• Announced a New Town in Tempsford
• Announced 8 new resevoirs
• Announced the Oxford - Cambridge Golden Arc.

If nothing else, this has to help to stimulate growth, even if it's government led investment. 

[RobHawk]

16 minutes ago, kenny said:

We should become the world leaders in tidal energy. We have masses of sea and tidal rather than wave power is consistent and predictable.

 

Also the long cables to Morocco is a clever idea as they can provide 23 hours or renewable energy per day consistently due to their more predictable weather.

 

If we are looking at new reservoirs then we ought to looking at building another Dinorwig as a storage device for both water and electricity.

We were in a great place to be world leaders in tidal energy with both the Severn barrage and Swansea tidal lagoon. 

 

Both were scrapped by the Tories due to 'costs'. Those costs were minimal compared to being bent over by Russia a few years later. 

[kenny]

22 minutes ago, RobHawk said:

We were in a great place to be world leaders in tidal energy with both the Severn barrage and Swansea tidal lagoon. 

 

Both were scrapped by the Tories due to 'costs'. Those costs were minimal compared to being bent over by Russia a few years later. 

There are a number of articles about R&D works being ongoing as of 2023 and I know there are technical challenges. I suspect they saw the quick wins of wind turbines waving around as being easier politically to achieve.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, kenny said:

We should become the world leaders in tidal energy. We have masses of sea and tidal rather than wave power is consistent and predictable.

 

Also the long cables to Morocco is a clever idea as they can provide 23 hours or renewable energy per day consistently due to their more predictable weather.

 

If we are looking at new reservoirs then we ought to looking at building another Dinorwig as a storage device for both water and electricity.

Agree with all of that.

 

Now we need governments farsighted and driven enough to make it happen.

[blabyboy]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20g288yldko

oh dear.... we really do not make it easy for ourselves do we.

 

[Super_horns]

Government staying firm to the plans to knock it down.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwxpnxyrnvo

[Dr The Singh]

3 hours ago, Greg2607 said:

i'll make it easier for people - 

 

GB Energy is not exactly an incubator, but it does have some characteristics of one. Instead of acting like a traditional incubator that nurtures startups from early-stage development, GB Energy functions more like a public investment and co-development vehicle for renewable energy projects.

How GB Energy Works:

• Co-Investment Model: GB Energy will take minority stakes in renewable energy projects rather than developing them from scratch. This means it partners with private sector firms to accelerate large-scale renewable energy deployment.
• Public Ownership with Private Collaboration: The company is publicly funded (£8.3 billion over five years) but will leverage private sector expertise in energy technologies like offshore wind, nuclear, and hydrogen.
• Focus on National Energy Strategy: Unlike an incubator that helps small businesses scale, GB Energy is designed to secure energy independence and reduce energy costs by directing investments into projects that contribute to the UK’s net-zero goals.

Is There Any Incubator-Like Role?

While it isn’t an incubator in the startup sense, it could act as a catalyst for innovation by:

• Funding emerging technologies in renewables.
• Partnering with innovative energy firms.
• Accelerating commercialization of new energy solutions.

In short, GB Energy is more of a strategic investor than an incubator, but its investments could help stimulate innovation in the sector.

 

It may or may not be the solution to our problems, but at least it could help lead to innovation.   It doesn't "really" matter how many people GB Energy itself employs, if it leads to new industries  / technologies that THEN creates mass jobs.   

 

I don't mind the direction of travel of this government so far.... since the new year they've: - 

 

• started to remove barriers for SMR's in Nuclear
• Announced a focus on AI
• agreed a heathrow expansion in principal
• looked at Gatwick and Luton Expansions
• Announced a New Town in Tempsford
• Announced 8 new resevoirs
• Announced the Oxford - Cambridge Golden Arc.

If nothing else, this has to help to stimulate growth, even if it's government led investment. 

She, Reeves hasn't done that bad for Complaints Support Manager, I suppose.

 

[SpacedX]

4 hours ago, kenny said:

Also the long cables to Morocco is a clever idea as they can provide 23 hours or renewable energy per day consistently due to their more predictable weather.

 

Until a Russian spy ship such as the Yantar operated by the Minoborony (in the guise of a supposed oceanic research vessel) coordinates their severance that is. 

[Lionator]

8 hours ago, izzymuzzet said:

My view is that an independent central bank is the lesser of two evils. The alternative is having the Bank of England under direct government control as we did before 1997.

 

The idea of an independent central bank is that they respond to economic conditions and government policy rather than influence them. The USA has had an independent central bank for over a century, the European Central Bank was established alongside the Euro. In China, on the other hand, the bank is directly controlled by government.

 

Before Gordon Brown made the Bank of England independent the government directly set interest rates. The downside of this was that governments would tend to cut interest rates before elections regardless of the economic situation. So in the couple of years before the 1987 election for example, Thatcher's government kept cutting interest rates despite the economy growing. This ultimately created a property bubble followed by a crash which contributed to the recession of the late 80s/early 90s. Governments can also manipulate currency through central banks. So if you want to increase exports you need a weak currency. You can achieve this by increasing interest rates. This is what China has done in recent years.

 

There are weaknesses in having an independent central bank. They can be slow to respond to changes in the economic situation. I think they were too slow to recognise post-Covid inflation for example, so didn't raise rates quickly enough. There's also a question about how effective changes to interest rates actually are in an era when most people with mortgages have them on fixed term rather than variable rates. So, am I going to reign my spending in very much and therefore help keep inflation down if my mortgage payments don't change at all? The inflation of recent years has has much more to do with rising energy and commodity prices, over which the UK has little control, than anything else.

 

 

Thank you for this explanation, it’s very clear!

 

I wonder in a hypothetical scenario, say Reform win the next election (god forbid) on a state slashing, low tax, anti immigration manifesto, how would that co-incide with the Bank of England? If everything is based on outside influence, would that literally just lead to collapse?

[RobHawk]

4 hours ago, kenny said:

There are a number of articles about R&D works being ongoing as of 2023 and I know there are technical challenges. I suspect they saw the quick wins of wind turbines waving around as being easier politically to achieve.

If I remember correctly they went nuclear and approved hinkley point instead. But that's majority owned and run by EDF, and as has been pointed out above, their profits go back to France. 

 

So the French are more invested in our energy capabilities than we are. 

 

I knew one of the lead researchers for the barrage, he was positive it would go ahead as the key issues had been solved and whilst there were some minor bits still to overcome, I remember his disbelief when it was rejected, it made no sense then and it makes less sense now. But that was Cameron and his austerity drive. 

 

It was 100% refused based on £££, would have cost less than HS2 and given alot more back. The other big thing that's often forgotten is that the reason for the high cost of the project was it was the first of its kind, but there were plans for more and costs would go down. The same was the case for the Swansea tidal lagoon, but again very short sighted at the time meant that no money would be spent. 

 

The later issues with Russia and the price of oil, just compounded how stupid these decisions were. 

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, SpacedX said:

Until a Russian spy ship such as the Yantar operated by the Minoborony (in the guise of a supposed oceanic research vessel) coordinates their severance that is. 

I would think that this is the case with the undersea fibreoptic cables too in terms of critical societal infrastructure. We build those and use those anyway, I think if the option is available we have to do the same here.

Edited 7 February by leicsmac

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, Super_horns said:

Government staying firm to the plans to knock it down.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwxpnxyrnvo

 

Rightly so IMO. Then make some kind of memorial park on the site like "Ground Zero" in NYC.

[Parafox]

Trump's plan to impose sanctions on the ICC.

 

"Coincidentally" Netanyahu is wanted by the ICC for alleged war crimes. 

 

More importantly, he wants to get rid of cardboard straws in fast food places as they "don't work".

[kenny]

1 hour ago, RobHawk said:

If I remember correctly they went nuclear and approved hinkley point instead. But that's majority owned and run by EDF, and as has been pointed out above, their profits go back to France. 

 

So the French are more invested in our energy capabilities than we are. 

 

I knew one of the lead researchers for the barrage, he was positive it would go ahead as the key issues had been solved and whilst there were some minor bits still to overcome, I remember his disbelief when it was rejected, it made no sense then and it makes less sense now. But that was Cameron and his austerity drive. 

 

It was 100% refused based on £££, would have cost less than HS2 and given alot more back. The other big thing that's often forgotten is that the reason for the high cost of the project was it was the first of its kind, but there were plans for more and costs would go down. The same was the case for the Swansea tidal lagoon, but again very short sighted at the time meant that no money would be spent. 

 

The later issues with Russia and the price of oil, just compounded how stupid these decisions were. 

Also worth remembering that big wavy turbines or shiny useless solar keeps the shit munchers happier than something that actually makes a difference all the time. Hence the demands that all houses should have panels installed rather than the fabric first approach that is adopted by most developers.

[leicsmac]

24 minutes ago, kenny said:

Also worth remembering that big wavy turbines or shiny useless solar keeps the shit munchers happier than something that actually makes a difference all the time. Hence the demands that all houses should have panels installed rather than the fabric first approach that is adopted by most developers.

Both wind and solar power are part of a suite of solutions, at least at a local level.